Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 9

Is this a copyvio?
Seeking outside comment on this article The National Council Against Health Fraud. Is this a copyvio(see the Position on Health Issues and compare to the "source" cited). The user who added claims that it falls under fair use. This lead to an edit war and protection, additional comments could help the discussion. --Wildnox(talk) 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Wildnox refers to the Position on health issues part, not the specific Wikify edit changes.--I&#39;clast 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to site containing copyright violations
Kt66 keeps adding a link to the site diamond-cutter.org to Michael Roach (Buddhist) which I have been objecting to on the grounds of WP:LIVING (anonymous potentially libelous content). However, after looking through the site more thoroughly, I find that the site republishes private letters written by several parties including the party being criticized (Michael Roach), as well as the Dalai Lama. Surely the subject of criticism didn't give this critical site permission to republish his letters which were clearly written to specific individuals. Can this site be blacklisted to prevent further edit-warring over it (I am not the only party objecting to the use of the site, though one of the objectors has retired from Wikipedia recently). Or is blacklisting only for spam? Could repeated insertion of a link to the copyright violating site be considered spamming? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we're hardly ones to talk, given that our article has an entirely unsourced, uncredited photograph spuriously tagged promotional. We don't typically blacklist sites because they may be infringing on someone's copyright.  That said, that link is inappropriate, and this should probably be taken to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.  Jkelly 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPakistan1.png
I reported a copyright violation for WikiPakistan1.png on 17th December. However, I saw that no action was taken over it (not even any discussion), and now an anonymous editor has the copyvio template from the image page. Based on my past experiences, I have known such images to be copyright violation per Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. I request an experienced admin to look into this matter. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Transformers character bios
Far too many users create articles about Transformers characters as a verbatim copy of their biographies in official Transformers comics. These comics are copyrighted works by commercial companies. In the case of the original 1980s "Transformers Universe", this might not be such a problem, because the comic has been out of print for decades, but some are creating copies from "Transformers: More than meets the eye", which is still sold in comics stores. I would like to mark them all as copyvios but there are far too many articles to sift through. What should be done? J I P | Talk 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikify equals copyvio??
I reported the Taj Burrows article as being a copyvio.

My problem? That someone already knew and just putzed with a few words here and there when the wikified, thinking that that kept it from being a copyvio.

While the user who added this information was, a one day user who seemed to think that good parents equal noteable people, the real problem is/was User:RedRollerskate, a member of WikiProject Wikify, who knew that the article was a copyright violation, and during her wikification, slightly modified the copyrighted text, leaving whole chunks of copyrighted text in. RedRollerskate seems to be under the impression that she properly "wikified as part of WikiProject Wikify, rm copyvio and POV" (her edit summary), when while the article was properly wikified, it was still a blatant violation of copyright, so much so that I suspected so while reading it, and the first phrase I googled got me the article it came from. The other problem is that the wiki article was not encyclopedia at all. Had it not been a copyright violation, I would have added both the NPOV tag and the magazine tag.

I know that users are left messages on their talk pages in re copyvio, to explain it to them, and that no message has been left for anyone in re this article. I don't think that there's a point in leaving one for the user that added the stuff to begin with, but I think it's really important that some sort of message be left for RedRollerskate, only these sorts of messages are supposed to come from admins and stuff.

Also, my concern is that articles needing to be wikified and also unfortunately articles that are often partial or complete copyright violations. If this is just one users confusion that you can slightly reword a source and it's not a copyright violation, it's not too big a deal, but if a lot of users don't get that that's no ok, and are going around wikifying and at the same time making it harder to catch copyright violation, that's a big problem.

Anyway, thoughts? TStein 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, moving sentences and changing some words does not clear a copyvio. Try leaving a message in the WikiProject and the user's talk page to prevent future misunderstandings. -- ReyBrujo 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is GFDL compatible with CC-BY-SA?
The text of Onegai Senorita was taken from a CC-BY-SA-2.0. Does this licence grant enough rights to publish the text under GFDL as well, and thus include it in Wikipedia? Conscious 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Found answer at Guide to the CC dual-license: incompatible. Conscious 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalton Road 1912
I'm having a bit of trouble figuring this out, and I'd appreciate your help. It's about the image Image:Daltonroad1912.jpg, taken in the UK in the year 1912. The editor who uploaded it used the template. The problems are:


 * It is extremely unlikely that the editor is actually the author of the photograph, given that the photo was taken in 1912.
 * In the UK, this photo may very well still be under copyright. Under UK law, works by known individuals fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. That would mean that if the person who took the photo lived as long as 1937, a distinct possibility, it's still under copyright. ("Anonymous" works dating from 1912 are I believe in the public domain, but it's not possible from the information we have to tell whether the author of this image is/was anonymous under the meaning of the Act.)

So it's all but certain that the editor who uploaded it is not the author of the photograph, and there's a slight but non-trivial possibility that it's still under copyright. What should be done? -- Charlene 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Images and media for deletion. Conscious 07:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. -- Charlene 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Corporate Travel Executives
Greetings. has asked for help at the talk page for the above article, noting that s/he has sent permission information to the correct address. I was wondering if someone with access to that system and more experience in copyright problems would be able to assist. Thanks! --Rkitko 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DreamworldAdmin
is uploading images claiming to be the web admin of Dreamworld, and applying a license tag that reads like fair use. I have contacted him stating this license is not necessary because a) we claim fair use if the image has been authorized to be used only in Wikipedia and b) they could be deleted in the future as it can be replaced with a free version. I am leaving a note here in case someone wants to converse with him, as he gives contact information in the images he has been uploading. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Notifications?
Why doesn't the process include notifying the author the article at the time an article is listed as a copyright problem? (If it does include this, I missed it - is it somewhere in the fine print?) John Broughton |  Talk 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At WP:CP: Add the text following Maintenance use only at the bottom of the now-blanked article to the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material. The text to add is a nothanks-web template. Conscious 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed that. John Broughton  |  Talk 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lustra
The Lustra history page is word-for-word from their MySpace. Are those copyrightable? Makgraf 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. Conscious 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaked DVD's of a tv show to the internet
Recently the first few episodes of the new fox series 24 were leaked to the internet. The plot was subsequently added to pages concerning 24 pages. Is the inclusion of information only obtainable illegally a copyright violation in this context?--Lucy-marie 09:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright is associated with a thing, not an idea -- the 52 minutes of video, or the written screenplay. Descriptions of illegally obtained material, while they may indicate that the authors have committed an illegal act, are not themselves a copyright violation.  Of course, IANAL.    ◉ ghoti  14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, material that is not supported by reliable published sources can be removed from Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

McHale
Could somebody take a look at McHale? The page is a clear copy of but the author of the article claims he has permission to use. I would suppose that makes little difference as the company's webpage is not GFDL but just in case I'm wrong, I'd appreciate advice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any permission claim needs to be verified by the copyright holder sending an electronic or postal mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, or by adding a notice to the website explicitly stating that the text may be published under the GFDL. Without such evidence, claims make no difference except for telling the user who is claiming how to confirm the permission. In this particular case, the article was created four months ago, the uploader is inactive and is never going to be contacted, and the article is just an advertisement, with no independent sources. So, just delete it. It is common for companies that want their public relations propaganda on Wikipedia to give "permission", but even if they had a full idea of what that means under the GFDL these articles warrant deletion as advertisements. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Wojciech Wielgus
Hi, please help me to check copyright status in this article. I think is improbabile a copyviol by New York Times. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What parts? What New York Times article? —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion here. --F. Cosoleto 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are similarities in, but not a word-by-word copyviol. I could well imagine that the New York Times is using a text from an unknown European news agency (the text is written i Paris and not in Warzaw where the story is developing)., regards Odengatan 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe true concerning to a common European news agency, but I see always around 1840 bytes of word by word copyright violation. --F. Cosoleto 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Text rewritten by Crestodina. --F. Cosoleto 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Do I bring a user talk page that consists of nothing but cv material here, or to MfD? Thanks, delldot | talk 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The people at the MfD might refer it to here. If a discussion is warranted on the class of content, e.g., if it should be deleted even if it were not a copyvio, then a MfD could be initiated anyway. Also, if it is a blatant copyright infringement, it can just be speedily deleted with db-copyvio. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Backlog?
The template for possible copyright infringement states Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. I notice that there are articles on the project page that have listed there for over a month, so presumably the one week action is not being taken as stated.

A month also seems a long time to block an article from being edited, and a long time to have a very large banner at the top of an article page. If there is some major problem here with a backlog, I'll be happy to post notices in a few places asking additional admins to help out. John Broughton  | ♫♫ 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can help here, as User:Wherebot appears to be down. However, what about those that had sent mail to the foundation giving permission of usage? Those are handled by OTRS directly, right? -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are handled separately from this page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The oldest articles in the queue still have been there for more than a month. If no one has any objections, I'm going to look for ways to let others know that there is a backlog here. -- John Broughton  | (♫♫) 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then of course, there is the editor who solves copyvio issues by deleting tags ... That's a good way to make sure a questionable image does not get deleted. Cbdorsett 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno how to list these ...
A new user, Zsorathia, has been uploading various large images and labeling them as "bookcovers" -- which they aren't. I don't know how or where to report these images. If someone could please help ...

Image:Zkhan.jpg

19:53, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Zkhanvaada.jpg 19:13, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Blacksari.jpg ( 19:09, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Air-hostess.jpg 18:57, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Indian-bride1.jpg 18:37, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Rimi sen.jpg

That's from her contribs list. Please stop this editor. I've reverted all her edits for now, but she keeps going, sticking huge copyvio images into articles and throwing off all the formatting. Zora 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you left a message on his/her talk page? If not, that's definitely the first step. Similarly, did you just revert the pages, or get rid of the images? If you just reverted the pages, try tagging the images correctly. They're probably copyright violations, so you can tag them for deletion, and then he/she might get the message. If you've done these things, and no editor has responded to this message, I'd suggest you directly contact an admin, particularly one attached to this or a similar project. Verloren Hoop 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Naus
I was checking images in RuWiki and found several which were linked here. Some examples Image:Residentialshanghai.jpg, Image:Shanghaipudongrear.jpg, Image:Shanghai ashish100 pudong.jpg. The license was cc-by-sa but when i checked the source http://www.flickr.com, I found out that it wasn't so and the true license was either cc-by-nd or cc-by-nc. I suggest checking user contribution.--Vayaka 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The images could have been uploaded when the license on flickr was appropriate for Wikipedia. It's really easy to change the license on flickr, and could have been changed afterwards. This is why it's much better to upload flickr images to commons: They are setup and have a bot/system to check the license of these images. If the bot/reviewer verifies the license, it doesn't matter if they change the license to a non compatible one, as we used it under the compatible one and they can't "undo" that ever. It's happened to me. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on other WIKI sites?
Hello. I recently started my own wiki page, glasspedia.org. I hope this site will mature into a vibrant wiki site catering to the highly specialized needs of glassworkers worldwide, with information on technique and tools and other things that only a glass artist or collector would care about. I have imported some glass related content from wikipedia, using the export tool on the special pages section. I have read and re-read the copyright notices on wikipedia and the copyleft page. I am confused about the fair use policy. I am trying to figure out that in users on my wiki page change the content I imported from wikipedia as per the philosophy (as I read it) of wiki engines, does this violate section two of the copyright notice, the verbatim rule? Yes, I copied the work verbatim, but the idea was to provide a starting point for others to edit and add to. Under this idea, the first time someone edits a copied page the work is no longer a verbatim copy, does this create copyright infringment issues? I believe the export tool was created for users to mirror articles on their own wiki's so wikipedia would have to know that the data would be changed right? Please advise me, if I am violating any policies I will remove the data and start from scratch on my site. Thanks. --Glasspedia 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that Citizendium, which is essentially a "fork" of Wikipedia, copied the entire Wikipedia database of articles, with the intent to use those as a basis for new and rewritten articles. So you're fine.  To respond more in detail: my reading of Text of the GNU Free Documentation License is that (a) under section 4, you are allowed to modify articles; (b) you need to give credit to Wikipedia, somewhere on the page (e.g., a template at the bottom) as the source; you might even link back to the version you originally copied; and (c) you can't copyright articles you get from Wikipedia, whether unchanged or modified; in fact, these articles have to comply with the GFDL as well.  -- John Broughton  ☎☎ 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You should note here that there is quite a bit of misinformation and simply wrong headed advise on Wikipedia telling you what you can and can't do with Wikipedia content. Note that all of the content on Wikipedia is available to you (or should be) under the terms of the GNU Free Document License (mentioned above) or perhaps under a license that is even more open.  This would include images that are in the public domain.
 * You don't have to give credit to Wikipedia (although it is significantly appreciated), but you do have to acknowledge somehow at least five "principle authors" or others who were involved with creating the content in the first place. The "five author" rule is not part of copyright law but part of the GFDL.  Copyright law may require you to acknowledge everybody who has touched the article... and something I wish Moglen and Stallman (who authored the GFDL) would explain sometime.
 * A link back to Wikipedia is not strictly needed, but it is "suggested" if you want to be nice to Wikipedia and encourage others to help create similar content. A link to the specific version you forked is not needed (legally speaking) at all.  All that is strictly necessary here is that you maintain that the content is licensed under the terms of the GFDL and that any additions to that content must be under the same license.
 * You can copyright articles from Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with that.  But if you havn't authored the content yourself, you must also acknowledge the other authors.  And if you formally register copyright (as you still can in the USA), you must include the names of the other authors together with where they live and their nationalities.  How you do that is still a mystery to me, but I've griped elsewhere on other forii about this particular topic.
 * BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with fair-use, but that you have been granted a copyright license (specifically the GFDL) to reproduce this content, as long as you keep within the terms of that license. One of those restrictions is that you must also allow others to be able to copy this content under the terms of the GFDL from your website as well.  --Robert Horning 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User-created drawing of a copyrighted image
There is an image: Image:Wildwar.JPG which is a fair-use logo. I noticed it being used in a userbox and replaced it with a free alternative. The box's creater then drew their own version of the logo: Image:WildWar.JPG (notice capitalization) and uploaded it as GFDL-self to use that in the userbox. My question is: Does this qualify as GFDL-self, or as a derivative work, does the original copyright still apply? &mdash;Dgiest c 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter - the original is a logo, which is copyrighted and fair use. Derivative works of copyrighted works aren't allowed, unless perhaps it's a parody...but this obviously isn't. So posting the work is a copyright violation. At least - that's my interpretation. See Logos:
 * "Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign." Verloren Hoop 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not okay. The intent was to create a "copy" to avoid the copyright. Also, the "created" version is too near perfect to the original, that is, I think they took the original image and just changed colors and did things to it to make it "look" created. The second image should be deleted and the user warned. -- MECU ≈ talk 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Was that 'no, not okay' directed towards me...? Because what you said is the same thing as what I meant...Verloren Hoop 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reproducing information vs Using it as a source
When researching information about Salvador Dali's works for Wikipedia, I came across a copyright notice in a book that prohibited reproduction of the information in any way without written permission. I don't think I've ever seen the word 'information' used specifically. Does this mean that I cannot give information about the ideas presented in the book, even if I credit ? Does that mean I have to say something along the lines of "The author of ___ believes that..." Or is this simply another way of saying to not copy it verbatim? Verloren Hoop 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, but I think (based on some reliable sources) that copyright doesn't prevent you from using the information. Once you have access to it, you may use it (unless it's classified). The expression of information in form of particular text is, however, protected by copyright. Conscious 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns regarding images from BrainMaps.org
I originally came across a BrainMaps.org image at b:Image:NeuronGolgi.png, then followed it to Image:NeuronGolgi.png. I discovered at the terms of use that the images from that site were explicitly not licensed for commercial use. I listed the two I found at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because they were licensed incorrectly. I then thought to use Special:Linksearch and found that another was being listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 25 in both the "images" and "articles" section.

In my discussion with the user at [#February_3 Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images], I expressed my concern that the images were not licensed for commercial use. They then responded that the terms of use was updated to release the images into the public domain. I expressed concern about public domain on their talk page [], and they replied that "the screenshots are now CC-ed." [] The link on the terms of use, however, is only to http://creativecommons.org/, not a specific license page. I am unsure what to do, and am concerned I am providing misinformation to the user.

I know that a specific license needs to be selected. I apparently have a choice here whether the image could be released into the public domain, GFDL, CC, or any other license. I don't, however, know what the legal requirements on part of BrainMaps.org are for whichever image they ultimately choose, and I seem to be the one deciding what legal action they should take in licensing the images, which I am not qualified to give. Furthermore, I am afraid that I am providing misinformation to the user, and I don't want to exhaust their sympathy and patience. Could someone more knowledgeable than I please help out, preferrably directly with the user at the user's talk page? I would sincerely appreciate that. --Iamunknown 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind here it is the responsibility of the image uploader to select the license, and to provide documentation that its use on Wikipedia is perfectly legal. If they don't want to provide that sort of documentation, it is necessary for administrators on Wikipedia to simply delete the image even if it results in a loss of context and information in an article.


 * That you are going above and beyond the call of duty here and trying to work with the uploader to try and put a proper license attribution on these images is admirable, and certainly some patience with these individuals is warrented, particularly if they are completely unfamiliar with FLOSS licenses and the positive or negative aspects of each of the various license approaches that you can use. For example, I prefer to upload only under either public domain or GFDL-only restrictions (depending on the source I use), but it appears as though I am in a minority opinion on this subject.


 * You also have to at some point "cut your losses" and simply suggest that these images can't be on Wikipedia if they insist on certain licensing requirements. Don't be rude, but be firm and try to educate people like this about what the goals of the GFDL really are about.  This is about the freedom to copy and add to content.  Even if the WMF goes bankrupt and what we currently think of as Wikipedia is a virtual and digital black hole of a website that no longer exists, all of this content will continue to be available for future projects to draw upon and still be useful.  We don't need "permission" from Jimbo Wales or anybody else to copy this content, as the GFDL allows us the freedom to move on if necessary.  We hope that images that are uploaded to Wikipedia can enjoy this same sort of tradition and lack of restrictions, even though we also encourage uploaders to retain copyright on anything that is uploaded, if they want to keep the copyright.  --Robert Horning 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SultanAliShire.JPG
Could someone please check this image out and let me know if it's a copyright violation. It was uploaded by User:Sanaagian who I have already blocked and been in conflict over his uploading of fake pictures for POV work. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Marked as copyvio. Either it is or the source is different. Conscious 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible GFDL-violation
The electronic book http://www.biomedicalphysics.org/images/CompenMedPhyswebAUG_PDF.pdf acknowledges the use of "many text fragments, figures and tables of the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia" (page 2), but is not published under the GFDL (copyright notice on the first page). I believe this does not comply with the GFDL. Can someone please take care of this? --Andreas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.176.205.195 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Securities Arbitration.
Please delete the article securities arbitration in its entirety. It is copied verbatim from one of my own articles published word for word and wikipedia has no right to use it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.228 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

and BTW please delete the account YHS. one of my friends decided it would be fun to drop my material here on wikipedia without my permission under my name and i do NOT want my material on wikipedia since it is currently selected for publication in a journal. I am the real author. Any material dropped here without this IP address does not belong to me. Thank you.

Campbell's Soup Cans
I have attempted to obtain consent for use of copyrighted images in Campbell's Soup Cans. I have contacted The Artists Rights Society who have contacted the Warhol Foundation on my behalf. Their exact statement is "ARS as agent for the Andy Warhol Foundation may authorize your use for a discounted fee, however, we cannot waive the permissions fees altogether. " I need some advice on what to do. I don't think I should personally pay $20/image for 3 year licenses. Please advise. Respond to my talk page if possible. TonyTheTiger 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Paying the fees wouldn't do any good; the licensing arrangement is not acceptable for use in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

wikEd copyleft
I am the author of wikEd, a full-featured in-browser text editor that adds enhanced text processing functions to Wikipedia and other MediaWiki edit pages. wikEd highlights are:


 * Pasting formatted text, e.g. from MS-Word (including tables)
 * Converting the formatted text to wikicode
 * Wikicode syntax highlighting
 * Regular expression search and replace
 * Server-independent Show preview and Show changes
 * Fullscreen editing mode
 * Single-click fixing of common mistakes
 * History for summary, search, and replace fields

The wikEd homepage as well as the program code, its documentation, and several related pages are currently subpages of my Wikipedia user page. I would like to keep the program as well as all its documentation and the translations in the public domain. This was not a big of an issue as long as I was the only contributor. But now other users start to participate and write translations, contribute to the program code, or help with the documentation. My question is: is it possible to keep the documentation, the translations, and the program code in the public domain while it resides on Wikipedia. Cacycle 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Use the GNU General Public License and GNU Free Documentation License. If you have already released the code and documentation into the public domain, however, you can no longer control what is done with it. -- Donald Albury 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just assume that I want to use a non-GPL license, either PD or a cc-by. How could that be possible on Wikipedia. Cacycle 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any text would be dually licensed. You can put it in the public domain, but anyone could use it under the GFDL—but, of course, why ever would they choose the more restrictive license, and even if it were technically only in the public domain they could always choose to portray it as being under GFDL or subsume it into a GFDL work. Anyway, it would be in the public domain, the only issue would be making it clear to any one reading the page that it is in the public domain and they can use it as such. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically it already is under the GFDL since it's on his user page on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but he is still free to otherwise license or release it under whatever terms he pleases. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. What about contributors, do they have to accept that their contributions are in the public domain when I put the GFDL/PD statement onto the relevant pages. Cacycle 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they could make their changes as being under the GFDL, not in the public domain. However, it is rather your user-space so you could require that any change be explicitly released in the public domain or it will be reverted. The only issue there would be if the larger community disagreed that you are free to use your user-space in this way (though no one could claim control over the documentation, only prevent future use of the user-space in this way). Also, even for changes that are not released into the public domain, or for the many changes where the editor doesn't state in his edit summary or on his user page "This edit to wikiEd documentation is in the public domain", or somesuch, you would still be able to make whatever improvements people do. They cannot claim copyright over spelling changes or grammar fixes or other such changes, and if someone makes a substantial change you can still over-haul it and commit your own change instead—half of which would be done in the normal course of things if someone made a huge, inevitably imperfect, change. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think about asking contributors of non-trivial content to post a short PD statement on the talk pages of the program or the documentation. Cacycle 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that should be fine. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Script to check copyright violation
Hi, now PyWikipediaBot has a script (copyright.py) that helps to check for copyright violations by search engine queries. It has a system to exclude URLs that reads data from "Mirrors and Forks" and similar pages. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 10:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd picture tagging
Could somebody take a look at User:Fucc ma chuchus contributions, especially their picture tagging. The images in question are Image:Carideemyspace.jpg, Image:Tila 086.jpg and Image:Fhm rus september 2003 03.jpg. Their other image Image:Christinedolce3.jpg has already been tagged by Orphanbot.

At the same time, but not uploaded by the above user, are Image:Vikkiblows.jpg, Image:Playboy forbidden.jpg and Image:Alyssa milano 0046.jpg, which also appear to be strangely tagged. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly unfree images is the best place to list images with questionable tagging. -- Donald Albury 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Krauthammer
Our article on Dr Krauthammer bears some resemblance to his bio at the website of the Washington Post Writers Group. At least one early editor seems to have copied some text from the then-current version of the WPWG bio. I do not know (nor wish to know!) enough about U.S. copyright law to say whether we have a problem here. Could someone with more expertise take a look, please? Thanks in advance, CWC (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Amy Fisher - author asserts that external site took text from the wikipedia page
I had tagged the Amy Fisher article as a copyvio because if had mostly the same text as her bio on her official page. The text in question was added to the article in Sept 2005 diff. The person who added the text in question asserts on talk:Amy Fisher that he wrote it with multiple sources and had not seen this site in question, therefore asserting that the text was taken from wikipedia, not vice-versa. Based on the length of time this text has been in place and the history and reputation of user:Zaxem, I am inclined to agree with him, that no copyvio has occurred. I would appreciate it if some other editors can examine this situation and state an opinion. Thanks. --rogerd 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The domian in question wasn't created untill 25 jan 2006 so a clear case of copying from us.Geni 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

copyright protection
Hi, I am setting up a wiki with a focus on the environment. For part of the site, I would like to encourage writers from all over the world to submit their articles in order to try and spark discussion and debate on the issues. However I think that the only way of encouraging writers to release their work is to guarantee that it is protected by copyright. I know that this goes against the ethos of a collaborative space, but I think that without it, very few would wish to get involved. The benefits of collating the articles (for free) will outweigh the disadvantage of limiting the collaborative element.

Is this possible on a collaborative space? If so, what does it involve? The pages will obviously be locked and I will put a disclaimer, but is anything else needed to make it legally binding?

Cheers,

Climatechic 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)climatechic


 * What makes something legally binding varies by jurisdiction. You'll need to check.  Every contribution to Wikipedia is copyrighted by the contributor, and must be licensed under the GFDL.  This certainly doesn't have the effect of limiting the collaborative element.  Jkelly 18:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Equine Nutrition
I feel it was a bit hasty to lock down the Equine nutrition article as a copyright violation. As you can see from the footnoting work I have begun on Talk:Equine nutrition/Temp, where the page was exiled, there were multiple sources for the material and more than one editor. While I agree that some material needs to be properly attributed and some descriptions of universal concepts (like the fact that the horse IS a non-ruminant hind gut fermentor...how the heck else CAN you say that?) are not phrased differently than the source did, there is a line between using material as a source and flat out copying -- I think requests for citation and attribution were a more appropriate response than locking down the entire article. If the structure did violate copyright, then any assistance and helpful tips would be appreciated. 161.7.2.160 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (this is User:Montanabw not apparently logged in.

List of short films by Ralph Bakshi
A while back, an anonymous user made an attempt to stir up some shit here by making several unneeded edits, one of which was tagging this article with a copyvio tag. As it turns out, another anonymous IP had added some copyrighted plot descriptions to the article months ago, and I hadn't noticed. In order to save my article, I removed the copyrighted material, but the article was still deleted anyway -- despite the fact that the current revision contained absolutely no copyrighted material. I recreated the article using a previous revision, which also contained no copyrighted material, and this revision was recently deleted as well. I am fed up with this. The current article as it stands contains NO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Please do not delete this article again. Thank you. (Ibaranoff24 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Please read Ownership of articles. This is not your article. You should also not recreate deleted articles, this is guaranteed to be deleted again once it is noticed. It is very important to follow the procedures, so that the history can be restored, if the recreation is accepted. What you need to do is visit Deletion review. But please remember not to use the phrase "my article" or it will all turn into a distracting debate about ownership. Hope this helps. Notinasnaid 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

License claimed for a logo
Image:Marist high school (Oregon) Logo.gif - uploader claims GFDL and Creative Commons licenses for this file; however, it seems to be a reproduction of the school logo. Am I right that he can't do that and that it is only usable in an article about the school as fair use, but not on user pages or in userboxes? See User talk:PatPeter for my debate with the user. - Mike Rosoft 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You already answered your own question. :) Yes, you're right. Garion96 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unfree SXC licensed images
There probably was a discussion on this, but can't find it. Should this category be slowly but surely depopulated by deleting stuff? Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As at least some of those images have been tagged as unfree for a year (as of this month), yeah, I would say it's time to start deleting them. I wish the other image categories weren't so backlogged. (sigh) -- Donald Albury 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will delete some now and then. Perhaps it should be added to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? True, like there aren't enough image subategories there. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, since most of those images are old it doesn't fall under WP:CSD. Garion96 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem in Institute of Design IIT
Much content of this article was copied from ID's website. The opening paragraph from the opening paragraph of ID's overwiew page, the History section from its history page verbatim, "People" from the overview page's "people" section, "Graduate Programs" and "Programs" from programs overview, "Faculty" lifted from ID faculty page verbatim. I cannot see the source for "Conferences," "Institute of Design former names and locations" and "Prominent Alumni" Sections However. Does it worth to delete the entire page as copyvio? --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK · CONTRIBS 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Toto (band)
IP user 74.118.184.242 spotted that much of the content of Toto (band) was copied from Toto's official website, and blanked the page, replacing it with a warning. Subsequent users re-instated the parts which were not copyrighted, and 74.118.184.242 put the warning up again. The article, to my knowledge, currently contains no offending content, and no-one has reinstated any offending content since it was originally removed. I just don't like the warning on the page as I think it is unfriendly towards users, and unnecessary.

Can anyone advise or point to relevant policy regarding such warnings on article pages? Thanks --Jon186 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retired user flagged many articles CopVios
I have been doing some minor cleanup on some articles on places in Mexico which I am familiar with. I checked a few of these articles tonight, and they had copyvio warnings on them, such as Ahuacatlán and San Blas. It appears that retired user User:Mixcoatl put these warnings on a whole bunch of articles, but at least on the ones I checked, no documentation as to where the text was supposedly copied from. I don't know if this might be vandalism, sour grapes or valid claims. What to do? Can I remove these warnings? - FaAfA (yap) 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like he isn't retired yet... :-) Unfortunately for us, it's not vandalism. These are really copyvios, translated from Spanish. Ahuacatlán, Nayarit is from, and San Blas, Nayarit from . See also Copyright problems/2007 March 3/Articles and Copyright problems/2007 March 6/Articles. I guess he didn't give the source URLs for these two because either he forgot or he didn't know how to get the URL of the appropriate frame at . Lupo 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like all contributions of need a thorough check. :-( Lupo 09:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I know the San Blas article had pretty decent an editor-written version before Vogenson started work on it. Should I revert it to that? A lot of the 'copyvio' content is just stats. They can stay, correct? - FaAfA (yap) 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Update : I edited the San Blas temp page with the last pre-Vogenson version, which was original content. I was going to revert the main article page, but the notice says that an Admin has to do so. Could an Admin do so? Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I being too strict here?
See User talk:Polypmaster; it appears to me that the email is not sufficient to say that the image is released under a free license, but I'd like a third opinion. Thank you. --NE2 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If this were Commons, that mail is not enough because there is no specific mention of license. Personally, neither should be enough for us. We can't "decide" a license for him. The mail should have three or four licenses (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and public domain, in example), with links to longer descriptions, and "force" the contributor to choose one. He must know that he is releasing the image under a license, must understand the license terms, and must also know that, in some cases like CC ones, once the permission is given, he can't withdraw it. If all these facts are present in the mail conversation, the image could very well be uploaded at Commons, forwarding the mails to the Foundation. -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the new email he pasted good enough? If not, can you please explain to him what needs to be done? --NE2 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please help before the image is deleted. --NE2 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Creating DVD version of wikipedia
I am writing a program that downloads the HTML for Wikipedia articles and the thumbnails of images that they contain to my hard drive. It modifies the code so that the articles can be viewed locally (in the web browser, but without an internet connection) and the links will work, but the content itself is not edited. Then I want to post the articles on my web site so that people can download them, burn them to a DVD, and use it as an offline version of Wikipedia stored on DVD. What do I need to do to prevent this from being a copyright violation? TIA

DJ Craig 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On copyright for images: you need to confirm that the images are free, and not include any fair use images unless you are comfortable with creating new fair use rationales. For other images, and text, there are requirements for acknowledgement, hopefully someone else can fill that in. You might need to provide the full edit history. I think you need to change your approach: mass downloads of Wikipedia as HTML are seriously frowned upon because of server load. Indeed, methods exist to detect mass downloads and block them. What you need to do is download the database and set up your own Wiki. You can then use that to populate your own offline copy if required, but it's better to keep it as a Wiki I think. Notinasnaid 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally was going to use the API to download the articles, but I have no way of converting the wiki code into HTML. I looked for some software that I could use to do the conversion at my end, but I couldn't find anything.  Does what you were saying about the images apply to thumbnails of the images? DJ Craig 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to convert the wiki markup into HTML is to use your own copy of MediaWiki. Just setup an offline copy of MediaWiki, import a Wikipedia  data dump into your wiki, scrape your offline wiki, massage the results, and upload to your site. With regards to the thumbnails, you can't use them most of them without the image description pages.  In most cases the licenses (pretty much all the non-PD licenses) for images require attribution and the attribution only appears on the image description page.  —RP88 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus One
The bulk of the article (starting with the "Formation" section) on the music band Plus One is word-for-word plagiarism from the copyrighted AllMusic.com article by Charlotte Dillon. I'm new to having a Wikipedia account, and not sure exactly how to proceed. Would prefer someone else handled the removal and revert. Thanks! Softlavender 20:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaked content from Highlander: The Source
Highlander: The Source is due for release in September 2007, but contents have leaked on the Internet and people are adding in-universe-style spoilers on various Highlander articles, including Immortal (Highlander), Methos and Highlander: The Source, the latter already tagged for copyvio. I think this is copyright violation but am not clear what to do. (I'm new here.) Should I delete everything or leave short summaries ? Movie Producer Bill Panzer has made clear the leaked content is not the final version, for example here. Just tell me what to do and I'll take over the cleanup. Thank you, have a nice day.Rosenknospe 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless people are copying stuff verbatim, it's unlikely to be a copyright issue per se. There's no real copyright difference between sumarising something based on the movie on leaks. However there's likely to be a sourcing issue (Verifiability since it's rather unlikely leaks would be Reliable sources unless they're sumarised by newspapers or whatever. Also, linking to a leak would probably not be okay as we're not supposed to link to copyright violations Nil Einne 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Allright, so I suppose I can tag this material with or remove it to the talk page until the movie is released. Thank you for your advice ! Rosenknospe 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance requested
Update : see here I edited the San Blas temp page with the last pre-Vogenson version, which was original content. San_Blas%2C_Nayarit I was going to revert the main article page, but the notice says that an Admin has to do so. Could an Admin do so? Thanks - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CP and images
I'm concerned that there is a process fragmentation going on, because WP:CP seems redundant for images when we already have Possibly unfree images and WP:IFD. My feeling right now is that WP:CP should not be used for images anymore. If there's a good reason to keep handling images here when the same requests can be handled elsewhere, I'd like to understand what it is, because when to use WP:CP vs. WP:PUI (vs. WP:IFD) is quite confusing. Mango juice talk 16:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Before the speedy copyvio WP:CSD, I thought, regarding images, WP:CP was for a blatant copyright violation and WP:PUI for possibly copyright violations. Now that blatant copyrights violations get speedy deleted anyway, it makes sense to put all image copyright problems on WP:PUI. Garion96 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the structure of the WP:CP page is a tad more organized, if all image problems should be handled at WP:PUI perhaps some thought should be given to a similar organization at PUI (or perhaps just create two CP pages - one for articles and one for images and move PUI to the new CP image page). If all image copyright problems are to be handled at WP:PUI, some thought would also have to be given to what it would take to move DumbBOT. —RP88 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Crown Copyright
User:Rebelguys2 has nominated for deletion a number of images sourced from New Zealand Government websites (mainly NZ military sites) which specify that the images are published under NZ Crown Copyright and can be "reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission" as long as the material is "reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context". An admin ruling on whether this condition is compliant with Wikipedia's requirements is needed at Images and media for deletion/2007 March 7. For what it's worth, my view is that this NZ Crown Copyright statement is OK as Wikipedia doesn't allow material to be posted in derogatory or misleading contexts either. --Nick Dowling 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that crown copyright also doesn't expire (unlike more traditional copyright). While it may technically violate the "no additional restriction" clause on the GFDL, I fail to see where the real problem is here.  Even if images of this nature weren't under such a copyright, I would still insist that as a project policy (or strong guideline) we should not reproduce such images unless they were accurate and "not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context".  I believe this admin to have steped over the line and this decision can and should be challenged.  I also disagree that this is a fair-use issue either.
 * BTW, I am confused about one thing. Is there anything in NZ crown copyright law that prohibits modification of the image (cropping/rescaling/image enhancement)?  The image license box seems to be misleading in this sense, as I can see legitimate modifications to these images as long as they aren't misleading (such as putting a picture of Tony Blair into the cockpit of Image:Ct4e.jpg).  That would be misleading.  --Robert Horning 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * crown copyright does expire. normaly after 50 years although other terms may apply.Geni 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "You can republish this, as long as you don't do so in a way we dislike" is not a free license. The claim that New Zealand has infinite copyright surprises me.  Is there somewhere I can read more about this?  Jkelly 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not different from Ubisoft permission terms per commons:User:Avatar/Ubisoft. -- ReyBrujo 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My German is not up to the job of going through this carefully, but I think that there is some confusion on UbiSoft's part about what they were agreeing to, since their concern is that Wikipedia might use their work in a disparaging way, and they accepted someone saying "Well, we wouldn't do that, but some third party might and we cannot prevent that." This probably needs a closer look by a German speaker.  Jkelly 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree (though IANAL). Even if you release your work under a free license you still hold some moral rights which prevent exactly the same abuse as sated by crown copyright. —Ruud 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This varies by jurisdiction, and we have no influence over it, Building such a restriction into a license, however, makes the media less free regardless of jurisdiction.  Jkelly 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Less free than what? Moral rights are part of the Berne Convention, so I hypothesize that NZCC images are not less free than CC-BY-SA images of which the author has not explicitly waived their moral rights to the integrity of the work. More importantly, we already allow licenses with differing levels of freeness (PD, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GFDL) and this "restriction" does in no way interfere with our goal of producing a free-content encyclopedia. —Ruud 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * it does sence Crown copyright is non free. We know that UK crown copyright is not compatible with the GFDL. We have no reason to think that New Zealand law is that different.Geni 19:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The important phrase in the NZ CC tag is "reproduced accurately." Even if we don't infringe on moral rights, any modification won't accurately reproduce the original. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case it would be a (disallowed) no-derivatives license. I'd prefer relying in the original document on NZ copyright than on the current text of the template, though. Is it available anywhere? —Ruud 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, see here. It's also printed on the image description page. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Crown Copyright terminology explicitly allows reproduction "in any format or media without requiring specific permission". If so it is permitting some modification. I understand the issue with "no derivative" licenses, but in this case the only derivatives explicitly disallowed are "inaccurate" or "derogatory". While this is a restriction, it doesn't seem like it has much effect, since these would be disallowed on WP by WP:ATT and WP:NPOV in nearly all situations anyway. Is there any actual use of these images on WP that does not satisfy the copyright terminology? Gimmetrow 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never seen such a use of a NZCC image, and it would probably be swiftly edited out if it ever happened. --Nick Dowling 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd note that NZ Crown Copyright is very similar to UK Crown Copyright which uses the CrownCopyright tag and has long been considered to be a non-free license due to its identical restriction on modification. Currently the UK crown copyright license tag mandates that it be used with a fair use rationale. I'd treat NZ Crown Copyright similarly, permitting them to appear on WP as any other fair use material - i.e, if the image descriptions include a fair use rationale and the images are not reasonably replaceable then they are fine. —RP88 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A Very Lengthy Cut and Paste of discussion regarding one bad image of a CT/4, :-) but I think keeping Crown Copyright, NZ, UK, Australian, Canadian or where ever is worth it
Winstonwolfe 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ______________

Rebelguys2 wrote: Wikipedia's issues are (1) reproduction and redistribution, (2) derivative works, and (3) reproduction and redistribution of those derivative works. Adherence to these guidelines is good and important, as it means that everything we have on Wikipedia, save for limited instances of legimitate fair use, is free. Third parties can modify our content, use it commercially, rip it apart, put it back together, what have you &mdash; we want to permit any manner of reproduction, redistribution, and modification. See WP:5P and WP:C. I'm headed off to bed soon, so I won't be responding for a while. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC) _______


 * That's okay...no rush, I'm working this weekend so won't have much to say for a while either...


 * Not just Kiwis


 * I have had a chance to check UK crown copyright - there are at least 288 UK crown copyright images uploaded, all subject to a no misleading context clause identical to the New Zealand one you object to - and a bunch of other restrictions. Before we start this snowball rolling, I think we need UK users should be brought into this debate, and a search made for other similar jurisdictions images, (the other commonwealth nations spring to mind for starters).


 * Reproduction and Redistribution


 * I guess from my end, I see the main aim is being an encylopedia, rather than as a store of free images for commercial use. So I think it is better to have images with reasonable minor limitations - like fair use and crown copyright - than not have those images.  I think commercial users can reasonably be expected to to read the template beneath the image they are down loading.  But whether they do or not, it does not matter to Wikipedia, for Wikipedia is not liable, because it acknowledged crown copyright.    Because there is no liability on Wikipedia, and the template provides fair warning to others, I don't see how reproduction and redistribution are a problem.  This is not a napster situation.  Users who reproduce the image with notice of copyright do nothing wrong, users who do not acknowledge the copyright bring no blame on Wikipedia - by having acknowledgement of the crown copyright with the stored image - which the template does - Wikipedia absolves itsef from liability.


 * Policy already compromised for US, why not for other nations?


 * I think the limitations already round fair use have set the precedent - allowing US law fair use exception (which is no protection in some other jurisdictions) but not NZ crown copyright - or UK - seems just picking up one cultures exception and ignoring other nations (see Copyrights). If an exception can be made for fair use, it can be made for other, reasonable and similar reasons. incidentally I am worried about the danger of thinking that "free use" justifies publication in any jurisdiction - it is not the law everywhere.  See also Jimbo Wales comments; .   Winstonwolfe 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

__________


 * We're not ignoring anything. Fair use hadn't been claimed for this image, a fair use rationale was never used, and this image itself doesn't have much of a reason to be kept under fair use cause there are obvious free alternatives. I don't really see a debate here. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And Template:CrownCopyright, for the UK, isn't a free license either. We're using all of those images under a fair use rationale, but we haven't claimed fair use here, nor do we have any reason to. I don't see what you're trying to say, as this isn't a "reasonable and similar reason." Your interpretation of Jimbo Wales' comments isn't very accurate either. He's saying that we should try to respect restrictions, like the restrictions found in NZ CC. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

___________


 * Corwn copyright does not really allow derivatives and we know the uk version isn't isn't compatible with the GFDL. Thus it is a non free lisence and such material should not be used without a legit fair use claim.Geni 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

___________

I don't think I'm communicating this very well, because continued references to fair use show you don't understand what I am saying.

CT/4e - who cares

As far as CT4e goes, the fair use tag on the image was only added cause you asked me to fill in the template, and it makes it clear there is no fair use defence of it and does not dispute this image does not fit within US fair use law/Wikipedia policy, (and as far as I can tell, due to American bias or laziness, the two are practically identical). As the notes on the image make clear, the image itself is not even very important. (Though I would consider removing the image petty bureaucratic vandalism I'm not about to die in a ditch about it.

Crown Copyright - the important issue.

I am worried that this image appears to be part of a larger campaign to remove the crown copyright images, by illogically applying an inappropriate "fair use" policy to them.

Free use and Fair use

As I understand it, and feel free to correct me, the basic rule in English language Wikipedia is that all images should be able to be reporduced and redistributed - if you like, free use.

Unfortunately, free use doesn't work, as many important images are the intellectual property of others.

For this reason it has been recognised an exception to free use is needed, while at the same time protecting Wikipedians from liability from infringing upon others intellectual property.

At the moment, the only exception to free use is the concept of "fair use" which has been lifted from US law and applied to everything in Wikipedia as a policy.

Regardless of it being Wikipedia policy, I think indiscrimintae application of the US law fair use principle is flawed for two reasons:

Fair Use fails to achieve its purpose.

Wikipedia and the material on it is not only subject to US law - and other jurisdictions do not have the same fair use rules. Wikipedias fair use policy is unlikley to offer any protection to users outside the US. For this reason it is irrelevant whether crown copyright images are fair use, for fair use is no protection against liability for wikipedia or users, (unless they are one of the minority of English speakers who live in the United States). Putting Crown Copyright images through fair use tests is not only irrelevant, it is potentially creating a false sense of security. If you choose to say the only exception to free use is fair use, and if you follow Jimbo Wales policy of respecting other jurisdictions intellectual property rights, then all Crown Copyright images - UK, NZ or where ever, should be deleted.

A Fair Use only policy unfairly unecessarily and disadvantages non US images.

Fair use is, as I mentioned, a US legal concept which is alien to other juridictions. The result of my reasoning in 1 - and the practical actions of Rebelguys2 - is to allow US government images, but either delete UK and NZ images or retain them only if American users - and no others - are protected from using them outside the laws of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth nations. This is the sort of accidental xenophobia which can really get peoples backs up. Wikipedia already has a disproportionate American contribution bias which is natural, but if the encycopledia is to represent all peoples then their customs and laws must be respected and incorporated into Wikipedia. That was my other interpretation of Jimbo Wales quote,, which Rebelguys2 thinks I misinterpreted. Allowing only US law exceptions to the free use principle will increase this bias, by excluding other nations equivalent exceptions to intellectual property restrictions. What the crown copyright templates could offer is the introduction of a reasonable, simple and easily understood exception to the free use rule, to give access to Commonwealth government material for use on Wikipedia.

What now?

Now at this point, I think there are two options.

We could blindly enforce a flawed Wikipedia policy, measuring all non-US images against a US law test. If we do this, we will always have the defence that we were only following the rules, and we can claim all the people who uploaded crown copyright images should have read all the small print and then lobbied for a change instead of just posting and unrealistically suggest people delete all their images, have a debate about policy and then reload all the images.

Or we can recognise the reality that few users formulate or follow those sorts of policy minutae. We can recognise the objections to Crown copyright are ideological rather than real, that the reality is crown copyright images extend Wikipedias coverage without presenting any significant inconvenience to users wishing to copy them, that there is less legal laibility in leaving them alone than in applying a false fair use test to keep them some. Of course, I want us to take the take the second course, to start a reasoned debate about whether the policy should be revisited and to suspend the deletionism against Crown copyright images until policy revision has been adopted or rejected.

Winstonwolfe 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about this. One the one hand, I'm normally quite strongly in favour of free content (on wikipedia, I don't actually care so much in other areas) and dislike fair use. On the other hand, one of the key reasons why I dislike fair use is because it means our content isn't free and our reproduction rights are limited as we fair use isn't applicable to many jurisdictions or at least is different enough that each image may have to be reconsidered. And I agree, if we disallow crown copyright for the above reason, we risk the situation where we are priorisiting fair use in the US over content that is singinificantly more free as Wiston says, and ignoring other jurisdictions. Of course, we are doing that by disallowing non-commercial use an no deritivative but there are IMHO very good reasons for these whereas IMHO there is only very limited reason to disallow crown copyright simply because of the no misleading use thing Nil Einne 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As it exists right now, image licenses fall into two categories on Wikipedia:
 * Licenses that meet all three of the Wikimedia Foundation's fundamental free-license criteria - GFDL, cc-by-2.5, cc-by-sa-2.5, Attribution, etc. Per policy, images in this category are strongly preferred.
 * Licenses that don't meet all three criteria - ranging from fairly-free Crown copyright, to semi-free CC-NC/-ND, less-free WithPermission, and non-free "all rights reserved." Images in this category can be used, but only if a fair use rationale is included, and only if a replacement image from the first category isn't reasonably available.


 * With regards to the second category, while the three free-license criteria are determined by both philosophical and practical considerations, it is my understanding that the fair use rationale requirement is not designed to protect users, it is there to protect the Foundation, whose servers are in the US. Under US law, even with no license, fair use is always permitted and thus the Foundation is safe - they don't have to individually review all possible licenses, they've just reviewed some and said if you use these we won't get sued, otherwise they ask for a fair use rationale so that they don't get sued.


 * If I understand the proposal correctly, it isn't proposed that the Wikimedia Foundation relax its "fundamental three" criteria, instead it is proposed that a new category be created - Licenses that aren't free, but won't be subjected to either the fair use rationale test or the replaceability test. I'm not in favor of relaxing the replaceability test - it serves a good purpose - the Foundation has good reasons for encouraging the production of images that fall into the free-license category. With regards to requirement for a fair use rationale, I don't personally object to eliminating this for Crown copyright images.  However, I suspect that this is a legal liability issue.  In order for the fair use rationale requirement to be relaxed for images licensed under Crown copyright, some lawyer has to review U.S. law with regards to such licenses and craft a policy that still protects the Foundation as well as a full fair use rationale, but is less onerous.  —RP88 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is preposterous. Either images are free on Wikipedia, which we'll allow, or they aren't, with which we'll need a fair use rationale to use. Sorry guys, this isn't something that's about to change. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "[I]t is proposed that a new category be created - Licenses that aren't free, but won't be subjected to either the fair use rationale test or the replaceability test"


 * That proposal is not acceptable. IF you want a non use system try fair dealing. Pretty much anything allowed under fair dealing would be allowed on wikipedia.Geni 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed on a policy page, not here. However, I cannot see why an image should not be regarded as free, simply because the licence says it cannot be modified. The right to modify makes sense with text, but with images, it can realistically be used in limited circumstances: cropping or improvement of contrast, for example. I don't think anyone is arguing that it's desirable to allow someone to take a photo of a politician and add horns to it, or add a campaign button promoting some cause the politician might be opposed to. (Such uses might conceivably be governed by laws on parody, but that's not our concern). Our image policies need a shakeup.- gadfium 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Related note, don't mistake Fair use with Fair use, except the name, they are not that much alike. Wikipedia fair use is basically everything not free (enough) to modify distribute etc etc. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * while certian elements of our image policy may need refome (I belive the foundation is working on it) adding more non free material is not the answer.Geni 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for polite, constructive input.


 * I would be interested to hear more from Garion96 about why Wikipedia fair use policy is not based on US fair use law - my superficial impression was they were very similar but I am quite prepared to be wrong, (to quote "Fair use is a legal doctrine which may permit the use of copyrighted material on Wikipedia under a restricted set of criteria. [...] Content used under this doctrine on Wikipedia must meet the United States legal tests for fair use.").


 * Obviously there is a balancing act between allowing free use of images, and having more images on the encyclopedia. Some will want more emphasis on free use than a wide range of images - that is a balance for the Wiki community to decide. I can certainly see why those who want fewer fair use images would dislike any crown copyright, even though the restrictions are minimal, they are restrictions.


 * The comment about concern as to the Foundations liability is helpful. As noted by several users, I do not think there would be liability for the foundation using crown copyright images in the way they have to date, but I am not an IP lawyer, and as RP88 says, a legal opinion would be advisable, though I think more than US legal opinion would be advisable.  Just because the servers are in the US does not protect the foundation from legal action in other jurisdictions - for example, if child pornography was posted, if the US took no action, members of the foundation could easily be extradited to nations where it was down loaded.


 * Another issue is how safe users are in relying on fair use. Wikipedia does provide are caveat non emptor sort of warning, but I wonder whether this should be made more explicit on fair use images.


 * Subject to legal advice, I suggest adding a paragraph to pointing out that it may be unsafe to apply the fair use justification to non-US copyright images or non-US users. What do others think?


 * The fair use policy itself very reasonably says it is not cast in stone, and there may be exceptions. So I guess the next question is whether Crown Copyright should be such an exception, at least while we discuss whether change should be made.

Winstonwolfe 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be terse, but you should read our articles on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (specifically Title II) and the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement, which might clear up a couple of points. Jkelly 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the length of my comments, being terse is a virtue. However you may have been too terse for me to understand you.  Could you explain what you took from the USA's Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement?  (I note, as desired by the mission statement, reproduction of Crown copyright is free of charge).  For others benefit,
 * "DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA") creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users, if they restore the material upon notice from such users claiming that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also provides for subpoenas to OSPs to provide their users' identity."
 * Obviously this applies in the US only and to copyright only. Wikipedia users and contributors are global, (and even Americans travel sometimes :-). Also, while we keep using the word copyright, potential liabilty issues are not only copyright - indeed given the wide license for Crown Copyright, the scenarios discussed where  users could breaching it seem to create other choses in action, (e.g. defamation).

Winstonwolfe 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression from the above that there was some confusion over who might be liable for what was uploaded to Wikipedia, hence the first link, and provided the second as a pointer to the fact that free licensing, not free as in beer, but free as in speech, is a core part of what we're doing here. If there's nothing that could be legally done with these images in the jurisdictions we care about that cannot be done with the way they are licensed, there is no need to bundle that into a contractual obligation for all possible jurisdictions, and if there is, they're not free as we define them.  Jkelly 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the first point, liability, US law on copyright is a part of the story, and a large part for the foundation or US residents, so that is useful. On second point, where the mission statement referes to free and free of cost,  fair enough if you mean free speech rather than cost. Reuse of Crown Copyright is limited by some restrictions, just as fair use is. Winstonwolfe 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To respond to your question. Wikipedia fair use is based on us law. But it is way more restrictive than the actual legal term because our goal is a free content encyclopedia. See also Carnildo's comment here. Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Garion96, very useful breif summary, recomend reading that link. Winstonwolfe 04:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Overprinted copyright notices on GFDL and CC-BY images
As an offshoot of this VPP dicussion, I am trying to get legal advice about a specific type of copyright situation.

Both the GFDL and CC-BY licenses have specific provisions about preserving prior copyright notices when creating derivative works. If an image comes with an embedded copyright notice (e.g. ) then, in my opinion, the language of such restrictions may make it a violation to remove such an overprinted copyright notice.

For the GDFL, I would direct you to Section 4 on modification, which says in part that a modified version must:


 * "Preserve all the copyright notices" (emphasis mine) and "Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices"

Depending on how strict a legal meaning is attached to "preserve", I think this could very easily be read to mean that one is forbidden from removing or relocating copyright notices that are embedded in image files.

For the CC-BY licenses, the language is similar, but prehaps more flexible:


 * "If you distribute ... any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; ..."

Where this all becomes an issue is that some people have had a standing practice of cropping out or otherwise removing embedded copyright notices from images (commons even has a template for requesting such alterations), but after discussing it with one of the people principally involved in such work, it appears the potential legal issue raised above has never been discussed. I am hoping to locate one or more IP lawyers who might comment on the expected meaning of "preserve" and "keep intact" and whether such terms ought to read in the strict sense of "do not remove or alter in any way". Dragons flight 10:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific discussion that Dragons flight is referring to was with me and is located at Commons:User_talk:Dcoetzee. My concern is that, if this is true, it effectively creates a limitation on derivative works that might severely inhibit downstream users. For example, some visible watermarks are translucent and cover the entire image - it's almost impossible not to damage these while editing the image. Other global edits such as cropping, blurring, sharpening, and light adjustment might require recreating the watermark. What is someone wishes to include a piece of the image in a collage or texture on a 3D object? Any requirement to retain a visible watermark means that derivative works have gone out the window and the image is fundamentally unfree. We either have to rule that watermarks are allowed to be removed, or we have to prohibit - and delete - GFDL and CC-BY images containing visible watermarks. Deco 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that there's another problem to consider here: the language "[a]dd an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices", when applied to visible watermarks, leads to disaster. This essay describes why the original BSD license was once held in contempt, for its inadvertant and unwieldly requirement to add an ever-growing list of contributors to every work of advertising for the software. Likewise, if every editor sticks their name on the image, soon half the image is a list of watermarks and the image is unusable. Deco 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * GFDL limits this to 5.Geni 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright notices are kept intact in the image history. Other options would be to add a copy of the watermarked image to the image page.Geni 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion looks to be dead at the moment without any clear consensus. Unless you can recruit an authority to review the situation I'm going to assume it's okay to continue removing watermarks. I'm prepared to respond to specific complaints and assume liability for any damage. Deco 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Intellectual Property Attorney hat on) From a purely IP perspective, nothing in the law of fair use requires a party who uses part of an image to avoid cropping out the copyright owner's embedded copyright notice, so long as the ownership of the image is attributed somewhere. However, this may lead us down the path of adding something like "© Associated Press" or the like in the captions of images used in articles. bd2412  T 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, BD, we aren't talking about fair use. We are talking about the constraints on licensed derivative use under the terms of the GFDL and CC-BY.  So I guess I don't understand your response.  Dragons flight 21:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reference to fair use in weird. It may be the case that we can still use an image under fair use after violating the terms of the original license, but such an image would have to tagged differently, satisfy much more stringent conditions, and would not be available for Commons. Deco 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see that. Well, the GFDL is really a contract that editors enter into, and the Wikimedia Foundation can clarify the contract however they want. As I read it, it doesn't really address images or derivative works very much at all. bd2412  T 04:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion on IRC, I'm going to suggest the following compromise for now:
 * Short-term: We continue to remove visible watermarks from images, because they fundamentally limit derivative works, and tag all these images with Commons:Template:metadata from image, specifying that this information was moved into the metadata and/or image description page. If anyone asserts that this violates their license, we delete their images. This also alerts people working with print versions of the potential issue.
 * Long-term: We work with FSF and CC to clarify the terms of their licenses regarding "obnoxious" author credits that impede derivative use.

I think this should work out. Deco 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't object to this, though personally I would discourage people from removing such notices without a clearer resolution to the issue. If there is a problem, the person doing the removal could be held personally responsible (but if you are willing to live with that possibility, then I won't try to stop you).  Since Cavic has already complained about the loss of his notices, I would suggest deleting things from commons:Special:Contributions/Cavic.  Also, someone ought to go back through and make sure as many previously modified images as one can locate are also tagged with the template.  As a footnote, I've already sent an email to the FSF about this issue (prior to starting this thread), but I'm not holding my breath for a response.  Dragons flight 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, great. I've nominated just one of Cavic's images for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jordan by Lipofsky 16577.jpg as a test case to make sure that others will agree at Deletion Requests. I'll take care of the taxing work of tagging all images with removed watermarks with the new template, in time, but there are many hundreds. Deco 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand
An anonymous user has tagged New Zealand with a copyvio, but hasn't specified where the supposedly copyvio has been copied from. This is a page which has been edited over a long period of time by many people and so is unlikely to contain significant copying. I'm assuming people aren't supposed to just delete copyvio tags, so could someone verify that the tag is vandalism and remove it? --Helenalex 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Two images
I have questions about the copyright status of two images. One is Image:Ushr4 400.jpg. This is licensed as fair use symbol which can be used to illustrate the "symbol in question." Unfortunately, it is being used in an article about the United States Heraldic Registry, not an article about the Registry's coat of arms. The other question has to do with an image at the Bodyline article. It's an image of a DVD cover shown here. I've raised the question on the talk page, but no one has replied. It's the same kind of issue. The image is not being used to illustrate the DVD, but rather the history of the Bodyline incident. Please advise.-- Eva  b  d  13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mersenne
Can someone check the edits of User:Mersenne (Special:Contributions/Mersenne). The user has added copyrighted material to at least two articles. I suspect the user has done to other articles, but I don't have time to inspect the user's edits. I'd appreciate some help here. MahangaTalk to me 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of Statistics
User:Cosmopolitancats asked a question regarding Government Statistics here. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography. Can you reply at the linked location if you can help. GameKeeper 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

the article: List of the hardest colleges to get into
List of the hardest colleges to get into is just a list from a Princeton Review survey, (and is cited as such). Is this a copyright violation? Akriasas 02:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds very similar to the issues raised by Articles for deletion/List of billionaires (2005). -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look at all similar to the list of billionaires AfD debate. This isn't a list of facts &mdash; its a creative and subjective list of claims based on the Princeton Review's own creative and subjective survey method. It looks like a potential copyright violation to me. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is similar. The AfD debate raised the point that determining worth was Forbes's own methodology and research. I'm not sure that List of Billionaires was resolved wrt copyright issues. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So yes, I agree that it's a potential copyvio, but IANAL. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that the list of billionaires was kept because the work wasn't really creative enough &mdash; you're just ordering people by how much money they have. Is there a grey area there? I don't know. But, in this case, it's undoubtedly a subjective and creative work, and the arguments to keep the list of billionaires don't apply here at all. 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on "survey"? Many kinds of survey results are uncopyrightable because the results are determined mechanistically rather than creatively.  Dragons flight 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the Oricon yearly charts were deleted due copyright violation. I am guessing Oricon did it mechanistically, not creatively, yet it was deleted, creating a precedent for this list. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit related, I just saw List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps is pending a decision on WP:CP. Garion96 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, only looked at the CP page, not the actual article. It's seems already solved. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ACM infringing on GFDL
This issue is about the post I made to ANI about a week ago. Basically, the Association for Computing Machinery website contains what are clearly derivative works of Wikipedia biographies for Turing Award laureates, as a cursory review will show. For convenience here are just a few examples:


 * Butler Lampson and
 * Niklaus Wirth and
 * Alan Perlis and
 * C.A.R. Hoare and
 * John McCarthy and
 * Donald Knuth and

Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not credited, this is potentially very troublesome because 1) people may start removing material from the Wikipedia biographies for fear of copyvios, and 2) people may start citing the ACM biographies for the Wikipedia biographies. ACM is very credible because they are the organization that actually gives the Turing award! Some of their biographies contain even misleading or questionable assertions from Wikipedia like: "John McCarthy often comments on world affairs on Internet forums with a right-wing perspective."

I sent the ACM an e-mail a week ago (to the web editor I found on this contact page), but have received no response. I would appreciate any help or suggestions on this issue. Thanks! -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright v. Copyleft question
This may be a silly question, but I was under the impression that something could be either copyright or copyleft. That said, I think Image:Whoopi Goldberg - Comic Relief 2006 - Daniel Langer.jpg might be tagged incorrectly. It says it is CC-by-sa, but it also says the copyright is owned by the author. What's correct here? Thanks. <b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢) 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyleft is just a sort of catchphrase for a certain kind of free licensing. In the world today, the author holds the copyright to anything he creates; the copyright originates when he creates it. The author can then choose to allow others to use it under whatever arrangement they choose. One such arrangement is to use a free license that propagates that freedom to all derivative works (i.e. anyone who makes a change must release the change under the same free license). This practice is called copyleft, but the work remains copyrighted and the copyright remains with the author (or is mixed if others make changes to it). The only things that are not copyrighted are works that have passed into the public domain because the copyright expired, or were put into the public domain by the author's choice. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iririo1.JPG
I don't believe that the image is correctly tagged. It's a scan of a book (from the 1950s) but tagged as GFDL-self. Could someone check. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it's good. I've sent it to IFD. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation, then modified
What should be done about an article that started as a straight-up copy-and-paste from another site, but was then edited on Wikipedia so that it no longer is a word-for-word match to the original. Sancho 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a copyvio. List it on the main copyright problems page so it can get taken care of. Thanks. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Thanks. Sancho 01:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious fair use
Could somebody take a look at the 'fair use' image on HMS Cornwall (F99) and Royal Navy? As far as I can see the ship can be reasonably represented by, which suggests that we probably should not be using it. I've suggested to the uploader that he remove the image, but he declined. So two questions (1) is this reasonable fair use and (2) what is the correct approach in this kind of case? (I've looked at the vast amount of policies, guidelines and all I can see is Possibly unfree images which doesn't quite fit, and a draft idea on WP:Fair Use.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andreww (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC). My thanks to the good bot. I'm sure it makes it easer to reply if you know who I am. Andreww 05:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have a decent free image of that subject, so there's no reason to use an unfree one. Certainly the unfree shot is a bit more ideal, but that's no reason to use it, considering that it's possible to create a free version of that image anyway. Place (see Template:Rfu and Template:Replaceable fair use) on the image to mark it as "replaceable fair use." If that doesn't work out, you can take it to Images for deletion. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk  06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I've tagged the image as suggested. Andreww 07:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PD-US status correct, commentary incorrect?
On the page Image:Felix-pace.jpg, User:Pietro is quoted as saying that US copyrights expire after 25 years if not renewed. My understanding is that they formerly expired after 28 years if not renewed, and once expired, they stay expired. This would still leave the image in question as public-domain in the US, but if I am right as to the copyright law, this wording needs to be fixed by someone who actually knows it. 207.176.159.90 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

TG Cool Wall
It has been suggested that the inclusion of the Cool Wall and other sections in full from the show violate copyright. Is this the case?--Lucy-marie 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the list, in its entirety, which list is based on novel criteria, almost certainly is. We'd need solid evidence ot the contrary in order to include it.  The irony is, the show does not consider it significant enough to include on the website, otherwise we'd not even be having the debate, it would be an unambiguous violation. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy, the only person that keeps deleting the list form the article is you. Reverting once again under the guise of "consensus" is simply not true. We would really like to hear form an expert now, I'm tired listening to assumptions. --Edokter (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding paranoia?
What does "remember to Avoid copyright paranoia direct me to do? Should I just remember that a discussion happened about avoiding copyright paranoia? It seems that that discussion didn't produce any direction as to how to act with regards to copyright problems at all. Sancho 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just a long-ago discussion on meta. Don't worry about it too much, unless you find bits of it useful to yourself. Splash - tk 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my question was triggered by the inclusion of "remember to avoid copyright paranoia" in this page's header template the other day, but it's since been removed. Sancho 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Amancio Ortega Gaona
I found that article Amancio Ortega Gaona was incorrectly deleted. On its former location Amancio Ortega i can clearly see, that article is there from June 2004 and suspected page is from September 2005 and it is copy of that article. Please undelete article. --Jklamo 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did checked the dates, but there was no mention the article was moved. Looks like a copy & paste job there. I undeleted the article, thanks for checking. Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Notices to users
In the instructions on this project page (i.e. the yellow box), there is a notice to place on a contributor's talk page when all revisions to an article have copyright problems:

e.g. ~

Is there a notice like this one for the cases when only part of the article is a copyright infringement? Thanks. Teryx 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Corey Clark.jpg
The release says that the image can be used by "any website in the known universe". But what if someone wanted to republish Wikipedia, or the article, in book form? Or in a newspaper article? Does that release mean they couldn't? Doesn't that make this release not Wikipedia-compatible? Corvus cornix 23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rfs logo.jpg
I know this to be the logo of a government organisation but the uploader tagged it as their own work. I list articles for AfD but I can't work out what I'm meant to do about an image that isn't tagged right. This talk page is huge, if someone could give me the heads-up at User talk:GarrieIrons I'd appreciate it. Garrie 06:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Becareful about the US Goverment tag as it is for fed gov only. In cases like this do the folowing prosedure
 * 1. In the tag you are corecting ex. {USGov} replace the { with and the } with . This deactivates and puts a slash through the tag.
 * Ex. leaving USGov results in USGov
 * 2. Next explain why you are removing the tag next to it.
 * 3. Finaly add the correct tag benenath it.
 * Note: If you cant find a sutable tag just do step one and two. This gives them 7 days to add the correct the tag before the bot removes it. -72.185.136.96 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)