Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations)

Proposal V (Copyright violations)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Candidates for speedy deletion:


 * Any article that consists only of content in blatant, easily verifiable violation of copyright or which is not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL, unless said article was submitted by a user or IP with legitimate contributions or has since been subsequently edited by another user.
 * The creator must subsequently be informed on their talk page that such deletion has happened, with an external reference to the existing material, and instructions on how to prevent any recreation of the article from being deleted again with a wikilink to Copyrights.

Agree

 * 1) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) NeutralitytalkING 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Xtra 00:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Resolving this sort of copyvios by other means is a waste of time. Wikimol 00:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Would make checking New Pages vastly easier. SimonP, 00:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Rje 02:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) I hate copyright violations on Wikipedia, so I think this is one of the best proposals for expanding the speedy deletion policy. Scott Gall 03:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Sc147 03:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Antandrus 03:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Ливай | ☺ 03:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) DJ Clayworth 05:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Korath (Talk) 05:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 08:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Jeff Knaggs
 * 21) Skysmith 09:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) RadicalSubversiv E 09:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Tuf-Kat 14:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) hfool/Wazzup? 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Good if the bit about messages being left on talk pages is actually DONE. 'Sides, if it exists elsewhere for the mistake to be made, it can be remade if the contribution is shown to be legit.
 * 27) Anthony Liekens 00:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) &#8472;yrop (talk) 03:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Yes, please. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) R yan!  |  Talk  10:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Gentgeen 11:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Xezbeth  11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Alphax (talk) 12:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Tompagenet 13:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) We don't need a week to determine if something is a copyvio. Those people who think the current process "works fine" should take a look at the two month backlog. Gamaliel 13:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Proteus (Talk) 17:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Dbiv 15:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) I think that the word "blatant" should go, but in any case, I agree. arj 16:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) People who don't know about Copyrights won't do it. Lee S. Svoboda 21:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Deathphoenix 23:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Mrwojo 22:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Copyvios are doubleplus ungood and damage the integrity of the system. Cmprince 23:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Mikkalai 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Very resonable ✏ Sverdrup 18:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Eminently sensible idea. Trilobite (Talk) 13:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Martg76 16:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) CryptoDerk 22:15, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49)   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 18:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC). Agree, as long as sysops take the time to make sure what they are looking at really is a copyright violation. I've often been about to place articles on WP:CP before noticing a tiny GDFL tag at the bottom of the parent article.
 * 50) Key45 23:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) . Delete log should also contain link to original source.
 * 51) Edeans 07:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) Most users are very bad at determining copyright status.  These need to be reviewed or VFD'd. -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 2) Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree. -Ld | talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Needs checking each time - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 6) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Carnildo 02:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Without a definition of what "easily verifiable" actually is, this will likely end with admins deleting things that they think "look like" copyvios. Going on VfD at least encourages the research the originating deleter does not always make.Dr Zen 05:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Ben Brockert 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) "Appears elsewhere" is not in itself proof of copyright infringement. iMeowbot~Mw 07:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Rafał Pocztarski 10:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) It is not that time-consuming to list it at WP:CP, and it should catch any mistakes+ensure the author gets a chance to comment/understand on what is happening. Thue | talk 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) We already have a copyright problems process. However copyvio'd articles on a topic which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia anyway would be another matter. David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) I've seen cases of reverse infringement. Dori | Talk 14:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) How do we know that the poster of the alleged copyvio isn't also the copyright holder of the item that appears elsewhere?  Innocent until proven guilty, and all that stuff.  WP:CP gives posters a chance to defend themselves.  P Ingerson 14:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) The existing copyvio process, I think, covers this problem without needing SD coverage. And the current procedure allows the opportunity for the copyvio to be recast as a nonviolative source page.  CSD procedures should be separate and independent of the copyvio procedure as they cover disparate sets of problems.  Kelly Martin 17:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) wheresmysocks 17:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) I disagree with the proposal for reasons cited by users User:P Ingerson and User: Kelly Martin. Phils 18:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) This is a non-issue; we already have a process foe dealing with copyright violations. Dan100 19:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Peacenik 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) RickK 21:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). The current Copyright problems page works fine.  But I disagree with any copyright problems being sent to VfD -- the copyright problems page is the appropriate place for these.
 * 26) --Mononoke 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) BSveen 00:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Frazzydee|✍ 04:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): No way. Too easy to make mistakes.
 * 29) The current process appears to be working well. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 06:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Copyvios are not urgent, no need for CSD. jni 10:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) No need to hurry. -- Naive cynic 13:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) What if it's posted by the original author? Any chance for appeal? Mailer Diablo 16:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) I don't see the problem with the existing WP:CP process. David Iberri | Talk 19:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Copyvios should be dealt with at Copyright problems because sometimes it is not always clear whom the copyright holder is and whether that is actually the prson posting the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) The amount of work required to verify copyvio (and more importantly, license violation) cannot / should not be done in speedy. Google phrase search alone is not proof of copyvio. Review is required.
 * 37) Shane King 01:31, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) The current process for this works pretty well.
 * 38) I agree with Netoholic.  ✏ Oven Fresh  ☺  18:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) This shares, with the above, the massive flaw that these should be Candidates for Speedy Repair, not for speedy deletion. The article may, arguably, have copyright violations, but this obviously does not in any way even imply that the topic of the article, itself, is not worthy.Kaz 18:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Hapsiainen 21:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) WP:CP can be inproved with more active and informed participation. Infrogmation 21:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Some new users don't bother reading their talk page, and others might not leave messages in the first place. With no message on the page of the deleted article, they could become confused. Likewise, giving them a week to respond that they do own or have permission to use the work is ideal. - Vague | Rant 03:13, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Sounds like you need lots of lawyers for this to work properly. --JuntungWu 03:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Too vague. Wyss 04:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) The issues will be to complicated for effective use of the speedy delete.  →Iñgōlemo←   (talk)  06:20, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 47) Current process works fine. SWAdair | Talk  07:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Warofdreams 12:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC). VfD.
 * 49) Too subjective. [maestro] 12:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) We already have a good Copyright Problems page!--Plato 22:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) SocratesJedi 07:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Such articles should be rewritten, not deleted. Josh 11:22, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) The current copyvio process works fine. GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Rewrite the article, putting a message on the original users' talk page and on the article page saying the original might violate copyright. In some cases copyright may have been given, or may be obtained. Only if the copyright owner wants it speedily deleted should it be. -Thryduulf 10:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Belgian man 12:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) (doubtful)
 * 58) Norg 15:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) Superm401 17:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) Just because it's not "immediately verifiable" doesn't mean it isn't GFDL compatible.
 * 60) max rspct 13:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) bernlin2000 ∞ 15:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : This is for VfD. I highly doubt there are any articles that can be "immediately verifiable" anyway.
 * 62) D AVODD   21:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) There are past cases that copied text appeared to be copvio - but it turned out the original author intended to release it under GFDL on WP and copied it here themself. D AVODD   21:17, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose, but copyvio procedure should be sped up. WP:CP should be faster than VFD, not slower. - RedWordSmith 21:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) Copyvios are not CSDs. CP is its own separate procedure. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:16, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 65) Szyslak 02:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) WP:CP works fine for copyvios. But I would suggest allowing speedy deletions of pages that are inherently obvious copyvios (music lyrics, for example). See the talk page for more on this idea.
 * 66) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) WP:CP works fine.
 * 67) The current copyvio protocol, though it takes a bit longer to run its course than I'd like, covers this fine. Often a copyvio can be rectified by simply rewriting the piece. 23skidoo 06:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 68) Indrian 07:14, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) Markaci 09:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) You can't determine copyright status just by doing a Google search. For instance, material that is in the public domain might also show up in later copyrighted works. A search that found the later work would suggest that there was an infringement, but there really wouldn't be. While avoiding copyright infringement is vital, we should be careful to distinguish copying from infringement. This requires a review process, not a speedy delete. --FOo 16:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) It is impossible to determine if something is 'copyright infringement' until the copyright owner tells you it is- for example, the owner might encourage distribution of certain stuff (e.g. of artwork or whatever) for promotional purposes. Without a takedown request from the owner, it is impossible to tell. Anything that 'probably is' (but we haven't got a takedown request for) should be put to a vote rather than the sysops becoming the RIAA police --Cynical 20:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) As above, Ashibaka tlk 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Best to have checking process in place.Capitalistroadster 00:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 74) JoaoRicardo 04:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) Can't always trust a single individual. Oldak Quill 19:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 76) Starblind 20:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) FAR too easily misunderstood.  Wikipedia articles by their nature are meant to be reused, therefore it's easy for users to assume that just because some text matches, it's copyvio.  We need to vote to sort it all out.
 * 77) kaal 01:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 78) bbx 02:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Philip 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) 24.69.255.205 06:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Easily verifiable is not well defined. PS shoot, forgot to sign in before signing the above vote, please attribute to me --> [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 06:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) BesigedB (talk) 16:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sometimes apparent copyvios are in fact copied from wikipedia, infringing on the GFDL. Needs reviewed.
 * 82) I prefer to have these looked over, as per above comment Pedant 02:47, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * 83) Eric119 Needs more care than speedy. The "copyvio" could actually have been submitted by the original author, for example. Eric119 05:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 84) Enochlau 23:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  03:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Copyvios should be reviewd, not deleted.
 * 86) While very tempted to agree with the proposal, there are probably enough cv borderline cases where CSD would not be appropriate. RedWolf 20:49, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 87) "not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL" I.E. almost any newbie contribution would be deleted. They would then remain a newbie.  Silly. Rich Farmbrough 23:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 88) the language herein provides too wide a brush with which to paint. AVriette 0:11 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)