Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 16

16 April 2020
Re: Pieter Pourbus: I found the addition of copyrighted material in this article and removed it twice, the first on suspicion: ; the second time, after I had verified that the added text was from a copyrighted source:. On the second occasion, I made the following edit on the article talk page: and left a notice on the user's talk page:. The user has now restored the material, stating on the article talk page (as well as my talk page ) that he has received permission from the copyright holder and providing a copy of an email granting permission (addressed to me). I don't know whether the user followed the OTRS procedure before restoring this material, and it is beyond my ability to evaluate, so I decided to mention all of this here. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am the contributor for this article, and of course will be happy to provide to any administrator copy of the email which was sent to the Wikifoundation today by the copyright holder, at my request (email in which I am cc'd). And a copy of which I sent to Robert Allen.
 * Also worth to mention that I will now work further on this important article in order to eliminate any other possible issue.
 * Please allow me time for that.
 * Best regards,--Emigré55 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * please make sure the copyright holder sends an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, preferably using this template. --MrClog (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will. Thanks for this message. Please allow me some time, because of the present coronavirus situation. And also to complete the edition of the article to make it fully compliant to wiki rules.--Emigré55 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Allen, The publication that is quoted from on the Pourbus-wiki site is a publically available, scholarly publication. I have never ever before had to grant permission to quoting from a widely available publication. Especially not if the author refers to the book and the specific text parts, as was the case. So please, let the author quote our publication in the normal way. Many thanks, Marc de Beyer Director Museum Gouda
 * I sent Museum Gouda an email requesting granting of the required license to allow User:Emigré55 use of their copyrighted material. This was their response:

It is evident from their response that Museum Gouda has NOT granted one of Wikipedia's required licenses, such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA), that would permit unrestricted addition of unquoted text (as User:Emigré55 has done) or even extensive quoted text. Clearly, his additions need to meet the requirements of MOS:QUOTE. Unfortunately, they do not come anywhere near to meeting those requirements (or the museum's request to "let the author quote our publication in the normal way"). First of all, he did not identify the material as quoted, and second it is far too extensive. Merely editing the text (after its addition) does not meet Wikipedia standards. In my view, he should start from scratch and make his additions like any other Wikipedia editor, with the bulk of his additions in his own words and limited quotations marked as quotations. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to the above statement, Museum Gouda granted copyright permission according to Wikipedia requirements. This permission was sent to wiki@wikimedia.org by the director of the museum in 2 emails: I took the time to include this second permission in the talk page of the article on the same day at 16:37. I forwarded the second email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on April 21, 2020 at 18:18, after having received the following request: ''please make sure the copyright holder sends an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, preferably using this template. --MrClog (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)''(see above) My email was received as evidenced by the following reference in the header if the automatic response: [Ticket#2020042110009381] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Pieter Pourbus - Pub [...]) I find it very unfortunate, to say the least, that Robert Allen : As to allegations that the present text does not meet copy requirements, I have already stated, and repeat here, that the text is under new editing now, which can also be seen by numerous new amendments brought since the page was reinstated. This work is time consuming, and as I seem to be the only contributor so far for this, I ask time to complete this task. I wish to conclude that this article is an important article on this painter, which is the most important painter of his time in the city of Bruges, which in his turn is known world wide. This article replaced a very poor and very short entry on this painter, and now offers to all readers the most complete information and iconography on this painter, according to the most recent and most complete source.
 * the first email concerns the painting "Annunciation", and is dated April 16,2020 at 11:19.
 * the second email concerns the text of the exhibition catalogue, is dated April 16,2020 at 11:20, and sent to wiki@wikimedia.org (I was cc'd in this email).
 * did not check first on the talk page of this article,
 * did not send any email to me, at any stage of the controverse he raised, and still is raising, simply to alert me beforehand,
 * did not merely answer to me, whereas I also had the courtesy, and took the time, to write to him 3 times on the subject on his talk page, and again today at 8:15.

--Emigré55 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not post anything like Template:OTRS pending at Talk:Pieter Pourbus, so I was unaware of you had done so. I waited six days, and there was no notice. If the director of Museum Gouda has granted the license by sending an email directly to Wikipedia, he did not mention that he had done this in his response to me. It is my understanding, that, if that is the case, someone from OTRS will post notice of it, most likely at Talk:Pieter Pourbus. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg OTRS Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC-BY-SA. MER-C 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @MER-C: The work in question is a meeting compendium. Text was copied from articles contributed by two different authors, who likely were not paid for their work. Is there any need to be concerned about author's rights? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it cited in the references? That plus the OTRS template is enough. MER-C 18:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the authors' names are mentioned at various points, although I suppose the citations could be improved. Now that OTRS has approved this user's additions, maybe he will be willing to go ahead and improve the article. Thanks for the help! Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Robert.Allen: Please remember WP:5P4 :
 * ''"Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility":
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,071,352 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.''


 * In particular, please remember AND apply : WP:POINT, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BITE


 * Regards, --Emigré55 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)