Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahoerstemeier (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 13 November 2003 (Dawn Kenny). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Add links to pages that you suspect of being copyright infringements here. If you list a page here, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made.

In addition to nominating potential copyvios for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[Talk:PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged. Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). You can also ask for permission too - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your content, you may choose to raise the issue using this page and the standard copyright infringement notice as described below. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following text. Replace PAGE NAME with the name of the page that you're editing, and replace ADDRESS with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text.

Removed possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]]. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source:
:ADDRESS

This page is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on [[Talk:PAGE NAME|the talk page]]. If there was no permission to use this text then please rewrite the page at:
:[[Talk:PAGE NAME/temp]]

or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Thanks, ~~~~

Notice for images

This image is a possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]] and should therefore not be used by any article. <explain reason for suspicion here>
This image is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click ''Edit this page'' in the sidebar) - see our [[wikipedia:image use policy|image use policy]] for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.
It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.
If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the [[fair use]] doctrine, then please add a detailed ''fair use rationale'' as described on [[wikipedia:image description page]] to justify this belief.
Thanks, ~~~~

Notes and issues outstanding

Please note that articles from http://www.conigliofamily.com are not copyvios. These pages are licensed under the GFDL and they are being submitted the person who owns the site.

Sept 12: Image:Somalia mappa.jpg deleted but see also uploaded others to be checked (listed by andy 11:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC))

Sept 29th: Stjepan Mesic. Talk page says "Page was on free source, not protected by copyright". Needs to be checked. Angela

Check [1] for further possible copyvios.

Images awaiting deletion

For some reason images can not be deleted at the moment. The following have been listed for over a week and await deletion: image:Statua_Romana_Milano_001.jpg, image:Sant'Arderico_Milano.jpg, image:San_Francesco_Milano.jpg, image:San_Carlo_Borromeo_Milano.jpg, image:Oldrado_Da_Trasseno_Milano.jpg, image:Napoleone_I_Milano.jpg, image:Monumento_Cinque_Giornate_Milano.jpg, image:Monumento_a_Mazzini_Milano.jpg, image:Il_Grande_Toscano_Milano.jpg, image:Grande_Scultura_Mirò_Milano.jpg, image:Fontana_di_Piermarini_Milano.jpg, image:Dromaius_novaehollandiae_uovo.jpg, image:Disco_di_Pomodoro_Milano.jpg, image:Decimo_Magno_Ausonio_Milano.jpg, image:Costantino_imperatore_Milano.jpg, image:Casuarius_casuarius_uovo.jpg, image:Alessandro_Manzoni_Milano.jpg, image:Cat_espl.jpg, image:congress.jpg, image:palacio_planalto_mini.jpg, Image:Strait of gibraltar.jpg,

Image:HumpbackWhaleLeaping.jpg, Image:Star WR124.jpg,


Image:Star WR124 small.jpg,

Image:Colliding supernovae.png, Image:Colliding supernovae small.png. Image:Marseilles.jpg, Image:Arc de Triomphe.jpg, Image:Sartre2.jpg, Image:NikiLaudaFI.jpg, Image:AyrtonSennaFI.jpg, Image:JuanManuelFangio.jpg, Image:AlbertoAscariFI.jpg, Image:BobbyHull.jpg, Image:JosephFourier.jpg, Image:GeorgiusSinger.jpg, Image:JamesNorrisTrophy.jpg, Image:ConnSmytheTrophy.jpg, Image:ArtRossTrophy.jpg, Image:VezinaTrophy.jpg, Image:EmilArtin.jpg, Image:SteffiGrafftennis.JPG, Image:DonBudgeTennis.jpg, Image:DavidAhenakew.jpg, Image:MargaretCourt.jpg, Image:MaureenConnolly.JPG, Image:Philipjohnson.jpg, Image:M87 blackhole hubble.jpg, Image:Ayutthaya.jpg, Image:Natalie_portman.jpg, Image:Chaak.jpg, Image:Vanessa carlton.jpg, Image:Martov_2.jpg, Image:Halston.jpg, Image:Mellophone large.jpg, Image:äº?æ´²å?¨å??.gif, Image:Surte overview map.png, image:Rusfedmapcities.jpg, Image:Rthk bldg.jpg, Image:NeveCampbell.jpg Image:NeveCampbell.jpeg Image:MonicaBellucci.jpeg Image:LeeLeeSobieski.jpg Image:KatieHolmes.jpg Image:LucyLawless.jpeg.jpg Image:JillClayburgh.jpeg Image:CarolineCossey.jpeg Image:OntarioPremierDaltonMcGuinty.jpeg.jpg Image:Akiross.jpg Image:Britneeeeeee.jpg Image:Josephinebaker.jpeg Image:Livtyler.jpeg Image:Elishacuthbert.jpeg Image:Alysonhannigan.jpeg Image:Gilliananderson.jpg Image:Marykateandashley.jpeg Image:Jessicaalba.jpeg Image:Jessicasimpson.jpeg Image:Christinaaguilera.jpeg Image:Tatyanaali.jpeg Image:Cateblanchett.jpeg Image:Katewinslet.jpeg Image:Hilaryduff.jpeg Image:Dianelane.jpeg Image:Cleaduvall.jpeg Image:Beyonceknowles.jpeg Image:Audreytautou.jpeg Image:Annapaquin.jpeg Image:Aliciasilverstone.jpeg Image:Michelletrachtenberg.jpeg Image:Reneezellweger.jpg Image:Rebeckaliljeberg.jpeg Image:Christinaricci.jpeg Image:Thorabirch.jpeg Image:Lucyliu.jpeg Image:Sircharlesfitzpatrick.jpeg, Image:Bacon.jpg, Image:Aneuron.gif, Image:Dinosauroid.jpg, Image:Hazerfanbio.doc

October 20

from images for deletion

  • The picture of Margaret Trudeau, Image:Margaret Trudeau.jpg - Nightcrawler uploaded it and states that "photo scanned from Book cover. Used in Wikipedia under "Fair Use" provisions of a public personality.". Is that a valid "fair use" provision? I wouldn't think so. What do you guys think? Xamian 04:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not part of the fair use guideline. Not at all. It's not hard to get permission and we need to pay attention to the law. It needs to be removed. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • IANAL. It's relevant to fair use#Purpose_and_character and fair use#Nature_of_the_work: public figures are suitable targets for reportage, and a portrait photo of a public figure is afforded less protecton. Martin 22:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Reportage is somewhat different than copying. See below for the rest of my concern. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
        • Fair Use is not limited to the Internet. Currently Tuff-Cat and others scan music albums and have posted them here at Wikipedia. Similarly, there are many other book covers here. NightCrawler 21:52, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • I think it's definitely in a gray area for fair use. What other people do is no justification. It would be better to get permission. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
    • IANAL The picture looks like a copyright infringement candidate for derived commercial works. The scene is composed (background, makeup and clothing selection, font choice and positioning for the text). That's creative, published, somewhat against fair use. More than required is used (head shot is all we need), argues for infringement. That's two of four factors somewhat against fair use, so a commercial reuser of Wikipedia material may have a problem even if we don't in print Wikipedia. Replacing it with a candid shot would be better - see thescene a faire principle. JamesDay 16:50, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • JamesDay has convinced me that the current version is not fair use. Perhaps it could be kept if Nightcrawler (or someone else) cropped it and faded out the background? Then we're reducing the creativity of the result, and it's a more transformative use of the work - both plus points for fair use. Martin 17:43, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Well cropped seems OK enough, though the makeup work and possible retouching still is less safe than an ad hoc shot. This is one where our lack of finer tagging for images hurts us. It's being worked on (slowly:)) and hopefully will let us use more richly online while letting us and others filter for other uses.JamesDay 17:08, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Should explain a bit more: I think this is fair transformative use for the online Wikipedia but we need to describe why. We also help our fair use case if we link to the book in the image caption (because that will take traffic to the book, making the effect of the use on revenue positive). I'm not really keen on it anyway, but it qualifies. I wouldn't like to see it used in print Wikipedia, though. So, we want better, but this one will do for now. I'll add a suitable caption to the use after I'm done here. Comments on the caption at Margaret Trudeau and fair use analysis at the image page are welcome. JamesDay 03:04, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Nightcrawler also posted Image:JeffreyD.jpg (linked off of Jeffrey Dahmer, stating that the photo is fair use because it is on a whole bunch of websites. Is that a valid reason?
    • Nope! Just because an image has been illegally copied many times (this is the internet we're talking about) does not render it okay to copy. Daniel Quinlan 07:59, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • IANAL. It's relevant to fair use#Effect_upon_work's_value - effect is reduced if there are many other copies. Martin 22:18, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I realize that, but I'm concerned about fair use#Nature of the work. These are original photographs by professional photographers. I'm also concerned about fair use#Amount and substantiality since these are very short articles. fair use#Effect upon work's value is also a concern, even with the multiple copies running around, if Wikipedia could be construed as competing with other places where these photographs are used (for example, a biography). Maybe it's okay, but it seems like a very gray area to me and I think it would have been better (and perhaps continues to be a better option) to get permission. Daniel Quinlan 02:32, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
      • There's a pragmatic argument here. Professional photographers are quite inclined to sue if there's even a sniff of maybe, just possibly, infringing use. However, just how many ways were there to photograph him at his trial? Room for creativity is quite limited. Is this copyrightable at all? Cropping a bit more tightly might be a good idea. Suggest asking for the advice of a real IP lawyer before acting on this one - it's an interesting question which will affect quite a lot of articles. JamesDay 17:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • A google for Jeffrey Dahmer Mugshot produces a perfectly good mugshot, which is at least as (I'd argue more) relevant than the existing, debated, photo. I'm assuming that (as government documents) mugshots aren't a problem, so why don't we swap the mugshot in and zap the debateable one? -- Finlay McWalter 02:05, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 1

  • Nasrudin from [2]. SimonP 17:21, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • 172.188.127.193 claims on the talk page that they hold the copyright. Am I supposed to trust an anonymous IP? Is it best to leave this or best to delete it? With Malofuerte, I deleted it and left a message at User talk:68.2.163.170, but there's probably not much chance of an anon IP seeing a message unless they have a static IP. In the case of the Nasrudin page, it is clear the user has a floating IP. Any ideas? Angela 02:06, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Floating IP, eh? No user name, eh? Might as well axe it. Poor Yorick 02:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • The article is now much improved and contains little of the original. The copywrighted material is stil in the history, however. - SimonP 06:00, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

November 2

November 4

  • Brahman-Atman Yoga from [3]. Angela 23:32, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Submitter claims on talk page to be an authorized representative of the copyright holder. --Delirium 02:36, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


November 6


November 7

  • Legazpi Airport, [9] Dysprosia 08:55, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Not infringing for the US Wikipedia, online and in print. Under US law, it is ineligible for copyright protection because it is simply a collection of factual data and facts cannot be copyrighted, even if you go to a lot of trouble to compile them. The sweat of the brow approach has been ruled inapplicable by the Supreme Court. The site's copyright notice cannot apply to this data. A modicum of original creative thought is required before something is copyrightable and the data presentation here did not exhibit it. JamesDay 04:17, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Ok, cool - so the copyright notice that guy had on that website was invalid? Just curious, as I don't know very much about legal matters :) Dysprosia 04:19, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It's valid but it only covers the material which is originally created by the site. It's routine for sites to have global copyright notices but they never apply to material they don't actually have the rights for. Another interesting case is where there's an accurate photograph of an ancient relic. Unless there's creativity in the lighting or scene somehow, it's not copyrightable, regardless of whether the photographer claims that it is. One reason why museums have "no camera" rules. Dealing with these claims and making decisions about how far you can exert your rights to use without undue risk of getting sued is where the law gets "interesting". Intellectual property law is anything but definitive. And that's on a good day.:) Life's a lot simpler for text, where we can rewrite to GFDL. It's why I seldom do much about text here - it takes more time to justify fair use than it does to rewrite.JamesDay 05:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Romans road from [11] Muriel Gottrop 16:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is a standard tract text; I doubt that it's original to this webpage either, and doubt that the collection of Biblical texts is copyright material in any case. I have listed this page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion because I've incorporated most of the data from here into salvation, a better place IMO -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:16, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 8

  • Bushwhacked MP3 (particularly the transcript therein) from the article's own external mp3 link; widely attributed on the internet to one Chris Morris. Skybunny 01:18, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The standard notice for this page doesn't seem to apply to a major section of an article. Any appropriate action appreciated; the section in question was actually restored after an anonymous user deleted it. No notice yet on the article itself. Skybunny 01:34, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It might be best just to remove that section. I don't think the whole page needs to be deleted. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for source texts. Angela
    • Done. Explanation to be put in 'talk'; hopefully it won't be reverted again. Thanks. Skybunny
  • Book of Abraham controversies, [19] Dysprosia 06:14, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This page just got rewritten. Copyright-clean now? Bryan
    • Probably, but should we reinstate the clean version so quickly? It's at the /temp page right now, so it can be worked upon and then replaced with the original. Dysprosia 06:48, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • No, leave it the week. Firstly so the person who put it there might see what has happened, and secondly in case it's not a copyvio. Angela 07:03, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • In this particular case, I can vouch that the user has seen and understands what happened here; he's someone I know that I was personally introducing to the joys of Wikipedia editing :). He also did Salamander Letter and is tidying that up now too. I'm not suggesting special treatment, just clarifying the background of the situation. Bryan
        • Oh, in that case there's no need. I've moved the temp one into place. Angela 09:12, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

November 9

  • Borders bookstore Workers strike from [28]. -- Cyan 17:25, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Even if it isn't a copyvio, it's still a press release. So delete it if its a copyvio, and delete it if it isn't. -- Finlay McWalter 17:33, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Best to wait until the temp version goes live, and then deal with that via editing, renaming, deleting, etc. -- Cyan 17:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 10

  • Really Dodgy Dossier, [29] Dysprosia 07:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unlikely to be copyright infringement. A Google search suggests that it's self-promotion by the author. It's on VfD and seems very unlikely to survive.JamesDay 08:28, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


  • Image:Hawk100 small.jpg from http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/hawkMAIN.html. Regrettably 'free for non-commerical' is not adequate for Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 21:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That's fine (though not close to ideal) for the online Wikipedia, needs more analysis for print edition and derivative works. Was this used somewhere when you found it? I thought there was some page using it - if it's not in use at all, it can be deleted anyway, for that reason. JamesDay 08:56, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd rather it was removed than have to get into any legal arguments with the owner. Never mind. sugarfish 15:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 11

  • Land-grant university. There is some confusion over whether this is a copyvio from [39]. The article is over two years old and has had many edits previously. I can't find the record in the deletion log of why it was deleted previously, but on the still deleted talk page, Tomos suggests it is a copyvio. Any thoughts? Angela 18:07, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Comparing what's there now to that cite, I don't see any prospect of a copyvio for any use at all, by anyone. Any copying looks far to insubstantial in the context of the amount of the alleged source work which was used and the article we have here. If Tomos has any specific examples it'll be worth looking at them but it seems unlikely that there's any infringement. JamesDay 09:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Hale2.jpg, from [44], which explicity states that it's copyrighted. RickK 22:25, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The text on the site is copyrighted. The picture appears to be public domain. Angela 22:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The page explicity says, Images from Godey's Lady's Book copyright Hope Greenberg, University of Vermont. Used by permission RickK 22:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they mean the other pictures. I wasn't aware a photo that old could be copyrighted. This photo is used in various other places on the web with no such mention of copyright issues. Angela 22:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Looks like Hope Greenberg doesn't mind giving permission. Can Wikipedia host images that are not released under GFDL but for which Wikipedia is given permisison to use? orthogonal 22:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Looks like an accurate mechanical reproduction of a work which is out of copyright. Not copyrightable in US law because it lacks any creativity. JamesDay 09:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This brings up a question. If I scan a public domain image and convert it to jpeg format, is my jpeg version an copyrighted work? What if I filter/transform/manipulate the image? orthogonal 22:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Scanning it doesn't make it copyright. Modifying the image might, the modification would have to be "creative" (i.e. not a mechanical procedure such as applying a standard filter) and in some way "substantial". --Imran 23:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Just converting from one image format to another is likely to be seen as a mechanical task which adds no creative component. See Feist v. Rural for the US Supreme Court opinion which clarifies what can and cannot be copyrighted in the US. See Image:Devonport Dockyard in 1909 plan.png for an original scanned image included in the page and the image itself for the work I derived from it, complete with summary of what I did to it. JamesDay 09:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Kerri.jpg - pretty obviously taken from a web page, no permission notice from owner has been included Daniel Quinlan
    • It's from [45] -- Finlay McWalter 00:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Quite Frankly, I am tired of User:Daniel Quinlan playing games with his pronouncements on photos. He is not qualified in any manner and I will repeat to him again, what I said once before. READ first what Alex wrote on copyright. In fact, copyrighted photos can be used under "Fair Use" statutes. Instead of wasting everyone's time Mr. Quinlan, why not make some actual contributions? NightCrawler 00:49, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Did you look at the image? It was copied from a web site and even includes the original navigation text from the image. As to my qualifications, I am familiar with copyright law through my work on open source and standards. I co-founded and serve as chair on the board of directors of a non-profit working on open-source standards (the Free Standards Group) and we regularly have to deal with fair use and copyright issues. I helped write the organization IP policy. As to actual contributions, I have made many here. Daniel Quinlan 01:30, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • This one appears not to be used anywhere on the Wikipedia. Fair use is possible, perhaps, but I find it hard to see how we would want to use it as it is, complete with text. It seems that the text will be quite difficult to justify as being no more than required, so the amount used fair use test might count against us. Making an editorial decision that the image is unsuitable seems like a simpler course than trying to analyse fair use. Perhaps we should adjourn to images for deletion and forget debating whether it is fair use? JamesDay 09:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's not used only because I removed the link from Kerri Kenney where it was used (as per the copyright violation guidelines, I believe). In a case where it was not so clear cut, I might have left the image in the article. Daniel Quinlan 09:54, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Hmmm... whether we can use an image under fair use depends on exactly how its used on the page and once the image is removed, that can't be fully retrived because history does't preserve all of the layout. Since we need all of the links to judge and that adds lots of work for reporters (because we have to ask for links in the notice to every page) it seems that for images only, it's probably going to encourage reports better if we let the image remain pending a decision. I seldom see the images removed when something is listed here, so you don't seem to be following the usual practice of most reporters either - most seem to act as I've described for images. Given the use, we definitely don't want the image as it is (because it looks terrible in the article) but a head shot seems likely to be fair use for online and print wikipeida, maybe not for commercial users. At some point, we really need to get lots of publicists providing images with clear permission... is there anyone reading this who is connected to that business and can provide an address book? JamesDay 10:36, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I am following the guidelines for violations on Wikipedia:Copyrights. It would probably be good if you added some of your information on scans of public domain images to the image guideline on that page. I think it is best for us to continue removing copyright violations until we receive permission (to avoid willful violations of copyright law). A remedy to the solution of "hanging images" with no link back to their original article would be to add the article name to the copyright violation notice when used for images. I would support that change to the copyright policy. Daniel Quinlan 10:49, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

November 12

  • Zumtobel Staff - Advertisement --Magnus Manske 11:07, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Same reason as Magnus Manske. Bmills 11:09, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, obvious self-promotion. Fuzheado 11:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, same reason as all other wares. Can't we just nuke this immediately? This is ridiculous. Daniel Quinlan 11:37, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Hardely NPOV.
    • Delete. —Frecklefoot 15:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 15:29, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Also a copyvio from [48]. Angela 18:29, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • IT Mill - advert. 193.131.186.150 12:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A copy and paste job from the itmill.com Home page. Bmills 13:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It is a copy and paste job, so it is also a copyvio. Complete ad. Nothing links to it but this page. —Frecklefoot 15:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete Secretlondon 15:29, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, copyvio. Angela 18:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • LaDainian Tomlinson from [49], which specifically notes "Do not duplicate in any form without prior receipt of written permission from the San Diego Chargers." -- Cyan 19:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:Lilian_Rolfe.jpg from [50], a site which have previously refused to grant permission for Wikipedia to use their images. Image description page makes no mention of whether it is supposedly being used under fair use guidelines or not. Angela 20:34, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


November 13

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=1728142"