Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 13

13 September 2009

 * History of Betton Hills ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://bettonhills.org/_wsn/page3.html. I frankly can't tell in which direction the copying took place here, or whether the same person may have been responsible for the text in both places. Would appreciate other eyes on the problem. Deor (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - The editor who created this article also created a companion article, (Betton Hills Nature Center), at the same time in January 2007. On the Talk:Betton Hills Nature Center talk page, the editor stated they had created both the article and the original source. This seems to clarify that this is a copyright infringement. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doon de Mayence ([ history] · [ last edit]) from Encyclopedia Brittancia Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences. Xme (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no copyvio. Text is properly attributed to 1911 Encyclopedia. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles Cook European ([ history] · [ last edit]) from http://members.lycos.co.uk/charlescook/aboutcharlescook.htm. Permission asserted.  The left orium  17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) includes two black and white photos, this] and [this, which appear to be copies of photos available at a copyrighted webpage of the state of Louisiana (images linked from bottom of this page). The uploader asserts at [[Talk:Longwood (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)]] that s/he grew up in the house and took the photos, which is possible.  I don't know, but my guess is that the uploaded photos are not separately scanned images from original photos, but rather are copies of the digital images at the state website.  Perhaps the uploader does hold copyright to any version of the photos and can upload them legally.  Is OTRS-based verification or some other process needed to establish the copyright status and to identify the photos correctly?  Otherwise it appears the two photos are copyright violations.  doncram (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - Moved question to Media copyright questions with an added note about further talk page discussion. Notified the editor. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)