Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guanaco (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 29 August 2004 (→August 29). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, 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.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. See Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

Alternatives

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations 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: [[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!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied material here>}}

~~~~

Where you replace "<place URL of allegedly copied material here>" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.


Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav

Image:Amcoa.jpg Image:LondonEye1.jpg Image:BARBER01.jpg Image:Nokia-mobilephoneearpiece010.jpg Image:Belcourt.jpg Image:W D Hamilton.jpg Image:Ascaphus truei.jpg


Image:Peppered moth Biston betularia betularia f typica.jpg

This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Image:JohnBalance.png Image:JohnBallance.png Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png Image:NormanKirk.png Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png

I was the one who uploaded the images of New Zealand prime ministers: Image:JohnBalance.png, Image:JohnBallance.png, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png, Image:NormanKirk.png, Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png, Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png, and one or two others. I did so with the explicit permission of the National Library of New Zealand, which holds the rights to those images. At the time, I believed that Wikipedia text and Wikipedia images were treated separately under our implementation of the GDFL. I based this on Wikipedia:Copyrights, which merely says (at the top) that the text of Wikipedia is under the GDLF. Looking at things more closely, however, I see that I was mistaken in my interpretations - the same page also says "We do not allow special permission content to be included in Wikipedia since such content cannot be used by downstream users of Wikipedia content unless they also obtain permission." As these images most definitely cannot be used by third parties without permission (or even on other Wikipedia pages without permission), they should be removed as quickly as possible - the National Library was very explicit on that point. The permission for using these images is null and void unless we can adhere to their terms, and it appears that we don't. It's unfortunate, since I think the images do improve the articles, but I suppose that's just how these things work. I apologise for my mistake. -- Vardion 00:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes - no big deal. :) I see they also claimed copyright to some public domain images. I fixed that since it is a bogus claim. We still might be able to use the images under the fair dealing/fair use doctrine. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --mav
When was each picture taken? Who took them and held the rights to them? At least one or two appear likely to be in the public domain, given the dates of death of the subjects. Jamesday 12:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Non-commercial use images

As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the link to http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/index.html from Wikipedia:Public domain image resources due to the non-commercial restricton. Shame, I was just about to use his Edvard Munch "Scream" image as it was from an "approved" source. PhilHibbs 12:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Glycogenesis
    • Text was taken from the external link, with slight alterations. -phma 17:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Aplacophora
    • The list of subclasses was copied from one of the external links, which is copyrighted by Woods Hole. -phma 17:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation
    • I'm not sure if this is copyvio or fair use. This article quotes one of the user-submitted plot summaries from IMDb in its entirety (the second one at: [3]). It acknowledges it as a quote from IMDb. Does fair use cover quoting the whole thing? In this case, it's not the whole IMDb page, just one of the two plot summaries. The IMDb legal page ([4]) says that summaries uploaded by users are still owned by their writer, the uploader just implicitly gives IMDb unlimited use of their work. I've noticed other movie articles that do this, and I'm wonding if there's been any concensus about whether it's legal. - Eisnel 01:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Holkar
    • This article appears to be entirely copied from two other articles, one of which seems to be copied directly from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (with citation). Probably should be marked for deletion. Rbsteffes 17:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Unfree images
    • Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses. anthony (see warning) 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Images with missing copyright information
    These should replaced and many should be listed for deletion. Those that are currently orphaned can be listed on images for deletion. Guanaco 00:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Beasts of England and discussion in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beasts of England
The article consisted originally of the full seven stanzas of Beasts of England, from Animal Farm, and little else. Commentary has since been added. Depending on how the vote goes and how the article develops, it is likely either to be kept or transwikied to WIkisource, if there are no copyright problems. The only thing I would insist on vehemently is that the copyright situation is not simple. See my lengthy note in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beasts of England. The complicating factors are that the work seems to be public domain in some countries but not in others (specifically the U.S.); the work is definitely not out of print or unavailable and indeed has plenty of commercial value; what's being quote is short, but on the other hand is an entire poem, or song lyric; but then again it is not a real song that has any real existence outside the context of the book (it's not anthologized by itself, don't think it's performed or played except in dramatizations of Animal Farm). It's been suggested by User:Jmabel that the copyright holder be asked for permission; well, what's the current policy on "used-by-permission" with respect to text? Help, help, my head hurts. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • King Me'emen's Story from http://www.dnidesk.com/meemen_story_01.html -- Jim Regan 04:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • King Kedri's Story, from same source as above? RickK 05:13, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, see from User:Lovanion, which are mass importations of copyrighted pages from [5] or [6]. RickK 05:24, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • I exchanged emails with the webmaster of [7], and am told that all that material is actually copyrighted by Cyan Worlds Inc. (producers of Myst) and used by [8] and [9] with their permission. He gave me the name of the guy at Cyan who deals with this permission - since Lovanion claimed on his talk page to have permission to use this stuff, I have emailed the guy at Cyan to double-check that he is aware that this is for republishing under the GFDL, not just for putting up on a fansite. —Stormie 11:13, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertreibung_2.jpg
    • This is unverified (I doubt the web page using it is the original copyright holder) but is highly political which I guess is why it ended up here. Unless someone can find out who it actually belongs to I don't see why it should be deleted above the other thousand unverified images. Secretlondon 23:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The articles originates from 'Die Welt' dating 23.02.2004 , dealing with the expulsion of people from German origin from Czechoslovakia after WWII. The photo must have been taken in June 1945. There is no mention of any copyright. The site, referred to, is a site of neonazis; the photo itself has no connection with neonazi propaganda. JoJan 20:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swrdrose.JPG is a copy of the video box card for the Walt Disney film Sword and the Rose - No mention is made of copyright imagine it belongs to Disney Lumos3 15:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone will no doubt make a claim for fair use. Secretlondon 23:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Image:JC2004.jpeg is a glamour shot of Jennifer Connelly from http://www.maximonline.com. The Maxim copyright notice is on the image, no note about permission, and even if there was I doubt it would extend to sublicensees. - Eisnel 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • We have thousands of similar cases - and they are generally excused as being fair use. Someone who knows US copyright law better than me should look at it. Secretlondon 23:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • That is most definitely a copyvio. Fair use doesn't apply since it's a creative photo. It even says "All rights reserved" on the photo. You can't get more explicit than that. ☞spencer195 05:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [12]. Other parts may be original text. Samw 12:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The whole text is from Infocog - but I wonder if this is a non compliant mirror. Some text also seems to be from [13]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [14] Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But this is a reprint of a document submitted to the US NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD - does that make it PD? Secretlondon 00:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Birkeneskommunevapen.gif - claimed fair use but no source was given Guanaco 02:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a coat of arms - I don't know what our policy is on these. Secretlondon 01:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This should be allowed under norwegian copyright law from 1961 per section 13 "Making Copies for Use in Educational Activities" as the and a possible source is [15]Jerven
    • one could try to mail [email protected] and ask them.
    • Fair use is allowed as a coat of arms is equal to legally to the name of the entity holding the coat. Eg. The coat of arms of the king's household is legally the same as writing that the king's household as a coat of arms serves an indentifying role not creative or artistic nor sceintific. [Jerven]
  • Consumer Health Informatics from [16] -- Hadal 10:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    The copyright holder apparently has given permission on the talk pages. Guanaco 04:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Flecainide -- Seems that this was copy-and-pasted from a number of different web pages. See the talk page for more information. Matt 15:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey Jude -- lyrics are in page history. Hopefully we can remove them ASAP as this is a featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pokemon images

The discussion on Pokémon images has been moved to Template talk:Pokeimage.

Older than one week

The scan is used in both the Heller and the scale model articles. That's within context. 213.51.209.230 16:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The Sword of Shannara - reads like a copy, but I can't find it. RickK 23:37, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Olympic Truce from [21] - likely posted by the same user as above. Text seems to be originally written by Greek ambassador George Savvaides (and it would therefore fall under his government's copyright, unless I'm mistaken). -- Hadal 07:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • On the talk the author has posted a question about the copyright status since s/he claims to be an author of the work. Unless someone decides to follow this up, the page should be deleted in a week or so. Maximus Rex 20:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Dentsu from [22] (according to vfd discussion on talk page) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Dentsu, author claims to be copyright holder. However if this turns out to be the case the page would need to be re-listed on vfd for content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Baby k from [23] (PDF) and some other minor sources. andy 16:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Author has replied on article's talk page. Rmhermen 22:19, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I restored article based on the author's claim of originality. Also I couldn't find any text from the alleged source. Did I miss something? Rmhermen 14:48, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada from [24] and others - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Claims to be copyright holder on talk.Maximus Rex 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Common Alerting Protocol from [25]. Copyvio noted by User:Meelar, but not listed here? -Rlandmann 01:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Jules Dassin probably ultimately from the All Music Guide -- see Talk:Jules Dassin for more info. - dcljr 19:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Hello? This entry has been languishing here for a month. I thought something would happen automatically after 7 days. The Jules Dassin article can now be replaced by the content of Jules Dassin/Temp (still a stub, but at least not a copyright vio). How is that done? - dcljr 00:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Legnica from [26], which claims to be from Encarta 2001. --Zigger 01:59, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
    • Can you double check? At a quick glance the content appears to be different. Maximus Rex 00:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 20

Uploader claims fair use. Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Lovcen from [28]. --Romanm 07:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe you didn`t know but that page is not copyrighted. In Serbia and Montenegro, nothing is copyrighted if you didn`t put the copyright sign. Law is different from the law in USA. Plus this page was made by Government, and by law , any information given or made by government is public. Conclusion is that this text is not copyright problem. If there is © sign means that webdesign is copyrighted. You can check by sending an email to webmaster. --[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 10:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Cocktails Cachaca capirinha.png "non commerical only" according to uploader. Maximus Rex 08:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Not found on the internet, but since when do we delete "noncommercial use only" images? Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Estellawarren.jpg copyrighted image. Maximus Rex 01:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Contacting uploader(s). Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Uploader claims fair use on his talk page. Needs a second opinion; i don't think this is "fair use". Lupo 12:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


July 22

July 25

  • Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg from unknown Guanaco 04:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Template:Iraqcopyright
      See my talk page for an attempt to decipher that. Lupo 20:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      Anthony appears to be correct for US reusers:PD in US. The status in each other jurisdiction would neeed to be determined. Assuming that this is a publicity image form theold government, the use here is likely to be in situations where the use is fair. Jamesday 04:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oregon Illinois Public Library copied verbatim from [34]. Lupo 21:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Somebody claims to have permission. I'll follow up by e-mail. Lupo 08:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    No answer received until now; I think this can go. Lupo 09:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

July 26

  • Image:Persian Cat.jpg - No info on source and the photo looks like a professional shot Guanaco 00:23, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
    Also used on the Polish Wikipedia (copied from en). Grayscale image. A hit-and-run by the uploader. Lupo 13:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Rowan University from [35] anthony (see warning) 20:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio is in the history (the large anon contribution). What's the proper procedure: delete and replace by Anthony's replacement on the temp page (pre-copyvio version plus subsequent changes), thus losing the history, or simply manually removing the infringing parts? Lupo 14:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    The only history attribution that is lost is that of Maximus Rex, whom I have attributed in the comments, unless you're going to count HCheney's "Betty Castor, Florida politician and former president of the University of South Florida" as copyrightable. anthony (see warning) 13:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

July 31

August 2

  • Arthur Omar - can't find where it's from, but it reads like a copyvio. RickK 23:57, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

August 3

August 4

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

-But also see the wikipedia public domain images page. They make a convincing arguement for allowing postage stamps as illustrations. Sayeth 19:58, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know -- while I get the feeling that USPS would allow it, I hesitate to make the jump from "encyclopedia = book" and "Wikipedia = encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia = book". Tregoweth 01:41, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

August 9

  • AA Grapevine from [38] - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone ignored the instructions to draft a rewrite at the /Temp page, so now the copyvio is in the edit history. --Diberri | Talk 04:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

August 10

  • Mikhail Alekseev from text of Great Soviet Encyclopedia and current paper edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. (<- dunno who posted this Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • The copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia may well be expired. Can someone weigh in on Soviet copyrights? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Nuria Juncosa from [39]. Lupo 19:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Somebody (from a different IP than the external source) claims to be the copyright holder and to give permission. If true, the page should be de-copyvio'd and listed of VfD as a vanity page. Lupo 07:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 11

  • Tony Knowles (politician) - Much of the page, including several randomly-selected sentences, appears to be modified from [40] (Google cache of Knowles's election campaign site). Jxg 01:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    From the campaign web site's press kit. Would that be allowed? Anyway, has serious NPOV problems. Note: the /Temp replacement looks identical to the article itself. Lupo 11:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 12

  • Saint Vasilije copied from [41] where there's no copyright notice and [42] (copyright notice here). Also image:svvasilije2.jpg is from [43], with no copyright notice on the site.--leandros 00:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The art, though, is definitely old enough to be PD by now ... —Morven 00:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps I should at least add a tag that defines the situation like {{verifieduse}} or {{PD}} but I'm completely lost with these tags. Should maybe also add the URL where the image is taken from.--leandros 08:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Part of Edirne Province from [44], the rest from 1911 Britannica.--leandros 20:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 13

  • Image:Mar05.jpg, possibly copyrighted. No response to query from the uploader since June. Jay 22:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Ac.barneyfrank.jpg is a CSPAN screenshot. It's not tagged as fair use; perhaps it should be. The inclusion of the CPAN logo raises trademark issues. Also, the presence of the text is bad for non-English versions and looks unprofessional. -- Beland 02:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought the video coverage of the floor proceedings of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate was public domain. If so, it'd be a better solution to crop out the text. anthony (see warning) 13:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Athena and Phevos.jpg. The media guidelines on the official Olympic homepage sounds very disapproving. • Benc • 05:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Any responce from the mail sent asking for use on 14 Aug? How long should we give this? -- Infrogmation 16:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 14

  • Tsubasa from [45] , but the (possible) vio was uploaded by the (claimed) author of the website: does this indicate she gives permission for it to be used under the GFDL, or just that she doesn't understand the GFDL? Pyrop 23:56, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    No copyvio notice. E-mail given at extlink mentioned in article ends in "@dragonmount.com". www.dragonmount.com resolves to 66.221.104.33. No such IP ever edited the article. Somebody wants to follwo-up by e-mail? Lupo 11:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


August 16

August 17

  • Articles created by user Pomare V. have been rewritten in the meantime. The original versions also were copyright violations from [46]. Lupo 10:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 18

  • Forli-Cesena from [47]. Angela. 12:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio notice was overwritten: re-instantiated and asked anon author to place his rewrite at /Temp. Lupo 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 19

August 20

August 21

August 22

Entry on Zoo Atlanta was on my ToDo list anyway; added original stub to Zoo Atlanta/Temp. Autiger 04:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 23

August 24

See [144] for other relevant texts lifted. Jewbacca 20:42, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

August 25

The author acknowledged that he copied the text and did not realize that it was copyrighted. New text was contributed and put on the temp page. Does it still need to wait seven days? --Timc 19:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The author acknowledged that he copied the text and did not realize that it was copyrighted. New text was contributed and put on the temp page. Does it still need to wait seven days? --Timc 19:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I say no (i.e. delete the copyvio and replace it with the /Temp article), but I can't find any policy to back me up. --Diberri | Talk 00:19, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
The author acknowledged that he copied the text and did not realize that it was copyrighted. New text was contributed and put on the temp page. Does it still need to wait seven days? --Timc 19:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 26

I don't agree with that. (Almost) every photograph is an exact representation of reality, a.k.a. factual data. That the subject of this picture is "scientific" (whatever that means), is no reason for a different copyright status. And neither is the fact that it was taken with a camera with a remote control. I'd expect this image to be copyrightable, even in the US. Eugene van der Pijll 20:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 27

August 28

  • Image:Gibbs nascar.jpg. Taken from [208] and tagged (inappropriately) as fair use. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oecophylla from [209] Livajo 02:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Louis Breguet from [210] and in French. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It has obviously been translated by the contributor - the translated entry in the history is dated one minute before it was labeled as copyvio (so maybe Dunk Harris did not notice). The translation is not word by word, so I doubt it is still a copyvio.--Fenice 20:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Mabel McDowell School from [211]. -- Angela. 15:54, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • The work is the by the US government and therefore public domain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Works produced by the US Federal government are PD. As the "Form Prepared By" section of that document says, the copy was written by "Storrow Kinsella Partnership Inc.". Unless we can show that the submitter explicitly agrees to placing their submission in the public domain (which certainly isn't the same as merely submitting a form to the federal government) then copyright resides with Storrow et al. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • It was at a .gov domain, and has no copyright notice. Anyway, I've got some more in Columbus, Indiana. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • We need to be super-careful about inferring PD from .gov. For example, a bunch of NASA stuff is co-produced with ESA, and most (all?) of the US national labs are run by universities. And lack of a copyright notice doesn't mean lack of copyright. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Concordia University Wisconsin from [212]. Not sure if this counts, as it's basically their PR info. Ornil 15:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • National game from [213] - newbie error. Bonalaw 17:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael Sterling from [214] and [215]; copyright statement here. --rbrwrˆ 17:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Paulgraham_240x320.jpg from [http:www.paulgraham.com] [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 17:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Aston Webb from [216] © Macmillan Publishers Limited. --rbrwrˆ 19:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Roberto innocenti, text from [217] and in French as well. Image source is unknown. Joe Kress 20:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Shuttleworth Foundation from [218], overenthusiastic newbie Bonalaw 21:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:RickPerry.jpg from [219]; according to [220] "All photographs are copyrighted and may not be used without permission." Previously tagged public domain. Doppelgänger 22:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Rafflesia arnoldii - Actually dates back to July 8. _R_ 22:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:MichaelBloomberg.jpg from [221]; according to [222] " The content of NYC.gov's webpages is copyrighted, and contain some third party images/graphics that are used with permission. Users are notified, therefore, that one should presume the need to obtain permission from the copyright holder before reproducing or otherwise using images/graphics from this website." Previously tagged public domain. Doppelgänger 22:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 29

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=5519568"