Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 2

''Archived April 15, 2005. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 12:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)''

WikiProject Countries
1) For current county/region but not city maps I think that possible copyright infringements are best referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. I've created a possible copyvio section there and listed this one. Can we make this standard practice for these so the right team gets them in their to do list? JamesDay 17:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Dealing with issues of copyright has nothing to do with those interested in the WikiProject Countries. They should all be listed on this page so that they may be deleted, not moved elsewhere and quietly forgotten about. Angela
 * I'm not suggesting moving things and quietly forgetting about them. I'm suggesting telling the people who are actively producing country and region maps that there's a map which is a possible problem, so they can replace it rather than seeing a map which they assumed they already had vanish because they weren't looking here. I appreciate and wholeheartedly agree with the need for time limits and for central places to manage copyright issues. This page says that things will be listed for at least 7 days. Is referring to a project and setting a 60 day timeline sufficient or do you really think that a possible violation is so serious that it must be deleted within 7 days even when a wikiproject is handling the subject? Can wikiprojects be trusted to that degree to look after their subject when they are told there is a problem within it? Has the possibility of passing on responsibility to active wikiprojects to deal with the issue come up before or is this new ground where there's no established policy yet? If it hasn't come up yet, this sounds like a good question for wikien-l.JamesDay 20:19, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2) I've listed Plock, Poland at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so that project can take care of it as time allows. Barring objections I suggest that we let the project handle replacing this one. There's at least one person there diligently working through maps.JamesDay 17:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * You can say on the project page that it needs replacing but if it is a copyvio it must be listed here and deleted in a week. It seems like you are suggesting it be kept until someone on that project replaces it. Angela
 * Yes, I do suggest that if a known wikiproject is covering an area it should be told as soon as possible after something is listed here, because they may not watch this page. I'd like to trust wikiprojects to self-manage further than that - discussed above.JamesDay 20:19, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

3) (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries): This is for copyright issues relating to countries. I've proposed moving prospective country copyright violations from Possible copyright infringements to this section so all on the project will have them in a convenient to do list to get them fixed as time allows. Please consider leaving this in its current prominent location to make it easy to move from copyvio to this project. JamesDay 17:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think this is a really bad idea. Copyvios need to be kept in one place. I see no advantage to having them spread out in different topic areas. This makes the removal of them much harder to maintain. I strongly oppose the suggestion to move them here. Angela 17:35, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Could something be a copyright infringement even after it has been deleted?
I notice that the article refers to material in an article's page history infringing copyright. I find it hard to believe this is really possible. Surely we only have to worry about the article itself, not stuff that has been deleted from it? GrahamN 17:09, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * See Copyright violations on history pages. Angela

Thanks, Angela, but unfortunately that page doesn't seem to answer the question. If somebody actually knows the answer (as opposed to having an opinion, or an interesting line of argument) could they please state it clearly there. Thank you. GrahamN 23:19, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Everything in law is just an opinion till it's been litigated, but my opinion is that it's quite clear that: [1] when you make something available on the Internet you are publishing it, and that [2] we are publishing the history pages. I can't see how we have any right to publish copyrighted material on history pages.  The fact that we call them history pages and don't consider them a part of Wikipedia or that it requires an extra click to get to them doesn't seem to alter that. -- Someone else 23:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I hadn't thought of it quite like that. Food for thought. GrahamN


 * It's probably worth mentioning that although it seems clear we have no right to keep copyright materials in history, our liability for having done so would seem to be limited until the actual copyright owner notifies us of the offence... at which time we'd presumably "hand-remove" it to comply with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. -- Someone else 23:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, they can't really be copyright infringement: However, the law isn't just about what is or isn't infringement. Courts sometimes give odd rulings and someone still has to pay the legal bills to get to the odd ruling stage and to appeal it to get a sensible ruling. The wording in the article does say that it's for a copyright holder who believes that it's infringement. It can't really be infringement but it's still an excellent idea to invite communication about it rather than a court case! Much cheaper.:) All in my view, because until the Supreme Court rules, you don't know the answer with certainty. JamesDay 07:02, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * the use is transformative, there's no revenue, no more is used than required for the purpose and the effect on revenue is zero, so it's a clear case of fair use, not copyright infringement (but notice how Someone else disagreed about what's clear:)).
 * it's may be an archive, which isn't infringement.
 * if found to be infringing, it's not what we're intending to publish (not the current Wikipedia) and not what search engines or mirrors use, so it's not going to be linked significantly and the effect on revenue and any damages for infringement would be minimal.
 * if found to be infringing, both the OCILLA and CDA protect the Wikipedia, but not the individual contributor. The Wikipedia itself is about as immune from liability as you can get.

How could this "invite a court case". Haven't you read what was written in great length about? No one can just sue Wikipedia for a copyright infringment -- ever. Because of the DMCA, all they can do is notify Wikipedia of an infringement with proof of copyright ownership and Wikipedia then removes the offending material or refuses. If they refuse, then and only then would it go to court. And, Mr. Wales certainly wouldn't value one article or one photo enough to fight over it in court. You guys need to stop espousing theories (none of you are copyright lawyers) and read the very extensive hard work that attorney User:Alex756 wrote so as to avoid this continued speculation by unqualified people. Mr. Wales has already acknowedged it all. NightCrawler 02:42, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I take exception with the qualification of my contributions to Wikipedia. People do and can have differing opinions. Lawyers often do amongst themselves. I do not think it is wrong to discuss these issues and even disagree with me, after all even if I have made a contribution to Wikipedia it is not legal advice but just my opinion, if people want to disagree with me, so be it. I state repeatedly that my contributions are not legal opinions. &#8212; Alex756 14:14, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A copyright holder can go directly to court and completely ignore the whole DMCA/OCILLA takedown process. JamesDay 00:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

French Copyright and Privacy Law
I have an inquiry regarding French copyright law and it was suggested that I should post it here. I started an article on a French musician called Midoru and added a photo which came from the book listed in the bibliography. This was a limited numbered edition and not meant for wide distribution. I know of no way to find this person to obtain his permission, but felt my use of the photo matched all the requirements listed on this site for fair use. However, I was subsequently contacted by someone who suggested that I should research French copyright and privacy laws before publicly posting pictures of French citizens, so I removed it pending further investigation.

Upon looking in to the matter I found that France has some of the world's strictest privacy laws and the country's constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to a private life. The law protects personal information about an individual and their intimate personal life against intrusions. In France, for instance, the right to privacy embraces "all aspects of an individual's spiritual and physical being". People can decide for themselves how much of their private life they wish to reveal. It also gives them rights over their own personal appearance (for instance, in the way photographs are used) and their own name.

I found the following FAQ on French copyright law and have roughly translated with Babelfish, so you may want to consult the original : Which is the contents of the moral right of the author? The moral right includes/understands: - right of disclosure, i.e. discretionary right to deliver its work to the public or to preserve it "secret", - right to the paternity, which is the right to be recognized author of work, in all circumstances, - right of withdrawal or repentance, therefore right to withdraw the work of the market, - the right to the respect of the work, which can be defined like the right authorizing the author to intervene when an attack, physics or morals, is carried to its work. The author cannot in no case to yield his moral right (it is said that it is "except trade" or even "inalienable"). The moral right is perpetual: the heirs to the author will recover his prerogatives of a moral nature to its death. This may be significant, as it seems to apply to any French citizen, unknown or celebrity. Can someone who is knowledgeable in the subject offer an opinion, or would it just be better not to post any pictures of the French here? What needs to be done to insure that the laws of France are not violated? ( I could just see going to Paris, getting arrested, and then hauled into court to answer questions about the picture I posted on Wikipedia before being sent to the Bastille.) Infortis 02:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If this book of which you speak was either sold or given to people not acquainted with its author (which is pretty much what "publish" means) then it's really hard to imagine anyone being able to seriously allege you've invaded anyone's privacy by republishing parts of it. If that's the case, they've volunteered to lose their right of disclosure. Paternity you can solve by proper attribution.  And the other rights are checked by your right as an owner of a copy of the work to make fair use of it.  I'm not qualified to speak as to which side of that interminable argument this case falls. -- Finlay McWalter 02:34, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The mentioned rights that I would like to know more of: - right of disclosure, i.e. discretionary right to deliver its work to the public or to preserve it "secret". - right of withdrawal or repentance, therefore right to withdraw the work off the market. Infortis 02:56, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Illaiyaraja is a copyvio of or of another site if that one copied itself from someplace else (no copyright notice on that site). Dori 18:48, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * It was at http://www.raajangahm.com/tmr.html as well, which does have a (c) notice, so I listed it. Angela 20:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Online service provider law
Views on Online service provider law are welcome over there - it's the area of law I track and the one applicable to many of the activities of the Wikipedia, including the image fair use decisions here. Jamesday 00:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New page: Request for immediate removal of copyright violation
Iv'e added Request for immediate removal of copyright violation to deal with cases where the actual copyright owner is the one making the complaint. --mav 08:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Logo issues

 * I just added a Simon and Schuster logo to the article on them... based on somewhat inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos. Some seemed to feel that the use of a corporate logo on an article about the corporation was surely fair use. What do people think? Is this OK or not? Dpbsmith 02:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * While his writings here and at Wikipedia_talk:Logos are not legal opinions in a formal sense, Alex756 is, I believe, Wikipedia's lawyer and IMO has a pretty good grasp of the issues. I feel pretty safe legally in going with most of what he writes about the law. He's a little less cautious in his writings than I usually am but that's fair enough, since he's a lawyer and I'm not. Jamesday 19:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Alex has objected in the past to his name being used on this page as a justification for keeping things like this. Angela. 19:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * If you read the objection you'll find that I did not do what Alex was objecting to in the situation you linked to. However, since you've raised the question, I'll ask Alex to express his view on this matter. Meanwhile, here are some of the differences between the situations:
 * I endorsed his writing, rather than saying that his writing endorsed mine.
 * This is what NightCrawler kept doing as well - saying "read the writings of Alex756" after everything he wrote.
 * I did not say that his writing referred to any specific case, while Nightcrawler did.
 * No, neither did NightCrawler in all cases. He just banded Alex's name around to try and give own opinion more weight.
 * I did not associate Alex with an incorrect legal view, while NightCrawler associated Alex with the incorrect claim that something being on the internet meant that it was free to use.
 * I specifically disclaimed Alex having given legal advice.
 * Yes, but you also claimed he was "Wikipedia's lawyer" which would seem to give him some official standing on such disputes. Is this the case?
 * Special official status (ie. Alex says so, so it's Wikipedia policy) wasn't my intent (just A lawyer was my intent), so thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I had in mind. Jamesday 19:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I was replying to a specific question about what people think and indicated that I thought that the views Alex had expressed had merit.
 * I don't act as NightCrawler acted. Jamesday 16:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No, thankfully not! :) I wasn't suggesting you were, and I apologise if you found my comment offensive. I just thought it might be wise to point out that I thought Alex might be uncomfortable about his name being used in this way. Angela.
 * In retrospect, accurate or otherwise, I think it was unwise for me to have mentioned the lawyer side of things, even if Alex did have that role, which it's now clear he doesn't. Me mentioning Alex would usually weaken my positions because they are actually based on law and decisions, not on whether Alex agrees or disagrees. I didn't think your comment was offensive. Thanks for raising this to correct my inaccurate belief on the wikipedia lawyer front! Jamesday 19:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I am going to agree and disagree. First, I don't think that James has done what NightCrawler did. I did in fact make a statement about logos, they are not trademark infringements in an informational context(not discussed here) and if they are copyright infringments I would argue that they are covered by fair use, as I have done in the past regarding LittleDan's use of MLB logos; so I do agree with James in that regard. However, I do not think that I have been appointed as Wikipedia's lawyer. As for James' other points I am in general agreement with them, he just mentioned me in a relatively innocuous way; NightCrawler made it sound like he had received my approbation before posting my name, James is just mentioning that I have written on this topic, there is a difference. However, I do not want to encourage that behaviour as I am just another volunteer here, even if I have done some things that might have created an attorney client relationship between Wikimedia and myself in the past on totally unrelated issues. That has nothing to do with rendering legal opinions on Wikipedia based on my expressing my opinions which I am entitled to do like anyone else. They should never be considered as some kind of Expert Determination that must be followed. &#8212; Alex756 17:51, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'll keep my eye out for whatever caused me to have the mistaken impression on the attorney client relationship side of things... Jamesday 18:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Understanding Copyright Policy
I posted my first wiki article a couple of days ago anonymous remailer faq

Within minutes the page had been deleted as it was a potential copyright infringement as the text also existed at www.faqs.org

As my interests are mostly in technical subjects, I'm trying to understand how I will ever get articles into a wiki if the case for potential copyright infringement is purely that the text exists elsewhere. Nearly all articles and faq's will exist on the web somewhere as this has been the best medium for such articles before the birth of wiki's.

How can a person provide proof that a text is not copyrighted? There is no owner of the material to ask, and even if there was a single author he would have no legal proof of ownership unless he held a copyright. QED


 * All texts are copyrighted unless specifically placed in the public domain. This needs to be a statement of the sort "this text is in the public domain", made by the author.  The way you get articles into Wiki is to _write them yourself_, rather than stealing them.  If you want to get permission to use something, email the authors, and make sure they understand we want to be able to use their words commercial, and re-edit them.  Hope this helps, Morwen 15:48, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Morwen, I think that answers my query even if it's not the answer I was hoping for. In the case of a fluid document such as the one deleted, there is no single person who can claim (or prove) ownership. Without ownership, there cannot be permission and so material that isn't owned cannot be posted to the wiki. Even authentic text typed into the wiki cannot subsequently be proven as authentic unless there is some form of digital signature applied to it.

When working in other languages...
When I am translating all or part of a wikipedia article from another language, and that language doesn't seem to have an equivalent of the English-language meta-article "Possible copyright infringements", what should I do if I come across a page that I think is likely to be infringing? This is particularly tricky if I'm not fluent in the language in question, so any comment I leave would probably have to be in English or in a third langauge such as Spanish. So far I've usually said something in the talk page and done my best to alert someone involved in the authorship of the article, using whatever languages I think are likely to be understood, but I've found the results a mixed bag. (For whatever it's worth, Romanian-language wikipedians have been very responsive to such issues, but others - who will remain nameless for the moment - sometimes have not.) -- Jmabel 09:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Curiously, I feel the same toward the english wikipedia, which I feel sometimes very little responsive to case of images copyright infringment. I also left comments here and there, and as far as I can remember, never got a comment back :-)

This said, I suspect that some non english wikipedias are currently more concerned by growing than by copyrighted issues. On fr: the number of editors potentially infringing copyright issues is much higher than the number of editors feeling concerned by the topic really. I think it has to do with unsufficient organisation, and unsufficient number of people taking care of cleanup. At least, if you leave a message on a talk page, it is very likely someone will come across it one day :-) Anthere


 * If the language has an embassy member, it might be best to contact them. If not, look at Special:Listusers and find a sysop. Angela. 19:27, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplate copyright notice
I have created what I believe could be a standard copyright violation notice for Wikipedia. It looks like this:

 

(SOURCE URL GOES HERE)

 ~ 

What do you think? Denelson83 08:57, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That should not be used. It encourages people to replace the text on the same page, which leads to a copyright violation being present in the history. The boilerplate notice has to contain links to the temp page so that people can rewrite it there instead. See Copyright violations on history pages. Angela. 00:49, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have amended the notice to reflect that.  However, I had to omit a link to a temporary subpage, as that would have required splitting the notice into three separate MediaWiki custom messages.  It's too bad there isn't a variable available in the MediaWiki software that can automatically insert a proper link to such a subpage. Denelson83 01:47, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

List of PD sources
Is there any list of sites where the content is known to be public domain that could be listed on this page, so that people (might) look there before crying 'copyright violation'. I suspect such a thing might already exist, so I'm asking before I create one. &mdash;Morven 22:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Public domain resources and for generic uncopyrightable things. Perl 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * But just because something can't be copyrighted doesn't mean it couldn't be protected in other ways, say as a trademark or under a patent. Presumably these don't cause as many problems for Wikipedia, but see for example MBTI. - dcljr 00:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hello, I copied English texts for the pages of Schalke 04 (from the club's pages) and Gelsenkirchen (from the city's site). Hope there is no copyright prob. d

Page move explained
This page was moved in accordance with majority opinion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. The main reasons for the move:
 * Page titles should be short and succint
 * "Infringements" is unnecessarily intimidating
 * It addresses a larger range of copyright issues, including, for example, copyright notices; it could become a kind of village pump for copyright issues.

&mdash;Eloquence 20:11, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)~


 * Well, I liked the old one "copyright infringements". It is more consice and focused. Copyright problems sound like it include more of problems due to copyright. Copyright sucks in my opinion and the length of the protection must be shortened. But it is a different story right? -- Taku 22:04, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the change. "Infringements" carries a presupposition of guilt, and quite a few pages get listed here that are not, in fact, infringing. &mdash;Morven 07:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like the change. The old one had "possible" in it.  This one doesn't. anthony 07:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Possible" isn't necessary if we're calling them "problems", not "infringements". I think the move was reasonable. --Michael Snow 17:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael. Some of these are actually GFDL issues (such as owner not agreeing to GFDL use) and not copyright infringement problems. - Texture 17:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't see that there was any kind of consensus for this change, however, rather than reverting, lets consider what we handle here, which is pretty much anything relating to legal issues with content. Would Legal questions be a better choice than copyright, since this is a better place for things like logo and GFDL issues than images for deletions, because this is where those who pay attention to the law tend to visit most? Jamesday 06:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't really mind what the page is called, but it's important to keep separate pages that are facing deletion and general discussions on copyright. A "village pump for copyright issues" is a good idea, but it shouldn't be merged with the existing copyright problems. copyright questions or legal questions would be better. Angela. 01:46, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

"... removed. Permission given" considered harmful
A recent summary on a Copyright problems edit read
 * Ling Bai removed. Permission given

This wording promotes the idea that when the copyright holder is IDed, and says "Sure, you can use it", the problem article can be removed from the list of problem articles.

This idea is false.

It can be taken off only under two circumstances:
 * 1) The copyright holder executes a GDFL license for the article.
 * 2) The copyright holder makes a credible statement that they were the person who already purported to be executing a valid GDFL license for the article by doing the edit.

I have no evidence that those who summarize with "permission given" did not succeed in satisfying one of those two circumstances. However, they undercut the process by saying "permission given" when the important fact is either It is clear that copyright holders sometimes say things like
 * 1) "retro. GDFL", or
 * 2) "GDFL was valid".
 * It says right on the site that you can use it as long as you include the copyright notice. What's the matter, can't you read?

which means we cannot use it without convincing them we're so cool that they should give up their legal right to insist their copyright notice be right there in the middle of the article. IMO, the instructions should specifically direct not saying "permission given", and should suggest use of whichever of the two i just proposed is applicable to the specific article. --Jerzy(t) 18:54, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

Copyright violation still contained in page history

 * from the pump

T-6 Texan was listed for copyvio and then rewritten before it could be deleted. My understanding is that the article should have been deleted and restarted so that the copyright violation text was removed from the history. On the other hand if we delete it now and start again with an identical (non-copyvio) article we lose the history of how we got here. Is there a way to erase the copyvio text from the history, or to make a new article which retains the existing history only as far back as the edit after the copyvio? Any ideas? DJ Clayworth 15:57, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There are probably hundreds of copyvios hidden in the article histories. As of now, single edits can only be deleted manually by someone with direct database access, and is thus only done in real emergencies. However as the german wikipedia is currently much more concerned about such copyvios in the histories, the abilitiy to delete single revisions is in the pipeline for a future MediaWiki release - no idea when it will come to life, nor if it will be something a normal admin can do, or if it will need developer access, or whatever. Yet I think it should be enough to have that ability once the copyright owner complains, but if you are concerned we can collect such hidden copyvios on a special page like Copyright violations in article history scheduled for deletion, and remove them once its possible without bothering our hard-working developers. andy 16:22, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There have also been discussions regarding certain portions of the US Copyright Law that permits educational archival of some copyright violations that Wikipedia's keeping the copyvios in the history may qualify for, specifically section 108 of Title 17, Chapter 1: "Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives." Nohat 23:16, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)


 * This is an ongoing problem. Despite the clear text in the copyvio message, people keep ignoring it.  The only thing I can suggest is that you try to catch it as soon as you can and in the future.  If you catch it after the first edit, then it won't be so bad.  Perhaps we could start having admins protect pages when they are listed on copyright problems and are blanked like that? anthony (see warning) 10:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * See also Copyright violations on history pages. Angela. 06:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Guide for fair use?
Given that Wikipedia provides a commentary about various subjects it seems to me that images like Corporate Logos, Product Pictures, screenshots of programs/games and the like would clearly fall under the fair use clause of copyright protection as long as the origin of the pictures is the same as that which is being written about. Is there an existing location which provides guidelines of how to use copyrighted images on Wikipedia in a compatible manner to fair-use?


 * See Fair use and Image_description_page. Angela. 15:55, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image:Saccharomyces cerevisiae.jpg
Fair use claims that this is the place for questions such as mine, so I'll take its word for it. There would appear to be, in my humble opinion, a copyright problem in Image:Saccharomyces cerevisiae.jpg, which is currently deemed fit under fair use. I for one do not see how it would fall under that definition. (It is probably best that this discussion take place at Image talk:Saccharomyces cerevisiae.jpg.) -- Itai 11:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Suspected" Copyright Violation policy
The vast majority of pages that get listed on Copyright problems are quite straight-forward: somebody has found a page with identical content, slaps the template on the offending article, and the only question is "was it copied with permission?"

But what is to be done in the case of an article that "smells funny", but no source can be found from which it has been copied? Earlier today, Staniukovich was flagged as a copyright violation with the source listed as "Unknown, but smells of one." Which caused considerable offence to the new editor who had created the page.

What does anyone think should be done in this case? It seems to me that there needs to be some way of notifying people of the possibility of a problem without the article being blanked and replaced by a scary "Attention! The content of this page has been removed" message.

Perhaps we need a "copyright query" tag, much like the and  tags, which can be used to put a note at the top of the page without removing the text. That, combined with a comment on the discussion page, and a listing for attention on Copyright problems, would alert other editors to see if they can find evidence that the article has indeed been copied.

Reasonable idea? Or daft? &mdash;Stormie 00:22, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * A less offensive/rude template may not be the answer. I have read the Policies and guidelines, if they would have been followed this would not be an issue. If the copyright template is used the page in question is essentially deleted, therefore the Deletion policy takes place and it clearly states "If in doubt... don't delete!". If a copyright infringement is merely suspected then the Dispute resolution kicks in and the issue should be brought up on the articles talk page first. Well that is my understanding of how it should be handled. Perhaps pasting the statement "If in doubt... don't delete!" into the key policy's and prominently placed in Copyright problems page, might avoid future embarrassments and conflicts. IMHO Buster 07:08, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

If you can't identify the source being copied, but suspect there is one, perhaps it would be best to contact the contributor first? Then, if they're nonresponsive or evasive, you could go ahead with the procedures of Copyright problems. --Michael Snow 16:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The trickiest situation is the thing that "smells like plagiarism" and is by an anonymous user. The second trickiest is the one that is effectively plagiarism, but is still legal, because the plagiarized, uncredited source was public domain. -- Jmabel 16:58, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the anon contributor is the trickiest situation. You can always try to ask them about the source of their work, but if they're not on a static IP address they may never see your question.
 * Is it a problem is someone copies a public domain source without credit? I mean, obviously it's not a legal problem, but do you see it as any sort of problem? It's bad manners, I think, but anything more than that? &mdash;Stormie 04:20, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to deal with that is to find the source and add a references section. Guanaco 05:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can always just post it on Copyright problems with a note saying that you're unsure. anthony (see warning) 11:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Backlog
I see a huge backlog going back three weeks by now instead of just seven days. Isn't anybody cleaning up here? Lupo 11:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The uncontested backlog goes back to June 29th. The earlier ones are not clear cut - the ones I commented on really need a second opinion. I will start to clear this up - although I've not tackled this page before. I guess the problem is that its the northern hemisphere holiday/vacation season so people are away. Secretlondon 21:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've now dealt with almost everything up to July 6th. Most of the remaining are disputed. Secretlondon 03:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Permission
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com > Subject: Request for permission To: "pieter du toit" 

I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M. Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.

David Pentrack

pieter du toit  wrote:

David Pentrack,

I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.

Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.

I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity;. To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.

We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

P Du Toit

Not just copyright infringements?
I was informed on the mailing list that this page is for more than just possible copyright infringements, so I have modified the page to reflect this. anthony (see warning) 00:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some questions from WP-tr
This is probably not the right place to ask this, but I am hoping someone will point me to the right place.

We have a problem in Turkish Wikipedia. Last week, someone made a number of contributions in a short timeframe. I suspected a copyvio and made a Google search on the content of these articles. The first three which looked professional gave hits. Two of them were from a Turkish government site w/o a copyright notice. This gives permission to use the material under Turkish law. One of them looked like came from a collection of essays offered by a site, though the site requires membership, but upon inquiry the contributor of that page did admit to getting the content from this site. I erased the contents of the page, he restored it claiming fair use, and I erased again, claiming fair use cannot be claimed since all the content came from a single source. I also stated that if he restores the page I will erase the content and procect it (I am a sysop there). Because of my position, I cannot do something and hope it will become policy in the long run. I do not want to be in a situation where I am the prosecutor, judge and the executor. I'd much rather find policy than make it. I think the precedents set in English Wikipedia will be acceptable to everyone involved. I have a few questions regarding the situation, and I would appreciate if someone can answer them and possibly point to a precedent in the English Wikipedia.
 * Can copying content be claimed to be fair use even if there are no additions made to it? i.e., the sole content of an article is part of a copyrighted work. If so who should this be attributed, so if it is passed on other people can decide for themselves to claim fair use or not.
 * It can be, but unless the article exists in a wider context it probably isn't. If you determine that it can be used, attribution should be to the original author. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The editor of the article in question said that noone would claim copyright on it, and he would assume all responsibility for it. In fairness, it is probably true that noone will ever claim copyright for this article, because the author would probably not even notice. My response to the second point was that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation would be responsible by distributing the content, even if he accepted responsibility, which he challanged. I have two questions on this:
 * Does him assuming responsibility absolve all other parties, in particular Wikipedia as a community, of responsibility even if we know there is a copyright violation? Whether there is a copyright violation is a different issue of course. More concretely, can we keep content that infringes someone's copyright if the contributor assumes responsibility for it?
 * Is it acceptable policy to use copyrighted material when it is likely that the copyright owner will not make any claims. For me the answer is a definite "no" but I cannot make the decision and proceed at the same time. I know Wikipedia does not have liability if the copyright owner does now complain, but I think the spirit of the law there, is to protect a publisher if he/she publishes copyrighted material unknowingly.
 * There's more to accepting responsibility than a simple statement saying that he does. Is he willing to give his real name and address so that when the usage is questioned you can send him all the legal papers?  I don't thank that his accepting responsibility would absolve all parties.  Keeping some infringing material needs to be a community decision that applies in circumstances that the community decides.  Personally, I believe that there is a tremendous amount of copyright material that could be used without any problem; the original authors don't know or don't care about copyright.  Still, that's not the kind of decision where I would act alone to impose it on the community.  The second part of your question is more an ethical one than a legal one.  The likelihood of consequences.  The spirit of the law is really to protect the writer before the publisher.  Often, after many years, there is no author, no heirs and no publisher left to protect.  I would support the principle that copyright does not exist unless there is someone to own it (whether or not we know who that person is).  Unless the contributor has enough sophistication in copyright matters to understand that I would act cautiously with any contributions that come within that umbrella. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * He also brought up an interesting point, claiming this article would be subject to Turkish law rather than US law. This is not relevant since Turkey is signatory to Berne convention and Turkish copyright law is actually more restrictive than US copyright law. However, it brings up an interesting question. What do we follow? For me, US and Turkish law should be followed, a Turkish citizen posting from Turkey must follow Turkish law, but the content is distributed in the States (this statement itself is questionable, but my test is if there can be litigation in the States due to distribution and the answer is yes) so we must abide by US law as well. Again my opinion is just an opinion and I need a precedent or an alternative policy.
 * Whether something is copyright is determined by the law where the material was published or where the author resided. The penalizing of an infringement depends on where the infringement was published; putting things on a server is a form of publishing, and since the servers are in the United States that's the law that applies.  Our contributo is also subject to the law where he was at the moment he infringed; in this case that would also make Turkish law apply. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Finally and maybe most importantly. Should I delete or keep the contents of the article until we come to an agreement? There must be a precedent for this.
 * Blank it for as long as the discussion is ongoing, but delete as soon as the discussion appears to be going nowhere. Eclecticology 03:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for all responses. -- ato 22:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Right now there is a discussion involving Jimbo and others on the english wikipedia mailing list. It particularly concerns differing copyright laws in different countries, and which laws do and don't apply given wikipedia's worldwide nature.  It's discussing exactly the questions you've asked above, so I think you should mail it to the list. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How a webpage owner confirms that he gives permission?
How exactly an author of a text copied into wikipedia confirms the permission? (See, e.g., Talk:Florin Popentiu Vladicescu Is it enough?) Mikkalai 00:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith is a good start, but I usually send a confirmation of permission to the webmaster of the website being claimed. I keep a relatively detailed log of my progress at User:Diberri/Work in progress, in case you're interested. --Diberri | Talk 02:59, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear enough. How a text owner can do this himself, in advance, without being requested? I understand, a confirmation must come from some reasonable e-mail address, but to what address? IMO it is reasonable to have some kind of "voluntary usage grant" policy. This is relevant not only to webpages. Say, a guy types a chapter from his book into wikipedia... How do we know that he is the copyright holder? Mikkalai 04:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Postage Stamps
Moved from report page:

Images of USPS postage stamps. I note from Domestic Mail Manual G013 section 2.0 and this page that "The designs of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, stamped cards, aerogrammes, souvenir cards, and other philatelic items issued on or after January 1, 1978, are copyrighted by the USPS under title 17 USC", and that there appear to be specific guidelines for the reproduction of stamp designs, as with the reproduction of U.S. currency. IANAL, but the casual use of postage stamps for illustrations should probably be discouraged. Tregoweth 23:08, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * -But also see the wikipedia public domain images page. They make a convincing arguement for allowing postage stamps as illustrations. Sayeth 19:58, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know -- while I get the feeling that USPS would allow it, I hesitate to make the jump from "encyclopedia = book" and "Wikipedia = encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia = book". Tregoweth 01:41, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyway, stamps are not necessarily photographically accurate - designers are allowed wide latitude in making changes. To quote somebody whose name I've forgotten - "stamps do not generally depict a country as it is, but as the government would like it to be." Stan 16:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * One example for people to ponder is Image:Bfullerstamp.jpg of Buckminster Fuller. I bought a plate of 20 the other day.  On the left-hand side is a copyright mark (&copy; 2003 USPS), and on the bottom is this statement:


 * Buckminster Fuller&trade; Licensed by the Estate of Buckminster Fuller.
 * This license represented by The Roger Richman Agency, Inc.


 * So it seems to be an interesting wrinkle, being a licensed image in the first place apparently. I think the image was used on the cover of Time magazine once or something (but maybe it's just a similar design&mdash;I suppose the license might just cover likeness rights, which I think are silly anyway).    &mdash;User:Mulad (talk) 13:15, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the image was also used on the cover of Time magazine in 1964. See

http://liteblue.usps.gov/news/link/2004june25_2.htm

Translated pages of possible copyrighted sites?
I discovered that Panathinaikos FC is a (somewhat bad) translation into English of the content of: 

I don't know the copyright status of the latter page, but I wanted to know what's the case with translations. Are translations of possibly copyrighted pages, also copyright-issues? Or since the wording is different (being translations) there's no problem with this? Aris Katsaris 19:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A translation is a derived work of its original. Thus,yes, an unauthorised translation is a copyright infringement. &mdash;Morven 22:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Are e-mails copyrightable?
Please see John Carmack describes the fight for Doom 3 and its talk for the particular issue. Mikkalai 16:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unless stated otherwise, emails are either copyrighted by the author - or, if written on the job, by the company that owned the email software and computer with which it was written. Davodd 00:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Watch out for false copyright claims
I've noticed that Corbis collects public domain images and claims copyright. Example: this image (well the negative of it) is available at Corbis if you search for "ku klux klan 1928 capitol". It is also available in the National Archives ARC search. Ydorb

Comics excerpt
Is taking one image or one square from a comic strip considered fair use just as textual quotation? Examples: Image:Asterix-Obelix.gif, Image:Mafalda-Strip1822-Image4.gif --Valmi 04:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If someone has an answer, and they would be nice enough as to be willing to post it to my talk page, I would love them forever. --Valmi 03:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotations from websites
I noticed that user:One Salient Oversight has been creating lots of articles that are just quotations from the Apologetics Index, prefaced with "The following is a quote from Apologetics Index". I think that this might be a breach of copyright - I know that using short quotations do not count as copyright violations, but that first sentence does not disguide the fact that he's are transferring their content over wholesale, and that their content comprises the entirety of the articles.

The articles are (I'm not sure whether this is comprehensive):
 * Territorial Spirits
 * Golden Sword
 * Signs and Wonders
 * Pensacola Outpouring
 * HTR
 * Charismatic Renewal
 * World Prayer Center
 * Third Wave
 * C Peter Wagner
 * Paul Cain
 * I may have accidentally broken "fair use". I am contacting the Website author and will remove the quotes if he asks me to, or if he does not respond within a few days. One Salient Oversight 12:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * IANAL, IANAL, IANAL. Be aware that there is an issue with something called, I think, a "compilation copyright." That is, someone can compile an anthology of poems all of which are in the public domain, and copyright the anthology. In that case, it's OK to quote one poem, or two, or six, but not to copy the anthology, as a whole, because the act of compilation at some point creates intellectual property or something. What this means in practice is that a few short quotations from almost anything are OK under fair use, but at some point if you systematically copy lots of things from a single source you can get into trouble. Nothing about intellectual property is simple. IANAL, IANAL, IANAL. But, yes, to stay on the safe side it is wise to limit the number of quotations that are used from any single source. I have no idea how, exactly, this would apply to a website. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)