Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was under the perhaps errant assumption that press releases were ok to use on Wikipedia? Though if an article has text copied and pasted from a press release it likely should be rewritten anyway as it will undoubtedly read like an advertisement. zen apprentice T 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless it explicitly says that the text can be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, or something to that effect, then no. I mean think about it, would anyone be likely to issue a press release under a license that would allow anyone to edit the text as they saw fit and use it for theyr own purposes? You are free to use it as a source or point of reference, but verbatim copying would be a no-no except maybe a few brief fair use quotations. --Sherool (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim copying of a press release is also a no-no because the article will undoubtedly end up reading like an advertisement which is very bad. Though I've heard the intentionally public nature of a press release generally makes "fair use" more applicable but whatever. zen apprentice T 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a paragraph or two are probably ok if it's highly relevant, but most press releases are available online so probably better to just link to them (though I realise they might not be permanently available). I though you meant copying the whole thing as a "seed" for a new article or something. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can short quotes from press releases be used (if shown as quotes and if attributed) to illustrate an article? If I'm writing an article on the Empress of Ireland disaster, could I (and this is just a wild example off the top of my head) use a quote from a Canadian Pacific Corporation press release sent out on the 75th birthday, as long as I attributed it and made clear that it was a quote from the company? --Charlene.fic 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If the press release is noteworthy in itself, then maybe you can quote it (if it's not too long). The

RMS Titanic article quotes a memorandum and brief telegram, and that's appropriate, since those are important historic documents involved with the subject of the article. But if the iPod article were to quote an entire press release about a new kind of iPod, that would be too much. It depends largely on how long the quote is. A sentence isn't a problem, but more than a paragraph is probably too much -- at least, that's my opinion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random}

) 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's a short paragraph and I'll likely just add a few words from it into the article that's already there when I find my book again. It does have some historic interest, though. The Titanic things are different because the memos and telegrams are likely in the public domain as well. Charlene.fic 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Most copyvios now speediable

Yesterday Jimbo modified

WP:CSD

so that A8 (now G12) now allows speeding most of copyright violations:

1. unquestionably copied -> appears to be copied
2. the 48 hours restriction has been lifted
3. have a copyright notice -> does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia

I am cross-posting this in case it has been missed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, although it would have been helpful a year or two ago. ;-) My concern is that some admins, especially newbies, cannot seem to tell a Wikipedia mirror apart from an original source. Also, there are quite a few cases when other websites have copied from us. If the article was created pretty recently, it's probably a copyvio, but in other cases you need to do some detective work to figure it out. I'm worried that people are not going to do that. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The point Jimbo is making (there and on the mailing list) is that deletion is reversible. In facts, it can only be done by administrators, so non-admins cannot help in such reversions. Probably, the best choice is to enforce the addition of urls in deletion summaries, and especially checking deletion of articles with many revisions. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

compare the wikipedia article La Rouche (July 2005) with the [Peoples Daily] (English Edition, November 2005).

It seems as if Yong Tang just copied the introduction verbatim.

possible alternative explanation: The article was not written in November, but in June and was updated in November. In this case the wikipedia user is guilty of copyvio.

The url has "200511/22" in it, which means that it was probably written on 11/22/2005 and was updated on the same day (some places have year, month, day rather than month, day, year). -- Kjkolb 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so s/1 stole from us. What do we do ? Place a "This article was featured in the Peoples Daily"-Tag on the Talk page ??-- ExpImp^talkcon 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations because of a number of situations where editors are adding schedules to TV and radio articles, but I shall ask here as well:

Under section 176 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, TV schedules and programme information require royalties to be paid to the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (which is collected by Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS)). Publishing a schedule without paying a royality is a criminal offence. I believe this could also apply to BBC Radio services and maybe commercial network services too.

• Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS) network radio page
• Broadcasting Act 1990 - section 176

I have two questions:

1. Does it affect BBC Network radio stations, and commericial network radio stations?
2. What does this mean for editors who put schedules for UK radio stations in Wikipedia, regardless of its unencyclopedic status (section 1.7.3. of
   WP:WWIN
   ). Would the fact that the servers are based in the United States make a difference if someone posted a schedule?

One further question I didn't ask if it does affect question one and two:

1. If this is a copyvio and it would only affect one section of a notable article, should I use the {{copyvio}} template on the whole article or just the section or is there another template that could be used?

I ask because an edit was made a few days ago I reverted at BBC Radio 2 and someone else has added a schedule to the GMTV article (which would be illegal to use under UK law because no royalty payment has been paid to ITV for use), but I am unsure whether this law would apply to Wikipedia as its servers are based in the United States. I have tagged the schedule as unencyclopedic regardless, but I could do with a defintive answer on the legal status of schedules for UK TV/radio stations in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are not a copyright violations, since the problem is the information that is published, not the form in which this information is expressed. So certainly, {{copyvio}} is not appropriate. As for the legal issue, the second link you provided say:

A person providing a programme service [...] must make available [...] information relating to the programmes to be included in the service to any person [...] wishing to publish in the United Kingdom any such information.

Doesn't that mean that anyone can publish these schedule? Also, point (5) says: "The duty imposed by subsection (1) is not satisfied by providing the information on terms, other than terms as to copyright, prohibiting or restricting publication in the United Kingdom by the publisher." Am I missing something? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this seems like a tricky point of UK intellectual property law. It's not at all obvious to a layman how to deal with this. We really need a British lawyer/law student to help us out. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Found something relevant of interest, Bleb.org was asked by Broadcasting Dataservices to remove schedules for the BBC and ITV (which would include GMTV, as I highlighted above) [1] BBC schedules are available royality free from BBC Anytime, but ITV schedules are not (so the schedule on the GMTV article could be copyvio). Its interestring to note that Bleb.org was told to remove the schedules under Schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

• Broadcasting Act 1990 - Schedule 17

Schedules can be a grey area generally because I have known of examples where people could either copy and paste a schedule from an online website (definite copyvio) or write their own schedule using data from a magazine/online schedules.

Simple question I would like to ask that could determine the above, does UK Law apply to contributions made to Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, I should be tagging the section on the GMTV article a.s.a.p. --tgheretford (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Added suspected copyvio tag to Talk:GMTV with explaination. --tgheretford (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Broadcasting Dataservices website schedules say regarding copyright of schedules (I had to register with them to confirm this), and I quote:

The programme summaries are the subject matter of copyright. The information may only be reproduced pursuant to a licence issued by the copyright owner or pursuant to the statutory licence set out in Schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. This ruling affects BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4 terrestrial channels only. Broadcasting Dataservices is the agent of BBC Worldwide, the ITVA companies and Channel 4 in the matter of issuing copyright licences and collecting copyright fees.

--tgheretford (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This clarified everything. The program summaries are copyrighted, not the information about the scheduled time of each program. It is not a matter of UK law; they have to be deleted. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't where I should aks this question. I'd like to ask about this template:

) — 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with this tag: it's perfectly possible for a copyright holder to license their works however they like, including releasing all rights in the manner described by this template. Why is it 'prone to abuse'? --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The wording is a bit aggressive. I think it is only enough to say that no rights being reserved by the copyright holder. Adding these 2 words: "irrevocably" and also "exploitations in any way by anyone by anypurpose", I think, is too much and it seems that Wikipedia is advocating anybody to do whatever it takes from the image. IMO. — Indon (reply) — 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume the language is that strong to make people using the template aware of the possible implications of their actions. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... do you mean by the people is the copyright holder, who most of the time they do not aware that their files are being uploaded to WP, or the uploader? For the latter, I think they know already what the implications of their actions, as WP is advocating to do so (you can exploit it in anyway). — Indon (reply) — 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both. If the uploader isn't the copyright holder, then (s)he doesn't have any right to put this template on the file without the copyright holder's knowledge anyway, and some kind of source should be provided as verification. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. This template can only be used for the copyright holder. Thanks for your explanation. — Indon (reply) — 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not really what I meant (although my phrasing was somewhat questionable: sorry for the ambiguity). For the sake of clarity, then: only the copyright holder can originally declare that he releases all rights to his work, that declaration can't be made by someone else. However, once that licensing declaration has been made anyone can do pretty much anything with the work, including uploading it to Wikipedia and (correctly) marking it with this template.

My point was that if the image isn't uploaded by the copyright holder himself, then the uploader should be providing a source or some other details to verify his assertion of its copyright status. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

10:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So if the uploader is not the copyright holder, then the source of the file should have written statement of no rights reserved, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, or the copyright holder should have made his intentions clear in some other verifiable way (perhaps via email correspondence with [email protected], as in some cases). --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When people were working on the copyvio list. See [2]. I noticed some editors/admins were simply reverting or stubbing and some were deleting all the copyright violations from the history. Currently the instructions on the project page are that reverting is good enough, unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it from the history. Should that perhaps be changed? I don't mind either way, although it's of course much easier to revert. See also this old page and the discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As previously expressed in the previous discussion that you link to, my personal opinion is that copyright violations should be removed from history, because otherwise our claim that all Wikipedia text is available under the GFDL is false. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

07:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at

) 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly plagiarism, but I can't find the source

Since Feburary, User:RJNeb2 has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. Do I assume that the rest are copyvio as well, even though I can't find a source? I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures - possibly the articles that are on allmovie are copied from the same book? -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The best bet is to try and get the editor to tell you the source of their information. If they will not comunicate with you, you can do some research on your own. However if you cannot identify the source, you will have to assume these are copyvios.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Birgitte, and thanks for leaving that message on the user's talk page. -- Vary | Talk 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been adding a notice like this to the talk page. The information needs to be recorded. —Centrx→talk • 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful (if the page doesn't get deleted -- right now only admins can look at what Centrx is pointing at). It's unfortunate that we cannot properly record authorship information in the article history, however. Jkelly 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You could make a null edit, but that would not be very helpful for inevitable future situations where it is tagged as a copyvio again and someone has to look at it. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted anyway. I'm an admin, and the link doesn't work, since the page is gone. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

As of this revision, portions of this article are copied from the website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to a notice on that website, this text is "public record" and may be used "for any purpose". Therefore, it is in the public domain and may be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License as with any other text on Wikipedia.

—Centrx→talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been discovered that there are an incredible number (500-1000+) of articles on individual historical samurai and related subjects that could be construed as copyright violations. Some are direct copy-and-paste, some are simply rewordings of precisely what is said in one single source. Many of these are poorly written to the point of being nearly useless (meaningless). Many are cited poorly (e.g. writing simply "Samurai Sourcebook" is not a citation), and many are not cited at all. Much of this is the work of a single editor, who writes that he never meant to be disruptive and wants to do things properly, but who has been given more than enough chances on this and other issues.

I am going to start labeling these as copyvios, but it's going to be a lot of work, and a long process. For that reason, I'm mentioning it here rather than simply starting to address these articles one-by-one. I'm using AWB, so it's not quite as difficult as it would be otherwise, but still if there's any way to mass delete or mass tag these articles, I'd love to know about it.

Please see my talk page for the background of this situation, and the resulting discussion. Again, any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. LordAmeth 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

On the

. He originally gave permssion for the images to be used on wikipedia, but now realising the extent of the right he is giving away has now withdrawn that right and has asked for the images to be deleted.

Altman is generally supportive of wikipedia and, in an email to me, seems happy to have the images on wikipedia if greater protection could be provided. I'm wondering what the strongest licencing protection we could grant him and still have the images on wikipedia. Also might it be possible to use the images under fairuse on the page about him? --Salix alba (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The most convenient 'restrictive' license commonly in use for image content on Wikipedia is probably the Creative Commons attribution license (template {{Cc-by}}) which allows copying, distribution and display of the work, both commercially and non-commercially, and the creation of derivative works, provided that the copyright holder is attributed. (The attribution sharealike license {{cc-by-sa}} is also appropriate, and requires the creators of derivative works to make their work available under the same license. We don't allow any of the other tags, such as -nc or -nd, because having content that is non-commercial only or does not allow the creation of derivative works is considered contrary to Wikipedia's purpose.

A photo taken by Altman is probably justifiable under fair use in the Altman article as an illustration of his work, provided that some kind of critical commentary is made. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

However the most outright restrictive license allowed would be the GFDL. At least for pictures.Geni 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL is not a great license for pictures, though. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete anything until the full problem is shown here. Stop this vague "he allowed" and "he doesn't allow". What is it that he originally thought he allowed, and what is it now that he feels uncomfortable with? And where did he express that he has only now realized what he granted? As far as I can tell, he allowed cc-by-sa license to his images, [3] / Fred-Chess 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Heres the copy of the email he sent me:

Dear Richard:

Thank you for taking the time to check with me about this; one of the very good sides to the Wikipedia community.

Yes, I did specifically ask the user you've mentioned to kindly take the time and remove my photos on the "Hippy" page. He is a great supporter and contributor of Wikipedia and has become a staunch friend of mine.

As I wrote to another wiki 'sheriff" (who took first took it upon himself to have all my other contributions (see robertmark ultimately removed. --> See Licencing problem"

"I experience the current guidelines far too easy for Wikipedia to conduct its business while at the same time far too oppressive and intrusive in the protection of my work. I really don't get it. imho- sadly I foresee a dearth of quality supportive graphic material on Wikipedia until a fairer equation is created.

As much as I would love to continue to contribute to and also be recognized by the incredible phenomena that Wikipedia has become I can see no other solution for myself then to allow you, Halvor, to delete all my contributions."

Sincerely,

-Robert Altman

There was perviuos discussion on this when they we uploaded [4] and [5]. I've listed the full set of images on Talk:Robert Altman (photographer), although which ones could be use as fairuse on the page about him has not been decided upon.

The original licencing of images was [6]

1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to Robert Altman, photographer, with a link to http://www.altmanphoto.com. 2/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. 3./ Permission to use this copyrighted work in Wikipedia articles granted by Robert Altman, the creator and owner, on September 3, 2006. E-mail [email protected]

BTW the photo you list is of Altman not by Altman. --Salix alba (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two images on Commons that were tagged for speedy deletion. I changed them into regular deletion... just wanted to inform you... / Fred-Chess 14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just tagged this image Image:Rodin_Portrait.jpg for possible copyvio. The uploader has given a proof by copy-pasting his correspondence email with the photographer agency. Could somebody please take a look at the image page? Is it enough by giving such a proof? The source still says (c) All rights reserved. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We should

talk

09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to remove the copyvio notice. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 09:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it a problem for copyvio to be retained in the edit history of an article?

After a lengthy discussion in

page explicitly prohibit republishing their content: ("You may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT Content.")

So, we agreed that the MBA Rankings article should be removed and redirected back to

Amatulic

19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone asks we delete those revisions, and if an administrator is in the process of dealing with a copyright problem they should do so, but there must be thousands of copyright infringements in page histories that were simply reverted and forgotten and it is not standard practice to delete them. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually an administrator told me that copyvio in edit history should be deleted when found. For this particular instance he suggested posting about it here because he wasn't sure that republishing rankings are copyvio. The Financial Times site claims they are, and I must admit they constitute a creative work in that they are created as a result of interviews, data gathering, and developing ranking methodology. It doesn't matter to me whether the edit history contains them, but it might matter to Wikipedia, so I thought I'd ask. -

Amatulic

05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit to When Johnny Comes Marching Home includes an external link to a clip of the movie Stalag 17 on YouTube. Is this permissible? JQ 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a copyright violation for us to link to it. I don't know of any Wikipedia-specific policy that forbids it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at User:Amine2 image uploads, not a single upload is correctly tagged with a source and license and almost every second is clearly stolen from other websites. His talk page is filled with Orphanbot messages but this user ignores them. Any advice ? --Denniss 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Typically users can be blocked for disruption under those circumstances. I would recommend trying to talk to them first (not just automated warning messages) and make sure they understand what they are doing wrong. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned him on his talk page together with several images listed as imagevios. He still ignores the rules and continues to upload stolen images for example from http://www.airliners.net. Please block this user as soon as possible an delete all his images. An admin should have a look at User:200.122.86.50, this IP seems somehow related to this user, maybe there's a need for a checkuser request on these two. --Denniss 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a sternly-worded warning. We'll see. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help and deleting his images but ..... it seems he wants to be blocked. He uploaded several stolen images again. --Denniss 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours. It looks like he is trying to be productive and there may be language difficulties. This will at least get him to take the time to learn about it. —Centrx→talk • 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again thanks for helping. Someone should have a closer look on User:200.122.86.50, it looks like it's the same user as it keeps installing the images back to articles where they were removed. It'll be also nice to have someone delete the reuploaded images. --Denniss 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another sad update: User continues to upload images without source or license, several are clearly watermarked as stolen from other sites. --Denniss 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

. . .and cleaned up after. Again. This ol' mop is getting a good workout! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page of this article. The article is completely unsourced and uncited, and while I was assessing it for WikiBiography Project I found a paragraph that had been lifted verbatim from her obituary. That looks like plagiarism to me. I reported it to the Biography Project, and someone suggested I discuss it with someone here. Thanks Jeffpw 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Turkish Air Forces wikipedia uses updated inventory numbers taken from http://warriorsoul.4t.com/index.html.(Warrior soul updates his page when a plane is lost etc.) In the sources section no source has such information. But when we add warriorsoul's website to the sources we are warned for making advertisement and the source is removed.I asked admins then where did the data came from, they just said as warriorsoul's site is fanmade they cannot add it to the sources.(funny thing is there are 2 fanmade sites in the sources section)

My question is can wikipedia get relevant data but don't credit the website? 19.21 8.11.2006

Since raw data cannot be copyrighted, there is no requirement to list the source. Although it's best to, according to

WP:CITE, but not in the "external links" section. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random}

) 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fast response,then we can add it under references, right?If not, where? 22.11 8.11.2006

Check out

WP:CITE. You can reference using any of the standard methods there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random}

) 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Talk:Star Trek planet classifications. The list there has been taken, pretty much blow-for-blow (although paraphrased) from a book named the Star Trek Starcharts. I've posted some examples on talk of the entries in the book, and what they have been translated to for our version: the transformation is so minimal that it seems to me to be a copyvio (even if we can get away with that we should cite the source anyway). Can anyone proffer advice as to whether my reading of the situation is correct. Morwen - Talk 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Instructions" section of the talk project page, there seem to be two different paths to follow under the same circumstances, and it's leaving me a bit confused. In the first box, criteria for speedy deletion of copyvios are listed, followed by directions to use the {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} template and not to blank the page. Directly under that box, the same criteria are listed, and the instructions say to blank the page and use the {{copyvio | url=insert URL here}} template.

Have I missed some important distinction?

Thanks!

14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the nature of the article. Something that is clearly copied, and which does not have any non-copied revisions in the history, and which no-one is asserting that they have permission to post, should be {{

WP:CSD#G12. (That criterion has been expanded relatively recently, and many people have not adjusted to the change yet, so much of what is listed on this page could actually be speedied under the new rules.) --Robth^Talk

14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up!

Kathy A.

18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of Wikipedia

Hello. Please can someone show me where to go to report commercial websites that publish Wikipedia content without acknowledgement, in apparent violation of the GFDL? I mean localcricket.org and onlinecricket.org. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See

WP:MIRROR and pages linked from there. --Salix alba (talk

) 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The following post has been moved from Suspected Copyright Violations. I believe here it will get more feedback than the administrator's noticeboard. Please move if another place is even a better than this one. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not wherebot, but...

... I couldn't see where to put issues about patterns suggesting possible copyright violations. If this is not the place, can someone please move this appropriately?

Someone with experience should look into the images uploaded by User:Cristian Adrian. He's had a tendency after being warned by Orphanbot to simply tag things as GFDL, but it's really hard for me to believe that is accurate.

It is possible that some of his images are his own and are OK, but quite a few look very professional and not recent. Either he is a professional quality photographer, whose work includes a picture of Unirii Square in Bucharest almost certainly taken no later than 10 years ago (User:Dahn and I both think it is that old), aerial photography of Bucharest, and a very good but (look to the lower right) doctored night shot of Bucharest or he is uploading other people's images. The relatively low resolutions of these photos is also atypical of people uploading their own digital or scanned photography. I asked a question on the talk page of the Unirii Square question, which is the one that initially got my attention (I also added a caption to it), then I noticed that the issue might be more general. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a link to a very recently released commercial CD in its article. I removed it, but there seems to be neither a template nor a policy to warn a user for piracy/a blatant copyvio of this nature. MSJapan 02:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is specified in our external links guideline. See Links normally to be avoided, point 4 (as of now). If we know it is a copyright violation, leaving the torrent there makes us as contributors to the infringement as the one who added the torrent link. Maybe {{cv}} is appropriate in such case? -- ReyBrujo 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

A user uploaded an image,

. He claims the image was released under GFDL by the copyright owner. I asked him to put the email exchange on the image talkpage, but he answered he will provide the emails to everyone who requests them, and put his email address in the image page. Is this sufficient to accept the image under GFDL?

Best regards, Panarjedde 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask him to forward the mail exchange to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" as described on

WP:COPYREQ. The people handeling the permissions que will archive it securely and add a OTRS ticket number to the image page. That's the "proper" way to do it, that way we can verify the status even if he leave the project or "loose" his inbox at some point in the future. I think we can generaly trust such statements in good faith if they seem fairly cluefull though. It doesn't seem like he's acting out of ignorance at least (not like the usual "taken from somewebsite.com no copywrite" type statements we often see), and if he is deliberately and knowingly falsifying the copyright info to trick us it's his neck if Bayern Munich comes knocking after all... --Sherool (talk)

14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

• I asked this question at the Technical Pump today:

This article

claiming

{{PD-art}}

However, the same image is found here [7] where you can order a custom print of it. I do not know how to check out if it is in the public domain. I also don't know where to report it as I would do if it were a copyvio of text. Can you advise me how to handle this? Thanks!

• The answer was this:

The tag is surely incorrect; what's depicted is not bidimensional. I seem to recall that, in such cases, the photo can be copyrighted even if the object itself is not. Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems is the best place to ask.

So I am asking here what to do. I have noted the problem on the Discussion page of the article. Thanks! Mattisse(talk)

It's incorrectly tagged. It's listed as a copyright violation, which is correct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume an editor has no basis for calling a screen capture he made from a television program he did not produce and doesn't hold the copyright to a User-created public domain image? Shoot on sight? --Rrburke 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Creating a screenshot has no artistic claim, as the screenshot represents a frame of a copyrighted work, much like a scan of a book or an album cover. Either tag it with a fair use tag, or delete it. -- ReyBrujo 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence Reed is (substantially) the bio from his website, which the talk page claims is released under the following license:

This Site and all of the information it contains (including, but not limited to, studies, viewpoints, reports, brochures, and videos) is the property of the Center. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Center and the author are properly cited.

The bolded clause at least restricts editing, and it would seem to reuire that our mirrors copy more than the text of the article. Is this acceptable? (The question of whether it meets

06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that the copyright-holder be properly cited. The webpage's requirement is in line with the GFDL. (This is why cc-by text is also acceptable.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can a list be copyrighted? Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raithu states at the end that (It reports: "© 1995-2005 B. Schemmel. Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited. All rights are reserved for profit-seeking purposes.") If such data can be copyrighted, the article should be deleted. I have queried in the talk page, but have not received reply since June. -- ReyBrujo 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some lists can be copyrighted but not that one. Copyright needs to involve something with original creative effort. A list of the most influential people of 2006 would bee copyrighted but not a list of monarchs of France.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agre with Birgitte: this list does not seem to have any sort of original input in the sense of

Feist v. Rural (U.S. law), and, for the similar reasons, is probably not protectable in other Berne Convention countries. I have removed the copyright notice (not that this has any effect on copyright protection, except in Laos and Turkmenistan), the person concerned can argued his case with the designated agent if necessary. Physchim62 (talk)

14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

two upload collections, should something be done?

[8] – uses creative fair use licenses, such as {{

}}?

[9] – uses the following "Terms of Use":

1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and the url: " http://www.nambassa.com " is to acompany all use.

2/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

3/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

Statement by Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry

The images are also tagged with {{cc-by-2.5}}. Are the two compatible? Are the terms appropriate for wikipedia?

Also, the images all have the "nambassa.com" watermark on them. Is this not allowed or discouraged?

Sorry for the multitude of questions and links... I kind of get lost in licensing terms once I venture outside my trusted {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} :) --user:Qviri 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A fair use claim depends on USE not on source. One cannot claim fair use for an image cropped from an album cover, on the grounds it is from an album cover. The fair use claim is ONLY for the article on that particular album. /1 is attribution. Unless the owner says they are under a CC license you cannot say that they are. We cannot license people's work for them! Secretlondon 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution licenses are compatible with the GFDL: you should copy the exact license terms to the Image description file. Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

http://pdimages.com do not give any source information for the images on their website. Thus we cannot verify their copyright status. According to Wikipedia's criterias, that is not acceptable. While http://pdimages.com may feel that their images are free to use in the US, I can not see how it could work for a reputable encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I expressed discomfort with image Image:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg that was recently kept, as said on Image_talk:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg. If you feel this is not a copyright issue, I can probably bring the question at a no source department on Wikipedia....

Fred-Chess 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course if they gave you the source you wouldn't pay them for it... Secretlondon 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know when an image was taken, where it was first published, or who took it, and you think that's ok? Just clarifying... / Fred-Chess 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. Secretlondon 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla (talk · contribs · block log) uploaded three photographs of pages of a book (the National Geographic Atlas) and has claimed that they are released into the public domain by himself, the "author" [10][11][12]. I don't feel comfortable about this though, could someone please confirm that these are not copyright infringements. Thanks.--Euthymios 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See

 ] 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that the reason the summaries in the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes are often the same as the ones at TV.com - the same person is writing them for both sites. What are the policies about what can and cannot be done about identical text appearing on diffferent websites when submitted by the same person? CovenantD 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the licensing rules of the other site. If the other site has terms of service demanding transfer of exclusive rights to contributed material to the site owner, then a violation is taking place if the contributor puts the same material on Wikipedia; on the other hand, if the other site only asserts nonexclusive rights, then it would be proper for the contributor to release it on multiple sites of this sort, and/or under a free license such as GFDL, at once. If a conflict exists, then it would probably be legally relevant which site the user contributed it to first; if it was placed on Wikipedia first, it would be under the GFDL and the user's later contribution to another site with an unfree, exclusive license would be invalid (but any legal problems would end up being between the user and the other site); on the other hand, if it were contributed first to another site with an incompatible and exclusive license, then the GFDL contribution would be invalid because the contributor would no longer have the rights he was purportedly making available under the GFDL license. *Dan T.* 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I found that a particular section of the article

00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Some of you may have seen this before, but I do think it is important and I am getting no informed replies at all. If there is somewhere else to raise this, please say so.

It seems to me that

13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

??Remember to avoid copyright paranoia??

This sentence is at the end of the first paragraph and links to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia the page on Meta.wikimedia has no references and seems to be rant on personal opinions of why copyrights do or do not mater. I strongly question the correctness of inlcuding a link to that page from this one. Jeepday 13:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something along these lines does need to be said, though I agree that the current meta page is far from the best way of saying it. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page on Wikipedia that address the issue? Jeepday 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(Also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam) I've noticed a few folks use Image:SpamInACan.jpg in relation to the Spam WikiProject and other efforts related to the usage of "spam" as it refers to unsolicited commercial messages. It seems that it might be a copyright or trademark violation to do so. The actual image is purported to be a US Air Force photo so it's likely in the public domain. However, it's an image of a trademark and is often used in relation to (mis)uses of that trademark. In addition to any legal issues, there is also the issue of plain "niceness" as Hormel as been extraordinarily reasonable with the use of their trademarked term to refer to unsolicited commercial messages but they do "object to the use of...our product image in association with that term." I am not suggesting that their objection carries legal weight but certainly it should carry some weight in maintaing our own public image. I also am not suggesting that the image needs to be deleted as it clearly may have some legal uses.

As you can tell, this appears at first glance to an non-expert to be a good mix of copyright, trademark, and non-legal issues. I'm certainly no expert in copyright or trademark so I wanted to post this message so that others more knowledgable in those areas can offer some insight and advice. --ElKevbo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not a lawyer, I have a very good layman's understanding of copyright issues. The logo for SPAM and the front of the can is probably not copyrighted (though it might be). It's certainly trademarked, but that's a different area of law from copyright. Whether the design on the front of the can is copyrighted or not, the image in question is certainly not copyrighted, since it was produced by the USAF. The USAF might have been violating Hormel's copyright by publishing a derivative work of their copyright, and was almost certainly violating Hormel's trademark, but Hormel hasn't seemed to mind. At any rate, Wikipedia isn't violating Hormel's copyright (if it's even copyrighted, which it probably isn't) by displaying the public-domain image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus at Spam WikiProject is that whether it's a copyright violation or not, we don't want to abuse Hormel even on the simple "grounds of niceness" as you put it. I've done some of this and I will correct my own actions now. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wherebot found that Akiyama Nana was an exact copy from http://wiki.theppn.org/Akiyama_Nana, and we are still not sure how to act. ThePPN releases text under Creative Commons Share Alike. Personally, I believe the licenses are not compatible, as text in Wikipedia is released under GFDL, and CCSA asks you to release derivative work under the same CCSA license. However, we would like to hear a second opinion about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is being worked on, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-21/CC compatibility, I don't think these licenses are compatible at the moment, so incorporating that text would be a violation of the CC license. jaco♫plane 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Srkris has uploaded some images lifted from a newspaper (The Hindu) website:

• Image:Youngcvb.jpg[14]
• Image:Cvbyoung.jpg[15]
• Image:Dkp.jpg [16]
• Image:Chembai2.jpg[17]

When I and User:Venu62 tagged them with copyright violation tags, the user reverted the edits calling them "bad faith". Although The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message, the user argues that thse images are "low-res newspaper scans". I pointed out that the images are not scanned by him, but directly lifted from The Hindu website. The user accepted that the images are from the website, but argued that it doesn't matter who scanned the images. He claims that since "all images from non-digital era are through scans", The Hindu must have scanned them. So, it is a low-res newspaper scan and therefore fair use.

Also, some images copied from chembai.com, and tagged with {{PD}} and {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:

• Image:Chembaisang.jpg[18]
• Image:Chembai.jpg[19]

Chembai.com doesn't have an explicit copyright message, but in my knowledge, that doesn't mean that they are not copyrighted. And tagging the images as PD and GFDL is certainly not justified.

The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message. I wonder whether the user's argument is valid? utcursch | talk 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

These are clearly copyright violation. Thanks for pointing this out. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The following language is from the locked policy page on Wikipedia copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement

Celebrity photographs

This is based on the image guidelines at IMDB, so it especially applies to celebrity photographs, but also can apply to other pictures. Legitimate photographs generally come from three different places with permission.:The studios, producers, magazine publisher, or media outlet that originally shot the photograph.

Agencies that represent the photographers who shot the photos or the photographer themself (the latter especially for amateur photographs)

Submissions from the celebrity himself or herself or a legal representative of the celebrity.

This written copyright policy on Wikipedia clearly indicates usage of said photographs does not violate copyright, is legitimate, and is permissble on Wikipedia. The above statement does not mandate the above entities license said images under a GFDL, and it's inherent from the outset that the above entities do not generally license their work under GFDL in nearly all cases, rather Fair Use. They are in these businesses, and as businesses, generally distribute work for either paid or promotional purposes only under Fair Use.

However, the admins now enforcing Fair Use images are deleting nearly any image of a living person, regardless of whether it comes from a source such as that indicated above, as long as the image is of a living person, claiming the image could be at some point be replaced by a GFDL or CC image. It does not matter whether such a GFDL image in fact exists, how difficult it might be to obtain, or whether the celebrity provided a Fair Use image themselves. Following the rationale now being enforced, it would seem impossible for a living celebrity to ever have an image on Wikipedia, as their celebrity alone would make them available for the potential creation of a GFDL image in essentially any case. I have recently had 32 images deleted, nearly all of which fell into these categories. The above policy has no meaning whatsover to the enforcing admins, who see the primary goal as a "totally free" encyclopedia. Some also view deleting otherwise permissible fair use images as advancing the goal of encouraging persons to find or create or take GFDL images. A variety of other claims, including that of "freedom to the downstream user", are also advanced. Most celebrities want exactly the opposite, as they do not want their images used for endorsement or other purposes without permission, which a GFDL license allows in perpetuity.

A number of users who have had legitimate Fair Use images deleted and replaced by amateur photographs have begun to raise the issue of United States state laws, some of which do not allow distribution of images of celebrities without the expressed consent of said celebrity, including amateur images. Those arguments have so far been ignored, and it would follow that Wikipedia would in fact be exposed to more, not less, potential liability than it would by distributing Fair Use images released by the copyright holder or celebrity for just such a purpose, for which liability is essentially zero. Not to mention that the professional images are often of a far higher quality than the amateur images now being substitutued, and advance the goal of a quality encyclopedia better.

Another aspect of this issue is that Fair Use images of deceased persons are used at will under the premise that no Fair Use image can possibly be created. This would seem to fly in the face of the entire "totally free" argument from the outset, and there are thousands of other fair use images that remain on Wikipedia regardless, such as for album, CD and DVD covers, which have and will likely remain untouched. I also believe it's possible, in fact likely, that licensing rights of images of deceased celebrities would transfer to the estate, and that Wikipedia is under no more, or less, potential liabilty than for the living, marking the distinction of dead vs. living as a potential red herring.

The enforcing admins and supporting users in this area have been described by some as "jihadists" in their deletion of all fair use images of living persons including celebrities. My experience would indicate that is an appropriate view, as 32 of 35 disputed images were removed, including numerous images gained from celebrities themselves for use on Wikipedia, despite lengthy fair use rationales. Every image I've loaded was immediately examined and challeged in some respect, beginning immediately after I posted critical comments on the enforcement of Fair Use at the Chowbok Rfc page, the largest hub of several similar Rfc pages which have had the net effect of zero on the above policy's interpretation and enforcement by the admins in question.

All of this has led to many angry Wikipedians, some of whom have left in complete disgust. I myself have stopped loading images of any kind to the project, including many original images I had considered licensing as Creative Commons, because of how these fair use images of celebrities are being treated at present. I am now advising celebrities I know and contact of how said policy is being enforced, and also advising them not to license images under GFDL without being fully aware of the potential downstream use of said images, over which they will have no control whatsoever.

I post this as a commentary, and invite others, epecially admins who view the above policy implementation as heavy handed or incorrect, to comment. Thank you. Tvccs 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On some pages, editors have deleted material on the basis of "presumed copyright violation" when they have not looked for a source, or not found one, but do so on the basis that, for example, a large technical edit is likely to have been copied form somewhere. (General) comment invited--I am not involved in any specifc problem of the sort.DGG 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples? Jeepday 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

According to our Verifiability policy, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. When a user adds a lot of information without citing a reference, it is either a copyvio, or original research, both options that allow other editors to remove content. The important thing is that the editor adding the information must provide a source to demonstrate the source of the content. -- ReyBrujo 17:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am asking about copyright. Your pair of criteria taken together remove every piece of content from WP except the transcribing of PD material. How can an author provide a source for, say, a lead or summary he has written? Though one could certainly prove something IS a copyvio, how does one possibly prove that it is NOT?

For example, take todays featured article. I go back to the initial 2001 entry in the page history:

"

James Joyce was an Irish writer and poet.

One of the most significant writers of 20th century. Born into a well-off Catholic family in Dublin, the family suffered a set-back in their fortunes, and slid into poverty. He left the city in 1904 to spend the rest of his life on the Continent.

His Irish experiences are essential to his writings which are exclusively on Irish subjects. The early volume of short stories, Dubliners, is a penetrating analysis of the stagnation of Dublin society. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, largely autobiographical, shows the process of attaining maturity and self-consciousness by a young gifted man.

The main character is Stephen Dedalus. In this novel some glimpses of Joyce's later technique can be noticed, in the use of interior monologue and in the concern with the psychic rather than external reality. In Ulysses, definitely Joyce's masterpiece, he uses the stream of consciousness technique to present his characters. The novel sets the ancient myth of Ulysses, Penelope and Telemachus in modern Dublin and impersonates them in the characters of Mr. Bloom, his wife Molly and Stephen Dedalus, parodistically contrasted with their lofty models. The book explores various areas of Dublin life, dwelling on its squalor and monotony. Joyce employs a variety of literary styles to suit his purpose. His method of stream of consciousness, literary allusions and free dream associations was pushed to the limit in Finnegans Wake, which abandoned all conventions of plot and character construction, and is written in a peculiar obscure language."

I challenge this as possibly taken from some textbook, because it is the sort of material found in textbooks. It cannot be PD, because it mentions works published after 1924. Suppose the editor defends it as a rewriting of material based on standard works X and Y & shows the sentences and phrases do not match either of them. I now say it is not his rewriting. How does he prove it is? DGG 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you decide to question an article. The editor needs to prove it is not copyvio. To do this, he must first prove he did not just copy/paste from a source, and that he used references in order to build the article. The first part is easy for online resources, but harder for offline ones. Thus, we relatively easy determine the article was not copied from a web page. How about books? Well, in this case we must assume good faith. Without this policy, Wikipedia would not be possible. The editor does his best to demonstrate this is not original research by adding references. Other editors do their best by searching Google or Yahoo, or verifying the references given by the user. And finally, we trust each other. If you suspect a text is copied from an offline source, contact the editor and tell him about that. Ask him for references if necessary, but other than that, you need to assume good faith. -- ReyBrujo 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

exactly. DGG 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, is it allowable to reference radio interviews? If so, is it allowable to upload a radio interview into a free hosting website, and use that as the reference? User:GuardianZ uploaded a radio interview into the free hosting website GoEar.com, [20] and used that as a reference in the Midnight Syndicate article. Let me know if this violates the copyright policy. Dionyseus 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: this has been moved from WP:SCV. -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the internet game Kingdom of Loathing, there are six items, named plexiglass _______ (i.e., pleixiglass pants and plexiglass pocketwatch). Recently, a user has been changing many instances of "plexiglass" to "acrylic glass" or "Plexiglas®" (marking most of these controversial edits as minor). Anyway, on the Kingdom of Loathing page, the items are called plexiglass _______, and not acrylic glass ________. Also, the user acknowledges (on the game's talk page) that he worked for the company making plexiglas, making him possibly not the proper person to decide on its usage here. I'm not sure on the legality of using "plexiglass", but it seems as though it would be proper to use it, as that is the in-game name. Quentin mcalmott 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "pexiglas" is a little different: it is claimed as a trademark, The criterion for a valid tradmark is in its consistent use. Furthermore, Pexiglas is only tradmarked as acrylic sheet--it can be used for any other object in the world that cannot possibly be confused with it.

The test is usage. Nowadays that is rather easy. On the web, I see a similar number of uses with and without a Trademark TM designation, even in formal writing, and even in postings that use TM for other products. The company can still use it as if it were, but it is ultimately a matter for a jury. In any case, using it is not a copyright violation. I think you are correct to use it as you see it on the game. Claiming it for this use is stretching it a good deal, but don't blame him for trying. DGG 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that it is ultimately a matter for a jury. What legal ground do you think you are standing in this regard? I haven't played the game, does the term "plexiglass" in the game have nothing to do with

acrylic glass? like naming my cat "plexiglass"? If so then I agree, but if it is a piece of plastic then it is misuse of the trademark. Also I don't see how being an expert on a subject disqualifies one from lending their expertise to wikipedia, I no longer work for the company (not since 1980).Tstrobaugh

21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying being an expert disqualifies you on commenting and editing in regards to your field. In fact, I welcome you to. However, you are not an expert like a mathematician or biologist would be; you are an expert in that you have a very strong opinion about one side. Because of this, I would suggest you do not make these contentious edits without any semblance of consensus, and even if you do, please do not mark them as minor. Quentin mcalmott 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, perhaps you could explain further, I believe I am exactly an expert in trademarks exactly as one in mathematics or biology. In fact I have a degree in biology and I consider that knowledge more general than the specific knowledge and training I have in trademarks. I do not have my own strong opinions about any trademarks. I do know what is permissible and impermissible regarding them though. I am not exclusively protecting the trademark "Plexiglas" it just happens that I started with that one but was planning on doing "Lexan" next and others, in fact I think I already have a couple of edits for Lexan. The only "contentious" edit that I know of is this game one and no one has answered my question as to whether or not the game reference involves plastic, so I don't know why you say "contentious edits" plural. Also I believe that uses of "plexiglass" which ignorant editors believe to be a generic equivalent of

acrylic glass is indeed a minor edit. Tstrobaugh

14:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there is not consensus for these edits, so they should not be marked as minor. It is also often looked down upon for, say, the subject of a wikipedia article to edit his or her own article. In the same way, you (who work for the company) should not be making edits that go against consensus. Quentin mcalmott 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We have neither the resources to perform, nor an interest in performing, the research into and policing of other organisations' marks of trade. To the extent to which information about a trademark is both encyclopedic and is sourced reliably, local editors may choose to include that information in appropriate articles, but it is not appropriate for us to make any judgements about third-party usage of trademarked property, and the kind of editing described above is prioritising policing of trademark over clear, accurate reporting of information; this is not our mission and shouldn't be happening. In short, take it up with them instead of editing our article. Jkelly 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" is, but almost all editing is "policing" of improper English usage or factual inaccuracies. It is certainly within my scope as an editor to "police" various transgressions. Do you see Trademarks as not falling under any of the wiki guidelines? Why should they be excluded? How about

Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F, it's obvious to me that wiki does indeed care about accurate information about trademarks. If a third-party, as you say, uses a trademark incorrectly, it is your opinion then that this incorrect and unfactual information be included in wikipedia without any note as to the accuracy of the information? The point about "information about a trademark is both encyclopedic and is sourced reliably," is incorrect since the information I have been editing is not about a trademark per se (plexiglass) but about the improper use of the trademark (Plexiglas) so ipso facto the information in incorrect.Tstrobaugh

20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear. If an object in a video gameis named a "Plexiglas pocketwatch", don't rename it to "Acrylic glass pocketwatch" in our article. Don't add registered trademark symbols to Wikipedia articles. If you want to argue that Wikipedian editors should involve themselves in protecting trademarks, the place to do that is at Wikipedia:Village pump. Jkelly 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you get it at all so I won't discuss this further with you. There is no argument about "Plexiglas pocketwatch" for that would be a correct phrasing including using the trademark as an adjective. I would never edit such an item, perhaps ask for a citation as to how they know specifically that Plexiglas was the acrylic used in the pocketwatch. My gripe is with people using the term "plexiglass". Have you even looked at the item in question? Here it is:"Players also receive a non-tradable class-dependent stainless steel or plexiglass item". Some editor asserts that this is what the instructions say, first we have no proof of that, secondly it is probably a typo. Do you really want to maintain your position. You are totally wrong.Tstrobaugh 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To clear up confusion, one of the items is plexiglass pike pike. This item may be viewed on the KoL wiki. Please note that there is no capitalization, no copyright symbol, and two 's' at the end, not one. The rest of the items are linked at the bottom of the page. Quentin mcalmott 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"We" in this context represents the consensus of the WP editors who have chosen to involve themselves on this page; it need not be unanimous, and you have the right to differ. Most of us apparently think it reasonable to doubt that the name of a game character will be confused with the name of a sheet plastic. But in any case this is a page to discuss setting general policy guidelines; as J Kelly said, the editors of an article can do as they collectively think best, subject to the various provisions for reviewing edits. There is a procedure for removing copyrighted images and text when the violation is demonstrated. There are no such provisions concerning the use of trademarks, and it seems to be the feeling that most of us do not want to ask for such a procedure. As has been said, the proper place to suggest such a procedure is the Village Pump, where it will receive the general attention of all those interested in overall policy. (Those who insist on legal resolution instead are directed to the Foundation.) Personally, I think that our further consideration of this here would be prejudicial to all parties, including those you may represent. DGG 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the procedure for dealing with images that have a copyright tag, but the tag is clearly wrong? The case in question is

) 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If they tag is obviously wrong and another tag is clearly more appropriate (eg, {{

imagevio}}. Physchim62 (talk)

11:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A hypothetical question on copyright violations

Consider this hypothetical: An editor owns and runs a website. The copyright policing in the editors's country of residence doesn't prevent uploading any copyrighted image into his website. He uploads a copyrighted image onto his website. He displays a GDFL message on his website, giving access to the material on his website to all and sundry. The editor then uploads the same image on to Wikipedia Commons, claiming that it was from his own website and he gives 'permission' for the image to be used. Does the WP fairuse policy allow this?

Now consider these images:

• Image:Cvbmsgtvg.jpg
• Image:Chembaisang.jpg
• Image:Chembai.jpg

I just wanted to clarify the policy details here, because by allowing editors to upload images from their own website, we are opening a flood gate of copyright violations. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, the copyright ownership of a work is not changed by simple publication. A person can only license the copyrights that he or she owns, not the copyrights owned by a third party. Physchim62 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case would you classify the image listed above as GDFL even if the original source of the images is unclear? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is any question about what to do here. The ability to license an image rests solely with the copyright holder. The

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. The mentioning of fair use, history of republication, some imaginary country that has no copyright law, are just confusing the issue. We either can demonstrate that the copyright holder licensed the media under a free license or we cannot. Jkelly

21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I need some assistance with this article. User:Makimant is a single purpose account and has been adding copyright material to the Vaisala article claiming permission. See contributions. I've let the user know about this at User talk:Makimant but they don't reply. Anybody care to help try and explain this better. Of course the other problem is that the inserted material looks like an advert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to link to some of the copyright material. Here's one example. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

who is permitted to comment on a suspected copyright violation listed on these pages? Only admins, or other people who may have relevant information? If so, where is the appropriate place? DGG 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add comments, links or anything you think it is suitable, as they will surely be checked by the admins reviewing the cases. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an image under Crown copyright where the copyright holder said that it is "in the public domain and is a freely-licensed official image?" Someone took down the image's tag and put up a copyright violation tag anyway. When I reverted, I got a message saying that I shouldn't remove the copyight violation tag. What process do I have to go through to get the proper tags put back? Thank you, Arctic Gnome 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You could talk to the person that put it there and explain to them why it's not a copy violation. Look in the history section to see who put it there. --MECU≈talk 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To be pedantic, if it is in the public domain surely it has no copyright holder? Notinasnaid 11:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering what to do in a case like this.

I found Rules of the Death Note where it has word for word, lifted the text from entire pages from all 11 volumes of the manga. I'm fairly certain that isn't fair use, however I don't know if Template:Copyvio is the correct one, as it specifies a URL, and it's copied from a book not electronic media. I'm sure this was answered before, but I can't find it on the main page.--Toffile 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Just remove it. There's no chance that text is going to be relicensed. Jkelly 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the following template be deleted:

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.

This is an end-run around the proper copyvio checking and handling process. It says "This smells like a copyvio, but I can't prove it."

The problem is that there is no real way to guarantee that something is not copyvio. You can search Google for the text, but Google is hardly the sum of all published works.

I'm hearing in the TFD that this is deemed OK, because it is like a "can someone else check this out for copyvio?" request. But even if someone checks it out, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of copyvio. That is, unless it does get a match and checks out to be free-use, but that's the exception and not the rule.

WP:CV points out that all material in articles is subject to further review. That would further seem to make this "possible copyvio" assertion redundant. -

) 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree. I'd agree that material that "sounds like" it comes from a published print source, but one can't say what, is not evidence for copyvio. It is evidence for the person who thinks so to look for such a source. There are some web tools available for doing so, listed at the end of the Copyright page; Or search within specific collections, such as PubMed. Or, of course, ask people to try--we may need a better know place for doing that specifically. Or search for an expert on the topic within WP, and ask, or ask on one of the project pages--someone may recognize it.

I am not sur about making a possible exception for material that appears preposterous, based on the editors apparent background and other edits. The reason I am not sure is because it will probable lead to use when not justified.

A false accusation of cv based on insufficient evidence is a

libel

, and I would urge that we have some mechanism for following them up; It may simply reflect ignorance, which such statements seem to be most of the times, but it could also be seen as disruptive behavior.

DGG 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently AfD'd. The bulk of it consists of a reproduction of author Asra Nomani's ten-point Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque. One of the links in the article is to Beliefnet, which also reproduces the Bill with the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." I've noted on the article's talk page and deletion page that inclusion of the full list - with not even an attempt at fair use commentary - this is a probable copyright violation. Given the AfD status, I haven't taken the step of deleting the copyright material.

I've been advised by one editor that as the author probably wants it distributed, its use here is okay. Am I being copyparanoid, or is this a violation? - Eron ^Talk 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a paste of an entire work that is not freely licensed. I've removed it from the article. Jkelly 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see the discussion at Talk:Voyager 2#text_source_issue, User:Ijon-Tichy has claimed that chunks of Voyager 2 have been taken from the BBC program The Planets, and provided us with a nice comparison. I've traced the text to edits by User:217.37.214.57 and User:84.65.34.122. (The specific edits are diff 1 and diff 2, with related edits on the talk page.)

I'm not sure how to proceed from here, because this is the first copyright violation case where the source is not on the web. Thanks. --JamesHoadley 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all the edits by the two anon users on the Voyager 2 article. I hope I haven't deleted someone's brilliant prose, but it seems unlikely. --JamesHoadley 09:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've written a new article 16 days ago, could an admin move the new article into place? Cheers. --Pizzahut2 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. --Pizzahut2 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently discovered that the article

contained the song lyrics in every version of the article (so there was no version available to revert to). However, the article would have been coherent, albeit a stub, if the lyrics were simply removed, since the first paragraph was original text about the song and recording.

If we find an article which contains copyrighted material, but also has original text, should we report the article as a copyright problem to ensure that the copyrighted lyrics will be removed from the edit history? Or is it enough to edit the article to leave out the copyrighted material? The instructions for Wikipedia:Copyright problems are unclear in this regard. --Metropolitan90 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Even for a song, there can be fair use of lyrics--but not of the whole song--a sample is needed. There are no hard and fast rules about this, but if a song has stanzas, I've frequently seen careful people post a single stanza. For other songs or poetry, about 10% is frequently used. If we do include a quote, most users wont go back in the history, and we need remove the history only if there is a complaint. Personal view only, as always. DGG 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. My concern is what we are supposed to do when the article contains the entire song lyric (far more than would be allowed under fair use), but also contains other information as well. --Metropolitan90 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just remove the excessive part of the song. in some cases it will be obvious, as with stanzas. With rap, it takes a little judgement, which is why the orig. editor should do it. An editor can always change what part to present if he doesn't like one's choice. I think the edit summary might be "Length exceeds fair use". The harder question may be when the article contains only the song lyric, whether there is enough left to justify an article on the individual song . DGG 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a penalty for intentionality proving false information about an image's copy right status? Over the past few months, a user has been uploading various

00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Get sure the user is warned enough times, then report him to

types of vandalism, especially Copyrighted material vandalism. -- ReyBrujo

00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also make sure to look through all of their uploads. Whether they're giving the false information knowingly or unknowingly, users tend to do the same thing over and over again. ×Meegs 02:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it violate copyright, if I translate things from copyrighted book in Russian (almost literally) and put the translation into Wikipedia, mentioning the source of material? Geevee (talk|contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

11:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What does mean "unapproved"? Who should approve? The original author? Geevee (talk|contribs) 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder, or their agent, are able to grant rights to a translator. Rights in the translation are usually (but not always) held equally by the translator and the original author. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

13:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So what if I translate it inventively, rework the text? How is similarity to original text is proven? Geevee (talk|contribs) 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Similarity to original text' would be proven or disproven in court, when you (and/or Wikipedia) get sued by the copyright holder.

The key principle here is that facts cannot be subjected to copyright, but a particular expression of those facts can. So if by 'rework' you mean 'distill the purely factual information from a piece of writing and present it in a different form' then you're safe. If, on the other hand, by 'rework' you mean 'copy, changing a few words and phrases' then you're not. --ⁿɡ͡b

talk

16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I've asked as stupid question. Anyway, thank you very much for you attention ant explaining what it's all about! Geevee (talk|contribs) 18:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We have working on a rewrite of the section on a Federal Copyright Infringement lawsuit for the Free Republic article, and seek some third-party input.

Here is a description of the lawsuit which was over posting the full text of copyrighted news articles on the www:

"In Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, the court found that such a use was minimally -- or not at all -- transformative, since the article ultimately served the same purpose as the original copyrighted work. The initial posting of the article was a verbatim copy of the original with no added commentary or criticism and therefore did not transform the work at all. Although it is often a fair use to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism or commentary, the copying may not exceed the extent necessary to serve that purpose. In this case, the court found that only a summary and not a complete verbatim copy of the work was necessary for the purpose of commentary and criticism."

"The court also found that although the website solicited donations and advertised the services of another website, the overall nature of the website was non-commercial and benefited the public by promoting discussion of the issues presented in the articles on the website. However, the court found that the nontransformative character of the copying outweighed the consideration of its minimally commercial nature.

"Finally, and most importantly, the court found that posting entire news articles on the website had an adverse market effect on the copyright owners. See L.A. Times v. Free Republic, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (C.D. Cal. 2000)."

There are some disagreements over the NPOV of the rewrite. Although some of the people involved have been banned for sockpuppetry, I would like to get this section as accurate as possible. If any of you could comment, I'd appreciate it greatly. - LINK HERE / F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)