Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snoyes (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 26 November 2003. 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


Add links to pages that you suspect of being copyright infringements here. If you list a page here, 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.

In addition to nominating potential copyvios 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: [[Talk: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!). You can also ask for permission too - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your content, you may choose to raise the issue using this page and the standard copyright infringement notice as described below. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following text. Replace PAGE NAME with the name of the page that you're editing, and replace ADDRESS with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text.

Removed possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]]. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source:
:ADDRESS

This page is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please so indicate on [[Talk:PAGE NAME|the talk page]]. If there was no permission to use this text then please rewrite the page at:
:[[Talk:PAGE NAME/temp]]

or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission of the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Thanks, ~~~~

Notice for images

This image is a possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]] and should therefore not be used by any article. <explain reason for suspicion here>
This image is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click ''Edit this page'' in the sidebar) - see our [[wikipedia:image use policy|image use policy]] for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.
It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.
If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the [[fair use]] doctrine, then please add a detailed ''fair use rationale'' as described on [[wikipedia:image description page]] to justify this belief.
Thanks, ~~~~

Notes and issues outstanding

Please note that articles from http://www.conigliofamily.com are not copyvios. These pages are licensed under the GFDL and they are being submitted the person who owns the site.

Sept 12: Image:Somalia mappa.jpg deleted but see also uploaded others to be checked (listed by andy 11:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC))

Sept 29th: Stjepan Mesic. Talk page says "Page was on free source, not protected by copyright". Needs to be checked. Angela

Check [1] for further possible copyvios.


October 20

Margaret Trudeau

  • The picture of Margaret Trudeau, Image:Margaret Trudeau.jpg - Nightcrawler uploaded it and states that "photo scanned from Book cover. Used in Wikipedia under "Fair Use" provisions of a public personality.". Is that a valid "fair use" provision? I wouldn't think so. What do you guys think? Xamian 04:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not part of the fair use guideline. Not at all. It's not hard to get permission and we need to pay attention to the law. It needs to be removed. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • IANAL. It's relevant to fair use#Purpose_and_character and fair use#Nature_of_the_work: public figures are suitable targets for reportage, and a portrait photo of a public figure is afforded less protecton. Martin 22:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Reportage is somewhat different than copying. See below for the rest of my concern. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
        • Fair Use is not limited to the Internet. Currently Tuff-Cat and others scan music albums and have posted them here at Wikipedia. Similarly, there are many other book covers here. NightCrawler 21:52, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • I think it's definitely in a gray area for fair use. What other people do is no justification. It would be better to get permission. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • IANAL The picture looks like a copyright infringement candidate for derived commercial works. The scene is composed (background, makeup and clothing selection, font choice and positioning for the text). That's creative, published, somewhat against fair use. More than required is used (head shot is all we need), argues for infringement. That's two of four factors somewhat against fair use, so a commercial reuser of Wikipedia material may have a problem even if we don't in print Wikipedia. Replacing it with a candid shot would be better - see thescene a faire principle. JamesDay 16:50, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • JamesDay has convinced me that the current version is not fair use. Perhaps it could be kept if Nightcrawler (or someone else) cropped it and faded out the background? Then we're reducing the creativity of the result, and it's a more transformative use of the work - both plus points for fair use. Martin 17:43, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Well cropped seems OK enough, though the makeup work and possible retouching still is less safe than an ad hoc shot. This is one where our lack of finer tagging for images hurts us. It's being worked on (slowly:)) and hopefully will let us use more richly online while letting us and others filter for other uses.JamesDay 17:08, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Should explain a bit more: I think this is fair transformative use for the online Wikipedia but we need to describe why. We also help our fair use case if we link to the book in the image caption (because that will take traffic to the book, making the effect of the use on revenue positive). I'm not really keen on it anyway, but it qualifies. I wouldn't like to see it used in print Wikipedia, though. So, we want better, but this one will do for now. I'll add a suitable caption to the use after I'm done here. Comments on the caption at Margaret Trudeau and fair use analysis at the image page are welcome. JamesDay 03:04, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Now that DW/NightCrawler has gone I see even less reason to keep this photo. With the text included it looks awful anyway, and I don't think it is worth keeping in the article if it can barely even meet "fair transformative use". It is now an orphan and I suggest it be deleted. Angela 23:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is worth mentioning for those who don't know that DW had a long history of downloading copyright images. Frankly if it is established that some 'new' user is DW I would recommend instant deletion of all images downloaded by them unless it can be unambiguously established that the image is not copyright. FearÉIREANN 21:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 11

  • Image:Hale2.jpg, from [2], which explicity states that it's copyrighted. RickK 22:25, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The text on the site is copyrighted. The picture appears to be public domain. Angela 22:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The page explicity says, Images from Godey's Lady's Book copyright Hope Greenberg, University of Vermont. Used by permission RickK 22:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they mean the other pictures. I wasn't aware a photo that old could be copyrighted. This photo is used in various other places on the web with no such mention of copyright issues. Angela 22:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Looks like Hope Greenberg doesn't mind giving permission. Can Wikipedia host images that are not released under GFDL but for which Wikipedia is given permisison to use? orthogonal 22:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like an accurate mechanical reproduction of a work which is out of copyright. Not copyrightable in US law because it lacks any creativity. JamesDay 09:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This brings up a question. If I scan a public domain image and convert it to jpeg format, is my jpeg version an copyrighted work? What if I filter/transform/manipulate the image? orthogonal 22:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Scanning it doesn't make it copyright. Modifying the image might, the modification would have to be "creative" (i.e. not a mechanical procedure such as applying a standard filter) and in some way "substantial". --Imran 23:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Just converting from one image format to another is likely to be seen as a mechanical task which adds no creative component. See Feist v. Rural for the US Supreme Court opinion which clarifies what can and cannot be copyrighted in the US. See Image:Devonport Dockyard in 1909 plan.png for an original scanned image included in the page and the image itself for the work I derived from it, complete with summary of what I did to it. JamesDay 09:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 13

  • Image:SOEatkins.jpg. Martin 21:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Appears to be Crown Copyright image more than 50 years old, so in the public domain. Not infringing. JamesDay 14:31, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Please note that the UK copyright limit is 70 years not 50 years. Also, the fact that something is Crown Copyright does not mean that it can be used without restriction -- "The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." [3]-- most of the pictures used on Wikipedia do not appear to comply with this. -- Arwel 14:45, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Arwel Parry - You forgot that the Government website says pay the small fee and anyone can have a photo. That is what happened and if you then place that photo on the internet, it can be copied by anyone. And British copyright law does not apply to Bomis Inc. (Se the writings on this subject as contributed to by User:Alex756, someoner who has stated he is an attorney. NightCrawler 14:57, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • I never stated that British copyright law does not apply to contributions to Wikipedia, this is another one of NightCrawler's incorrect attributions to my opinions. — Alex756 15:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Arwell, please see [4] for a flowchart giving the appropriate time periods for various types of Crown Copyright work. That explains why I wrote 50 years. This Google search will turn up further information on the subject. For non-UK sources, [5] may be useful. Once a work has entered the public domain, license restrictions attached to use are no longer applicable. Of course, we do want proper attribution and copyright details associated with every image on the Wikipedia, ragardless of whether they are public domain or not. JamesDay 13:41, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Yolande Beekman.jpg
  • Image:Andree Borrel.jpg
  • Image:DamermentM.jpg
  • Image:Christine Granville.jpg
  • Image:Image:Nancywake.jpg
    • These appear to be Crown Copyright images more than 50 years old, therefore in the public domain. Not infringing. JamesDay 14:54, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Please note that User:Petermanchester is again playing games and lying to Wikipedia regarding photos. Example: Image:Yolande Beekman.jpg - Go to the page and see where this liar states that its a possible copyright infringemnent and says it comes from a specific site, which it did not. (Just do a simple Google image search.) User:Petermanchester REMOVED my text to hide my perfectly proper photo insertion as per "Fair use." as written by Alex756 and accepted as legal policy. My text (see Page History) that this liar improperly removed to hide his falsehoods said: “Fair use” of a photo from: schoolnet.co.uk/ SOEbeekman.JPG NightCrawler 00:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am not the only person who has contributed to fair use articles, the above statement by NightCrawler is misleading and I have struck it out. I take no position on this dispute. — Alex756 14:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These photos are all (except Krystyna Skarbek) the property of the Government of Great Britain who makes them available to anyone and are without copyright. Once placed on the internet, anyone has the right to use it. I label them "Fair use" which they legally would be even if copyrighted. Identical copies of these can be found at schoolnet.co.uk and www.64-baker-street.org, plus other places on the web. (Check with Alex756). NightCrawler 01:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I do not in anyway represent NightCrawler as his/her legal advisor. I am therefore strking the statement above as it appears to use my as an authority for the poster's position. This is misleading and incorrect. I have not been retained by NightCrawler to vet "fair use" for NightCrawler's contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you. — Alex756 14:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I don't need legal representation. I simply follow what an attorney Alex wrote in articles on Wikipedia regarding copyright and other issues, and I'm careful to ensure I check that it is his text. After all, he made his credentials very clear and I am grateful for his wisdom and written input. NightCrawler 14:53, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 15

  • Greek coins from [6] Secretlondon 11:01, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • KellyCoinGuy claims to be the original author. I have asked him to provide further evidence of this as I can't find an e-mail on the website to check with them directly. Angela 02:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Angela, an email address for the ancients.info domain can be found at [7] Kingturtle 02:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Thanks Kingturtle, I didn't think of trying that. E-mail sent. Angela 03:23, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Did he really claim to be the author of that? It was written by Doug Smith, and according KellyCoinGuy is apparently Kelly Anderson. Perhaps he was referring to another page? Maximus Rex 03:26, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)




November 20

  • Olduvai theory from [12]. I'm not sure this page shouldn't be deleted altogether, but it's not my area. Most text in the article was from the abstract on the linked page. It was attributed, but copyright is not clearly satisfied. Ben Cairns 05:19, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • EPortfolio from [13] Secretlondon 18:02, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • The contributor Serge says that he is the original author. Secretlondon 19:08, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I e-mailed the website and it was confirmed that Serge is the original author, so this can be kept. Angela 18:42, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Karunanidhi. The article said that it was a copy of [14], although that page is 404'ing. --snoyes 19:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 21

Russian tradition of the Knights Hospitallers
this page is taken from http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/rgporg.htm
and was placed in the ENCYCLOPEDIA WIKIPEDIA by the Author, Dr Michael Foster, and therefore there is no copyright infringement - it would be useful for the page to be restored.
Has the user specifically released his information for the GFDL? Has he understood that his information can be edited? Where is his release? RickK 07:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The release is where mine is: on the upload screen. We have no requirement to assume that someone is lying when they say they wrote the piece at both places. More the opposite unless there's some history of trouble or some specific reason to doubt the veracity of the claim. Jamesday 14:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"Upload screen"? This is an article, not an image. RickK 01:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The article now reveals the origins and provides further information. The web page also now attributes authorship – Dr Michael Foster MF Also my user user notes give my name. It is understood articles uploaded are subject to editing! My expanded article should demonstrate my knowledge on the subject matter concerned.

November 22

  • Maximus V from [25]. Angela 02:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I have requested permission to use the text from the originating site, I will go over and rewrite it if necessary. AQBachler 02:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Supreme Court of India - This was originally tagged on 27 Mar 2003 by Zoe as a possible copyright infringement. It was restored a month later by Mkweise, saying that the "original poster states that permission was granted by copyright holder, a government agency." However, the original poster was anonymous (144.92.164.197) and has not posted since the day after the post in question. Can we rely on an anonymous user who typed "Used with permission" on the original entry? Kingturtle 09:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • After a look around their sites I'm inclined to accept this claim until there is an objection from someone local to the region. I had no idea that US federal government works were generally free of restrictons until I had spent significant time in the US and I'm cautious about the possibility of us having similar ignorance about Indian government works just because we don't know their system well enough. Both Mowgli and Mkweise appear to have greater knowledge of the region than I have and appear not to consider it unlikely, so I suggest we go with the views of those most local to the situation unless we have some reason to believe they are wrong. Jamesday 16:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No we should not accept such claims from anonymous users, and probably not from logged in users either. If the user can not provide proof, then the website should be contacted, which is what I've done now.Angela 17:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Sanacja author admits on talk page that text is translation of other encyclpedia. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The text is my own words, the dates and names are translated from Encyklopedia Popularna PWN upon request for specific citations and references. Sanacja 15:31, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
author has removed vfd notice and claims that it is with permission. This needs checking. Secretlondon 15:17, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • The Peshwas from [31] Daniel Quinlan 03:52, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Obtained from http://www.maharashtra.gov.in/english/community/community_peshwaShow.php Government site. No copyright notice found on the site. Hemanshu 04:13, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Copyright is always implicit (including both works of art and writings) and no notice is required since the Berne Convention. For example, how often do you see "Copyright" on an original painting. You need permission before you can copy text unless it is specifically in the public domain. Daniel Quinlan 00:22, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
      • Quoting from [32]: Unless otherwise stated, copyright and all intellectual property rights in all material presented on the site (including but not limited to text, audio, video or graphical images), trademarks and logos appearing on this site are the property of Government of Maharashtra and are protected under applicable Indian laws. Any infringement shall be vigorously defended and pursued to the fullest extent permitted by law.
      • I apologise for it. shall not happen in future. Hemanshu 08:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 23


November 24

November 25

  • Gateway of India from [40] and The Marathas from [41]. Almost every addition from User:Hemanshu has been copied wholesale from some site without permission (as far as I can tell). I also reverted several edits of his to earlier versions of an article because of similar copying without attribution and permission. I have left several notes on his talk page. Daniel Quinlan 03:09, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
    • Quoting from [42]: Unless otherwise stated, copyright and all intellectual property rights in all material presented on the site (including but not limited to text, audio, video or graphical images), trademarks and logos appearing on this site are the property of Government of Maharashtra and are protected under applicable Indian laws. Any infringement shall be vigorously defended and pursued to the fullest extent permitted by law.
  • Image:Spahn.jpg - probably taken from CNN/SI or some other sports site. The cross in the corner indicates that (is used to indicate enlarging is possible by clicking on it). Linked by Warren Spahn article. Jeronimo 09:07, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Subash Chandra Bose seems to come straight from [50]. Don't know if that site has text in public domain. Dori 17:23, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

November 26

  • Gerrard Winstanley [55] (Sigh, the only article to be longer than my own new article on Special:Newpages and its a CV!) Pete 11:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Will try to get to this when I have leisure. But I'm going to be held incommunicado over the next few days. -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:56, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Johnny Ace -- not sure what to think about this; it appears to be verbatim text from a 1955 newspaper article on the subject's death. I don't know whether this constitutes infringement or not, and I haven't modified the article; perhaps someone more knowledgeable can take appropriate action, if any.Jgm 17:03, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=1821533"