Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeimusu (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 28 February 2005 (→February 28). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. See Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

Alternatives

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=place URL of allegedly copied material here}}
  
~~~~

Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example: 

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Special cases

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.

Pokémon images

The discussion on Pokémon images has been moved to Template talk:Pokeimage.

Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav
This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use images

As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the link to http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/index.html from Wikipedia:Public domain image resources due to the non-commercial restricton. Shame, I was just about to use his Edvard Munch "Scream" image as it was from an "approved" source. PhilHibbs 12:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The link above to Jimbo's explanation for the non-commercial prohibition is dead; it goes to an unrelated message. I'd like to understand why non-commercial licenses are frowned upon here in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 23:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I'd also like to know why, if this is official wikipedia policy, the "non-commercial use" image tags are still available. I started uploading photos to Wikipedia in October 2004 and have used the "non-commercial use" tag on all of them (as a professional artist and photographer, the reasons should be understandable), and am now annoyed to discover I will need to either change all the tags or have the images deleted. Grutness|hello? 03:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The link goes to the correct message for me, and makes perfect sense. Remember that we are trying to make Wikipedia redistributable. This includes allowing people to sell the content. The tags are still available because such images have not been completely purged and we'd like to be able to find them. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

  • River Valley Ranch. User claims on talk page to have copyright. Wyllium 06:57, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Image:Sinitic Languages.jpg This image seems to be copyrighted, and the uploader has not stated that he has permission to use it, although a request for it now is a month old. --Vikingstad 14:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dentsu from [3] (according to vfd discussion on talk page) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Dentsu, author claims to be copyright holder. However if this turns out to be the case the page would need to be re-listed on vfd for content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada from [4] and others - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Claims to be copyright holder on talk.Maximus Rex 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tsubasa from [5] , but the (possible) vio was uploaded by the (claimed) author of the website: does this indicate she gives permission for it to be used under the GFDL, or just that she doesn't understand the GFDL? Pyrop 23:56, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    No copyvio notice. E-mail given at extlink mentioned in article ends in "@dragonmount.com". www.dragonmount.com resolves to 66.221.104.33. No such IP ever edited the article. Somebody wants to follwo-up by e-mail? Lupo 11:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlos Martínez. Uploader is not the author but claims to have permission, see Talk:Carlos Martínez. Also, the site on which I found the text is apparently not the original either. I've reverted the copyvio, assuming good faith. Also I have contacted the email address informing that I've reverted and put the page here. If anybody feels the need for a follow-up, please do so. Sander123 11:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • article is now at Carlos Martínez (actor) and I don't see that allowing the text under GFDL has been resolved. If we can't confirm, should be relisted. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Henry de Monfreid from [6]. 68.81.231.127 00:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Author claims permission on talk page, so I'm delisting and putting it up here. Could someone verify? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the same author added material from the same website to Sadhu (from [7]), and claimed permission in a later edit summary. I've asked for more details on the user's talk page. Could someone verify this at the same time? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Pitts Special, smacks of copyvio though I can't tell where from. First sentance is used all over the internet though (Google it). -Lommer | talk 07:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cavalier Aircraft reads (and looks) like the text dump of a press release filled to the brim with adspeak. Can't find it online. - Lucky 6.9 19:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Found - see below --Rlandmann 02:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Kane x faucher is not only mistitled, it's a text dump. From where, I don't know. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Professor longhair -- pasted in one go by Contributions/68.107.251.155; article is suspiciously perfect in spelling, grammar and composition considering the poor formatting that would be caused, say, by copy-pasting HTML as plain text -- and of course the miscapitalization of the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Unfree images
    • Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses. anthony (see warning) 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Images with missing copyright information
    These should replaced and many should be listed for deletion. Those that are currently orphaned can be listed on images for deletion. Guanaco 00:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) and Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) - is the compilaton of this information copyrighted/ RickK 22:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well then. Should a copyvio notice be added to those articles? -- Infrogmation 07:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Early Childhood Autism - Comes from a private wiki where content is copyright contributors. Contains several images that are almost certainly copyvios. See link from original author's pages. It's unclear where the article came from (e.g. was generated on that wiki or not). This will require some research to sort out. --Improv 18:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Content is copyright contributors on this wiki too. I don't see anything wrong with it. The images are such low quality that they are almost certainly fair use.
      • Someone else who was looking into this on IRC has said that that wiki does not mandate GFDL. With regards to the images, it may be that the content (i.e. text that is used for medical purposes) is copyright. If so, regardless of image quality, it may be covered by copyright. We need to be careful (low-res pictures of an entire short story are not fair use) --Improv 14:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cerrone has very similar text to artists own website [9]. --Harriv 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is Arun Gandhi too similar to [10], [11], and [12]? 68.81.231.127 10:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio from [13] and [14], but not [15] AFAICT. But the offending material is probably small and can be easily reexpressed in one's own words. I'm too lazy for it, though;) -- Paddu 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Spanish Civil War: I've made major reversions, dealing with material added by the same user noted Jan 1 for Millán Astray, Battle of Brunete, Legion Irlandaise. Material largely seems to come from pages subordinate to [16]. It may not be all copyvio, but I figured better safe than sorry. Further discussion at Talk:Spanish_Civil_War#Detailed_chronology. I won't be surprised if this one gets dicey. User:Rdsmith4 advised me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that I should just block the guy. That seems excessive to me, but I'm not sure what should happen. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just added History of Tulsa, but there are at least four images associated with the copyvio article that need to be checked as well. The images were uploaded by User:Pfox7, who is probably the same person as User:68.15.193.216, and User:68.124.59.63. In fact, their whole history really needs a going-over. 68.81.231.127 12:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just checking upload logs and found a Ludacris image where the uploader says "courtesy of www.sixshot.com" without posting proof of permission. Can't find the exact as u need members access to the site to see the photos. --Sasquatch 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entire sentences and chunks of text Instituto Oswaldo Cruz are copied from [17], and the associated Image:Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.gif is unflagged. The website is clearly copyrighted. While wikified and reorganized, this appears to be a fairly clear copyvio; but since the user has a long history of edits, I'm asking for a second opinion. 68.81.231.127 13:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old

  • Image:Anne-real.jpg Historical picture of Anne Frank, but the Anne Frank House aggressively claims copyright on all such pictures, as can be seen at [18]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [19] and used here under the fair use doctrine. I don't like to take proactive action—this should stay unless a lawyer really complains and the Wikimedia foundation then decides to remove the picture. As an alternative, consider using nl:Afbeelding:Dagboek anne frank.jpg, scan of a book cover showing Anne Frank, from [20]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Under the request by Rigel who reported many copyright violated edits in ja.wp. Rigel left a message on my User talk:Aphaia and warn that the edits by User:rantaro and anonymous user User:61.22.157.95(ja) in the below are similar to the Jehovah's Wittnesses publish matter (tr. in Japanese) according to their content:
  • Shwebomin from [27] -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Original poster removed the copyright violation notice! -- Infrogmation 04:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole group of articles and images is claimed on the talk pages to be used with authorization, but the authorization doesn't seem particularly official, so would require some follow-up. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

November 21

  • List of "Shit happens" jokes from [28]; new material has been added since, but the copyright on the jokes individually and the collection of jokes is probably valid against the page still Mozzerati 22:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • Tag removed. This page has no copyright for the jokes listed due to prior art.Mikkalai 23:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Prior art is for patents. What you need is a release from the copyright owner. The claim that it comes from an unknown usenet posting makes this even more unlikely. If it came from a known and linked to usenet posting then we could check directly who wrote it and what they said about copyright. I'm going to revert the removal of the tag (one time). Mozzerati
        • Mikkalai has removed some contested jokes and removed the tag. At the same time a discussion has started on the village pump. If this reaches the end of the copyvio process without completion of the discussion it should be put into the long term problems section. Mozzerati 20:36, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)



December 3

December 9

  • Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington from [36]. - Vague | Rant 11:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • This was rewritten in /Temp mainly by User:Brianiii, and the rewrite was then cut-and-pasted over the copyvio by the original anon poster. Be careful to preserve appropriate history on this article... --rbrwr± 20:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This would be an interesting test of the power to undelete selected revisions which has been granted to sysops in MediaWiki 1.4; we could delete the article, move the /Temp across and then undelete clean revisions of the original article (i.e. 2004-12-09-16:52 and later), thus leaving a clean version with the correct history. Would that be unduly controversial? --rbrwr± 17:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Haig from [[37]] - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 10

December 12

  • Barbara Lawton, from her own web site. <KF> 02:37, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • See 9 Dec above for discussion of Wisconsin copyright law --rbrwr± 23:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I have had another trawl for lost & found copyvios. --rbrwr± 14:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Image:Rateatingplacenta.jpg from unknown, asserted to be PD by uploader; again, I thought this had been dealt with already.
      • It seems that the uploader of the image (ChuckF) and the user who added the imagevio tag to it (Reithy) are long-standing antagonists. The latter has been banned for violating an ArbCom injunction. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that this is a copyvio, so I'm minded to remove the imagevio tag and accept it as a PD upload. --rbrwr± 18:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 24

December 27

January 1

  • Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli as described above.; source unknown at the moment --rbrwr± 12:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the articles in Category:Maltese nobility seem to have been authored mainly by Charles Said-Vassallo, and they seem to be verbatim copies or derived from text on his website, maltagenealogy.com, and on maltesenobility.org, another website with which he is associated. He has added the text "This research was kindly carried out by Charles Said-Vassallo" to the bottom of most of these articles. However, on several of the articles, such as Ghariexem e Tabia, the following text appears, possibly copied from the original website, "The information contained in this site is the sole property of the owners of this site and no part may be reproduced without the specific permission of the owners." This suggests that the user does not realize that he has granted users of Wikipedia license to copy and use his text under the GFDL. I notice also that on some of the Talk pages related to these articles, and on his User Talk page that there is some evidence of possible misuderstanding of the status of this text now that it has been put into Wikipedia articles. --BM 20:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Dolcetto di Dogliani --fvw* 21:48, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

January 2


January 6

  • VVAW and Winter Soldier Investigation from various sources, documented here [55]. I would also add that these violations are continualy reinserted into the article by a particularly persistent anon [56],[57] TDC 00:06, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) .
    • The Winter Soldier Investigation article has been disputed for a while, with multiple page protections. It should be noted that the "particularly persistent anon" (who signs as "Rob") made this edit to Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation on December 30, in which he responded to TDC's allegation of plagiarism. (That edit also restored considerable material that TDC wants archived and Rob wants kept current. To see the new comment on alleged plagiarism, skip to the last three paragraphs.) Since then, TDC has twice returned to the talk page to keep up his part in the revert war over what to archive, but has not deigned to address Rob's December 30 comments on the charge of plagiarism. Instead of continuing the discussion, TDC made this edit on January 6, slapping on the copyvio template. As for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the "discussion" has been confined to edit summaries in a revert war. After several reversions by TDC in which he reiterated "RV, plagarized content will not be allowed to stay", an anon (presumably Rob) made this edit with the edit summary, "Cite the material on Discussion page please, you know the rules". TDC's only response was this edit adding the copyvio template (no edit summary, no comment on Talk:Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a page that incidentally has seen no action since November 1). A listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems is not a sensible way for the Wikipedia community to try to resolve this situation. I suggest that the listing be removed and that TDC and Rob be strongly urged to accept mediation. And that all of us, even we agnostics, should pray for the soul of the assigned mediator. JamesMLane 06:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • World Bank (partially) from an unknown offline source as of this edit User:Dracoling 15:30, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Possibly from one of the two books that the same anon added to the References section in the following two edits. But until someone goes and has a look at them, we won't know for sure. For the moment there's no evidence that this is a copyvio rather than an original summary of criticisms described in those works. --rbrwr± 21:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 7

  • Mikhail Alekseev from text of Great Soviet Encyclopedia and current paper edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. (<- dunno who posted this Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • The copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia may well be expired. Can someone weigh in on Soviet copyrights? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Unlikely that the copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia has expired. English translation was late 1960s. -- Jmabel 10:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • So was it taken from a copyrighted English translation? -- Infrogmation 17:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • No idea. I presumed that if someone was complaining they probably had compared to a source in the same language. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a copyright violation notice to the article today. -- Infrogmation 07:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • John Boyle, 14th Earl of Cork This is probably an obituary from one of the British broadsheet newspapers. I'm not having must luck finding it on google, but I don't think the papers put all of their obituaries onlinePhilip 08:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Avenged Sevenfold from [58] - 18:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like older versions (November 5 and earlier?) might be safe. That article has a slightly strange history. --rbrwr± 16:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Powys wenwynwyn - claims to be derived from a book which I don't have access to. Can anybody check to see if this is a copyvio or just a rewrite? It DOES seem to start off mid-stream. RickK 00:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

January 9

In response to the above and the page citations made above, all but the pre-existing stub and other material added by various editors was drawn from one source -- an employee of Augsburg College. Please send an e-mail to this user and you will receive in response an e-mail from a staff e-mail account at Augsburg College (not a student account, not an alumni account ... a staff account). --MacSigh 07:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
How do you know this? And what would this response indicate? Dbenbenn 08:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And even if this is true, does that staff member have the authority to release College property to GFDL? RickK 21:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with them being an employee and submitting the information is that the information still isn't in the public domain, and they may have not received official permission from the college to post that information elsewhere on-line. I live in Connecticut, but I can't take information from the state tourism website and post it at Connecticut, even though my tax money pays for that site. (Maybe a poor analogy, but I think my point is clear.) Rather than contacting that specific user, the college itself should be contacted about this. Just because they work there, that doesn't mean they can give free access to copyrighted material from the institution. Beginning 16:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK everyone ... the matter of the Augsburg College article has been brought to the attention of appropriate college officials. The question about releasing that material into GFDL has been raised with them as well. I expect some noodling around will occur for awhile. The question remains: Once the appropriate people make a decision, how does "the institution" make its wishes known?
The Center for Global Education is a program of Augsburg College. This whole thing is a bit of a mess but the reasons for raising the concerns are understood and it's fixable. --MacSigh 05:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the matter of the Grahm Jr. College article, a dialogue is now underway with the author of the material from which it is drawn. The solution there is going to be developing a new article on the "temp" page. It is hoped that the author of the source article will consider preparing the first entry. --MacSigh 05:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whig history either this has been lifted from [68] or the latter is in violation of the Wikipedia GNU (whatever) license
    • copyvio text wasn't very encyclopedic in style (read more like a marketing brochure); I've written a semi-stub replacement article in IEEE 802.1Q/Temp if someone cares to short-circuit the process. 18.26.0.18 23:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Controlling Drug Prices from [69] -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also Controlling Drug Prices in the United States from the same source, by the same author -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • User has left a message on my talk page claiming to be the copyright holder and may well be for all we know. Now just the minor isue that what they've posted is a colege paper and not an encyclopedic article.. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe we can absolutely accept that as a principle where anons are concerned (I traced parts of the content elsewhere too) (and there is the 'no original research' thing anyway) but the poster has now replaced the copyvio notice twice so I have reinstated it and locked the page temporarily. An acceptable wikified version - if such there can be - can be put on the indicated page in any event. --Vamp:Willow

January 10

  • Aishwarya Rai from [70] and [71]. - Vague | Rant 09:04, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The first of those sources includes the tell-tale words, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." The second copyvio needs further investigation. --rbrwr± 23:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like 2nd copyvio in history; someone care to rewrite to remove it? -- Infrogmation 12:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 11

  • BBCLONE from [72]. David Johnson [T|C] 18:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Seems to be GPL, though it's not clear if that means the web pages or just the software. --rbrwr± 20:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Data quality is a giant quote, unwikified. Suspecting copyvio. KirbyMeister 21:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Given the typos ("inteneded", "qualitay"), it was probably hand-copied from a book, maybe this one. --rbrwr± 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Possible sources listed on talk. No copyvio notice on article until I added one today. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


January 15


January 18

  • First Test Match from [74] citation given to cricinfo.com. It's a list of stats for the match. Is that copyrightable? (but this is not the historical first test but the first test in Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2004-05 between India and Australia) RJFJR 05:58, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Second Test Match; I raised some questions about these pages at Talk:Cricket last month but never came to any firm conclusions. --rbrwr± 06:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they're technically copyrightable, although we don't really need a straight copy and paste from CricInfo (if people just want the scorecards they should go there first anyway). I'd say if nobody improves them, then treating them as copyvios is right. sjorford 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Vibha, A Brighter Future for Children from [75]. RickK 06:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • The (arguably flaccid) article only states the Vision and Mission statements. Fair use I would've thought... mordemur 13:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 19

  • GD-ROM was lifted from [76] -- 151.198.9.53
    • No copyvio notice on article. --rbrwr± 10:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I added the copyvio template to it. The article is nearly a year old. It's been changed a bit from the original copied version. I'm not sure what is the right thing to do in this case. dbenbenn | talk 21:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KM Cluster from [77] Uncle G 18:27, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • Teoctist seems to be an English translation from [78], which is in Romanian. JoaoRicardo 22:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notice on article. --rbrwr± 11:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 20

January 21

Did you bother to read the references section of the page in question? Author gave permission for its use. User:Alkivar/sig 02:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To quote:
Sources
This history written by Joey Gardner, (a highly respected DJ of this type of music). Reproduced from his homepage with permission.
Original poster has responded on Talk:Rolf Dahrendorf. DanKeshet 21:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Rossello.jpg from [94]. Perhaps that site got it from a US government site but cannot be certain. RedWolf 22:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably a Puerto Rico government image; can the PR government hold copyrights? --rbrwr± 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 22

  • I just emailed the image owner about getting permission. I got an immediate auto-response saying he's in South America and may not return responses to emails until early April. RedWolf 01:20, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Owner declined permission via email. Image deleted. See Talk:Shishapangma. RedWolf 20:57, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The image is also on the Polish wiki at pl:Grafika:ShishaPangma.jpg and used in the relevant article. I don't know Polish so I need someone to help me get it deleted there as well. Thanks. RedWolf 21:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Feeding Babies In Emegencies --fvw* 19:35, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a copyvio since it appears that User:218.111.9.11 is coordinating an effort to post this to several Wikipedia languages. Needless to say it's a bad idea, the article is probably not encyclopedic. Also judging by the numerous ads on the page, this may simply be someone spamming the article to increase their pagerank. Rhobite 06:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe you'll find that a translation is a one of the specifically listed cases of a "derivative work", and thus that its use is subject to the same prohibitions as the original-language version of the work. --Jerzy(t) 22:37, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
        • I was trying to say that User:218.111.9.11 may be the copyright owner. I know that translations are derivative works, perhaps I should have been clearer. Rhobite 22:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Adventist Development and Relief Agency - from [96] - SimonP 21:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Instead of just reverting to the pre-copyvio version, they've cut-and-pasted a tidied-up versio of the orginal to /Temp, worked a bit more on it and cut-and-pasted it back. How do we maintain the proper history? We may have to just leave it all as it is, but delete, merge, (selectively) undelete is a possibility. --rbrwr± 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 23

  • David Batty reads like a copyvio, but I can't find a source for it. RickK 00:53, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:677579879656434.jpg Obvious copyvio from the New York Times, falsely declared to be released into PD by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), who has done this in other cases too. Gzornenplatz 17:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now claimed as copyrighted free use, but the terms are non-commercial only, so it should probably be referred to WP:PUI. --rbrwr± 23:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Pomarineskua86.JPG is from [97] (as stated by the original poster). Licence at [98] states non-commercial use only. --Lancevortex 23:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • License seems to be in German; please could someone confirm this and deal with it was a copyvio or refer it to WP:PUI as appropriate. --rbrwr± 10:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 24

January 25

January 26

  • Fitz Hugh Ludlow from [111] Quickbeam 04:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 42nd Street-Times Square (New York Subway) from [112], and MANY other NYC subway stations added by User:PZFUN around the same time. Probably most if not all at the bottom of [113]. By the way, whoever goes through this massive task should probabaly check the history; at least one (S 42nd (New York Subway)) had a prior good (if stub) version. --SPUI 08:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Never mind; he claims to have permission (User talk:SPUI#SPUI). This should probably be put somewhere, though I don't know where, due to the large number of articles for which it applies. --SPUI 21:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agilefactor from [114]. The original version of the page, prior to cleanup and wikification, is an exact copy. Uncle G 15:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Messages were posted to Talk:Agilefactor and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages from the same IP as the original contributor. These claimed to be "Damon Carr, CEO of agilefactor" and that "[a]ll current content regarding Agilefactor on Wikipedia is 100% OK". The mention of "no infringement [. . .] based on the notification I received" is a little odd, coming from the original poster, but the same IP is responsible for stubbornly trying to keep the VfD'ed Damon Carr article alive, so it seems legit. FYI. -- Wisq 23:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
  • Alberione from here. JoaoRicardo 16:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:250-metre class warship (gundam).jpg because the original copyright holder was never contacted. The suspected permission given by http://www.mahq.net/rants/faq.htm does nothing of the sort, it only says that they don't own the image. 132.205.45.148 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:130 metre class escort ship (gundam).jpg for same reason as above 132.205.45.148 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Nazca class destroyer (gundam).jpg for the same reason as above 132.205.45.148 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Eternal class support ship (gundam).jpg same reason as above 132.205.45.148 20:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Agamemnon class carrier (gundam).jpg same reason as above 132.205.45.148 21:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Izumo class battleship (Gundam).jpg same reason as above 132.205.45.148 21:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Archangel class assault ship (gundam).jpg same reason as above 132.205.45.148 22:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Laurasia class frigate (gundam).jpg same reason as above 132.205.45.148 22:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone seems a tad unfamiliar with the concept of "fair use". That, or these spurious listings are just part of your one-man crusade against the Gundam Seed category. Redxiv 06:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • In fact, I'd say that's definitely the case, given that you haven't gone after the UC Gundam images that came from the same source. Redxiv 18:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't modified those pages yet. Why should I list things just to list things? I listed things I've worked on. The contention is that the source of the images gives permission to use the images. If the source does not own the images, then it cannot give permission. You could only cite the source as having public domain images that you've used. As there is no permission from Sunrise (the IP rights owner), the permission is incorrect. You may contend fair use, but there is still no credit of the source. The website these things came from is not the source, and it says that in its FAQ. You need to go to the source and CREDIT them, otherwise, it is not proper fair use (for our Wikipedia purposes), since there is no proper attribution of the real source. 132.205.15.43 22:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The images look like scans of cells, that would be a complete reproduction of a piece of merchandise, and not a small portion of an image turned into a thumbnail.132.205.15.43 03:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Congratulations. You don't know what you're talking about. The images were scanned from artbooks. As you might have noticed, none of those are the size of a full page. Thus, logically they must be a reduced-size images, not complete reproductions of merchandise. Also, Gundam SEED doesn't even use cel animation. Redxiv 05:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • Cels are made by companies from digital files for SALE TO THE PUBLIC. Just because Gundam SEED doesn't use cels, because it's a digimation, doesn't mean that cels are not made. It's called merchandisng, ever heard of it? If they're images from artbooks, then they are not properly attributed. Pointing out that the images came off a website that has absolutely no ownership rights to them does little. A crop is also not the same thing as a reduced sized image. If you're saying that these were full-page scans, then yes, they're thumbnails. However nowhere is it indicated that these are from an artbook, or a reduction of a fullpage scan. 132.205.45.148 20:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would not matter anyway. Back when I created the Alexandria class cruiser page, it was marked for cleanup for a number of reasons, amoung them the lack of a picture. Aqua008 took on the job, and thier remains a piece in his talk page about how that picture- obtained from the same site as the above articles- qualifies for fairuse. Additionally, if one reads further down the FAQ section you find an interesting line:

Q: Would you send me files? A: Sorry, we don't have time to send anyone files. If you want images that are on the site, feel free to take them. If you're asking for reviews, don't even bother.

The line in bold clearly suggests that the images are up for anyone to copy. To add proof to that look at the UC Gundam ships, under "External Links", and you will find two sites- The World Wide Gundam Informational Archive and the Gundam Naval Museum- which each use MAHQ's pictures without any prior consent from a specific person. Frankly, I fail to see the issue here, as there is absolutly no reason why these pictures should have been docked. TomStar81 04:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 27

January 28

January 29

  • Jeremy Jackson - reads like a copyvio, but I can't find it. Posted by the same person who posted Chet Walker, Scott Skiles, Mark Aguirre and Jason Terry (and inserted a copyvio into the MIDDLE of Wes Unseld). RickK 01:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • I replaced the page with the copyvio template. The (I) in the text looks a lot like IMDb text, so i used that for the url, but i can't find it there. The "Click here to listen to a mp3 sample" text on the page is a dead giveaway. foobaz·✐ 02:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Searching on the misspelling of methamphetamine I found this site which is virtually identical to the end of the article. [134] Note that it's citing the National Enquirer - I couldn't find that specific article though K1Bond007 02:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

January 30

January 31

  • Foreign relations of the Soviet Union from [138]--InShaneee 16:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Original poster reverted. I rv'ed back and left a note on the user's talk page. 68.81.231.127 20:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Please do some genuine research before accusing copyvio; this is a public domain country study from the United State's Library of Congress. [139] 119 20:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Good catch, but please assume good faith. The original article was entirely unsourced, and the link you provided does not show up in search engines. The link InShaneee provided does have an explicit copyright notice, and while it lists the LoC as a source, it neither provides a link or indicates that the information was copied verbatim. This is why the copyvio template encourages discussion on the talk page, and the reason there is a lag period here before deletion. 68.81.231.127 20:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comedy Central 100 Greatest Standups of All Time - direct mirror of their list minus the bio's User:Alkivar/sig 04:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. It's just a list of names of the people on the program. It's hardly a copvio. Gamaliel 09:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a copyvio any more than a list of the U.S. Presidents violates the copyright of a different website that has it. Object. -Branddobbe 10:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A simple list is not a copvio. There are god-knows how many lists like this in Wikipedia. See Feist v. Rural which may be relevant here. -- Blorg 12:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 1

February 2

February 3

February 4

 CDC (talk) 17:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 5

February 6

I think the author of the webpage and User:Socrtwo, who first made these pages before I split them, is the the same person. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 7


February 8

  • Human BioAcoustics from [361]ralph1:09 8 February 2005 (UTC)- The article published at "Human BioAcoustics" was published with permission of Sound Health Research Institute (a recognized, exempt nonprofit institute) which is the copyright holder. - Ralph Fucetola, co-webmaster - ralph.fucetola@usa.net
  • Cusat from [362] andy 20:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Robert Browne from [363] --Woohookitty 20:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wold without walls is dumped from various sources, chiefly Encarta. Not total C&P, but darn close from what I can determine. Written like original research. - Lucky 6.9 20:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Worldwithoutwalls is identical. —Korath (Talk) 07:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Worldwithoutwalls cited the sources and gave credit where it is due. However since it is a research paper, and I didn't read the Wiki policy...I have deleted it. However I guess I have to follow the correct deletion procedures...will somehow figure out how. Thanks for pointing THAT out --Ruchirabajaj 16:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


February 9

section reverted to non-copied version in accordance with regulations explained in the introduction of this page. --BerserkerBen 19:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 10

February 11

February 12

February 13

February 14

February 15

February 16

MikkyX (Michael Price) here, owner of above named site. I give permission for the content of my history page to be used as Wikipedia content.

I'm a little curious, isn't it the case that just saying "FAIR USE" without saying WHY doesn't mean anything and means the picture MUST be deleted? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. I wonder because I see a lot of images that have no reason, and wonder if they must all go? (Sorry if this is an inappropriate addition) Notinasnaid 13:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 17

February 18

February 19

February 20

I think I've found them all. US Games, Inc. appears to still own the copyright on them despite what a cited web page says, but it looks easy enough to get permission to use them: see http://www.usgamesinc.com/newstore/layout/pages/US/info/TarotReproductionPolicies.pdf and http://www.usgamesinc.com/newstore/layout/pages/US/info/TarotReproductionAuthForm.pdf for more information. Someone in charge will need to fax or mail them a form. BenSamples 10:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The Rider-Waite-Smith deck was published in 1909. Versions of this deck are in fact commercially available from publishers other than US Games. [629] All of these images are out of copyright. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless someone gives me a reason why I shouldn't, I mean to begin the process of reverting these. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Hey, go right ahead. I'm sorry I haven't done it myself -- real life picked up and Wikipedia had to go for a while. You're welcome to use my edit history as a place to start -- I don't think I've touched anything else of consequence since then. Thanks for undoing the damage I've done! ;) BenSamples 07:11, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Dublin Convention from [630]. 68.81.231.127 10:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
   Permission obtained from copyright holder for its use with appropriate acknowlegdegment. --Parmaestro 12:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

²

February 21

February 22

February 23

My primary argument is that the lyrics as posted are public domain; that the lyrics as posted on Wikipedia are contained in public law, and that the rights of the public to read and republish that law exceed the rights of any copyright holder over that specific material. My secondary argument is on fair use; that Wikipedia's interest is academic, and that the lyrics and music would be copyrighted together, rather than separately as Cburnett assumes. --Alexwcovington (talk) 03:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 24

February 25

February 26

February 27

February 28

Wikipedia's current date is October 17, 2024. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself.

If you are a administrator, please take the time and help clean out some old entries! This page has a huge backlog! Ideally, there should be no listings older than seven days.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=10631968"