Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 December 22

22 December 2022

 * Devendra Fadnavis. Earwig's tool flags considerable portions of content, but I haven't the time at present to determine which portions might be copied from Wikipedia, and I don't want an article this high-profile to go without attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleaned what the earwig tool gave me, I can't guarantee 100% cleanliness on this one though the article's a mess. Wizardman  01:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022. The copyright statement says "All official texts, data and documents are in the public domain and may be freely downloaded, copied and printed provided no change to the content is introduced, and the source is acknowledged." That's not a compatible license in my opinion, since derivative works are not allowed. The editor later said that he actually copied it from this document, but it's not as good a match for that document, and regardless, the UN website says that all their material is protected by copyright. Since my removal has repeatedly been reverted, including by admin user:OhanaUnited (who also undid my revision deletion), I am walking away from this case at this time and listing here to get other people's input instead. — Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The way I interpret the text being in "public domain" is consistent with the interpretation of our public domain policy page. On the public domain policy page, it stated that UN parliamentary documentation as well as public information material published under the UN document symbol and not offered for sale. Such documents are in the public domain. UN parliamentary documentation comprises a broad set of official reports prepared by the UN secretariat and the UN official records. The website is from UN Secretariat. It is an official press release. Therefore, I believe it is a parliamentary documentation which are not offered for sale. As such, it has met both criteria spelled out in the policy page to consider it as in public domain even with the additional caveat of "no change to the content" is introduced. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can ignore the fact that they don't allow derivative works. — Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have never seen "public domain-no derivative" license before. But at the same time, we can't ignore our own policy page's guidance. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that any mention of a "no change to the content" would meant that the public domain declaration itself is contradictory. If there is a copyright statement directly on a paper, website, or document, that claim takes precedence over our other general rules. There's also personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works therefrom from the terms of use, which may or may not cover this document. I'm inclined to think that this is incompatible. Further point, we can ignore our own policy page; WP:IAR. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 23:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Public domain is not a policy page; it's a content guideline. Guidelines don't take precedence over policies. The copyright policy is a policy with legal considerations. It is typically not ignored. — Diannaa (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement.  Wizardman  01:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)