Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks

This is a guide for clerks working through Copyright problems. The main WP:CP page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main WP:CP page.

Admins, see Copyright problems/Advice for admins

Investigation process
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before removing any copyvio-related tags and/or text. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the talk page; remember to check for these.

Identifying the source
Sometimes articles are tagged with copyvio without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for Close paraphrasing or Copy-paste do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a simple Google search or a run-through with Earwig's Copyvio Detector can help. Check the article's history as well, the text may have been removed by another editor. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
 * Copypaste and Close paraphrasing (to a lesser degree) are frequently used when people have a sense that something is off, but no evidence. If no source is given or found, remove the tag from the article and mark the listing with.
 * Copyvio tags are not generally used for "fishing." If the tag seems to have been placed in good faith, ask for the source. If the tagger is not available for comment and you cannot find the source, the tag may be removed and the content may be restored, though it is a good idea to place cv-unsure on the talk page. This will invite further scrutiny.

If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.

Evaluating the issue
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.


 * Is the article the same as or similar to the suspected source?
 * Compare the article with the text of the suspected source. If the suspected source is not online (Google books and Amazon book previews can sometimes assist), you may need to seek help in comparing at the talk page of a related WikiProject or at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
 * Superficial alterations to copyrighted text are insufficient to avoid copyright infringement. Close paraphrasing may also be infringement.
 * An unauthorized translation from a foreign language can also be a copyright violation, if the original is copyrighted.
 * Extensive quotations may also be a copyright infringement, even when clearly marked. Fair use considers how substantial is the quantity of text used compared to the whole of the source and the new work. (See WP:NFC)
 * The Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a good tool for comparison. Be sure to check for close-paraphrasing in the text surrounding the highlighted matches. When using this tool, it is best to check first with "Use search engine" unticked, and to check the latest unblanked revision if the page has been blanked by Copyvio.


 * Did the suspected source publish the content before Wikipedia?
 * There are many Wikipedia mirrors and forks, and Wikipedia articles may also be copied to personal or commercial websites (in accordance with GFDL and CC-By-SA requirements). If substantial similarity exists,
 * Which came first? If it is unclear, compare the date of the webpage with the Wikipedia article's history.
 * The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine can help determine the age of a particular page or text.
 * If you cannot verify age, examine the introduction of text. Large chunks of unwikified text added in one revision are usually copied from another website, a book, or other material. If the text seems to have evolved naturally at Wikipedia, particularly if it was gradually edited to become more like the suspected source, then it probably is not a copyright violation. The WikiBlame tool and Who Wrote That extension can help determine when the text was introduced.
 * Consider the history of the contributor who added the text. Do they have a history of copyright violations? Are there changes in tone from article to article more dramatic than might be expected in a simple change of subject, such that the user may be using somebody else's words?
 * Consider the history of the source. Official or reputable sources are less likely to have mirrored Wikipedia's content without attribution, although it sometimes does happen.
 * If you confirm that a source is not a known mirror and is duplicating a Wikipedia article without obvious credit, consider tagging the article's talk page with Backwardscopy. Mark the listing with .


 * Is copyright on the suspected source reserved?
 * Check the copyright status of the suspected source to see if the content is public domain or already licensed under a compatible license. (See license compatibility table)
 * Public domain offers some guidance on what is and is not copyrighted. Wikisource:Help:Public domain can also offer guidance.
 * Statements like 'all rights reserved', 'Copyright 2000-2008', 'non-commercial use only', 'educational use only' or 'permission granted to Wikipedia' are not compliant with our licensing requirements.
 * If the copyright status is unclear from the URL itself, check the 'About this site' or 'Terms of use' sections of the site, if available.
 * Books and journals published in other countries, as well as older sources, may be more difficult to judge copyright status. c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory and c:Commons:Hirtle chart can provide guidance on different copyright terms and how they interact with US copyright.
 * Copyright is presumed unless it can be verified otherwise.

Checking for permission
When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, they should be given notice of how to proceed under Donating copyrighted materials or Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. This is less common than other types of listing and infringement. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification. It may be appropriate, but generally discouraged, to revert to the last clean version in history while awaiting verification if the text was introduced recently.

To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not notified of the process for verification at least five days ago, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.

Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, they may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, they do not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.

No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, mark the listing with the appropriate notation template. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with Cup.

VRT
Permission that is stored in Foundation's Volunteer Response Team software is logged at the article's talk page by an VRT agent, usually with Ticket confirmation. The VRT agent who responds should remove any copyright warnings from the article's face and add any required attribution. Permission pending and Permission received are not verifications of permission. However, if the article's talk has been tagged Permission received, you may wish to check with the VRT agent who tagged it for an update before deleting the article as unverified (see below). If the article has been tagged Permission pending for five days, it may be considered unverified. VRT agents can restore deleted articles if the VRT permission clears past deadline.

External websites
If no VRT verification has been provided, check to see if a link has been provided to a licensing statement somewhere on the article's source. (You will have presumably already checked the obvious locations during the investigation process.) If it has, check the provided link to see if it holds a usable licensing statement which specifies that the material is licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA. If you verify that a usable licensing statement exists, attribute it within the article with CC-notice.

Handling copyright violations
If a copyright violation is confirmed and there is either no credible assertion of permission or evidence of compatible licensing or public domain status, the text will need to be removed.
 * If new, clean text has been proposed: Always investigate first to see if new content has been proposed at the temporary subpage /Temp linked on the copyvio notice or at the article's talk page. If so,
 * Check to be sure that contributors to the new version have not violated the attribution rights of earlier creators, but have properly attributed,
 * Make sure that all infringement has been removed and new issues have not been introduced,
 * If the new content is clear of licensing violations or copyright concerns, it may be used by an administrator to replace the original article (when the original article does not have salvageable content or history) or history merged into it (if the original does have usable content). On the article entry at CP, mark the content as ready for merging.
 * If you find a copyright infringement, always be sure to check an article's images as well. If the text was a violation, it is likely that the images lack permission as well.


 * If the article is a copyright violation without salvageable content or history: Tag it for speedy deletion if it meets the current criteria of WP:CSD. If you are uncertain or if the article is ineligible for speedy deletion, make a note at the article's CP entry and an administrator will decide.
 * If there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page: Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary, and request cv-revdel as needed. Leave a note at the article's talk page explaining the removal (the templates cclean or CCI may be used).

Closing your review

 * If there was no copyright violation, than remove the copyvio notice or other copyright template from the article or revert to the last version prior to insertion of the template. A short explanation on the article talk page will help prevent future reports for the same copyright problems.
 * If the page was not tagged for deletion, than leave a brief explanation of your actions threaded below the article's WP:CP listing. The template CPC may be used for this purpose.
 * If you have confirmed copyright violation, consider checking the contributor's talk page and history for further copyright problems. See Copyright violations and Contributor copyright investigations.

Older daily log pages can be found at ''' Copyright problems/year month day. '''

Notation templates
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.