Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 May 29

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

 * Walnut ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m40zQ1J7tjYC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22native+to+the+mountainous+terrain+of+northern+Afghanistan%22&source=bl&ots=GF_q7wwgKU&sig=T9WocApM_Fk1SCnuwFwzvSGA7gY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2MWBU8fsLYub1AWz4IDwCw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22native%20to%20the%20mountainous%20terrain%20of%20northern%20Afghanistan%22&f=false. - The text was copied from this book: Verbcatcher (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Violating material was apparently added with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walnut&diff=next&oldid=610015323 this recent edit]. Ironically, I believe the addition was a good-faith response by the editor who added unsourced but (apparently) non-copied material a few hours earlier. A roll-back to the earlier version may suffice. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The earlier edit is also unacceptable. It is very close to www.walnuts.org/about-walnuts/walnut-history and to www.nuthealth.org/walnuts. I wrote a note about this on the editor's talk page - the later edits may have be in response to my initial note. We should roll back to the previous version. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Done. :) Thanks for catching the issue, User:Verbcatcher. As a general rule of thumb, it's okay when there's recent copyright problems to just roll back yourself. Actually, it's okay even when the copyright problems are old, but more likely to be contentious. Text Copyright Violations 101 gives some options. I really appreciate your being conscious of the problem and your careful review of the issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Portal:Rajya Sabha ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from Rajya Sabha. Violates attribution requirement as no source is given. Also looks useless as a portal page. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bogusflo3/sandbox ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) The initial edit summary is "Resubmitted reworked information on Cleo, a software company" which suggests that the text is based on an unidentified source. Unless that source was written by the same person, attribution and/or OTRS may be necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was about to remove the text, but the deletion log helped resolve this mystery. :) It's a rework of an article he was previously working on, which was deleted under WP:CSD as a copy of . The new text seems okay to me, if a bit spammy still. Since it's in sandbox, I've restored without any kinds of tags and just talked to the editor about my concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lee Reherman ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://www.leereherman.com/Lee_Reherman/Bio_%26_Contacts.html. No time to deal with this now; it has been partly rewritten, but is entirely unreferenced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, Justlettersandnumbers. And there's the reason we require sourcing. Ay. Rewritten from scratch and it's amazing what can't be confirmed - like professional football player history. All I can find is a quote from him in his alumni magazine saying he had enjoyed trying out but didn't make the team. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Asian Health Literacy Society ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://ahls-asia.org. 82.132.212.209 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014 ([ history] · [ last edit] · Issue is use of 101 polls from a single polling organization under "hypothetical polls"  in addition to another 38 "current polls" from the same source, totaling 139 polls from the same source. Collect (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Hi, User:Collect. :) We discussed creativity in polls at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_in_lists in 2011 - I believe there is room to debate when polls of the public for "Greatest of" lists may be copyrighted, although we typically go with the advice we received from the WMF attorneys with what pops by WP:CP, but when the opinions are being asked on a finite set of candidates that are not put forth by the pollsters, I'm not sure if they have any claim to creativity. Unless they have claim to creativity in either the questions asked or the format of the responses, there may not be any copyright to violate. That said, can you tell me what a hypothetical poll is? I'm not sure if there's something more creative going on here than I'm understanding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One polling organization has 139 of its polls quoted in a single article about a current Senate campaign. AFAICT, every single poll relating to that election is included in the article without exception.  To me, that exceeds "fair use." I would note that polling organizations do, indeed, formally copyright their polls.  Five or ten is certainly "fair use" but 139 is quite likely beyond that protection.   Collect (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern at the quanity, Collect, but fair use is only an issue for copyright protected content. Copyright protection only extends under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia to creative content. We do not recognize "sweat of the brow" in the United States. Can you please identify the creativity in the content in question?  Are their questions creative? Are we replicating creative display? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, this material is not "mere lists of facts" but represents specific editorial decisions by the polling group, and is thus fully covered under US copyright law.  Of course, I only had a few dozen discussions at CompuServe about copyright, but I doubt the law has actually changed.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What specific editorial decisions are you talking about, Collect? I keep asking you very specific questions, but you're not giving me specific answers. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Polling organizations word questions, collect data - and then perform operations on that data (i.e. "creativity") - and it is clear that US Copyright law which does not protect "compilation of lists" is not the applicable policy.   You appear to be relying on a discussion of a list created by a poll and not on the use of political polls where weighting etc. is done.  That 2011 discussion is not on point here.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Collect, right now I'm feeling like this may be beyond the scope of WP:CP to help resolve. WP:CP is not a discussion board, but a processing board - articles listed here are blanked for at least seven days prior to administrative closure, as per the instructions at Copyright_problems. It is something akin to the final stage of AFD - by the time we get here, any discussion should already have happened. (The template itself directs people who dispute the copyright to "Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence. Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Compatibly licensed may assist in determining the status.") Or maybe it's better to describe it as a cross between AFD and CFD - most cases are clear enough and based on established precedent so that the admin closing it (or copyright clerk processing it) can see the listing, see the source, see the similarity, and remove. I'm afraid this case is not as clear to me as it is to you. It is my understanding that polls are creative to the extent that the questions, the selection, and the manipulation of data is creative. So, if you ask a group of people who is the best among three or four musicians, your creativity would almost certainly be in the list of which three or four are included. The selection pool is creative. When data is modified by expert opinion instead of simple tally, then the data presented is itself creative. What I believe we're talking about here (I'm still unanswered as to what a hypothetical poll is) is a random public poll (not targeted to audience, except by obvious and uncreative parameters - for instance, eligible voters) asking for and reporting bare statistical responses of approval for and willingness to vote for politicians who seem to be selected comprehensively from those who are in the running, and hence not selectively chosen. Again, there may be some nuance of this I'm missing, and I'd welcome more insight into the creativity exercised here. Otherwise, at this stage, we can leave this for another administrator who may feel more strongly that this is a clear issue well within their mandate to act on. Or we can try to get consensus. In the past, we have sometimes taken discussions such as this one for which there is no established precedent to WT:CP or WT:C, and that may be the best avenue still, but I'm really afraid that the pool of people who respond to such discussion has massively declined in the last three or four years. If you'd like me to give that a shot, I'm game. It would be great if we could just as our lawyers, but, alas, it doesn't work that way. :/ Still, I could instead put on my work hat and ask them to write something Wikilegal on the principle of copyright in public opinion polls, and that might help resolve it, but they will not address the specific issue with this article. Generally, these reports are produced in three or four weeks.


 * I'm sure this is frustrating for you, and I'm sorry for that. I do appreciate your conscientiousness here, even if I remain uncertain about the issue itself. Obviously, copyright compliance is something I care about, and I appreciate that you do, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving this to "Older consolidated" to give another admin who works copyright a chance to weigh in. Please place any additional comments there to be sure they are considered. This listing should be updated when that one is closed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)