The article DAISY Digital Talking Book in the DAISY Consortium DAISYPedia looks like a slightly improved version of the December 2009 version of DAISY Digital Talking Book on Wikipedia. The DAISY Consortium claims copyright for their article, without attribution to Wikipedia. The page footer also says that, "Text is available under the terms of the DAISY Consortium Intellectual Property Policy, Licensing, and Working Group Process." without mentioning a specific licence, although the DAISYpedia is probably available under a Creative Commons licence (see section 4.2 of the IP policy document). --ChristopheS (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think is a reverse copyvio. The Internet Archive doesn't have copies of DAISYPedia from before mid-2010, which would fit with the fact that it resembles the article from then. The material wasn't added to the Wikipedia article at once, it was added incrementally by several different people and some parts of the text are several years older than 2010. I don't see any reason to think this is a copyright violation of DAISYPedia. They might be violating our copyright but there isn't much we can do about that. Hut 8.521:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These two users are under the impression that all .gov are in public domain (not) and that one or two words changed is enough to neither quote nor directly state where the material came from ("____ says...") before per the closed paraphrasing guidelines. The Federal Reserve is not a US Government entity but quasi private. There are many non-Federal US Government entities using .gov, including most states, cities, and local governments. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --Hut 8.5 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)