Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samw (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 14 November 2004 (create Nov 14 section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

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. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

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. For example: 

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

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 today's section at the bottom of this page.

Special cases

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.

Pokémon images

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

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)

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

  • River Valley Ranch. User claims on talk page to have copyright. Wyllium 06:57, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Image:Sinitic Languages.jpg This image seems to be copyrighted, and the uploader has not stated that he has permission to use it, although a request for it now is a month old. --Vikingstad 14:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Consumer Health Informatics from [3] -- 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)
  • Withvision from [5] -- Hadal 11:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Dentsu from [6] (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)
  • Egale Canada from [7] 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)
  • SLAA from [8]. —Stormie 04:01, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • 12 Steps and 12 Traditions from [9]. —Stormie 04:01, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • English SLAA 12 Steps from [10]. —Stormie 04:01, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Englisn SLAA 12 Traditions from [11]. —Stormie 04:01, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nuria Juncosa from [12]. 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)
  • Tsubasa from [13] , 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)
  • Eduard Zirm from [14] - Lucky 6.9 06:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Author claims to be the copyright holder on talk. Lupo 08:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlos Martínez. Uploader is not the author but claims to have permission, see Talk:Carlos Martínez. Also, the site on which I found the text is apparently not the original either. I've reverted the copyvio, assuming good faith. Also I have contacted the email address informing that I've reverted and put the page here. If anybody feels the need for a follow-up, please do so. Sander123 11:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Pace Academy at [15]Postdlf 01:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • User who posted this claims to have permission—I will try to verify this by e-mail. Postdlf 13:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • As of today, no response from the copyright holder. Please delete Pace Academy on 10/26/04 if I have not posted otherwise by then. Postdlf 01:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Harry W. Nice from [16]. --Zigger 15:20, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • User states that they have now received permission from the Archives. I have asked him to try to get a confirming email. --Zigger 00:06, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • 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:Saab91safir.jpg - this is box art for a commercial model kit. While it could probably be contended to be fair use to use it in an article describing the specific kit itself, I suspect that it might be problematic to use it outside that context, but "I am not a lawyer". --Rlandmann 12:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
Uploader claims fair use. Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Roberto Burle Marx text dump that looks like it's straight out of a press release. - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A Snog On The Rocks looks like it was hand-copied from a print source. - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Student Loan Consolidation - reads like an FAQ or ad, last sentence doesnt pertain to the article, google test reveals multiple sources. KirbyMeister 20:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Sword of Shannara - reads like a copy, but I can't find it. RickK 23:37, Jul 11, 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)
  • Voice production reads like a copyvio, and the original version looks like one (first line begins mid-sentence, odd formatting (double spaced, short lines), only two wikilinks), but the only hits I get on Google are from Wikipedia mirrors. Suspicious, but I have no proof — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment suggests that original non-copyvio wiki articles must be bad and good articles must be copyvio :( 80.131.78.65 08:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I have no idea how you could get that from what I wrote. The first version was not good—it began in mid-sentence and had extremely broken formatting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with Gwalla, the first part of the article defiantely reads like a copyvio. They use the terms we and our too often throughout. I've looked for a while online through various sites, search engines etc, and came up with nothing...how about a textbook or a plain book? CrystalZ 17:52, 28, Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an ancient article, dating from 2001. Circumstances then explain the odd formatting and the lack of wikilinks 1) the formatter was radically different then than now, so this might well have rendered okay. 2) there wasn't much to wikilink to. 3) I guess the "ancients" didn't care so much about format etc., there being such a paucity of content. Additionally, I've reviewed the contributions of the original author and all his other stuff is undoubtedly his own work (it's just as crappily formatted, and contains stuff that clearly identifies it as a (rather ideosyncratic) wikipedia original text. I think this shows the author was knowledgeable in the field, and wasn't in the habit of uploading copyvios. To conclude, M'Lud, I don't think there's cause for suspicion. - John Fader
  • Arthur Omar - can't find where it's from, but it reads like a copyvio. RickK 23:57, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Mar05.jpg, possibly copyrighted. No response to query from the uploader since June. Jay 22:10, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Remaining image uploads of User:Avnionur are probably also copyright violations, but I didn't find them. Articles are all checked. Lupo 09:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Music of Palau and Culture of Palau. Probably from History of Palau: Heritage of an Emerging Nation which was mentioned on the first revision of the articles at [27] and [28]. Angela. 03:00, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Was pasted in one go by an anonymous user. That seems suspicious to me. --P3d0 18:04, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Geobacter seems to be a copy paste from an article of the The Tallahassee Democrat. Even the copyright notice is still left in the article. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/ is the source of the text and the article shows up in the search but requires a user to log in before being able to read the full article. Also the the lack of formatting clearly shows no serious attempt was made to create a decent article. --Jimius 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rutan Defiant seems almost certainly an OCR from a presumably copyrighted printed source (perhaps a sales brochure?) - note "conventjonal" for "conventional", "prQvide" for "provide", "stalt" for "stall", "ful1" for "full, "I.is" for "his" and many other similar errors. --Rlandmann 00:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Since there's been no further comment, and we now have a stub to replace it with, can someone please do the honours and delete the old version? --Rlandmann 03:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The Gashlycrumb Tinies is most certainly copyvio of the book -- it's the entire text thereof, just cut and pasted from the UK website that it points to that is also a copyvio. Is this the right place to mark such things? --Jpgordon 19:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:FF_Behemoth.png is a scan (obviously) from Prima's Final Fantasy X-2: Official Strategy Guide by Dan Birlew, ISBN 0744002850, page 319. - RedWordSmith 04:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Vida Guerra.jpg: Uploader says "from the first maxim article on her at: http://www.newsfilter.org/sex2/vida_guerra2.jpg"; if it's from Maxim it's copyrighted, and newsfilter.org is almost entirely copyvios. —tregoweth 23:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • James T. Dinneen has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion since September 26th, should have been listed here first. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James T. Dinneen for the discussion there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Linguistic human rights appears to be copied out of book by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, but I am not absolutely certain -- JamesTeterenko 03:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Ryn Goblin.jpg Although I haven't found another online copy of this picture it has a copyright notice in it and I believe originally came from a Guardian newspaper comic strip by Steve Bell. There is not explanation on the image page. Bob Palin 16:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Charles Steen
    • Sadly from [29], which seems copyrighted. If someone wants to do the copyvio boilerplate I will rewrite the article over the weekend... -Fastfission 13:38, 24 Sep 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: [30]). 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 ([31]) 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)
I'd like to see The Internationalle text directly adjacent to the lyrics here to facilitate comparison (and make it more obvious just why the whole of the poem is included) but I don't see a copyright problem here. It's review and commentary and I do think that to compare the whole of two short works (or portions, in this case) you need those works so that those who don't know them can see what you're talking about. I don't see much prospect of an independent market for a poem from Animal Farm and the poem itself certainly can't compete with or replace the book Animal Farm. Personally, I think this article is more likely to make people curious about the book and cause them to consider reading it... therby helping sales of the book. Jamesday 08:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 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)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [32]. 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 [33]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [34] 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)
  • 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)
  • Common Alerting Protocol from [35]. Copyvio noted by User:Meelar, but not listed here? -Rlandmann 01:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) and Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) - is the compilaton of this information copyrighted/ RickK 22:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hollis Center Maine partly from [36]. Diberri | Talk 21:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • It all looks to be original except for the first sentence. Either coincidence or a fair use. Guanaco 05:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The current version of Image:Pravda-otsovruk-c.jpg is from 1991, but the tag marks it as Pre-1973 Soviet copyright. We should revert. Shouldn't we?

Old

  • AA Grapevine from [37] - 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)
  • 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)
      • Unlikely that the copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia has expired. English translation was late 1960s. -- Jmabel 10:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony Knowles (politician) - Much of the page, including several randomly-selected sentences, appears to be modified from [38] (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)
  • Saint Vasilije copied from [39] where there's no copyright notice and [40] (copyright notice here). Also image:svvasilije2.jpg is from [41], 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)
  • Image:Lataji.jpg and Image:Andhrad.jpg, no information on source or permission details for these images despite asking the uploader at User talk:Kaysov. Jay 13:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notice. Lupo 08:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Ac.queencorgi.jpg painted in 1986 by Michael Leonard, and commissioned by the Reader's Digest (see the talk page). anthony (see warning) 15:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Devon1.jpg some random porn star. Picture has, erm, "artistic merit", it is not explicit but probably a bit embrassasing if you're at work. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • But is this necessarily a copyvio? (I know it looks like one, but you should have proof). If this is about prudence, you might want to list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, but I doubt it will be deleted for moral reasons. Besides, there are far more NSFW pictures on Wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Platypus1.jpg - self-admitting copyvio, from a Google image search. Tom- 00:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I like this one. Could we try to get them to release it under the GFDL? Guanaco 14:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Another search finds [42] which says that the painting is courtesy of Rod Scott and is copyright 1988 Australian Geographic Journal. Mr. Scott identifies it as being from issue number 12, Oct-Nov 1988. They can be contacted for permission [43]. Since you've indicated an interest in doing so, over to you...:) Since they did grant permission to Mr. Scott it seems possible that htey will grant a GFDl image for a thumbnail image like this - thumbnail because I assume that the image filled a cover and this is much reduced from cover art resolution. Jamesday 09:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Anne-real.jpg Historical picture of Anne Frank, but the Anne Frank House aggressively claims copyright on all such pictures, as can be seen at [44]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [45] and used here under the fair use doctrine. I don't like to take proactive action—this should stay unless a lawyer really complains and the Wikimedia foundation then decides to remove the picture. As an alternative, consider using nl:Afbeelding:Dagboek anne frank.jpg, scan of a book cover showing Anne Frank, from [46]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Under the request by Rigel who reported many copyright violated edits in ja.wp. Rigel left a message on my User talk:Aphaia and warn that the edits by User:rantaro and anonymous user User:61.22.157.95(ja) in the below are similar to the Jehovah's Wittnesses publish matter (tr. in Japanese) according to their content:
Rigel pointed out Jerusalem Council are consisted by two Jehovah's Witnesses document, and Christian Cross has a similar part of their document in Japanese; Rigel suspected other edits by same contributers might be so and it is the same person of User:K.M. who has been banned from ja.wp because of copyright violation. See also Rigel's comment on my talk page. --Aphaea 17:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC), pointer added (by Rigel)
You will have to point out what exactly are the suspected copyright violations, and where they are supposed to be from. Then we'll see what is to be done about all this. Lupo 18:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rigel said Jerusalem Council from JW published Insight and Holy Spirit(I don't know their avialbilities). All of materials are suspicted by JW database Watchtower or its latest version Watchtower2003 which are only available to faithfuls. (I am not a JW faithful and have no copy. Information has been available in RfD on ja.wp). For exact information we need a cooperator and JW faithful who have materials in English; on ja.wp two faithfuls gave us information. --Aphaea 23:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please verify the contents of his contribution one of these days.And furthermore, see his first contribution.Rigel(ja-user) 04:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sayeret Matkal from [64] - rhyax 06:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • On the one hand, the external site claims © at [65], but state right after "If you see no author you are welcome to repost the page but you MUST mention specwarnet and give us a link back." The page in question has no author mentioned, and isn't attribution (maybe with a backlink on talk) compatible with the GFDL? Lupo 09:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Meteor.JPG from [66]. Diberri | Talk 22:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • The permission says "The photos on this site are the property of BAE SYSTEMS (Copyright© 2004 BAE SYSTEMS. All rights reserved) and are made available for publishing and personal use." That they are made available for publishing sounds like a pretty blanket grant of permission to me. --Delirium 19:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • And then they go on to say at [67] that "They may not be changed or combined with other images in any manner without prior written consent of BAE SYSTEMS". I think that is the showstopper. Lupo 21:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Xmen1.bmp - scan of copyrighted material, Fair use at best.--Deelkar 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a bunch of similar BMP images on X-Men, uploaded by the same person who claims they are GFDL. I don't see very good evidence they're GFDL, but relatively low-res scans used to illustrate an article on the subject (made into something other than BMP please!) seem like they should be fair use, like our album cover images. In either case, something consistent should be done about them as a group. --Delirium 03:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Malaria (some parts) from [68]. Diberri | Talk 18:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a long enough article that we should excise only the copyrighted parts, rather than deleting the article. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Shwebomin from [69] -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Original poster removed the copyright violation notice! -- Infrogmation 04:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole group of articles and images is claimed on the talk pages to be used with authorization, but the authorization doesn't seem particularly official, so would require some follow-up. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Student loan - I removed a large section of this article that was copied from [70] and it needs to be rewritten. --Chessphoon 01:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • SPQR: The image of an "SPQR flag" used in this article, Image:Romastemma.jpg, has had a note added by an anon user claiming it to be copyright NovaRoma Inc.: The flag appears on novaroma.org's main page. In any case it's anachronistic for the article so I've commented it out, but I raise whether the image should be deleted. -- Arwel 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Allende's Last Radio Boadcast Message. It looks like at least the translation has been "borrowed" here without the owner's (?) permission — see History and Talk page! I'm reverting to Spanish version, and mailing the Warwick Univ. faculty member for info. Bishonen 17:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Now is a double redirect to Wikiquote page. Leave? -- Infrogmation 03:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 24

  • Brazil for Christ Pentecostal Church - totally looks like it was lifted from somewhere else, but I couldn't prove it (thus I didn't put the message on the page). Can someone help me find where it came from? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems unlikely a direct copy considering the odd mispelling of "nationalwide". Angela. 07:22, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

September 26

  • Robert Prim from page 689 of the 5th edition of Kenneth H. Rosen's Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications. TerraFrost 00:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notice ever placed on article. -- Infrogmation 05:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Uwe Holtz from [71] (PDF link). This is Holtz's own CV - does that get copyright protection? I haven't put up a copyvio notice yet. --rbrwrˆ 21:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Tambocor.jpg, copyrighted as stated on the image page -- Chris 73 Talk 01:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Actually: Proper fair use. (Learned something new today) -- Chris 73 Talk 00:02, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

September 28

September 30

  • Thunderbolt (New South Wales) from [74] [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 16:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to post here when I marked it. Comment on the talk page saying that the author posted it. I asked that permission be posted on the talk page.)

October 4

October 5

  • Image:Feynman.jpg - used all over the web with no attribution including [76]. No evidence anywhere that it is Public Domain. - Redjar 23:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 10

October 11

  • Image:Stravinsky.png - I found the source. "For reproductions in digital sources: We ask that all authors contact the Director of the Library. Decisions will be made based on the nature and amount of material to be reproduced, and the character of the reproducing work." See the image page for details. Someone needs to contact them and ask permission. →Raul654 03:36, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


October 13

October 14

  • Caffeine has a section that is a possible copyvio, as mentioned on the article's talk page. Thinking remove/rewrite the section, which is only about 5-10% of the article. Pakaran.
    • Note that there's a discussion on Talk:Caffeine, as well as here, and duplication isn't a good thing generally. I believe we use other DSM descriptions in articles, with a disclaimer. Pakaran. 16:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 16

October 17

  • Fulbright Hearing from http://www.cpas.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cis/asia/eng/71-S381-18.html --SEWilco 04:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • apparently by anonymous user "Rob" who also has suspected copyvio in Winter Soldier Investigation recently (in that case, "Rob" removed copyvio notices and still is reverting text) -- SEWilco
    • apparently "Rob" reverted and removed copyvio notices 14 minutes later, so don't expect to see notices. -- SEWilco 04:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Check that text again - Excerpts of text from public domain U.S. Government publications are not in violation of copyright. The texts in question, as well as the summaries at the Japanese website, are from the public domain document entitled, "Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session (April-May 1971), Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971."
        • Above "You might wish..." sentence apparently from violator, aka "Rob" Special:Contributions&target=165.247.200.143 ("Rob" claims understanding of copyright, sources, copies, collections, plagiarism, and fair use) --SEWilco 07:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Works of the U.S. federal government are in fact in the public domain. Postdlf 21:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Although not everything published by U.S. Government agencies is in the public domain. However, one has to use a public domain work. Moby-Dick (currently vandalized) is in the public domain, but you can't buy the latest paperback "Moby Dick" and type it in. You don't know if your recent copy has been altered. You don't know if any images are public domain. The Fulbright Hearing text might have been created by a translator at CIS, and the phrasing in the CIS text is certainly being used. Copyrighted works in Japan are protected when created, even if there is no copyright notice. There are reasons for a Wikipedia reminder to use the phrasing copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. -- SEWilco 03:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • The disputed material is copied from the website of the Center for Pacific and American Studies at the University of Tokyo, which represents that the text was taken from a work of the U.S. government. We can reasonably rely on a reputable site owner's representation concerning the source of the text. Furthermore, the site is actively disclaiming ownership. That goes beyond merely not having a copyright notice posted. We could reasonably rely on any site owner's statement (express or implied) that the site owner doesn't hold a copyright to particular material. JamesMLane 22:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
              • In a further exchange on my Talk page, SEWilco asks if I wish to alter my comments. I don't. Every indication is that the CPAS website was posting U.S. government materials. Well, actually, I do wish to make one alteration. I wish to add that the listing of the entire article as copyvio is patently incorrect. The cited website includes only the abstracts of the several different days of the hearings. The Wikipedia article goes into detail about the one day that people care most about, namely Kerry's testimony. That text was developed by several Wikipedia contributors over a period of time. Naturally, that portion of the article doesn't even appear on the CPAS website. JamesMLane 05:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 18

It's an 19th century (1886) work of art, ergo, it's in Public Domain. All we need is to crop the copyright notice :). Bogdan | Talk 19:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October 19

October 20

October 21


October 25

October 26

October 28

October 29

October 30

October 31

November 1

Images uploaded by Tyler111:

Also, we have to clarify copyright info for Image:Cor1.jpg and Image:Cor2.jpg. --Nanshu 06:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a free Library of Congress text. Gzornenplatz 07:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Maplestory.JPG. Was used on Magician before I turned it into a redirect. The image page lists it as public domain, but it's not, because it's a character from this game. I think the uploader thought that he owns his own character in the game, or something. Anyway, I don't see how this can be justified as fair use, because it doesn't seem to be necessary for any articles. --Slowking Man 07:53, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Buster Keaton-The Man Called "Stoneface" - I marked this previously as a merge but now noticed it comes from [177] - Skysmith 10:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nir kabaretti from [178]. Lupo 13:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Akerry2.jpg. Uploader's only contribution to Wikipedia. Uploader hasn't responded to a 3- month old request to provide permission details. Jay 16:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • L'age d'or from [179] 67.52.188.182 18:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Roman Mstislavich from [180]. Adam Bishop 19:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Kinnaur appears to be mixed copyvio of the official government site [181] with original text and rewritten text (see Talk:Kinnaur for a specific example). I find it difficult to unravel if this is fair use or copyvio. As such I haven't put a notice and am hoping that listing it here will get someone with more knowledge. Mozzerati 19:15, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
For example this edit has a direct cut and paste of this "The neighbouring Bhots also found time to jump into the fray and did not desist from creating trouble. There are various forts like labrang, Morang, and Kamru forts telling the story of that age" and this "Kinnaur valley acted as a bulwark to the Bushahr state. However with the lapse of paramountcy, the Kinnaur then known as Chini tehsil was merged to form a part of then Mahasu district." from here.
I've had a response from the anon IP [182]. This is a clear difference of opinion about how careful to be. More wise opinion neded.
My attempts to discuss this have been deleted from the article[183] and elsewhere[184] with no explanation. I decided to replace the article with a coypvio notice to avoid more lost work.
The version here [185] is not a copyvio, but I didn't revert to that since so much other material has been added. Mozzerati 19:09, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

--Indefatigable 22:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 2

November 3

November 4

November 5

November 6

November 7

November 8

November 9

French article about a dancer, as far as I understand it Sietse 14:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Copied from [374], but this may be a free resource (please check if you speak french). -- Chris 73 Talk 14:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
The home page of the site has a rather hidden copyright notice (visible only when you pass your cursor over the last icon on the bottom row: mystery-meat navigation.) If anyone wants to ask explicit permission to use this, contact [email protected], the contact info on the site. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
<end moved notes>
User says he owns said site. - Vague Rant 10:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

November 10

November 11

November 12

November 13

November 14

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=7441018"