Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morwen (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 26 December 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, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, 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

Please do not edit this page until the copyright issue is resolved, even if you are rewriting it (follow the instructions below).

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 [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]] 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:copyrights|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, ~~~~

November 25

The first two are clear copyvios and should be deleted. Image:Image:rjafF-16.jpg says "permission granted", though doesn't say whether that was Wikipedia-specific or GFDL permission. The source site is down, so I can't chase the website owner, sadly. Martin 17:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

November 28

  • Pierre Edwards from [1]. --snoyes 19:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Website needs to be contacted to see if what the talk page says is true.
    • Delete. Not famous enough anyway whether copyvio or not. Angela. 03:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


November 29

  • The following are orphans and possible copyvios. Their current format would not be acceptable anyway and the uploader of these seems to have left: Image:Basalflangeturtlebird.jpg, Image:Codexplate.jpg, Image:Codexshaman.jpg, Image:Incisedserpant.jpg, Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg, Image:Regional-Chevron.jpg, Image:Regional-Chochola.jpg, Image:Screwtopvessel.jpg, Image:Tabascovessel.jpg, Image:Trimamimfrom.jpg. Angela 20:50, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Except for Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg these are not copyrightable in US law because they are accurate mechanical reproductions of works which are out of copyright, with no creative lighting or other creative input. Not fair use - no copyright at all, so not even a need to consider fair use. Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg is not photographic but it appears to be a scientifically accurate hand reproduction of the works and my view is that it is properly treated in the same way as the mechanical reproductions and hence not copyrightable either. (added: this opinion is in part based on a case where an architectural drawing was described as only copyrightable if it had creativity - if it was simply accurate, it wouldn't be copyrightable) Given the way we're having troubles with links right now I'll try some searching for articles relting to Mayan civilisation to see if there are uses of these images out there. Jamesday 12:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've used several of these at Maya ceramics, where the edit history shows that the uploader apparently intended them to be used. I'll list on images for deletion any I don't eventually add to that page after editing them as required to make sure that they are suitable for presence here. Most are suitable, once text removal and cropping has been done. Jamesday 18:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)




December 6

  • Image:MissVan041.jpg no source or copyright information given. Maximus Rex 05:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As a thumbnail image in a biography of the artist, this one looks like easy fair use. Jamesday 19:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 7

  • Spellevator --Imran 17:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • From where? The page itself says from http://everything2.com/?node_id=550073 but I just went to that page, and the text isn't there! -- Oliver P. 17:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I assume that's because e2 is down, but I think as the statement was put there by the person who created the webpage that we can believe them. --Imran 19:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The e2 article was written by "Yerricide", and the Wikipedia article was imported by "Damien Yerrick", which sounds like it may well be the same person. --Delirium 02:31, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • History of Cossacks. Very difficult case. Immense text from [9]. However, the website claims the authorship of a certain W. V. Chereshnev in 1952. Under Soviet law, as I understand, Col. Chereshnev has/had very few rights of authorship over this piece. Its presence on a museum website, with a byline, seems to confirm that it is not copyrighted. -Smack 22:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Just because Soviet law didn't give him rights to it then doesn't mean that United States law today doesn't, I note. Morwen 08:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think not infringement. Assuming that it was in the public domain in Russia and was never published or intended to be covered by US copyright law, this work is also in the public domain in the US, as a work ineligible for US GATT/Uruuguay foreign copyright restoration because of its public domain status.[10] I see no sign of the required Notice of Intent to Enforce for this work, so its use in the US appears not to be infringing if it wasn't in the public domain in Russia and wasn't published in the US. It may have been published in the US, though - the use of English language suggests some publication intent of some sort in some English-speaking country. I see no sign of any US copyright registration, so it appears if published in the US to be out of copyright and in the public domain in the US. However, I haven't conducted a full examination of the law in this area. See [11] to search copyright records. I found none for this work or this author. Jamesday 15:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • The document does not appear to be explicitly put into the public domain and is thus protected by copyright. I don't know whether the copyright is held by the Russian government or the actual author, but it is copyright nevertheless. Daniel Quinlan 02:26, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see there is no evidence that the works copyright expired in the USSR (who were a signatory on the 1952 UCC). --Imran 17:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Any idea of the general copyright status of the works of Soviet or Russian government employees produced in the course of their work? Ignoring that for the moment, the language and introduction strongly suggest US publication. That eliminates Russian law as a consideration and leaves us with the apparently expired US copyright, making this a public domain work for the US-based Wikipedia. Jamesday 14:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I believe (although I'm not sure) that the copyright would be held by the Russian government (the closest well-known example I can think of is the USSR government holding copyright on Tetris). --Imran 23:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems like a copyvio to me. To be public domain, it needs to be explicitly placed in the public domain, either by Russian or Soviet law or by an active declaration by the owner. What's more, the site includes a Copyright smack dab on the front page: Copyright R 2001 Russian military-historical society.
      • The easiest way to enter the public domain in the US at the time of publication given was to publish without a copyright notice. All such works were immediately in the public domain. The second easiest was to let the copyright expire, which happened for about 90% of all works whose copyright was registered for the first term. For this to be anything other than public domain, we have to assume that it's a document which is fake and wasn't really published where it claims to have been published for the audience it claims to be for. It's not completely impossible that the Russian Military History Society is presenting faked documents but I'm not inclined to think so - I assume that it does have a reputation to protect.:) Jamesday 03:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • What you're stating only applies to works of American authorships published first (or within 30 days of first pub.) in America, which doesn't apply in this case. --Imran 03:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • In addition, it must be in the public domain now in the US solely because it didn't comply with US formalities (like being published with no copyright notice)([12] requirement 3). If it was published in the US in full compliance with US formalities, its US copyright term has now expired (no extension record with the Copyright Office) and it is ineligible for the Uruguay restoration because it fails test 3. Assuming that it is eligible for Uruguay copyright restoration, it's currently in the public domain in the US because no Notice of Intent to Enforce has been filed, and will remain in that state for 12 months after the NIE is filed. I still don't see a way to make it infringement without assuming a false document. Jamesday 08:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand how the Uruguay copyright restoration works, all foreign works which were in the public domain due to US technicallities (including the renewal requirement) had their copyright automatically restored. The purpose of notification is only important if there exist reliance parties who created derivative works while the work was in the public domain in the US. Even with US works it's hard to prove non-renewal unless you have access to the works full publication history.--Imran 14:42, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with respect to Uruguay (and the site I referenced is also incorrect). Specifically, you are correct that renewals are assumed to have been carried out and the NIE is not a prerequisite for restoraton of the copyright. Thanks for persevering and I suggest that others view Copyright circular 38b(PDF) rather than relying on the site I cited. If this work otherwise qualifies and was first published in Russia and not published in the US within 30 days, I agree that it is infringing. So, we're left with the question of where it was first published. It says it was published in response to a traffic incident in New York City in an attempt to educate people there and, written in 1952, it condems the slaughters of Cossacks in Russia by Stalin, the return of Cossacks for slaughter to Russia, references the Iron Curtain and the Russian population in the US and the World Cossack Association, a New Jersey corporation registered in 1947 [13]. I don't believe that a document so critical of what Joseph Stalin did was first published in English in Russia while Stalin still ruled. It's more like a document written by one of the large Russian emigre community in the New York area. So, I conclude first US publication and out of copyright today based on the copyright search. Jamesday 08:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That arguement won't hold unless you know a vast amount of information about the documents history you can't prove that it wasn't renewed, for example it could have been published under a psuedonym or the copyright could have been renewed under the name of a next-of-kin if the original author died. Also if it was originally published in a magazine/newspaper (as your arguement would suggest) they could hold the copyright and the renewal could be in their name. --Imran 12:10, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 9

  • List of well known ports (computing) from here --Imran 17:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this is okay. Firstly, the site you quote isn't the original source - the original is IANA's list of assigned port numbers [14] (notice the dodgy "who's" grammar on the 513 line in both). Secondly, I think this falls firmly into the "raw information can't be copyrighted" thing. Thirdly the list is the accumulation of years of ongoing RFC updates (none of them with copyright notices) so it's very hard to imagine anyone being able to honestly assert copyright over the list. And lastly many of the entries were compiled by the US government or its contractors (particularly BBN and SRI on DARPA contracts) and so those parts specifically are in the public domain. -- Finlay McWalter 18:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I agree with your first point, however or your second I disagree. While the individul entries are not copyrightable, as a hand-selected collection the list is probably covered by compilation copyright. If the list was comprehensive or chosen in a machanical manner then you might be right, but as someonehas had to choose what to put in and what not to put in (i.e. Why include the port used by Doom but not those used by other games?) I believe it qualifies for copyright. --Imran 20:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see a problem neither. By the way, neohapsis.com assembled a very big list from IANA, nmap and trojan discussion groups, including information on "trojan" ports. It's GPLed: http://www.neohapsis.com/neolabs/neo-ports/ nikai 18:30, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • GPL is not GFDL compatible so we can't use it. --Imran 20:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC).
    • Not copyrightable in US law. There's no significant creativity - the real original work is simply comprehensive coverage of factual information in the obvious arrangement. See Feist v. Rural and the West cases referenced there. The full Bender decision mentions a case where thousands thusands of edits were found not to create a new copyright. Note that the losing party in Bender was the leading US publisher of legal decisions and it failed to obtain copyright coverage for its publication. I recommend reading the Bender decision to anyone who wants to get an idea of just how broad "not copyrightable" is in US law. Jamesday 14:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • See my above statement, the list isn't comprehensive, compare it with the neohapsis list linked to by nikai. --Imran 23:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the Bender logic: [15] "selection from among two or three options, or of options that have been selected countless times before and have become typical, is insufficient. Protection of such choices would enable a copyright holder to monopolize widely-used expression and upset the balance of copyright law". At this point, it's really tough for anyone to have a copyright in anything resembling a complete compilation of these ports - they have become typical. The presentation is obvious, the data is the core of the presentation, the descriptive material is obvious and the selectivity appears to be excluding very little. Seeing Doom there but not other games isn't surprising - most games don't need registered ports and the registered ports or common collisions are the ones which made it into the lists. Not many equalled Doom, nor were around so early that they made it into widely distributed lists. Jamesday 03:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That case wouldn't seem to cover this topic, as there are many possible combinations of well known ports. Also the fact that a significantly large number of these lists use the term "well known ports" leads me to suspect that they've all copied from one source (probably the IANA). I disagree with your non-selective opinion, as the list isn't comprehensive and hasn't be selected mechanically. Also note the title of "well known ports" specifically implies a selective criteria excluding lesser known ports. Given the lack of a formal definition of "well known" it means that there has to be a level of human selection involved in the process. If you had a hundred people and told them all to make up a list of well known ports, then you would almost certainly get 100 different lists. --Imran 04:21, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The term "well known ports" has had a fairly well defined meaning for some years (decades, I think) now, starting with the common unix ports below 1024. Jamesday
    • It doesn't imply significant new human selection but that they were widely used and known in the community and that just happens to be the name the collection and it's assorted minor variations is known by. Mechanical selection is not a requirement for ineligibility. West didn't use mechanical selection and it's numbering system and other rearrangements were not automatic but it was still not eligible for copyright protection. The same applied to the case of 40,000 human made corrections in Grove Press, Inc. v. Collectors Publication, mentioned in the decision in my last reply. Insufficient creativity and that work was not eligible for copyright coverage. Where's the originality here? Do you think that the creator of the list found some new well known port which wasn't known to others? It seems infinitely more likely that the creator, in making any changes, simply added a new well-known port using well established standards so that the columns lined up properly with the adjoining data. That isn't creative work and isn't elibgible for copyright coverage. If you haven't read the full decision, please do - the discussion there helps to explain why this can't be creative enough to qualify, giving lots of examples along the way. Jamesday 09:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • That's not entirely true the first "standardised" list of well known ports appears to be in RFC 1010 which doesn't follow that standard. Also note the author of that RFC was responsible for creating new port numbers. --Imran 14:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The first standardised list wasn't 1987RFC 1010. The RFC "obsoletes" list at the start goes back to 1972 and RFC 349. RFC 1010 is convenient because it's a good illustration of the lack of creativity involved in this list - there's nothing creative about the layout and items listed, just trivial changes without expressive content. Swapping columns around and switching between upper and lower case are not generally creative aspects (exceptions for things liike logos, where they may be). Jamesday 20:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 10

  • Image:Timon and Pumbaa feeding pumbaa.jpg, Image:Timon and Pumbaa surfs up.jpg, Image:Timon and Pumbaa catching a grub.jpg, Image:Timon and Pumbaa jungle river adventure.jpg, Image:Feeding pumbaa full 1024X768.jpg, Image:Feeding pumbaa full 800X600.jpg - all definite vios (each image has a copyright notice of Disney), Image:TPwallpaper.jpg, Image:Timon and Pumbaa final image.jpg, Image:Timon pumbaa L.jpg, probably vio'd too, but no notice. Dysprosia 04:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • user just uploaded Image:Timon and Pumbaa catching a grub s.jpeg Secretlondon 18:24, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
    • First, I don't actually want these in the Wikipedia. However, this is for copyvios, not what do we want, so, some questions relating to fair use, which you may not have fully considered:
      • What effect do you believe the publication of these images will have on the market for the TV series? Will it increase awareness of it? Will it replace the TV series? Will publication in any derivative work replace the cartoon?
      • Is the Wikipedia a TV station broadcasting cartoons? Do you agree that the Wikipedia is a transformative use of the cartoon pictures and is using these images for reporting, criticism and related purposes?
      • What effect do you believe that the publication of these images will have on the public awareness and revenue of any web site the images are from? Jamesday 14:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The wallpaper images are most potentially problematic of these, for they could, if large enough, conveivably replace the original work in the market. This list needs to be split into those which could replace the original work and those which couldn't, so each group can get the appropriate copyright infringement decision. The non-wallpaper images look like fair use candidates, including for derived works. One practical detail: Disney has a reputaton for taking legal action against those making entirely lawful fair use of Disney works. Jamesday 14:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Even if they are fair use, Wikipedia isn't a wallpaper download site. Dysprosia 02:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree, in general - those are also the ones I was thinking of as the most likely candidates for infringement. Jamesday

Author has posted the following "Hi, I'm Jonathan Broxton, the copyright holder of the info on this page from the Movie Music UK website. I hereby give full permission for it to be used as the details for this composer (as I posted it myself!)" Secretlondon 15:53, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

December 11

  • Lots of edits on nobel prize winners. We may not have caught them all: William D. Phillips, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Steven Chu, Robert C. Richardson, Douglas D. Osheroff, David M. Lee, Martin L. Perl, Clifford G. Shull, Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Russell A. Hulse, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Richard E. Taylor, Henry W. Kendall, Jerome I. Friedman, Wolfgang Paul, Hans G. Dehmelt, Jack Steinberger, Melvin Schwartz, K. Alexander Müller, J. Georg Bednorz, Klaus von Klitzing, Simon van der Meer, William Alfred Fowler. All contributions from User:217.77.109.222 need checking as we may have missed some. Secretlondon 00:50, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Probably the same user: User:217.77.109.28 --Imran 22:19, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep all; those are all stubs, not mass import of text. --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • While I like your vote, you're on the wrong page.:) This is possible copyright infringement, not VfD. A stub can infringe. Would you like to argue that some of those aren't copyright infringment? Jamesday 00:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I know very well what this page is titled, thank you. How do these infringe, especially if you convert these copied statements into complete sentences? It's generic text that I could have created without consulting the place from where you claimed these were "copied". --Jiang | Talk 04:06, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • It is possible from time to time to happen to recreate standard text. However, the number of instances of identical text here persuades me that this was actual copying, not independent recreation of the text which happened to collide because it was routine text. Actual copying would generally be infringement unless there's some factor eliminating it. There doesn't seem to be one. There is possible merit to arguing that there's nothing creative and eligible for copyright coverage here... but in this case, I'm not inclined to make that argument. I agree that it's readily possible to tranform these into something which isn't an infringement candidate. Jamesday 21:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • William D. Phillips, Steven Chu, Pierre-Gilles de Gennes identify a GFDL site as the infringed site. Could still be infringed, though - what was your reason for thinking that those three were infringing the GFDL of the source site? Jamesday
      • Looks like those ones came originally from EB, see [18]. --Imran 01:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'm inclined to think that the EB is not infringing the copyright of someone else. I assume that nobel-winners.com is infringing their copyright and falsely claiming GFDL status. That is, assuming there's no GFDL declaration compliance somewhere at EB, which seems most unlikely.:) Jamesday 03:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • With all due respect for Jiang, it is possible to write these generic sentences without knowing you were duplicating Britannica (or the other sources). But given the volume, there is no real doubt (is there?) that these articles were copied. Furthermore, it's one thing if a five paragraph article opens with two sentences that happen to match EB's first two sentences. It's another thing entirely to have a two-sentence article consisting only of what could be stolen from copyrighted material. The site claiming GFDL is the one that worries me...I tried to contact them, but to no avail. Does someone with more Internet experience know how to find out who owns that "nobel" site? Jwrosenzweig 23:35, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • If the site that claims to have GFDL on the text can't be contacted, then these should probably be deleted. Evil saltine 13:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 12

  • Image:Map nauru.jpg - source [19]. The image description says it's public domain, however on [20] is a clear copyright notice. andy 22:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be too difficult to take a map of the area and replicate the facts and produce a clearly non-infringing version... while it's easy enough to make a fair use case for this one (the effect on sales is likely to make the use fair, since we're telling people their route map...:) ) I'm not inclined to do so in this case. Of course, if the uploader wanted to do so... I would advise them not to bother, just take a map of the area and put on the same information. :) Jamesday 01:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to be clearly infringing. No evidence it's public domain. Daniel Quinlan 02:03, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • Sounds as though you need to read fair use and Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. Not public domain is not the same as infringing. Kelly was commerial reuse of commercial work and was fair use. Same for VCRs, cable TV and player pianos, all of which were found to be fair use. Jamesday 02:34, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • First, they had to go to court to prove it (which we don't want to do, we should be more conservative in order to preserve the freedom and availability of Wikipedia). Second, it only allowed thumbnails and links, not complete copies (which this is). Third, the poster claimed public domain, not fair use. I think the fair use case is so-so, but given the map is 100% copied, I think we should delete and ask a few sites to provide an image with permission. (Which is exactly what I've done recently for a place that provides maps and has a history of granting permission, so hopefully we'll have another source besides the CIA soon.) Daniel Quinlan 02:45, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • I hadn't seen the public domain claim - thought you were suggesting that it was PD or infringement. I agree with your conclusion (let it be deleted, unless someone other than me does a fair use analysis). While I'm happy enough to say that things are fair use when that appears to be the case, this is one case where I'd decided that I simply wasn't interested in doing the work to make a fair use argument. It's easy enough to take a map of the area and put on the points and it would take me longer to do the fair use work than it would take me to make the map. One correction on Kelly - the court didn't decide on the question of inline linking. It told the lower court to take another look and do that (unless that has been completed and I've mised it, that is). Good to hear that someone is actually doing the work to get licensed use for a broad range of work! I'm happy enough to say that something is fair use when it looks as though it is but it'd be nice if there were more people getting broad licenses and saving everyone time in the long run. You mentioned "has a history of getting permission". Is that actually recorded somewhere here so others can easily find out who has and hasn't granted permission? Jamesday 04:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • The historic tendency for the particular source I've mentioned is mentioned on their own site and I tend to believe this particular site. I'm not going to mention who, though, I don't want a horde of Wikipedia authors descending on them asking for permission. I'm asking for a single image, while hinting at some form of blanket permission. Daniel Quinlan 05:32, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
        • The list of currently known ones is Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Daniel Quinlan 05:35, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)


December 15

  • Exogenous variation - from [21]. Site is not the originator of the content. Follow-up with the Health Services Research journal itself in an attempt to find a copyright policy failed, but it seems that the copyright is held wither by the journal or by the authors. -Smack 22:58, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see the same text there, though I might not be looking hard enough. You link to a lengthy article, whereas the Wikipedia article is three sentences long. Is there enough content there to actually be a copyright violation? I'll rewrite it to be more readable in any case, which should hopefully clear up the problem. FWIW, in the future if you list pages here, you should place the copyvio boilerplate on them. --Delirium 00:11, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • I added a boilerplate. It's still a violation; it's more than a few words long. Evil saltine 13:10, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 17

  • COREPER from [24]. Evil saltine 13:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Replaced by the /temp version, but this version, too, may be a copyvio. --Delirium 07:01, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Kaskaskia, Illinois includes a sentence from a Straight Dope column, [25]. --Charles A. L. 15:03, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems innocent enough to me. Isn't a verbatim copy, and is a single sentence giving factual information. Would be hard-pressed to claim infringement there. --Delirium 07:01, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

December 18

  • Old content of Kofi Annan[27] - from UN page. Was listed here but listing removed? The article still contains the copyvio message, and original content is replaced by a stub, but never deleted - thus the copyvio information is still in the history. Relisted to straighten things out. —Sverdrup(talk) 20:26, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • There's nothing normal sysops can do about that short of deleting the whole article: we can't delete and then re-enter the new text without losing the history of the people who worked on that version. I believe developers can selectively delete portions of the history, but I'm not sure how to go about asking them. Personally I don't consider it a huge deal if copyvios stay in the history, unless the copyright holder has asked us to remove them. --Delirium 06:44, Dec 25, 2003 (UTC)

December 19

  • Songs in Harry Potter typed in from the various books or transcribed from Soundtrack CDs: what possible defence? Phil 10:50, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Besides, this is source material -- not within Wikipedia's scope anyway. We should not have song lyrics here even with approval or out of copyright. --Morven 20:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 20


December 21

  • Perm grew considerably from multiple sources. I think it should be reverted back to the original stub pending a proper incorporation the various sources of materials. Samw 04:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • 16 images uploaded by User:Taurus on 16th Nov. They are all related to Mughal Emperors and the image descriptions have no source nor permission details. Taurus is not contactable after 16th Nov. Jay 19:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 22

Followup: the anon user has done it more than once: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.60.117.144

December 23

  • Ben Gazzara - copy and pasted article still had copyright info on - Copyright © 1994 Leonard Maltin Secretlondon 00:14, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • Linda Perry. I can't find where it's from, but it reads like a copyvio. RickK 06:44, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Or it's just good? moink 06:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Could be, but the original poster hasn't responded to my question on the subject on either the article's talk page, nor on the user's talk page. RickK 16:29, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • RMS Lusitania is largely identical to [53], which claims that the material comes from a 1993 book. This material predates the last automatic conversion, so there is no way to find the original submitter. User:Diderot Dec 23 22:30:32 CET

December 24

  • Solar thermal from [58].
    • That's probably okay - US government sites are public domain. Secretlondon 15:06, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, works of the U.S. federal government are public domain. U.S. state government works are not necessarily PD, and not all material on U.S. federal government websites are PD: stuff with work by outside authors such as academics may not be PD, for example. See Wikipedia:Public domain resources. However, this one looks OK to me. -- The Anome 15:11, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 26

  • Al Cron, a google doesn't find the page, but the copy paster left the hosting advert in it! I'll list this on pages needing work as well. --Steinsky 20:56, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2044417"