Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 13

copyright violation as a file that is text rendered as an image
File:Chinese fonts juhuasample.PNG and File:Chinese fonts juhuasample type.PNG are both PNG files that are nothing but text rendered as images. Does this fall under here or PUI? They are a lyric from a copyrighted song. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend taking it to PUI, since they are files. Although you might want to start by asking the uploader to generate a new image from free text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note about The Roth Law Firm
Since this one puzzles you:) I mostly listed it about the assertion of ownership and all rights reserved declaration, to avoid future problems, since the page was written by the firm themselves and might have caused WP:OWN issues later down the line. Hope that clarifies. MLauba (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ML. That does clear it up. I stared at that one for a while, thinking I might be missing something. (Not unusual for me.) But you were right to tag it for the contributor's incorrectly stating their own copyright. Ah well, they are litigators -- not copyright lawyers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  09:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

question about small licensing problem
The article GAMESCom has been redirected to Gamescom. It should have been moved but the well-meaning editor first created GAMESCom as a copy/paste then created the redirect. Boy, my explanations really suck... But a quick look at the history of the two articles will clear things up. Should we do a history merge? Write a note on the talk page? Pichpich (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there were no parallel versions, it was a simple history merge. Nice catch. – Toon 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper images
I saw that a user has posted images of newspapers on the articles, including The Hindu. The source of the image is Garcia media who have a copyright sign all over their website. Does this qualify in the fair use criteria for scanned images of newspapers/book covers, since someone else appears to have copyrighted the scanned image? - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It still qualifies under the fair use criteria, however the description on the image page should really also provide attribution to the actual publisher which is The Hindu. (This follows 10a of the fair use policy criteria.) The image of front page of the newspaper would still be owned by the newspaper, and under their copyright, regardless of Garcia.com placing the image on their website. This is the same policy for taking images of book and album covers from sites like Amazon.com. I think it is preferable to obtain "fair use" images like newspaper covers directly from the source -- for example, in the case of The Hindu, their own scan from their website would be best. The most important thing is to always attribute the actual copyright holder. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  09:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of copyright articles through Wiki
I do not know, is this a copyright problem? A user gives copyright academic papers to other users, they discuss openly about it, that can be a problem i think.

User:Ward20 asks for copy of a copyright paper discussed at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Later Ward20 thanks User:TauCeti2009, asks TauCeti2009 to send more papers, asks for one by name.

My opinion, academic papers should be free to every person but they are not and it needs be legal what we do on Wiki. RetroS1mone  talk  09:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The distribution of copies to an individual to check the claims in the article might be considered fair use under US law. Note: "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright..."
 * 2) Whatever amount of copying those editors do on their own time is probably not our business, so long as the material in question isn't posted on Wikipedia. The copyright holder can pursue action against those individual editors if they think it's not appropriate. We don't need to take a stand one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK it is good to know that. I was not sure about it, thank you very much that you research it and explain! RetroS1mone   talk  02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many editors are not in the US, and may be covered by parallel Fair dealing laws. Note also that we are talking about academic scientific research here. Journals have always given authors offprints of papers to share with other researchers. These days, they give pdfs, which makes sharing research even easier. Sam Weller (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sangorski & Sutcliffe
I have added Sangorski & Sutcliffe at Copyright problems/2009 August 17, based on its similarity to http://bookbinding.co.uk/History.htm

Could someone please also look at Talk:Sangorski & Sutcliffe and User talk:Iph and let me know if I am on the right track (or alternatively going off at the deep end a bit). -- Testing times (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your listing for this article was correct. Although the text had been slightly reworded, it still constitutes significant plagiarism of the source and is a copyright violation. It will be checked again in one week to see if the issues have been resolved. Thank you for listing it and keeping an eye out for CV problems like that. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There is some further discussion about this at User talk:Iph/Copyright, and a new (and hopefully less problematic) version at Talk:Sangorski & Sutcliffe/Temp. -- Testing times (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Frederick William Stevens & ? copyleft
I'm not sure what to do about Frederick William Stevens. It seems to be a direct copy (with 1 line added since its creation) of Mumbai/Bombay page about same person. That site includes a copyleft notice but I'm not sure if credit should be given on the WP page (or how). I can't work out which version was written first & would be grateful for expert help.&mdash; Rod talk 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive shows that the same page has been around since at least 1996, and the disclaimer page switched from "don't copy this!" to GFDL sometime between 8 March 2005 and 18 October 2005. A note on the talk page or a dummy edit is often used for attribution. I'm not sure how/whether the new dual-licensing might affect this. ( Disclaimer:I'm not an expert! --  &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  15:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
User:NBeauman has uploaded a number of articles on late-19th/early 20th century authors; the first one I came across was Rachel Ferguson which is a copy of this article at the ODNB. All of the other biographical articles created are copies/very close paraphrasing of ODNB articles. The editor has also created Persephone Books, on a UK publisher. Persephone publishes works by all of these authors, the founder is a Nicola Beauman. Obviously, I will contact the editor about this, but I'm assuming the ODNB is not a case like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, where we use material which has fallen into the public domain? The individual entries at the ODNB have copyright notices, and most of these authors are recent enough that any biography would still be under copyright. What would be the next step in this case - delete all the articles outright? I've dealt with copyrighted material before, but nothing quite like this, so I wanted to run it past others first. Thanks -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, meant to add - I'll leave a message for the user now re copyrights, and direct them toward this page. -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted Ruth Adam and now I'm logged on to the ODNB will look at other articles today. As there was no note yet, I pointed the editor here. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The ODNB legal notice is very explicit and clear . I've tagged Rachel Ferguson since I do not have a subscription to ODNB. However, if they are blatant copy pastes, they can be tagged for G12 speedy deletion. Otherwise, if it is close paraphrasing, they can be tagged as suspected copyright violations and listed at WP:CV. — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the more fundamental question, the ODNB is not like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The biographies published in the original Dictionary of National Biography would technically have passed in the public domain (all authors died before 1929). The ODNB stated that whatever they took over they rewrote at least partially, so there would technically be no doubt that any material in the ODNB cannot be copy / pasted. MLauba (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that Kateshortforbob left a note on the editor's talk page as I was writing mine. Ruth Adam was very close paraphrasing, I thought it was obvious copyvio which is why I deleted it. Nice that my library subscribes to the ODNB! Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the replies (sorry, I wasn't able to check back over the weekend). I'll start going through the other contributions and see if I can match them up with ODNB entries for possible speedy deletion. -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  10:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful. While the ODNB is clearly NOT in thepublic domain and must NOT be copied, the prior DNB, which was published 1885-1900, and some later suppliments, ARE in the public domain, and there is a project to use this material in Wikipedia. See WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB. Articles that use this material should have the template in the "References" section. Some ODNB articles still bear similarities to their DNB predecessors, and those similarities do not prevent us from using the DNB material: we have exactly the same rights to use the DNB material as the ODNB has. This is not the case for Ruth Adam, whose ODNB article has no DNB predecessor. -Arch dude (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did wonder about that; in the biographies I've looked at so far, although the individuals were born pre-1900, the accomplishments being written about have been more recent (WW1, WW2, post-war). I'm pretty sure the ones I have re-written didn't contain material in the public domain. -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your diligence. I think you are right to be suspicious of any article that appears to copy the ODNB but that does not cite the DNB, and of course articles about anyone that was not notable before 1923. If in doubt, jump on over to DNB and check. Even articles with DNB equivalents and that cite the DNB should be checked, especially if they also have an ODNB citation, but in such a case the checking gets tedious, since the wording may be from DNB. -Arch dude (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Gmsh
G12 was declined on the grounds that the software is licensed under GPL. Wider input requested, thanks. MLauba (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is this. The GPL license is for free use and distribution of the software -- that is, the program itself. It does not grant free use of the text or documentation from the website as specified. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the response at the GPL website.


 * Can I use the GPL for something other than software?


 * You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it. However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather than the GPL.


 * So the language of GPL is not quite written for the distribution of text, but it can be used that way. However, WP requires the GFDL licensing. — Cactus Writer |   needles  12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean CC-BY-SA :) MLauba (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Sorry, yes (I'm drowning in acronyms). — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean IDIA :-p (OK, I'll stop here) MLauba (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:No. 1 School of Technical Training
Ok, the article No. 1 School of Technical Training appears to have a common evolution with this page. That page appears to be a wiki, but the intellectual property policy on the page is completely non-compatable with those used here. Either we can't use their material or they can't use our material without violating the copy rights of the other page. My impression is that the article originate here, but I want to get another set of eyes on this article to see if you agree with me. The very first entry on WP looks like it was the basis for both a subsequent version here and the version on the other wiki.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)NOTE: Discussion going on on that talk page, please respond there if you have any comments.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States
We have this relatively new article which is closely allied to current politics and may therefore be at great risk of being affected by attempts to present NPOV positions. I have made a suggestion which is aimed at avoiding POV issues but now I am worried that it may breach copyright law. For example the New York Times reports the results of its own poll. The poll data is not published separately but is buried in a new article. The news article does not claim copyright, but presumably it is copyrighted nevertheless. If we quote all the questions and responses that are quoted in the article, are we breaking copyright law? If the answer is yes, would ot be OK to just quote the qeustions asked and add a link to the original article where the answer can be found? The problem about being selective about the questions (which is the normal way in which I believe that quoting from such polls is allowed) then that does not help in the WP.POV issue. Some help would be nice, and it would be most helpful if that answer can be placed on the talk page above.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Posted my .2$ there. MLauba (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

People Help Foundation
Need some help with People Help Foundation. I've run the random sections of the content through Google, and it's definitely being copied from a site called "Worldwide N.G.O.- Aman Social Development Organisation® (ASDO)". However, Google warns that the link to that site is unsafe, so I'm concerned about investigating it further or posting the link without a warning. Any advice? Singularity42 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where the copyvio template asks for URL, munge the address with a caution, something like "url = sample address DOT com; caution, this site may be unsafe for direct viewing." That should work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free state government license/source tags
It would be great to get some input at the following TFD: Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 2. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Qdoba using Wikipedia content without any mention of WP or GFDL
this is copied from the Scoville scale article, yet at the bottom there is COPYRIGHT 2009 QDOBA RESTAURANT INC. Guy0307 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to mirrors and forks. Guy0307 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice
I've added an edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. If consensus is agin' it, I'll G8, but it seemed like a good idea. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fo' it. Seems like a fine eye-dear. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation
The second section in Vlaamperd is quoted from http://www.thsinfo.co.za/Articles/SAhorsebreeds.htm as the editor wrote. The site is still available through archive.org:, so you can see that it is an exact copy of non-free content. I think this is not allowed or is it? Thanks. --Klara (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a copyright violation. In fact, taking a look at the article history, the original stub was plagiarized from this site. I've templated it as a copyright violation and it will need to be rewritten. Thanks for finding and reporting it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal videos of Disney theme park shows
Can we link to an external site that hosts personal video of shows and attractions at Disney theme parks? In some cases, this is needed for a reference to historical shows, in other cases it may just be an external link. I would imagine that personal videos of the Mark Twain Steam boat would be acceptable. And I know that if they had a commercially released movie being shown it would not be OK to film it. What about the grey area in-between, like a theatrical presentation of a robotic Abraham Lincoln reading quotes from his historical speeches that are in the public domain? Where exactly does the line get drawn as to when it is permissible to film and post something? Does it make a difference if only the sound is available and not the video? What if the link is only to a transcript? I'll add that while the videos were personally captured, they have been uploaded to either YouTube or other Disney-specific archive sites. I realize such links aren't the best references, but it's not like we're going to find the quotes used in a show 30 years ago in the New York Times or anything. So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's leave out the source issues and just focus on whether these links violate any copyright, meaning that we shouldn't have any link to them. Citing a full video would be a more reliable source than a transcript that someone has created from it, but that's not really at the heart of the copyright question either. The specific article I'm working on right now is Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, however some of the links require registration (which is properly noted). Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody may wander by to answer this one, but I wanted to say that if not, I think I'd personally haul it up for discussion at Media copyright questions, since that page gets more review by those on top of media-related copyright matters. We tend to handle more text-based copyright concerns here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not 100% certain of the answer to your question but I'll give you my opinion. The WP copyright guidelines for linking to personal videos is taken on a case-by-case -- meaning that it is okay as long as the personal video isn't infringing someone's copyright. However, in the case of the "Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln", I believe it is a commercial performance -- and the owners of commercial performances retain exclusive rights to the performance and any derivative use of it. Although there are some exceptions for derivative use (usually for educational purposes), publicly posted videos of the Lincoln performance probably don't meet any of the exceptions. Also, although the words of the speech are in the public domain, the performance or reading of them by a particular actor would be copyrighted. In other words, displaying a video recording or even a voice recording of the performance is probably copyright infringement and should not be linked in WP. As Moonriddengirl says, you may wish to ask this question at the media page where they handle more of this. There may be some fair use criteria which allows a brief clip of the performance. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I'll read up a bit more on copyright law and then post at Media copyright questions. I was rather confused as to where to post based on the intro of this main page. I see now the referecne to "copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia", however there are also three references to images and none of them mention going to Media copyright questions. How about a simple table of where to post for issues of text on Wikipedia, externally linked text, media (images, video, or sound recordings) on Wikipedia, and externally liked media? Also, the names and placement of this page and the "image and media copyright" in the noticeboard template just adds to the confusion. "image and media copyright" isn't even the name of WP:MCQ. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I see that when you edit this talk page, it has a good description of where to post in a Notice block. However, once I hit Edit it's too late, I've made my decision to post here. Plus, I can't even see the notice unless I scroll up to it from the edit window. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Is quoting an abstract a copyvio?
Emotional Freedom Technique includes a "Studies" section in which the abstracts to three studies are apparently quoted in full. Is that a copyvio issue? (I can see that it is bad practice, but I'm wondering about the copyright.) Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody may show up with a definitive answer to this one, but I am aware of nothing that exempts abstracts from copyright protection. Certainly, our article says they're copyrighted (unsourced, alas). In the United Kingdom, according to Blackstone's guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (here), section 60 of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 permits reuse of abstracts for scientific journals and technical article journals by abstract publishing services unless licensing forbids it, but does not provide similar reuse clearance for humanities abstracts. UK copyright law, of course, is not what Wikipedia is governed by, but it demonstrates that freedom from copyright concerns cannot be presumed for abstracts. Generally, I try to answer these questions with a quick, judicious search of reliable sources, but there's nothing quick when you need to include the word abstract in a search...sadly, its use in other contexts is far too common. :/ I'll try to flip through some of my actual books later to see if I find anything definitive, but unless somebody can verify that abstracts are exempted under US law, I believe we have to presume that they are protected and that copying them is subject to the restrictions of WP:NFCC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Another editor has removed the abstracts, so the issue is somewhat "abstract" atm. I suppose one would also have to consult the particular journal where the abstract originated and see if any special claim was made ... complex. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues with template blanking
I recently noticed a thread referencing a page with multiple copyvios which had had the copyviocore template used to blank certain sections (but this thread also applies to entire article blanking). Sometimes those tags can stay on long enough for mirrors and forks to take the pages for themselves, and they may interpret the same template in a different way, thus showing the text which is supposed to be hidden. Another concern is that even when copyviocore is present on the page, the 'blanked' copyvio text is still downloaded to any unsuspecting computer that views the page -- it is still in the raw source. This sort of distribution is concerning, and when mixed with the potential issues presented with mirror interpretation, it seems critical that copyright violations on pages need to be dealt with differently, that is, the text needs to be removed entirely from the page (perhaps not the history). Just as long as it is not being mirrored, and the live version does not contain copyright violations, that seems to be a good start to getting better. Any thoughts on this?

Please see this for the implementation of the current system, and User_talk:Moonriddengirl this for the preceding thread to this one. — neuro  20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that neuro has explained to me a bit better (I am very technically challenged), I can understand the problem (instead of previously just being vaguely aware that there might be one). It seems blanking is essential. Is there any way to get that material to disappear short of requesting that taggers blank it manually? As reviewers may know from reading the thread that launched the change, the problem then was that people weren't blanking at all; we were seeing a lot of listings at WP:CP that had the copyvio tag tacked on top of the still-viewable material. In those cases, mirrors were definitely still publishing the copyrighted text, and CP listings are not typically even touched by an admin until 7+1 days after listing. If there is not a way to automatically remove the text, maybe what we should do is request that taggers blank it but leave the auto-blank function as at least some safeguard over the old-fashioned copyright warning right on top of the plainly published material? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is a technical impossibility for it to be removed from the source any other way than manually blanking the copyvio, at least at the current time. We would have to implement some extension or have something in MediaWiki made to exclude material in the source seen on the edit tab from the raw source downloaded to people's computers when they view the article. I cannot, however, imagine this being implemented. Straight blanking seems like a must. — neuro  14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like asking people to blank but leaving the automatic hiding may be the best current option, since we know from experience that people frequently won't blank. Perhaps, in those cases where people do not, we could create a bot to come in and remove text between the copyvio and  (or simply after the template, if there is no   ) in case they do not? Can a bot do something like that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is technically possible. — neuro  17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles about products that infringe copyright
I ran into an interesting situation where a company is promoting software that violates copyright laws. The articles use phrases such as "AnyDVD is also able to remove copy-prevention from audio CDs" (AnyDVD) and "to remove/disable DRM restrictions and user prohibited operations on DVD films". (Slysoft)

I attempted to remove the material in various ways. (It didn't seem possible to "fix" the articles, since the main point seemed to be that the software defeats copyright protection.)

My edits have been reverted, and various rebuttals sent to my talk page. None of the editors involved seem to have much experience with Wikipedia, one account is an anon IP, another WP:SPA.

I'm unclear on how to proceed, and could use some sage advice. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is strictly a copyright problem. Though the product itself may be used to violate copyright, if the article does not and the source page does not, we really shouldn't have any problem with neutrally reporting on its existence, as it is not forbidden under WP:C. It seems similar to me to reporting on any criminal or criminal organization; as long as we do not seem to imply that we condone and encourage criminal behavior, we should be clear. That said, both of the articles could stand additional sources to secure notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AnyDVD is not illegal. — neuro  13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use, as described in the article *is* illegal. It would be like the pistol article reading, "The gun is most effective murdering someone within 30 feet, gun held with both hands, and aimed for their head." Piano non troppo (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Management Institute
See Talk:Project Management Institute which is a follow on for Wikipedia talk:plagiarism and Talk:Gregory Balestrero.

I have explained to Marcel Douwe Dekker as clearly as I can that copying text from a copyright source into Wikipedia without putting it in quotes is unacceptable, but he does not seem to understand what I have written. AFAICT he seems to think it is a plagiarism problem and providing he footnotes the copyright violation at the end of the sentence that is sufficient. Could someone else please have a look at the talk page conversation and explain to him that in Wikipedia he must quote other parties copyrighted material.

My worry is that as he is an old editor (editing since October 2004) and has edited many articles, so he may have introduced a lot of copyright problems into Wikipedia :-( --PBS (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll come over and see what I can add. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary copyrights
I came across Smiling Irish Eyes tonight, and noticed that the plot summary section was identical to this All Movie Guide page which has a copyright notice. I know stuff like plot summaries gets copied all round the web, so I'm not sure if it a) came from us first, or b) came from another site with free/compatible licensing; I'm concerned because the editor has a number of other contributions in a similar vein which also look like they came from sites with copyright notices:


 * Hot for Paris =
 * Carmencita (film) =
 * A (1998 film) =
 * Wicked (2011 film) =
 * Follies (film) =
 * The Forward Pass =
 * The Rainbow Man =
 * Why Bring That Up? = &
 * Oh, For a Man! =

(The IMDB is a bit of a question mark. I know a lot of the site contains user-generated content - I'm unsure of the copyright status of this, whether the IMDB's copyright notice applies to the whole page, how you would tell which is copyright and which isn't, and whether they are syndicating/licensing content from elsewhere.)

These are the ones I have looked at so far, but I don't have any more time tonight, and I'm not sure how much time I'll have tomorrow, so I'd thought I'd flag this before I forget. I have left a note on the editor's talk about this issue, also pointing them here. -- &#9735;  Kateshortforbob talk &#9732;  22:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Photonic metamaterials
Interesting case. The article reuses verbatim copies / close paraphrase of all cited sources, it's basically a compilation of all these works. It's however so highly technical that starting to cut & slash around seems dodgy too. MLauba (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it's iffy, I'd probably blank it with a personal note of explanation to the contributor at his talk page and ask somebody at a related Wikipedia project to check it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James 2 setence quote copyright violation or not
"Later, passing through Jesse Jame's home town in Kansas, Wilde would learn that James himself had just been assassinated by a member of his own gang, an event that sent the town into mourning and scrambling to buy Jesse's artifacts. Well aware of the romantic appeal of the social outcast, the traveler wrote in a letter home that "Americans are certainly great hero-worshippers, and always take [their] heroes from the criminal classes." http://www.literarytraveler.com/authors/wilde_west.aspx

Oscar Wild, expressed that quote for Jesse James and Americans during his trip to West. Is there any plagiarism or copyright violation with that blockquote. [1 line from Oscar Wilde has no copyright issue anyway] As far as 3 different courses I took in 2 different college tells, 2-3 sentence from an article with proper reference is no copyright violation whatsoever by anymeans. I tried to paraphrase 2 sentences, but they are so "tight" they leave no space for paraphrasing, while my english grammar is not good, if I try to keep the literature beauty of sentences with quotes, then again they [may] claim it is plagiarism. Any comment or help is welcome. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here, so forgive me if I respond in a round-about way. :) First, there can be no claim of plagiarism if you are quoting (marked either by quotation marks and block quote) and citing your source. Second, in terms of copyright, whether or not a quote is too long depends on several factors, including (a) the length of the source, (b) the length of the material using it, (c) the importance of the quote to either. If your source is four sentences long, a three sentence quote will almost certainly be a copyright violation, unless it passes under other considerations of fair use. Wikipedia bypasses a lot of the intricacies of US copyright law (which is a good thing, since we would otherwise need a lot of intellectual property lawyers hanging about!) in its policies. WP:C indicates that you can only use copyrighted text if you do it in the way described at WP:NFC. WP:NFC says you can use brief quotations under certain circumstances. The text here is not extensive, but you need to ask yourself if it meets the reasons permitted If you just want to use the quote because you like the way they said it, this isn't likely to meet NFC. If it would be appropriate in the context in which you want to use it to attribute it inline to the author, then it may well be. For instance, if you were going to say:


 * If Jan Wellington or the website are not notable enough to mention in the text of the article, then quoting is probably not defensible. Certainly, as you note, the Wilde text is free for use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with aftermath of serial copyright violator
User:Nrswanson was a serial plagiarist before he was banned. There are a few threads at WT:WPO where his mess has had a mention and there have been some efforts to check for text stolen from Grove. However he appears to use multiple sources. Lake George Opera, for example, was taken from material on the company's own website.

According to, he's responsibel for over 450 new articles, not all of which are opera-related. Is there anyone who specialises in dealing with copyvios who would like to take a lead in dealing with this mess, bringing to WPO and other projects' attention any articles that fall under their purview?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've found WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys, but there's only evidence of User:Moonriddengirl working there.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Frequently, that's true, although there has great collaboration with some, particularly archived, investigations. Another big job. Joy. :) I'll take a look at it today and see what I can do. As you can see from the ones still open, it's rather overwhelming work for one individual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did say there was only evidence of you working there, as opposed to "Moonriddengirl, she's a mug. Let's leave it to her." So I've nto taken away the opportunity for anyoen else to volunteer. Judging from User:voceditenore's reply to me Wikipedia_talk:WPO, he's done a fair amount of preliminary work particulalru on the opera-related stuff and has also identified where Swanson has listed his, ahem, accomplishments.


 * Voceditenore was quick to rescue the article I flagged today. So, a slow dribble of opera-related stuff can be dealt with in the projection without deleting anything. However, Swanson's old page does list stuff that extends well beyond the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've set up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup with a complete list of articles that will definitely need checking. Any and all help/input there would be greatly appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict: Hi, Voceditenore!) LOL! I wasn't feeling put upon, just stating a current fact of this mission I've undertaken. It's not solitary, but it's not over-populated, either. :D I'm a volunteer, and kvetching aside am still here willingly. Somebody needs to help out when contributors find these issues, and it might as well be me.


 * What we did with the first major clean-up project (which may someday be finished, but only if other serial copyright infringements stop....) was blank them until they could be addressed with a specific note at their talk pages explaining why. You can see the clean-up page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. This was very well organized with extensive participation from members of WikiProject Gastropods. When we found spill-over, we addressed it anyway, except that we did pass off a group of articles to the project that "owned" them. Voceditenore has done some good work with copyright issues and surely is organizing things very well. I'll pop over to that conversation and see what I can contribute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not so easy to blank all his stuff. It's not quite as blatant as the above. And almost all of it has been subsequently edited, and in many cases, it's already been repaired, or wasn't there in the first place. Sigh! ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, looking over the project subpage, I've got a couple of questions. Has the list been filtered to remove stuff not related to the project, so that I should create a separate list of other contributions? Would it be helpful to run the contribution surveyor program we use that lists every article to which the contributor has contributed by order of size of contribution? I could look at his editing patterns myself, but I figure you might already have an idea. Do you think it will be sufficient to check created articles and articles that are likely to have a problem, or do we need to check everything? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for helping out there! Like you, I'm handicapped by not having access to Grove online. Yes, I've filtered the list for only those articles related to opera and classical singing. The Grove sub-list may currently underestimate the number of articles though. I compiled it by doing a search on "Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy" "(subscription access)" opera site:en.wikipedia.org (his usual way of referencing when he used Grove, although several other editors also use that form of reference) and added the articles where he had been a significant editor. So far, I've done search results pages 1-3. (there are 36 in all, and I'm still checking them) As for his non-opera articles (mostly on theatre and televsion) listed on his user pages, here and here, there are also these by his sock-puppet User:Broadweighbabe. At this point, it might not be worth checking every single he's edited, at least for the opera related ones, as I'm very familiar with his editing patterns. But I'll leave that up to you. Also, I just remembered that he was a prolific "winner" of DYKs. Looking through his talk page archives, it appears that close paraphrasing was found in at least of one them and supposedly repaired during the vetting process, see for example:  So I'm now going through User:Nrswanson/DYK to check for more possibilities. The DYK list also has his articles in other areas, all categorized by topic. Sigh!!! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, so to speak. :) It's a tedious process, but a necessary one. Do you have anybody from your project who has access to Grove? At some point, we may want to list out his unrelated articles either in a separate clean-up page (which I can build) or as a subsection of the one you've already got. I'll try to review some more of his articles today, but it's a fairly busy weekend for me, and as usual there are plenty of ongoing investigations awaiting attention. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadweighbabe's articles are all on theatre, musical theatre, television and film, not opera-related. I'd suggest listing those and the non-opera articles by Nrswanson on a separate page and perhaps notifying the relevant projects . There are several OP members with access to Grove online, I think. Plus there's a former member (Antandrus, also an admin) who has access and has been very helpful. He's emailed me articles from Grove for cross-checking in the past. That's how I repaired Samson and Delilah (opera). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More sockpuppets have been discovered. is a sockpuppet of the serial copyright violator and previously banned editor User:Nrswanson. Details here. I checked all of "Voodoobug's" articles on Czech composers today and they are all verbatim from Grove Music Online. I've blanked them with copyvio and notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers in case they want to try to rescue them. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, good heavens. Does it ever end? For the record, we're attempting to overhaul the process for handling these at WT:COPYCLEAN if you'd like to weigh in. You could have some very good insight at this point. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Voceditenore, thanks your dedication. You have been extremely diligent with sorting this out. You and everyone else seem have their hands full with other clean-ups, therefore, with this latest group, I think it should be handled with a nuke policy. Since these have all been recently created and the serial violator is the only contributor of note, they actually fit as G12 speedies. I think this is the most prudent course. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuking them is fine with me. I debated tagging them for G12 speedy, but as the source is subscription only, I thought it might be safer to blank. I've surveyed all of his socks and eliminated several which were not used for creating or significantly editing articles (They were mainly used for votestacking in AfDs, etc.!!). And we're now working our way through the rest. We're not checking the articles outside the scope of WikiProject Opera, but I'll be happy to list those for you if you think it would help. Progress report: We've now checked 101 opera-related articles and found that 59 had copyvio to some degree all of which are now repaired, of those 15 had extensive copyvio requiring deletion, stubbing or complete re-write. The 60% copyvio rate seems high, but I suspect that's because we've priortised checking the ones where we think we're most likely to find it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've G12 deleted all the articles from the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers -- save for two which had some additional edits. I stubbed those. There only remains these five Voodoobug articles unchecked: Rudolf_Dašek, Rudy_Linka, Rudolf_Komorous, Wihan_Quartet and Panocha_Quartet. All the text appears to be the same style as other copy-pastes of Grove Online. If you get a chance to make a quick comparison, just mention it here and I'll take care of those as well. Thanks. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rudolf_Komorous was heavily paraphrased from the AllMusic guide (He's not in Grove, at least not the copy I have access to.) I've reduced it to a stub. The others are not in Grove. I don't see any obvious copypasting from the net, but they're out of my field. Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking those out. I'll tag the talk pages and let them ride for now. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Youtube issues
It's not clear what the procedure is for raising concerns with links to possible copyright (or other performance or intellectual rights): I'm thinking of the many thousands of Youtube links. Does one treat the link as if it were itself copyvio text? Quotient group (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. See WP:COPYLINK: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." But not all YouTube links are copyright violations, as some files are uploaded by the copyright's owners. If that's the case, it will usually be clear from the uploader's information. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A board & process to address multiple point copyright infringers
Wikipedia has several processes in place for dealing with limited copyright concerns--single articles or files, even a small grouping of these--but no workable process for dealing with massive multiple point infringement. While WP:COPYCLEAN has attempted to fill this gap with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, this solution is not ideal. It is difficult to publicize and to regulate, and in addition it may seem to suggest exclusivity. I hope that generalizing clean-up will encourage other contributors as well as making it easier to publicize the investigation option at relevant policies and guidelines. (To substantiate the need for this, I need only point out the listings currently at WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys and those few which have already archived. Additionally, these come up routinely at ANI, where response is hit-and-miss, depending on who is reviewing ANI in a given day.) The processes proposed are based on existing policies and practices for handling copyright problems (I've worked with many of these); the board is inspired in large part by WP:SPI. More information is available at the process page and in the purpose statement at the process talk.
 * WP:CCI

I think this is critically needed. Wikipedia has chosen to address copyright concerns proactively, demonstrating due diligence, and when we know a contributor has widely violated copyright, we must have a streamlined process for handling it. The primary point for text copyright issues, WP:CP, cannot handle this specific situation: a listing such as CCI/Singingdaisies would bring it to a halt.

Please help address this need. Your comments are much welcome at WT:CCI. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS sent for German version of article one year ago valid for its translation?
Here's an interesting one. Adam Taubitz is authorized by OTRS # 2008071610005751. Looking at the date, I'm going to assume it's a GFDL-only release. Still working under the assumption that this is for re-using the content of his (Taubitz') website, here's the head scratcher. The biography on his site was translated, then imported into here where it landed at WP:CP. The author not being very fluid in English has then requested some guidance (which I provided at User talk:Adamtaubitz), and the English translation at the source site has now vanished.

What do we do out of all this mess? Note that at the last part of the discussion I suggested to simply release the source under CC-BY-SA. Failing that, can we work under the assumption that the initial GFDL release on de. can be imported onto here and attributed back to the de article even if we're now under dual license (since the text was imported to de before the cutoff date of November 1, 2008)? MLauba (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a GFDL-only release, but, as you say, was transitioned to CC-By-SA along with all other Wikipedia content at the licensing transition. My question would be this: were the contents of his website and the German Wikipedia article different? If they are the same, then the translation is (to all intents and purposes) a translation of the German Wikipedia, and we're very comfortable using that, since German Wikipedia content is dually licensed now just as Wikipedia content is and all text imported into the German Wikipedia prior to the transition is free to relicense under CC-By-SA, courtesy of GNU. :) If there were differences, let me know; I will help you craft a new dual release and he can send it to OTRS to my attention (with my uber secret identity!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The text under scrutiny on de: is a 1:1 copy of the original. The text added to En is a (probably machine-based) translation of that same text. So we can clear this one off? MLauba (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, yes. The de: is licensed for derivatives. (By the way, if I seem particularly tongue-tied, I've been working OTRS all morning. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, cleared, added OTRS and translated templates to talk, made an ad-hoc note on the German talk page to fulfill the role of our Copied template. MLauba (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Help about linking to book with unclear status
I'm hoping someone who frequents this page could take a look at a question posted to External links/Noticeboard. It is about linking to the full text of a book that is probably in the public domain in Australia, but may still be under copyright in the US. Any feedback is appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

US Air Force website and copyright
One of the articles that I was looking at just now is a direct copy (apart from the odd sentence here or there) of a biography at www.af.mil. Obviously, this is an official US DoD site - so is the text copyrighted, or can it be used directly? We're not talking about a sentence or two, but the entire biography!

Thanks --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless otherwise noted, material at www.af.mil is public domain. They do request credit, though, at . It isn't legally required that we give it to them, but WP:Plagiarism encourages it. If it isn't already supplied, can you add Air Force to the reference section of the article? The contributor should also be advised about proper attribution to avoid plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! I'll do that now! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Material from press releases
I've moved this here to the talk page as the article has gone, but I'd like to know about the principle. submitted William Ganz, a straight copy of http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/10729 (also on other sites like this). I tagged it G12; he claimed "I am using non copy protected press release from the hospital where dr. ganz worked!!!!!!" I explained (I hope correctly) that while press releases give permission to reproduce, release to WP requires more than that. He said "if other news agencies copy it why cant wikipedia have it? since when are press releases copy protected ?" and cited WP:FAQ/Copyright to suggest that a press release falls under the fair use exemption. See the conversation at the foot of his talk page. I copied his remarks to the article talk page, and it was deleted anyway. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is what I told him correct? (I would interpret the fair use exemption to cover extracts but not a whole page).
 * Is there policy or precedent about copyright of press releases?
 * The key is that while press releases are considered fair use given that their purpose is to be reproduced widely, there's no permission to edit or create derivative work, use for your own commercial purposes etc.; naturally this creates problems for our project. – Toon 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia on the subject result in conclusions that they cannot be used for the reasons Toon sets out and that you've already explained. As far as precedent, well, we have this opinion from Jimbo: "Press releases are clearly copyrighted.". And our non-free content policy & guideline make no exception for them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks - having laid down the law in an authoritative way, but with misgivings, I'm glad to know I was right! JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrightable?
I haven't looked closely at this one, as I'm trying to knock out a WP:CCI listing, but on the CP listings for the 12th we have this article. Evidently, Intel claims copyright on the instruction set. A contributor to the talk page says that instruction sets are not copyrightable. Additional input requested, particularly as the only thing that sends me scurrying away faster than the subject of football is the subject of technology. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Intel 8051 ([ history] · [ last edit])
 * I'm with the aforementioned talk page contributor in this case. The tables listing the instruction set are a simple list of facts, akin to a phone book. Only their organization and textual descriptions are copyrightable. Provided these are not too similar to what Intel publishes in their instruction set manual, we should be all set. Dcoetzee 06:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lord President of the Council of State
Could someone with more experience than me, have a look Talk:English Council of State. I am concerned about the list because as far as I can tell it was constructed recently from other older sources. As it is a list I don't if it has copyright in the US. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Opined. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation, need assistance.
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania is a copyright violation. See the talk page. I stumbled on this while doing updates to every Category:Pennsylvania counties entry for a county. Pursuing this copyright violation is beyond my interests or skills. Please help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locating this problem. The text seems already to have been removed. Is there additional material of concern to you in the current article? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Combination of CC-BY + "All Rights reserved"
KNUST: This was at either SCV or CP (don't remember off the bat). In reaction to our initial concerns, the entire website's footer was updated to add CC-BY. The different articles have, in accordance, been released, as there can be little doubt that the person pasting material here is tied with the university.

However, the combination of "All rights reserved" and CC-BY on part of the pages has been taken, later on, as grounds for deletion.

Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that it's a simple mistake by the source webmaster. The talk page discussion shows the contributing WP editor did, in fact, have the source webpages changed to CC 3.0. The pages at the mother website were changed correctly and a new footer was added to the subpages. It appears to me that they simply forgot to remove the old footer with "All rights reserved" from the subpages. Unfortunately, we can't accept the CC-By licensing while the confusion remains. We should mention this to the webmaster (self-identified as User talk:Serbemarfo) so that it can be rectified. Then we can restore the deleted pages. — Cactus Writer |   needles  12:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've asked Stifle for an OTRS check to see if the Talk:Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology ticket applies to all subpages of the KNUST website. If so, OTRS permissions can be applied to the pages in question. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Unfortunately, since OTRS permission apparently doesn't cover the subpages, we will require the old "all rights reserved" footer removed. It may smack of process wonkery, as you say, but it's just the necessary crap that one must endure when handling legal requirements. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly concerned that the additional hoops imposed here, when it's obvious that the intention was to release the text, through several means (and there's yet one more aspect to the OTRS release that I'm not at liberty to disclose that further reinforces that) will, in the end, be counter productive if the aim is to obtain a donation of copyrighted material. If it is, instead, to drive away people and to force 100% self-written material, we're doing it right. For consistency's sake, though, we might want to mark WP:DCM and WP:PERMISSION as historical, though. MLauba (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ML, but I'm afraid that these additional "letter-of-the-law"-type hoops are often necessary when there is an interpretative dispute -- as there is in this case between you and User:J.delanoy over the article. I can only offer my opinion to mediate your dispute. If you know that the OTRS permission covers the article in question, than tag the talk page of the article -- and the copyright notice on the webpage becomes moot. Otherwise, requesting the editor rectify the conflicting copyright notices appears the best solution. Actually, the webmaster may be unaware of the error on his website and may appreciate be informed about it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have essentially no desire to get into a large debate over this. My understanding of copyright law was that the most restrictive provisions trumped other ones, and in any case, I do not think it is our place to judge what the content owner's intentions were. I feel that we should stay on the safe side; namely, delete the page until clarification is received. Still, if someone who actually does know copyright law differs, or if the consensus is that I was wrong, I will not object if the page is undeleted. I will refuse to take any responsibility for it, though. J.delanoy gabs adds  17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what irks me is that we do, actually, have a perfectly working process for cases where we have every reason to believe permission is forthcoming, copyvio. It was even there a couple of hours before, and admittedly, I cleared it because I missed the conflictual settings on the source webpage. Apparently though, it's easier to just shotgun delete and salt, no matter that we perpetuate our reputation as a bunch of bullies. It's easier to support a forumshopping tagger than to actually spend two seconds and look at what had happened on WP:CP after the copyvio tag was removed and brought it up with the closer for a second look.

And in all of that, whether the forumshopping re-tagger nor the shotgun deleted / salters bothered to spell out to the contributor WHAT exactly the problem was.

I don't dispute the interpretation of the copyvio situation, it's the attitude on display which I find troublesome. It would have taken 30 seconds to verify what had happened on WP:CP and take it up with us, and only barely longer to distinguish between a clueless contributor who just doesn't get that he cannot copy / paste content and a party that genuinely tries to grant permission but forgot to cross one T at the bottom of the form. WP:BITE be damned. I don't dispute the rationale. But I'm not impressed by the behaviour. MLauba (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look. I do not go around looking for articles that may possibly be freely licensed, but may possibly not be. Nor do I delete said articles to further my evil "plan" to take over the site and drive away new contributors. Furthermore, I do not conspire with other users and admins to one-two-three tag-delete-salt pages (making it look "innocent") before other users can see that the page has been tagged, and explain what is going on. I saw the article because it was in CAT:CSD at the time I happened to open the category to look for pages that needed to be deleted. I deleted the page as a copyright violation, because it IS a copyright violation. Even you did not dispute that. Hundreds of copyright violations are added on WP every day. Please explain to me: How I am supposed to know that there was a discussion on some random page that is tangentially related to the article in question? Special:ReadMind hasn't been activated on this project yet. Also, explain why I should undelete a copyright violation, so that it can be tagged with that horrendous "THIS PAGE COULD POSSIBLY BE COPYRIGHTED!!! OMGWTFBBQ" tag. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what you want me to do. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion doesn't mean you have to have opened the page and deleted it within 5 seconds. Taking a few more seconds to look at the page history, or the log, where the last entry was "19 November 2009 MLauba restored "KNUST Department of Planning" ‎ (63 revisions restored: Source is validly licensed CC-BY)" and then talk to me - again, if only to let me know I made a mistake so I never do it again. You've been an admin for much longer than I've been a wikipedian, you perfectly know about routine checks before performing a speedy deletion.
 * As for the present situation, the egg is broken and there's no way to put it back in its shell. I've asked for a clarification that the OTRS release covers the entire web domain.
 * There are indeed hundreds of copyvios introduced every day, thank you very much, you're on WP:CP, we deal with 60-80 copyvios every day, and there's just five of us dealing with text copyvios. We do try however to distinguish between a straight copyvio and situations where permission is plausible. Which again makes it crucial that you proactively let us know when we miss something. MLauba (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. :) I like every contributor to this thread very much, so I hope that I offend none of you. (I think my odds of offending CactusWriter will be low. :D) My two cents may not be needed here, but I'll pitch them in to the kitty (def. 3; no kitties harmed in this posting) anyway. We do need clarification when licensing is contradictory. But this article should never have been tagged for speedy deletion after the CP listing. If the tagger, who had also listed at CP, thought that the admin who closed the listing had made a mistake, he should have addressed it with him. He should have known very well that the deletion would not be uncontroversial. I would even have supported reblanking prior to doing so with copyvio. To tag it for G12 when an admin has already evaluated it is asking the other parent...and I know from personal experience that this can lead to bickering parents. :)

J., you may not handle many WP:CSDs, but they do specifically exclude situations "where there is a dubious assertion of permission". We don't usually "delete the page until clarification is received" (as you indicated above), but put the ugly label on it, as this is deemed a little less aggressive than deletion. (It's been suggested to me we might benefit from a separate label where permission is underway. I think there's some merit to that.) We do play on the safe side (per your edit summary) with copyright matters, but sometimes relist matters as a courtesy at CP when there's strong evidence (as here) that the contributor may be able to verify permission. If we don't relist it, as Copyright problems/Advice for admins notes, there's a (relatively new) template that can be a courtesy in explaining why the article has been deleted: Cup (made that one without you. :D It's very possible, though, that I got some of the syntax I used from other templates you've made for me.) This is particularly valuable, I think, when a contributor has taken obvious steps to clearing permission but gotten something wrong that leaves us unable to accept the text on a technicality. Since you don't do that much with copyvios, I'm not surprised that you're not familiar with it.

Speaking of courtesy notices, I know you are typically a very courteous person, so I suspect your not bringing it up with MLauba was an accidental oversight Wheelwarring doesn't require courtesy notice, but I suspect from your talk page header and my history with you that you would ordinarily let another admin know personally if you've overridden his judgment on something, even if you did feel it was a clear error. (I believe I usually do, but I bet if you looked in my history you'd find some situations where I've forgotten.)

MLauba, I may be off, but I think perhaps you've come to agree that the additional hoops may be necessary here. I'll just state for the record that I do. It's that "all rights reserved" that is the sticking point. The copyright notice is not an issue, since licensing doesn't remove copyright. But you can't reserve all rights and release some at the same time. We need clarification on that one, and I see you've already sought it. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon.

It seems pretty obvious even from this conversation (nevermind what I already know of you both) that you are both interested in doing the right thing for the project. I know you both to be reasonable (and even nice) people. I would hope that you could put aside whatever irritability this situation may have caused. To this outsider, you have both sounded a tad bit touchy in this thread. But, then, this could be one of those guy things that I do not grok. (I know there are blunt women in the world as well, but my particular demo tends to stagger around under the burden of Southern hospitality, Steel Magnolias notwithstanding.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason I was hostile was because, looking at it at first, it seemed to me that someone deliberately undeleted a copyright violation, and then yelled at me when I deleted it. I see now that that is not the case, and I apologize for my tone above. If it's all the same to you (plural), I would really like to just be able to end this. If undeleting the page would allow me to do that, I will. J.delanoy gabs adds  18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've undeleted it. The OTRS request for clarification has resulted in the conflicting statement being removed from the page. Now I'm working on fixing some of the other issues a bit. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After being mostly offline throughout the week-end, I've cooled off a bit. I apologize if I've sounded overly aggressive in the whole thing. I've learned an important point I wasn't aware of, that the "All rights reserved" trumps the rest. I could wax philosophical about a copyright owner who uploads his content already licensing it validly (by the note below the edit window for instance) and us mostly having to make sure he is who he claims to be, but we've gone about this enough.
 * My only plea here, to all involved, when you see I make a mistake, fix it but let me know about it. If the latter doesn't happen, remember the saying:
 * Give someone a fish and you'll have fed them for the day, teach them how to fish, and they'll be able to feed themselves for the rest of their life.
 * Leave me clueless, and unless I happen to have watchlisted a particular article, I'll miss that I screwed up (or in this case, I didn't even get it by merely watchlisting).
 * Thanks. MLauba (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

who's copying whom?
at one point the instructions here say "Make sure we're copying someone else, not the other way around" - but how does one do that, please and thank you? i posted the Bo Diddley article here on 29 november, because it either duplicates or is duplicated by the subject's official website, but it's not clear to me which, and i don't know how to ascertain which came first.

and: should i be using the "copyvio" template, or the "cv-unsure" template in this case? it's not a case of "without a known source" - it's just not clear which is the source and which is the infringement. thanks for any insights Sssoul (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does sometimes require a bit of investigation to determine which came first -- the chicken or the egg. Or, in this case, the WP Bo Diddley article or the bodiddley.com website. Here are a couple of methods we can use. First, a check of the wayback machine shows Bo Diddley.com was created sometime after June 2007. Previous to that it was a only a registered name. The WP article was created through many edits beginning in May 2005.


 * Then, a review of the editing history shows the Bo Diddley article was created through a long series of small edits by various editors. (If an article is copied, one usually finds large chunks of text added in single edits). For example, the lede paragraph that is duplicated on the website homepage, first appeared in that form in March 2009. However, it was created by small changes including this one (by you) in November 2008 which added quotes around Originator and changed rock 'n roll to rock & roll. And this one in June 2008 which altered some of the key phrasing into its current form.


 * These kinds of additions indicate the Bo Diddley website was probably copied directly from the Wikipedia article sometime after March 2009. Therefore, it is a reverse copyright violation. It was perfectly fine to tag this article with a CV violation template so that your suspicions could be investigated. And it is certainly a good idea to raise those concerns on a talk page so that other editors are notified. I'll add this note to your article talk page discussion. Thanks for checking on this. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks very much, CactusWriter, both for looking into this and for the very helpful explanation.
 * in case it's useful input, i found the instructions here pretty daunting, especially because none of the avenues described seemed to suit this "which came first" scenario. maybe that doesn't happen often enough to warrant a tailor-made template, but it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the instructions that the "copyvio" template is indeed the right choice when one isn't sure who's copying whom.
 * and just out of curiosity: what (if anything) happens next - does Wikipedia pursue this kind of "reverse" violation, or ... ?
 * again, thanks for your great help - please feel very appreciated Sssoul (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you mentioning that, Sssoul. There are a couple of editors here who have been working very hard recently to update the Copyright Violation pages -- making them "user friendly" as well as covering the numerous scenarios. It's a pretty daunting task. I'll look to see if the wording could be better on the instruction page -- in general, any suspicions about possible copyright infringement allow placing the template. It would be helpful to me to know: Which page did you visit first when you suspected the CV problem? And which parts did you read when you got there?


 * As far as the reverse copyvio goes -- although websites must provide attribution to Wikipedia when they copy from it (per our own CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensing), I am not aware of WP ever pursuing it. Perhaps, one of the more experienced editors could answer that one. — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the Wikimedia Foundation does not own the copyright to any of the text, it does not pursue licensing violations as an entity, but any Wikipedian is welcome to attempt to address these when encountered. Only substantial contributors to the copied text have the legal right to pursue infringers. The steps to be taken, whether you are a contributor to the article or not, is Mirror. We also typically label such articles backwardscopyvio to be sure that others are aware of the duplication. I'll take care of the latter, if it hasn't already been done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks for taking an interest, CactusWriter and Moonriddengirl. to answer CactusWriter's question: my first move when i discovered that that external site bearing too much resemblance to the article was to rummage around in the Help Desk archives, where i discovered that WP:CV exists. i hesitated quite a bit before posting the problem, though, for a few reasons: mainly (as noted above) because it wasn't clear what (if anything) to do in a case that might be a reverse violation. this was compounded by uncertainty over whether or not i was supposed to blank the page (i finally resorted to placing that /div right after the template so that it didn't blank anything, but i felt like a goofball doing it!). another factor in my hesitation was that the instructions currently sound rather unfriendly – i was pretty sure someone would yell at me for doing things the wrong way; and with all the emphasis on blanking and deleting, i was also worried that there would be some kind of dire consequences for a good article that might be perfectly innocent.

hope those observations are constructive - that's how they're meant.

and Moonriddengirl, would you leave that same note about the steps that can be pursued on the article's talk page, please and thank you kindly? i've done some finetuning on it, but am not a major contributor, and i think the people who have put a lot into the piece might well be interested in asking the site to acknowledge the source.

ongoing thanks to both of you Sssoul (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your observations are very constructive to hear. Sorry you felt like a goofball - you did everything fine -- and you are not alone in being intimidated by the instructions. I see that there is some ongoing discussion right now to try and "de-goofball-ify" the CV template and make it more user friendly. Thanks again for taking the time to answer, Sssoul. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

WP:LINKVIO
Recently a couple of editors who appear to be unfamiliar with this policy clause have disputed its implementation. Initiating discussion proactively: I have delinked hundreds of contributory copyright infringements and it is usually uncontroversial. If policy ought to be revised, let's discuss it here.  Durova 371 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is bullshit. Durova, please be specific. You've been drama-stirring by removing links to David Gerrard's blog from talk pages, on some silly pretext. The links were part of a discussion of that blog itself. Durova says it contains a copyvio. We don't know it does, isn't not our problem and it is fair use. In any case, the links were not to the alleged copyvio but to the post itself. This has nothing to do with this policy needing changed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss policy here, not personalities. If you have a quarrel with policy please discuss it here in a WP:CIVIL and focused manner.  Durova  371 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with policy. I have a problem with you abusing it to troll, and your blatantly disingenuous post above. Please stop pissing in my cornflakes and then getting self-righteous when I get a bit annoyed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have offered my opinion to the specific discussion you are engaged in at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. I personally believe the LINKVIO should remain broad -- on the safe the side of Wikipedia -- and contributory infringement should be delinked immediately. Which is how the policy currently reads. For suspicions or specific "gray zone" issues, like this one, they can be examined on a case-by-case basis. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Global University Ranking
A Russian agency was recently created to post an international ranking of major Universities. They have an English website with copyright notices on the bottom of each page. The rankings are covered in the Global University Ranking article. A separate article has been created called Global University Ranking, 2009. Both articles include wikitables listing the top 100 of the 500 rankings that are on the copyrighted website. I believe that it is fair use to state in each college wikipedia article that "This school has been ranked Nth in the Global University rankings." Aren't there copyright issues by including 1/5 of the rankings as a Wikitable. (Note the two wikitables are different, see #16 University of Illinois and #100.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would likely depend on the criteria involved in the ranking. If it reflects human creativity, then such rankings are copyrightable. If it does not (even if it takes work), they they aren't. If the formula involved in creating the rankings is publicized and anyone applying the formula would receive the same results, we should be okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your copyright analysis. This is not news, this involves doing computer retrievals of scholarly citations, attributing them to specific colleges, analyzing college financial expenditurs per student, assigning a subjective-selected weighing to six different factors and then ranking the output.  Isn't this more like the (protectable) Consumer Reports rankings, rather than say, someone ranking all metropolitan areas by population (not protectable).  Moonriddengirl, I leave the ball in your court, particularly since there is a copyright notice on each page of the website. However, I think it is fair use to say in individual college articles, College X was ranked Nth by the Global University Rankings. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think that a subjective selected weighing would be copyrightable. Let's get other feedback and then figure out how to proceed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The methodology of the Russian ranking is open to the general public and based on a specified formula (which combines the results and elements of other rankings). I agree that it’s written on “copyright” at the bottom of web page, however, it means that you need to provide citation whenever refer to this ranking (according to Russian intellectual law). In Wikipedia all mentions about Global University Ranking have proper citations to the original source. I don’t see any reasons why it violates the copyright rules. Please remove this tag from Wikipedia article.87.194.126.221 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not governed by Russian copyright law, but by US copyright law. The contributor above indicates that the formula involves subjective elements. If so, this would be copyrightable under US copyright law and hence unusable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK

If so, we need to apply the same actions to all other ranking articles (Academic Ranking of World Universities, THES, G-Factor, national UK and US rankings by leading newspapers etc.) as well as more than 1000 articles on universities which refer to these rankings. They all use specific formulas and methodology and sign “copyright” at the bottom of web-page. However, nobody raised this issue for the last three years. Please provide the evidence that Wikipedia is governed by US legislation law and the clause in the legislation that you cannot refer such rankings with proper citation. 87.194.126.221 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, the big difference between the "1000 articles on universities which refer to these rankings" and the two Global University rankings articles is the reproduction of the top 1/5 of the ranked list in one place. It is fair use to add to the University of X article a sentence or infobox that says its ranking is Nth.  You appear to violate United States copyright law when you make a separate article and list all of the universities in the order of their rankings, based on the English version of the website, which contains the copyright notice at the bottom of each page.  One approach (which may draw objections from others based on WP:N grounds) would be to amend Template:Infobox US university ranking to include this ranking, but then to delete the wikitables in the article and the list.  Another solution is to get the organization to send a copyright release to the Wikimedia Foundation or to replace the copyright notice on the website with a disclaimer of copyright or a share-and-share alike license. Racepacket (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 87.194.126.221, for "evidence that Wikipedia is governed by US legislation law", see Copyrights: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." If you want to read up on US law on copyright in lists, I'm afraid you're going to have to put some time into it. The question here is Precedent. One of the primary cases cited is FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). As that case clarifies, the question with a list is whether its compiler is the "discoverer" or "creator." If human creativity is involved in the ranking, it is created. If it is not, it is merely "discovered" and compiled. The citation has no bearing on whether or not copyright violation has occurred under United States' law. What matters, if the list is copyrightable, is whether reproduction of it or part of it meets "fair use". Wikipedia handles fair use under the policy provisions of non-free content. Like the fair use laws, NFC considers the amount of material duplicated. As Racepacket notes, duplicating a brief segment of the list (if it is copyrightable) is likely to be acceptable under NFC and fair use. If you think one of those other articles is replicating creative content beyond the allowances of NFC, then please follow the procedures at Copyright violations. It's important to keep Wikipedia free of legal concerns.


 * Certainly Racepacket's suggestion of permission is a very good one. If the organization chooses, it can release the content under an allowable license, and then the material can be handled on Wikipedia however consensus determines. See Requesting copyright permission if you are not connected with the organization; Donating copyrighted materials if you are.


 * If Racepacket is correct that this system assigns a subjective-selected weighing to six different factors, then it is very likely copyrightable and hence only usable under NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl, thanks a lot for your valuable comments. Unfortunately, I am not connected to this organization and do not live in Russia. However, I decided to send a letter to the ranking complier. With a view to unification of our approach, I suggest checking copyright issues for other articles Academic Ranking of World Universities, Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2009, Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings, HEEACT - Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. They also produce a list of top universities and might not comply with US intellectual law. 87.194.126.221 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Racepacket that the list of Global University Ranking is created through a subjective formula. Procedure 5 of their methodology describes subjective evaluations by their own panel of experts. Therefore, as Moonriddengirl says, the list is copyrightable. I don't believe the full list, or any substantial portion of it, can be reproduced in Wikipedia. At best, I feel we could reproduce their Top Ten list under a fair use claim.


 * As far as the 1000s of university articles which refer to their own specific ranking -- I don't see that as a copyright problem -- nor even a fair use issue.. A statement that "University X was listed at number n in the Global University Rankings" is simply a statement of fact and, because it cannot be stated any other way, is not copyrightable. It simply needs to be cited like any other sourced fact in Wikipedia.


 * I agree with IP87.194.126.221 that the other lists of University rankings should be examined on an individual basis. For example, the Academic Ranking of World Universities appears to use a straightforward objective mathematical formula -- and, regardless of stated copyright at the website, it is probably not copyrightable. (Also, appreciate the initiative in requesting permission from the organization. That would certainly solve this bit of a sticky wicket! If only, eh?) — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Today, I have placed a copyvio tag on the article Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2009 and THE–QS World University Rankings, 2009 to follow the reasoning discussed above. Racepacket (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion for Copyvio Question
Hi, I was wondering whether the article with title "Tapan Chowdhury" falls into Speedy Deletion category as it is a Copyvio from http://www.bei-bd.org/staticcontents/index/board_governors. I didn't dare to notify this to the article's talk page as there are some powerful Administrators are protecting the article from deletion, especially a 'biting' Administrator with harsh language. Thank you. --Hangamatha (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyvio text has been removed now.  The left orium  15:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Possible Copyvio
From my short history with this page, it has had some issues with weasel words and has sounded like an advertisement. Recently, a user by the name of Aimeeswartz has made a very large change to the page and one that I find is very closely related to the info found on the MMRF official website save for a few word changes. I have reverted the edit and am asking that other editors come to make a judgment on issue. I would also like to note that Aimeeswartz has claimed (see edit note) that she is a writer for the MMRF. I assume this is true but does not allow her to use the copyrighted material without written permission by the MMRF. I directed her to WP:DCM so that we may bypass this entire issue if possible. Also, I placed a COI tag on the article as an employee of the foundation is editing the article. Any help anyone else could provide would be greatly appreciated. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You did exactly the right thing, I think. :) (In fact, I'm impressed with your follow through!) And I'm sorry for the delay in response here. I try to keep an eye on the page, but when the watchlist swells beyond the point of usability, sometimes important things get overlooked. :/ I'm glad that there have been no further issues with the material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Graph using corporate data described as 'own work'
This graph is described as 'own work', but has been created from data from the Nationwide Building Society - UK House Prices Adjusted For Inflation. Is it correctly used/designated ? I was going to report it but couldn't understand the process. 212.84.97.127 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. The data itself is not protected--information on house prices adjusted for inflation is not creative, though it may constitute "sweat of the brow". If the graph has been duplicated, then it may be a copyright problem, but if they have plugged the uncopyrightable data into a graph, then it is their "own work." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kasserine a possible copyright violation
Kasserine looks like a potential copyright violation. The whole "Djebel Semmama (1,314m/4,311ft) to the northwest ... More > and Djebel Selloum (1,373m/4,505ft) to the southeast" (emphasis mine) makes it look like a bad copy / paste job, but if it is a copyright violation, I'm unsure of the source.

A Google search revealed and although that article does appear to be a word-for-word copy of the wikipedia article that particular instance could be an example of a backwards "copyright violation". TerraFrost (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good eye! It's a copyvio, all right, and a repeat offender at that. Check out . I don't know why they notified Google, but didn't say anything about it to us. :/ A check of wayback confirms beyond a doubt that they had it before it got here. I can only access back to May 2007,, but it was introduced here only in February 2009. I'll take care of it immediately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help determining copyright status
Hello! Here is the image I am concerned with. The website that it's located on requires credit, as does the World Health Organization (the original source). However, I'm confused as to whether this image is free, public domain, or otherwise. Is it safe to assume that "credit required with accompanying text" means that it's a public domain image? What kind of copyright does the image have?

Thanks in advance, <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5" color="#FF3399">mheart <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3" color="#FF3399">(talk) 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Images and information on US federal government websites is frequently public domain, but \hat image is identified as a WHO image, and WHO retains copyright. (See for example .) Generally, the best place to questions about images and other media is Media copyright questions. Typically, this page is frequented more by people familiar with text copyright concerns, though it being Wikipedia you never know. :) Unless somebody pops in who is more familiar with WHO images, you may want to ask at that forum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Much appreciated. I'll write them an e-mail to be absolutely sure. Thanks again! <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5" color="#FF3399">mheart <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3" color="#FF3399">(talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying own website in userspace
I noticed an admin declining a CSD G12 on a user page, on the assumption the user was copying their own website. As I understand it this is eligible for G12 in article space if WP:IOWN hasn't been followed, is it a different matter in userspace? Cassandra 73 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CSD G12 applies to all namespaces. Unless permission or ownership is asserted, the content should either be deleted or blanked (and listed at WP:CP), and the user should be notified how to proceed.  The left orium  11:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible public domain source
What is the procedure when there is a claim that a source is public domain, which is not obbious either way. Specifically, the claim is that "Kondapalli toys, Orissa Ikat, Thanjavur art plate are all sourced from a Government of India website ." It appears from Indian copyright law and its supporting sources that some but not all works of the Indian Government are exempt from copyright under Indian law. It is note clear to me whether this case falls under that rule. The articel creator is claiming a broader rule than that sopurce applies, i think incorrectly, but IANAL and I am not sure. How shall these articles be dealt with? DES (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Throwaway idea
Since the situation seems to be worsening. It probably wouldn't be hard for developers to bold/color/blink the bottom of the editing box that states don't copy unless you are absolutely certain this is acceptable. Novickas (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be. Wonder who we'd talk to about something like that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren? Novickas (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the page The white stag
A new user Nibbler56 created a page titled The white stag, apparently about a roleplay scenario. Considering the content I proposed it for deletion, but there's something a bit problematic--there's a "disclaimer" at the bottom of the page warning others not to use this material without her permission. Given that any contributions are published on Wikipedia through the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL, does she need to at the very least be notified that by publishing this material on Wikipedia she just waived away any copyright on it? I'm not really experienced with issues on copyright on Wikipedia that aren't simple open-shut copyvios. Please advise. Best, TheLetterM (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer is not acceptable, and the material itself isn't either. I've speedied the article as a copyvio of this] and left some guidance at the user's talk page. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. MLauba (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, actually, I forgot to rebound on a remark. By posting here, nobody forfeits their copyright, they merely license it in a specific way that may not be modified nor rescinded. That also includes comments on talk pages :) MLauba (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about the copyright
Greetings,

I have question related to the picture that can be found in the Bohdanow article. The picture is just a photo of am old painting and the painting itself is in possesion of National Museum of Warsaw. The photo's u find in the Bohdanow article is very common and used by several persons, websites. It can also be found on postcards. As far as i can understand, there is no copywrite of this photo, its used by anyone that like it and want to use it.

Since it is difficult to establish the origin of the photo (I would have to send letters around the world and track the path), I have been told to write about this problem here. What I did is to download the photo from a link that is to be found in the Bohdanow article and then uploaded it into the article. The person that i use this photo on his side have also no clue about the copywrite, he downloaded it from another site as he thought its free to do that.

I would like to keep that lovely photo of the old house in the Bohdanow article since the house on this picture is a very old wooden Manor house of the Bohdanow. The Bohdanow itself does not exist anymore.

When looking at the web pages where Ruszczyc (the painter) paintings are seen as pictures/ photos of the paintings, there is no information whatsoever regarding any copyright. It seems then for me that such does not exist.

If You follow this link about Ferdinand Ruszczyc in polish: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdynand_Ruszczyc You can find a link in the bottom of the article with name "Ferdynand Ruszczyc. Bohdanów 1870-1936". If You click at this link, You will enter a private site that hold a gallery of the Ruszczyc painings. There is NO information about the copwrite there. On the main page of this site there is information about the Castle of Rapperswill, a picture of it and information about the foundation. Here there is clearly note that this picure is showned with the permission of the Rapperwill society. It is clearly so that if any copyright would be needed for F. Ruszczyc photo's of the paintings it would be a note about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdan (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is...how do I proceed in this matter? I do not wish do anything wrong here and I dont want anyone later to delate this photo from the page!

I would be very gratefull for any answer.

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you didn't get a response. This board is really for text-based copyright concerns.WP:MCQ is a better home for image-related questions. However, complicating things, you haven't uploaded this image on Wikipedia at all, but on Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project. :) Images are not my primary area, but I've added a little bit of detail to the upload page at Commons (File:Old manor house of Bohdanow.jpg), including the dates of the painting & of the artist. I've removed the permission — this is only used for images that are still in copyright, and this one should not be — and added what I believe is the correct licensing tag. I've also added a few "categories" to the image to help others interested in using it to locate it. This image should be public domain according to the interpretation of law put forth by Wikimedia Commons. Non-creative photographs of public domain two-dimensional artwork (without frame) is not, by their interpretation, copyrightable. The image itself was published in 1902 by an artist who died in 1936, so its copyright has expired.


 * Since images are not my primary area and since I am not an administrator on Commons, I will invite additional review in case there are problems with which I'm unaware. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Because of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. we can use any faithful reproduction of a public domain two dimensional work of art freely, and the author died in 1936 years, meaning that this image entered the public domain in 2006 in both Poland and the United States. This image is free to use, as far as Wikipedia, Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation are concerned. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Infrared fluorescent protein
The original article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5928/804) and the wiki article (Infrared fluorescent protein) are identical in large parts, e.g. the wiki article states "We now show that a bacteriophytochrome....." which is part of the abstracts, also from the fulltext some sentences were copy&pasted (e.g. "Recently, a full-length bacteriophytochrome (DrBphP) from Deinococcus radiodurans with a single mutation (D207H)". What to do? Delete the article? Delete the relevant sections, i.e. 99% of the article? I would prefer if somebody can rewrite it but I lack the necessary information (except for the publiation itself there is no literature). Panoramix303 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged as (non-speedy) copyvio. MER-C 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Panoramix303 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RSOE EDIS
Could someone knowledgeable about copyright have a look at this page? I declined a db-copyvio tag since the source is CC but I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes as a check. Also I seem to remember some template which says something like "this article contains text from [site], licensed under [license]" but I can't remember what it's called - for now I've left a note on the talk page. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's an acceptable CC license. :) Attribution templates are all conveniently gathered at Category:Attribution templates. I visit them all the time, since I can never remember the original names. The one you'd want there (except I see you G11ed) would be CCBYSASource, which is used on any material that is licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA, but not dually licensed for GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moonriddengirl! Yes, while looking for sources I did decide it was promotional enough for CSD, but I'll bear Category:Attribution templates in mind for next time. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Robin Harris
I decided to put a fair-use pic of Robin Harris up on his article, since the subject has been deceased for almost twenty years and there is no free image available. I used the rationale to make sure it wouldn't be bothered. Well, shortly after I put it up, some guy sends me a harassing copypasta message threatening that he is going to delete it because "a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information." Oh really? Then why was a placeholder (which is supposed to be used for LIVING people) on there for the longest time? What should I do about this?--Evilbetty1991 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you should do, if you dispute the tag, is place on the image (replacing, of course, the last text with your reason) and wait for the closing administrator to review it. If the closing administrator agrees with you, the image will not be speedied, although if he or she finds the use questionable it may be listed for community review at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation of properly licensed text
An egg / hen type of question. A source is published in two languages, and reproduced, without permission, on both languages' corresponding articles.

Following a challenge on language 1, proper permission is granted, but written in a manner that it explicitly only releases language 1. As language 2 is a translation of language 1, is there a reasonable case to be made that it becomes automatically licensed as a derivative of language 1? MLauba (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't think so. While language 2 is a derivative work of language 1, the new creative elements are subject to new copyright, and distinct language choices are creative. We are licensed to create new derivatives of language 1, but not to use the creative elements of language 2. Similarly, Dante's Divine Comedy is public domain, but Dorothy Sayer's translations are protected (and well deserved, as highly creative they are. :)) I think we need a fresh translation if they are not willing to license language 2. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Snjsharma
The contributions of need to be investigated. I've seen at least two article created by him that contain copyvios, and many of his image uploads seem suspicious.  The left orium  19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All righty. I'll take a look. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt about problems here. We have File:Her gort castle.jpg, a direct copy of ; File:Baijnath-temple.jpg, a direct copy of this; File:Shimla GeoEye.jpg and File:Anurag thakur.jpg with no evidence of permission from the copyrighted sources; File:TOWN HALL VIEW FROM RIDGE.jpg (created by himself? Really?). I think a CCI is necessary here, as problems include both text and images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look.  The left orium  20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not happy for a new CCI (oi! we have enough!), but happy to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Repairing insufficient attribution - admin required?
If the instructions at Copying within Wikipedia have been followed, and an edit summary has been added to the article giving proper attribution to the problem-text, is an admin still required before the copyvio tags can be removed, and the report delisted? (eg this diff, and this report). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by delisting. :) We don't remove items from CP, but if the copyright matter is straightened out without the need of an admin, then by all means note how it concluded there and remove the template. An admin will usually pop in just to make sure that things are resolved, but it surely makes our lives easier. :D As to removing the tags, theoretically an admin only is supposed to do that, but I think in a case like this WP:IAR may apply. I do advise caution. If you aren't 100% sure that the matter is addressed, then it's better not to remove the template. And if for some reason a contributor is concerned with the removal and thinks that an uninvolved admin's review may be helpful, it doesn't hurt to either (a) wait for one or (b) dig one up. This is a good place to do it. :) I've added the copied template to the talk pages of both articles and repeated the attribution in the subject line, making it a bit more visible. I'll mark it resolved at CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue needed review. Quiddity is involved. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind stopping by with my mop when an outside view is needed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bardman
We need to investigate the contributions of. He's added several copyrighted plot summaries to various articles. Examples: (from here),  (was added today),  (from here). CCI?  The left orium  15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys should see this too. Apparently I'm an asshole, a fuckhead, and a Nazi. How nice of him. :)  The left orium  15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see he's been blocked for personal attacks, quite appropriately. If you run into future misconceptions about press release use on Wikipedia, you can point to FAQ/Copyright:


 * I'll take a look at his contributions to see if there are other copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Using Box Office Mojo charts
Hey guys,

I have a question about a possible copyvio and I need clarification. The article List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States contains charts that are exact copies of the charts located here. The problem is at the bottom of page for the source it states, "Charts and data cannot be published or posted elsewhere without the expressed permission of Box Office Mojo." Do copying Box Office Mojo's chart data over to Wikipedia to replicate our own charts constitute a copyvio? Thanks for any help you can offer on this matter. DrNegative (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * List articles. I hate list articles. :P


 * The question comes down, basically, to this: how did they reach that list? Was there any human creativity involved or is it a simple formula that could be reproduced with the same results? If it's a simple formula, even if the work was laborious, it is not protected by copyright under the US law that governs Wikipedia (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service is one of the landmark decisions here). To me, the questionable point here is that "estimated tickets": "Adjusted to the estimated number of tickets sold. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable)" Who is estimating these admissions? And what does that mean: "mostly"? There's some ambiguity there, enough that this may be a problem. Getting a definitive answer on it is going to be a problem in itself. :/


 * A secondary point would consider the creativity of the chart itself. Never mind the information in it, does the chart reflect human creativity to a point that it is itself protected? Although the threshold is very low, I am inclined to think not in this case. If the content in the charts is not protected, I think the charts are okay.


 * I'm just not sure about the content in the charts. I'll see if I can generate more feedback at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alleged vio (actually WP content copied to another site)
Hi!

Regarding alleged copyvio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAKON

The text in question was written by me. The sage.com.ua page was created after that and used the description from Wikipedia.

There are many indicators in the text proving that it was originally written for wikipedia and by me. For example:


 * intelligence augmenntation is mentioned, it's my favourite topic
 * detailed translations of the acronym are something usually done for wikipedia pages

I can give more details if necessary. Paranoid (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at both pages and concur that wikipedia is the original, and the Sage site has copied a version from wikipedia somewhere around 13 June 2008. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming a scholar who pastes in parts of his own work
I'm hoping to find someone adept at welcoming scholars. (Getting a warning tag on one's usertalkpage is the simplest&worst way to be welcomed here, but I'm not an expert on copyright problems/explanations, hence I'm here to delegate, essentially. :)

I noticed at World view that someone was copying parts of a book (not purely word-for-word) that is within google books, and based on the amazon page for that book, the user is probably the author himself Eugene Webb (a professor emeritus of University of Washington Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies) who has made some minor edits to his own biography too. Could someone friendly and knowledgeable go help him start on the road to wikiholism? Thanks.

(Or point me elsewhere, if there's a better place to find such a volunteer :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. :) I've given it my best shot. I'll leave the COI angle for now and focus rather on the copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Exactly what I was hoping for. Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Khemkhaeng and possible CCI
Looking at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Khemkhaeng&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects, I see several copyvios introduced by this user. Since I will be leaving the computer in about an hour, I thought I'd post it here to get a second opinion as to whether or not a CCI is needed.  The left orium  20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the good news is that there are less than 500 edits here. Since he's only contributed to 51 different articles, I think we can do it a bit less formally than that. I'll just plop the edits here for a quick look through. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. No choice. It's got to happen. It's at Contributor copyright investigations/Khemkhaeng. Yay. 25. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Investigation of articles created by User:Razzsic
PAF Air War College showed up at SCV and because of User:Razzsic's incorrect removal of the copyright template I decided to check out some of his other articles. I found copyright violations/plagiarism in the following ones: There could obviously be more so perhaps a CCI is necessary. However, seeing as WP:CCI is really backlogged at the moment, I'd appreciate a second opinion. Thanks,  The left orium  21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * HMS Choudri - http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t27084.html
 * Asad Durrani - http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2007-events-archive/october-2007/discussion-meeting---lt-general-asad-durrani/
 * Riaz Mohammad Khan - http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/25/nat16.htm
 * Wajid Shamsul Hasan - http://www.newspapersofpakistan.com/media.php
 * SST Public School Rashidabad - http://www.nettracks2000.com/sargodhians/sst.htm, http://www.sstpsr.edu.pk/administration/mission.html
 * Muzaffar Usmani - http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/may0501.html#usma
 * National Peoples Party - http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:a-XW0SpAdnsJ:www.elections.com.pk/partydetails.php%3Fid%3D22+%22shoot+into+prominence+in+no+time+due+to+the+declining%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_en (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.elections.com.pk/partydetails.php?id=22)
 * See also this edit from yesterday (copied from ).  The left orium  21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CCI may be overburdened, but it's all we've got. (Do, though, please blank these when you find them. :) I've blanked HMS Choudri) While I may (and do!) cringe to see new ones, I really appreciate the work you've been doing in locating them. We need to get this stuff cleaned up, no matter how sick of it we may be. :P Can you file for the CCI on this? I'm heading off keyboard after checking one more talk page and may not be back for a few hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have filed a request now. Unfortunately, I found yet another user at SCV yesterday that definitely requires a CCI. :/  The left orium  17:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bullshark44
I'm finding a lot of copyvios in this user's history, including 2006 Bryant Bulldogs football team and 2009 Bryant Bulldogs football team, both of which I found through User:Jrcla2's CCI. I see several recent warnings from User:CorenSearchBot, as well as this warning from a user in January 2008, which he seems to have ignored. Looks like a CCI is needed (sigh), but I'm heading offline in just a few minutes so if someone else could get some more evidence until tomorrow that would be good. Thanks,  The left orium  21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Esther Gray
I know that I am being impatient but would some kind admin check out the revised edit here [](the original issue can be found here []) and tell me if it is ok now? I have spent most of the day on it and only being my second article I am keen to get it right. Any help would be VERY much appreciated. <font color="#8B31C7">Tucker <font color="#B93B8F">talk 13:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology
I have submitted this at Copyright problems/2010 March 17, but I am not sure whether that was the right thing to do, so I am mentioning it here too. Please delete whichever of the two seems least appropriate.

Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology was tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.sist.in/?id=campus, http://www.indiastudychannel.com/resources/17425-B-Tech-Admission-RegistrATION-STARTED-IN-Sarabhai-Institute-Science-Technology.aspx and http://www.sist.in/m. DGG removed the tag with edit summary "not copyvio at present". I don't agree, so perhaps one of our copyright specialists can look at it and decide. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This has now been dealt with at Copyright problems/2010 March 17. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Book "Bank Regulation"
The book "Bank Regulation" by S.K.Singh (http://books.google.be/books?id=_FUoBlN8p_EC&printsec=frontcover) seems to be full of content copied from Wikipedia. I only had a quick look, but pages 18--28 are copied from Banknote and pages 33--43 come from Credit rating agency. There doesn't seem to be any mention of Wikipedia (as far as I can tell). Jushi (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Blue supercomputer
I want to create an article about New York's Blue supercomputer. It should be informative and help researchers to want to use it. I want to copy and past some of the test from Stony Brook's University website with an information about the machine. The University approves this action, so it is OK to cut and past such text from their website (with the link provided to them) ?

Thank you, Vsosin (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Viktor
 * The short answer is "No." See WP:COPY. The longer answer is "Yes, but only if you send documented proof that permission was granted." See WP:COPYREQ. It may be simpler to get the University's webmaster to place an acceptable copyright license on the University's web page. You are permitted to copy into Wikipedia from sources with explicit compatible licenses, but only with proper attribution. See WP:PLAGIARISM. As an alternative, you can use the facts (but not the creative elements such as the wording) from their article to write your own article. You must then provide a reference to their article, but you do not attribute it in this case. -Arch dude (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote
There is a proposal to promote this.174.3.113.245 (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting for followup
Pursuant to a listing at SCV on 3/25:


 * &mdash; http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Hysminai.html. CSBot reporting at 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting move.svg Article blanked for evaluation and closure through WP:CP. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ issues in at least two other articles. Addressed with contributor. Not sure if a CCI is needed, though I'm low in time for checking the scope this weekend. You'd be very welcome to help with that conversation should you feel so inclined. I hope this will be relatively swiftly resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look into this this weekend then and see if I can rewrite some of them. When I looked at the other articles at the time I didn't see any problems outside of the handful of greek mythology ones they had made in that one day, so it shouldn't be that bad. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll move this to the CP talk page so that I don't forget to follow up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up is needed to make sure that the following articles do not constitute copyright concerns: This contributor has now been advised of the need to rewrite content but seems to have copied from. Some of the content replicated is PD, but some is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neikea ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Limos (mythology) ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Androktasiai ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pseudologoi ✅
 * Amphilogiai ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anaideia ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Angelia ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Horkos ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dolos (mythology) ✅
 * Pseudologoi ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of South West African Stamps (1985)?
Does anyone know the Copyright Status of South West African Stamps issued in 1985. "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia". Would the stamps issued thus be free of copyright? The territory became the independent Republic of Namibia on 21 March 1990(20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Help needed with a set of articles
In the course of checking the 14 articles created or expanded by this editor in the last two weeks, I have found and removed extensive copyvio from Reynolds Beal, Henry Livingston French, and John A. Hartell. Even so, I suspect they may still contain material lifted from off-line alumni magazines, some of which were definitely published post 1923. (3 other articles were straight copypastes from .gov and .mil sites - poorly attributed but not copyvio) The following still need to be checked:
 * Created:
 * Morris Lyons Buchwalter Article clearly copypasted from a variety of offline sources, mostly pre-1923, but no acknowledgement that they are used verbatim. Possibility of copying from copyright alumni magazine articles as he died in 1932. Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John Andrew Rea: Article copypastes from two relatively recent sources in addition to several Wikipedia articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Festus Walters – I've removed a large chunk verbatim from a 1932 US source. Rest of article clearly copypasted from a variety of offline sources, mostly pre-1923, but no acknowledgement that they are used verbatim. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomas Wilson Spence – OK. Even though probably copied from an alumni magazine in parts, it was pre-1923 Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanded
 * Joseph B. Foraker –Seems  OK Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehrick Rossiter : Most definitely not OK. Selectively deleted back to prior to his contribs. In addition to pasting from (right down to the tell-tale "establish- ment"), he has copied from a magazine article that I can only see in snippets. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I've managed to get hold of several pages of the magazine article via google cache – it was verbatim copy paste and a huge chunk. The section on the environment was verbatim from http://steeprockassoc.org/history Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll update this as I check more articles, but any help would be appreciated. (Note the editor is currently under a 2 week block for disruptive behaviour at an AfD for another of his articles, so at least there's a breathing space.) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I have been able to clarify these issues to the contributor. I've left him a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can a website copyright text published in 1796?
Does Wikipedia consider it a copyvio to cut and paste text from a webpage displaying a clear copyright/all rights reserved notice but which holds text published in 1796 and therefore in itself out of copyright. This is the page in question and the article it has been copied to is Sayes Court which is currently part of a WP:CCI. My first instinct was to delete the text as copyvio but I'm now having second thoughts. Cheers, Nancy  talk  16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the webpage is a straight copy of the 1796 text, then it isn't copyrighted. If they add any creative element to it then they could copyright that part of it. It helps to have access to the original text to compare. From a quick look at the original source they do appear to have stuck fairly close to the original, but I haven't looked through Sayes Court to see which part is actually copied. Hope that helps! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another explanation: "A" writes text in 1793. "B" copies and modifies the text: "B" has created a "derived work." "B" claims copyright in the "derived work." "C" makes a direct copy of the text from "B". The law is clear on this. First, "B" has no claim on copyright in the original work by "A." Second, "B" 'does have a valid copyright on any creative elements that "B" added to create the derived work. So: the copy by "C" is a copyright violation if and only if the modifications by "B" are "creative" as defined in copyright law. At Wikipedia, the "best practice" is to work from the original "A" instead of working from the text at "B". As a practical matter, If the work at "B" is in a form that is easy to copy and paste, while the work at "A" is not, then it is always acceptable to copy the work at "B" and then remove any changes made by "B," to reproduce the original work by "A." It is also acceptable to cut and paste the work by "B" without modification, as long as the changes by "B" are merely mechanical and not creative, but this is a judgment call. In any case, "B" has no justification whatsoever to claim or imply a copyright in the work by "A." -Arch dude (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with discography page
Hello, I'm new. I recently made an entry for an album (as part of a discography) and got a message from the search-bot saying that the contents of the page appears to include a substantial copy of - and here they show a Weblink to a CDUniverse page detailing the same album. I cannot show you the page I created because I can't find it anymore. It had one sentence stating that this is the artist's 4th album, an infobox (with a review reference to allmusic.com) and it listed the song titles. Question: how do I create such an entry again without running into what they called copyright violation? Obviously, the content will be the same as for a hundred of discography Web pages. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. MissKlaatu (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. The bot that picked it up is not able to determine between copyrightable content and non-creative material such as you reproduced. The reason you can't find the page, though, is that another contributor redirected it to the artist's page.


 * There may be an easier way to do this, but the way to locate the original page when you wind up where somewhere unexpected (such as inside another article) is to hit the back button on your browser. When you follow Everyone's Having Fun Tonight!, it lands you in the discography of Eytan Mirsky. Hitting the back button shows you just below the article title the words "(Redirected from Everyone's Having Fun Tonight!)" If you follow the link there, it will take you to the source page. When you look in the page history, you can see who "redirected" it and why: . In this case, it was evidently redirected because it contained insufficient information to stand by itself. Consensus recorded in the relevant guideline is that an album article that contains little more than a tracklist should be redirected to the artist's page. If you'd like to add more sourced information, you can easily edit it by following this link. If you run into any more questions, you may get good response from the help desk. Happy editing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd Question
Is anyone else only seeing a link to Copyright problems/NewListings at the bottom of this page instead of the usual transcluded subpages? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's like that for me too. Strange... Theleftorium (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I play around with editing the page and preview it, I get "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." From thus I figured out that it's not a new problem, particularly for this page. So the solution is to have smaller size templates transcluded, so I guess that means we just need fewer copyright problems… VernoWhitney (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, at least, I fixed the issue by taking off the older listings from the 4th after rewriting the one remaining issue (since admins had already been through almost everything). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Books on Amazon packaging Wikipedia articles
I am not sure where to put this question - if this is not the right place, maybe someone can redirect me... What I am observing may not even be illegal, but I suspect it's unethical...  If you do a search for Lambert M. Surhone on Amazon.com, you get over 18,000 hits, on a huge variety of different topics. My impression, based on just sampling a few titles, is that they are packaging Wikipedia articles, and putting them up for sale on Amazon. The Product Description always says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!", which suggests that the writer is not a native English-speaker... I don't know if this practice is legal, but it certainly smells fishy! Could someone look into this? Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as they follow our Terms of Use, I don't think it's illegal to sell content taken from Wikipedia. I could be wrong though. Theleftorium (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an article I found: http://www.neowin.net/news/amazoncom-allows-the-selling-of-wikipedia-articles. Theleftorium (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me at that article - I think the contributors cover both sides of the debate pretty well. One point I didn't see mentioned, though, is that Wikipedia recommends that you include the oldid when referencing a Wikipedia article - it would be interesting to know if the book packagers do this...  Vandalism can be quite subtle! Jpaulm (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another bot for the project?
Since this page has many more watchers than the main project page I'm posting a notification here. I'm proposing a bot to help with tedious copyright cleanup duties and would appreciate input at WT:COPYCLEAN. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors here may be able to contribute
Editors here seem to know more about authorship and publication than average, and I would appreciate it if several editors would express their opinions about whether self-publishing is the act of an author publishing what he/she/it writes, or if it means something that has nothing to do with what every single reliable source says it is.

So far, two editors have declared that self-publishing is defined entirely by the number of employees: According to them, large corporations cannot self-publish their own websites, and small newspapers cannot do anything except self-publish (because they're too small). Another has said that only secondary sources can be self-published.

I would like to directly clear up the confusion by expanding WP:SPS to include a basic definition, like "Self-publication is the act of an author publishing what his own works. This includes individuals, small groups, and corporate authors who publish their own works on paper, electronically, or in any other media form."

If you're willing to please comment at WT:V (TLDR warning).

(Resolving this dispute should deal with a deadlock at WP:Notability, in which an editor says that press releases issued by multinational corporations aren't self-published — which nonsensical conclusion would mean that a press release counts towards the company's notability.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive
I recently deleted text from this article which was referenced to and linked to a preprint of a scientific paper. This paper contains a diagram that is without attribution to the author or reference to the licence. Hence I deleted per WP:LINKVIO. This decision is being disputed by another editor. Could someone here please take a look and advise? Thanks.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I removed the citation and I have written an email to one of the authors. I hope this situation will solve for the best. Indeed, this paper arose some fuzz in the blogosphere as the question of Alcubierre drive is a most fascinating one and there was disappointment around for the results of these authors. So, due to the importance, I think that few lines in the article should be there without pointing to the paper until this issue is properly solved. Anyway, I fear that is common practice to copy a picture from Wikipedia and put everywhere one likes without care about copyright. I think that this is a problem to address as soon as possible to avoid other situations like this.--Pra1998 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the authors responded to my request. He pointed out a new reference with all figures produced by them and so, without copyright problems. He said to me he will try to get in touch with Administrators to get a permission. I will update the article with the new reference.--Pra1998 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Using content from Public Database to create community based annotation
Hi,

I am a developer of a bona fide database[] called DECIPHER that provides public information about genomic disorders, of use for clinical practice. The top international journal

We have come across another database Rfam from our same Institute Sanger Institute that is using Wikipedia to annotate RNA molecules. This is a bona fine high standar scientific endeavor.

Our aim is to engage the community and improve annotation of clinically relevant genomic syndromes as we alone cannot keep up to data. It seems that for Rfam it has been very useful this experience and we would like to imitate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelcorpas (talk • contribs) 3 June 2010


 * Hi. :) I'm not sure if there's a question about copyright here. Can you clarify? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your quick reply. First of all, just to say that I am a newbie and I have tried to create a page about a Clinical Syndrome that we have reported in our database. I believe notability, public use and COI are OK. However, at the moment is a cut and paste of text parts of the entry.


 * Here is the example:
 * I am trying to create a new entry for [17q21.3 recurrent microdeletion syndrome].


 * I've just deleted the content of the page I created for 17q21.3_Recurrent_Microdeletion_Syndrome while I get your approval.


 * The idea is that initially I would put what I have in the database and/or announce it to the world so that people can edit the content.Manuelcorpas (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. I'm afraid that there are problems with that source which may be insurmountable. The link at the bottom to copyright takes us to, where we find that the content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. Wikipedia also uses a Creative Commons license, but we use Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, which permits both commercial reuse and derivatives. Unless the Sanger Institute is willing to change its license, I'm afraid that we will not be able to accept content from that site. But see Donating copyrighted materials in case you can convince them to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just a generic copyright statement for the Institute website. The authors of this website can place information into Wikipedia but in doing so they are releasing it under a different copyright and license. As long as this is done by the copyright holders then this is fine as far as I understand it.  Of course it will be best if the content is repackaged into a Wikipedia style and I can certainly help with that. Alexbateman (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have any means to verify their identity within Wikipedia itself. Accordingly they cannot place it here unless they verify permission via the processes at Donating copyrighted materials. Generic copyright release or no, we need a usable license statement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...And we're having the same conversation at Talk:17q21.3 Recurrent Microdeletion Syndrome too... VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How much plot summary is too much?
Please see WT:C thread. Feedback on that question would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Canadians in the United Arab Emirates
Got a question. Followed a user whose copy-and-paste edit on another article I removed, and found this. The search bot tagged the article a minute after creation, and two minutes later the user removed it with edit summary "Bot error; the given site has not been used as a source". This makes me wonder if the user has realised what the search bot was getting at. The revision the bot tagged and the current revision do not differ, unfortunately the link the bot supplied is now a dead link so I cannot tell.

I have asked the user if he could educate me in his or her thoughts here. Just wanted to play it safe by running it by you guys. Cheers, S.G.(GH) ping! 11:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, fortunately, we do know that at least one other user agreed with him in that case, at least. Corensearchbot results are automatically listed at WP:SCV, and for some months now we've been keeping records of their review. That one was listed at Suspected copyright violations/2010-05-24, and the volunteer who reviewed it marked it as a false positive. I am not deeply familiar with him, so I do not know if he reviewed the source himself, but I hope and suspect he would have. Directions require it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello! Regarding the article, the hardly three sentences I wrote were from the two sources which are in the references section. The first one is an article from canada.com about Canadian expats in the UAE (which I used for determining their number) and the seocnd source belongs to the "Club for Canadians in Dubai," a non-profit social club. Again, I hardly quoted one sentence from here. The bot gave a completely random website which I never even heard of on the basis of copyright violations when I used something completely different. Hence I removed the tag. - Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can back up that it was a false positive. I've been pretty much checking up on most of Acather96's work at SCV just to be sure (since I know I was missing things a few months ago when I started doing this regularly). In this case the page still has a Yahoo cache, so that makes it pretty clear. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fabulous! That one's settled, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to still have a problem with the Lahore Press Club though it got re-worded. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikidex!
So I'm making a game with lots of little monsters and I wanted to call the database of monsters the "Wikidex". I'm not sure if Wiki/Wikipedia/Wiki's are in use enough in the english language to be official words (Like "Googling" something), nor do I know if the owners of Wikipedia would sue my asses off either way. Little help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topagae (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wiki" is a word, and is not subject to copyright. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one of the problems with "intellectual property" vs. specific categories of laws... as copyright doesn't apply but another one of these kind of laws may. In this case, it would be if the term "wiki" is trademarked.  Arguably the WMF has seemingly trademarked the term wiki, even though the term can certainly be ascribed to a great many other people, including perhaps more significantly Ward Cunningham or even the government of the state of Hawaii (who used the term wiki on the Wiki Wiki Shuttle for the Honolulu International Airport).  Wikipedia is a much later application of the term.


 * The term has become generic even when applied to computer software and a claim of trademark status would be very difficult to enforce, especially in a retroactive fashion. The fact that the word "wiki" is also found in the Hawaiian language and has ancient usage further supports the generic status of the word to where trademark doesn't apply.


 * As for the specific term "Wikidex" being free of trademark status.... consult an attorney if you really want to be paranoid. It has been used for other websites, including a database of "monsters" (it is the Spanish-language edition of the Pokedex on Wikia... information about Pokemon).  Otherwise, Google is your friend.  It is a term that can be trademarked, but there is previous usage of the term by others that makes things a real mess.  --Robert Horning (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Blurbs"
Do we have a coherent policy for "blurbs"? I'm talking about things like the plot summaries from the backs/dust jackets of books, the standard blurbs that appear when films are released or on their DVD covers and similar things. They are widely reproduced whenever the book/film is listed anywhere but I guess are still copyrighted to the original publishers/film studios. Do we have any policy on them? Do we delete on sight? Do we allow reproduction? Do we require some kind of attribution? Exxolon (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are under copyright, and, yes, we delete on sight. These are analogous to Press Releases, really. Many people think that because press releases are engineered for wide distribution, we can reproduce them here, but our licensing requirements permit both commercial reproduction & modification. Intent to redistribute does not address these needs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've rewritten the one in question and advised the article creator. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to copyvio process
Several people have noted over the years that the autoblanking is not ideal and the most recent conversation about it is pretty clear, even for not-technophile me (see Template talk:Copyviocore). Accordingly, I've altered the instructions to again require removal of the text as was once done in order to better protect the project, our users and copyright holders. I haven't removed the "auto-hide" function because it will take a while for this to catch on, and better safe than sorry. If you want to discuss it, how about doing so at Template talk:Copyviocore? Seems like a solid location. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cypress Creek Preserve
Could someone review this version of the article and determine whether there are any copyvio problems? I'm now seeing any, but another editor has objected to it on the talk page without providing any specifics. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Third-party sharing
These photos have a stay of deletion (per ukexpat) pending emails showing that I have been given permission to use them; I told the owners that I would license them appropriately:


 * File:Nikonos_II.jpg
 * File:Nikonos_case_sekonic_meter.jpg

I know that I need to forward the permission emails, but there are two problems, one personal, one general:
 * My email permission was sent to an address associated with my real name, and I don't want to be "outed"
 * The process is tedious and will prevent many people from wanting to share their photos, or other material

There must be a better way; the full scenario goes thus:


 * As a camera lover, I use Ebay.com for research. Lately I have been finding excellent photographs of cameras I do not own, especially from different angles, such as this Nikonos series.  I email the photos' owners to ask if they would want to allow them to be used on the WP, and they invariably say "yes" with enthusiasm.  I tell them this means putting the pictures "out there" with some open license, or in the public domain (which is my preference).


 * Further, I have them send me the originals and they usually send me more shots than appeared on Ebay. (Technically speaking, I believe that they are not the actual shots on Ebay, as Ebay shots are altered along the way, and hence an assertion here that they are solely the property of the owner.) I then take the multiple shots and combine them into one shot about 400 px wide, a process I am still perfecting as I would like to show the cameras over a contextual background, such as a Nikonos on the beach or in the surf with flowing palms (you get the picture).


 * As a sidebar, the picture are collages, which may alter the licensing issues (just a thought).


 * The privacy problem is that permission was sent to my email address that has my real full name associated with it, as that is the email address I use for Ebay and PayPal. I use a different email address here to prevent being "outed," which is a Wikipedia right.  I need an assurance of confidentiality so that the names are not associated where they can be plainly viewed.  Added to this problem is the well-known fact that far too many Wikipedia admin accounts have been compromised.

There are many pictures out there that owners would love to share greatly strengthening articles, but this process will block the majority of attempts at sharing as it is a huge waste of everyone's time--there has to be a better way. --John Bessa (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an OTRS agent, I know that the e-mail address you use to contact the Wikimedia Foundation with permissions will not be disclosed. It is viewable to OTRS agents, who are vetted and required to promise to respect the privacy of our correspondents. But you can ask the copyright holders to send their licensing releases directly to the Wikimedia Foundation or to one of your other addresses. To save you some trouble, I'll just note that the permission must be explicit enough. See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for the recommended form. We often receive letters that do not specify the license, and we cannot use these even if the correspondent seems to grasp the scale.


 * The better way, really, comes into play when content is previously published online. At that point, it's a simple matter for the copyright holder to place his or her release on the website that publishes the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A possibly even better way:
 * The WMF can send a link to the copyright holders that would show the images, or other material, and ask if they agree to CC-BY-SA or some other license. The point I am trying to make is that by making the process simpler incrementally, sharing will grow exponentially.  Further, the load at your end would be lightened, which I have read in several places is causing a bottleneck, which presumably further decreases sharing.  Sharing is, of course, what makes this media different from, say, traditional encyclopedias.--John Bessa (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent the material. If it is you, Moonriddengirl, who is going through the emails, it is titled "Permission information for images: File:Nikonos case sekonic meter.jpg & File:Nikonos II.jpg" Thanks --John Bessa (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go see if I can find it. I think a problem with your proposal could be the man hours that would be required in tracking down these individuals and following through. Somebody would have to notify us of an image that needs permission and supply us the point of original publication, as well as giving us contact information for the copyright owner. Since quite a few people assert that they have permission who never follow through, there is a risk that that a good many of these contacts would be wasted time. I suspect there would also be a graver concern with liability if we should send the request to the wrong person, but our lawyer would have to make that call. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have received your letter and replied. Now you are in possession of my secret identity as well. :) For my own reference, it's at 2010072910038106. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of lists: question
Those of us who work copyright know that under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia (and precedence of all other copyright investigations), lists are copyrightable to the extent that they are creative. Sometimes, determining creativity of lists is complex. There is currently a case open at WP:CP of two lists. 1976 Lady Wigram Trophy is opened on 8/8; 1976 Rhodesian Grand Prix is opened on 8/9. The copyright owner vigorously objects to our use of the content. The matter has been through OTRS (2010080810004046), where two different agents have declined to delete the material on the basis of Feist v. Rural, but he asserts that there is creativity involved. Please see Talk:1976 Lady Wigram Trophy and help clarify there the creativity of these two lists, if you can. The copyright holder has been advised via OTRS and through Wikipedia that he should write to our designated agent to request take-down if he disagrees with the OTRS outcome, but he would prefer to resolve it through community consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Partial copyright violations
The people that monitor this page may be interested in this discussion.--Rockfang (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Extensive use of non-free text

 * Reported by Sf5xeplus (talk)
 * Articles created by editor Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation, Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues , Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns All contain extensive (~50%) of the text copied from copyrighted sources, and placed in quotations, and referenced. The articles still have the same problem in their current (8 Aug 2010) versions. Effectively the article have been written by quotation, with the user generated content acting as glue between the copied text. The quoted text is not necessary in most cases. It is not a fair use example of quotation use. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've coped this from WP:CCI, as this is a bit out of the scope of that board. I do agree, though, that this is a problem. Articles to look at here include:
 * Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns (up for AfD)
 * Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation
 * Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues
 * Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell
 * Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell


 * Royal Dutch Shell (doesn't seem to have the issues)
 * royaldutchshellplc.com
 * No problems found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sakhalin-II
 * I don't see any issues here; didn't bother checking history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Daisy Group plc
 * I don't see any issues here; didn't bother checking history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gripe site
 * Already cleared, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ogoni people
 * Copyvios removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiScanner
 * Rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look through these and see what additional actions may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree these are problems, there is currently a AfD ongoing on Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns @ Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns, if the consensus is to delete, I will follow that up with AfD's on Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation,Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues and Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell based on the creators COI and the copyright issues. Codf1977 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will not rewrite them until that is resolved. It looks like a painful process. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Codf1977 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just came to warn about the AfD.. I think if the editor self created problem articles are deleted (which could happen) the remainder may be manageable by the usual editors. I'm only aware of the Sakalin article that the editor has been editing and not created themselves.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand if you like cleaning up mess (I do, but not this sort..) then please go ahead - it's a legitimate topic but the editor has overdone it so much no one wants (to keep) the article as it is...Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Locksmithing
Before listing this article I would like to ask for advice. It is a very old article and has made its way into numerous WP mirrors such that the obvious question arises, who copied from whom. However, the editing pattern of the WP article as well as several features on this page make me believe the latter might be the original:
 * WP: Almost totally unwikified, essay-like style of prose (it "smells" like a copyvio, won't you say?)
 * WP: most of the possibly problematic material added in one edit by a user who never made another edit
 * Suspected original: high-quality pictures with file names atypical of someone who copied from several sources
 * Suspected original: has a wider coverage than the WP article but does not appear have a break in the flow of prose

The last unproblematic revision might be this; obviously a lot of small improvements have been made in the mean time -- How would such a case be handled? --Pgallert (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that a long essay-like addition by an WP:SPA account often indicates a copy-pasting problem. And the one you cite is certainly suspicious. On the other hand, it wasn't copied from the monopolylocksmiths.co.uk site. It appears that that site copied their text on the types of locks from Wikipedia sometime after this edit in November 2009. I haven't found where the locksmithing text may have originated -- there are multiple possibilities. (For example, this page with links to articles on locksmithing existed before the WP article). For probable copyvios from an unknown source, you can add the template found at Copyright problems. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the template as suggested, thanks for the hint. Considering how "busy" the article's talk page is this might not lead to a solution any time soon, though. --Pgallert (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sidhpur

 * Part of the Sidhpur article that was written by Khyati lad appears to come from the book "Hindu Temples, what Happened to Them: The Islamic evidence." I deleted one paragraph that was taken directly, but more seems to be left, as seen in the google cache. Vacationing55 (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The directly copied paragraph that I removed has since been restored as well. Vacationing55 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. I have blanked the whole page for further investigation, since more than just that one paragraph appears to have been copied. It is now listed at Copyright problems/2010 September 10 and will be reviewed and dealt with by an administrator. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I believe the copyright violation entered the article here from User:Er.bhasker and not from User:Khyati lad whom you left a notice for, but sometimes it's difficult to track down. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I will note that. Sorry about that.  Vacationing55 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tommytheod.jpg
Hello, I hope this is the proper place to report an image that appears to be a copyvio. The uploader claims it as his own work, but it's rather obviously identical to an image used on a Greek newspaper's website. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The image is at Commons. Please go to its Commons page and tag it with with a link to the original image where "image or source" is at.  §hep  Talk  15:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've tagged the Commons page as you suggested. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please leave a stub
I spotted a red link for a notable person, and on checking found that their article had been deleted two weeks ago as copyvio. It was apparently a "close paraphrase" of her profile on a speakers agency website. It's not obvious which way the copyvio went (their Bill Bryson article looks to me as if it is based on ours). I've started a new stub article, and the deleting admin has kindly supplied me with the list of sources which were given in the article (though they were not referenced to specific points). These sources make it obvious that she is notable and that the WP article was always going to be re-created. I've found an image on Commons which was probably in the original article. I've re-created one redirect from a plausible mis-spelling of her name (the previous one having been deleted by a bot because it pointed to a non-existent page). Given that her forename has an obvious mis-spelling and her surname is likely to be mis-spelled several ways, I imagine there was a whole network of useful redirects which were deleted. The article probably had categories, perhaps an infobox (and there is no copyright in facts).

In short, although the text of the article may have been a copyvio, by deleting the article a lot of useful non-copyvio material has been lost. This article is needed in Wikipedia, so editors' efforts will be wasted in re-creating what was done before.

This is a plea that deleting admins should, where the topic is clearly notable, please leave a stub article behind. The lead sentence, plus any infobox, image, categories, See also, External links, lists of publications, etc, would be a great help and, if I've understood the system correctly, would also mean that the redirects didn't disappear. PamD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Deleting admin has now, at my request, replaced the infobox and categories. PamD (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Contributors have seven days to propose rewrites for copyright problems and if they do not, we may have no choice but to delete. Copyright cleanup is a neverending job on Wikipedia, and the few admins we have addressing these problems do not have time to rewrite the thousands of articles lined up that are either tagged as copyright problems currently or tagged for copyright review. I have myself rewritten several hundred articles rather than delete them as copyvios, but there are far too many for the handling admins alone to provide usable stubs. Articles that are left with only infoboxes, images and categories would be speedily deletable. That said, I have myself never refused to supply uncreative elements such as infoboxes, images and categories if a contributor down the road decides to fill the new gap, and I can't imagine that any admin would. But there's no reason to wait for deletion. Not only copyright infringers have the option of rewriting articles; any contributor is welcome to help out. There are seven days worth of listings visible at the copyright problems page at any given moment. Any of these can be rewritten by anyone with an interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * CSD A3, "no content", specifies "Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information. ", so I don't see that an article with a useful infobox would be speedily deletable. Surely a lead sentence and all the "uncreative elements" would form the basis of a useful stub, in cases where a quick glimpse at the content shows the topic to be notable.  This woman had valid External Links to profiles in major newspapers.  It's just a pity that she wasn't on the watch list of anyone with the wiki-savvy to rescue her before all her redirects etc were destroyed. PamD (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is destroyed when it can be (and evidently was) restored on request. We have thousands of active admins. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so, I think. As this woman has easily mis-spelled forename and surname (The Times got surname wrong), there are a whole batch of potential useful redirects: when I recreated the most obvious one, I found that a bot had deleted a previous copy of it, as a redirect pointing to a deleted page. So deleting an article appears to destroy the net of redirects created for it ... unless someone can show me how I could have found them? (The deleting admin couldn't). I've created 3 so far (covering one mis-spelling apiece of surname and forename). PamD (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors keen on ensuring nothing is lost when a copyvio comes up at review can always scan WP:CP ahead of time and re-create stubs in temp space. With currently around 50-60k articles needing a copyvio check and only two admins left who do regular text copyvio work (three when I can make it back), the solution for people worried about losing non-infringing content is to roll up their sleeves and WP:SOFIXIT. Just saying. MLauba (Talk) 12:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've worked on fixing this one: it just seems a pity so much work has been unnecessarily lost. PamD (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, indeed. And it is the fault of the person who violated our Terms of Use. If we had more copyright workers, perhaps it wouldn't happen. Restoring redirects may be more challenging than restoring content deleted in the actual page, but the ony really practicable solution is for interested contributors to salvage articles before they come due for closure. We have a whole project dedicated to this, but, unfortunately, those active members of it tend to be preoccupied in identifying copyright violations in the many articles waiting review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bundala National Park
Hello, Through edits after September 10th UTC (edit history), article Bundala National Park has been added with multiple close-paraphrased contents from this publication by IUCN: http://www.archive.org/details/iucndirectoryofs90gree (pages 198 - 201).

Particularly sections "Physical Features", "Climate", "Vegetation", "Fauna", and"Conservation Management" are clearly visible in the Wikipedia article, with small paraphrased words such as important to significant or dense to thick.

Please see p.200 section "Conservation Management" of the above material, and Bundala National Park, to mention only one example.

Taking into account the nature of this IUCN report (and the Wikipedia article) being related to nature research, I understand core factual, scientific findings or statistical data (for example, the park's climate, or what species of fauna or flora are found on the site) could possbily be described the same way as in the source reference, yet it makes me wonder if that means it is allowed to copy much of the sentence structure together.

Because the paraphrasing is so limited, should I translate the article into Japanese for example, it is most likely indistinguishable to say whether the resulting text was directly translated from the original or from the Wikipedia article. I hate to be a copyright paranoia, and that's why I'm here to ask for anybody else's view on this. (Note that the original also grants "reproduction right" for educational and/or non-commercial purposes but does not explicitly refer to derivative type of works.) Is pro-eco research an indulgence for ignoring copyright? Thanks, Fontoponto (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave the issue a review, and there are indeed about half a dozen sentences copied verbatim. Much of the added text is factual, but at the same time structure is preserved quite a bit. The correct course of action would be to rewrite the Physical Features and Threats & Convservation section, and simply to replace the fauna and flora parts by verbatim and attributed quotations. MLauba (Talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Saying may sentences has copied from the source is little harsh on my part. I was trying to avoid Original Researching, if please look at the flora and fauna sections, you might notice that I have retain the books' taxonomy and I knew that many species have gone taxonomic revisions. I'll try to rewrite the article swiftly. Let me know anything else has to be done. thanks-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 00:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article. Please have a look. Best-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 11:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)