Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KaisaL (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 19 March 2005 (→Suspected copyright infringements without online source). 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.

Finally, do not forget to add a note to the uploader's talk page to notify them that the image's copyright status is murky and it has been listed here.

Special cases

Amazon copyrights

Please list any amazon image copyright issues at Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com.

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
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]

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)
In this case, Munch painted The Scream in 1893, therefore wouldn't its use be public domain? Whether or not the site's webmaster can give permission or not seems irrelevant since Congress already did. WestonWyse 15:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link above to Jimbo's explanation for the non-commercial prohibition is dead; it goes to an unrelated message. I'd like to understand why non-commercial licenses are frowned upon here in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 23:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I'd also like to know why, if this is official wikipedia policy, the "non-commercial use" image tags are still available. I started uploading photos to Wikipedia in October 2004 and have used the "non-commercial use" tag on all of them (as a professional artist and photographer, the reasons should be understandable), and am now annoyed to discover I will need to either change all the tags or have the images deleted. Grutness|hello? 03:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The link goes to the correct message for me, and makes perfect sense. Remember that we are trying to make Wikipedia redistributable. This includes allowing people to sell the content. The tags are still available because such images have not been completely purged and we'd like to be able to find them. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (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.

  • Tsubasa from [3] , 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)
  • 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)
    • article is now at Carlos Martínez (actor) and I don't see that allowing the text under GFDL has been resolved. If we can't confirm, should be relisted. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Generation YES from [4] - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Fitz Hugh Ludlow from [5] Quickbeam 04:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Identity based encryption from [6] — Matt Crypto 22:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Article posted by copyright holder Matt Pauker from Voltage Security - original definition of IBE needs to be reverted and article provides simplified explanation of how IBE works and should be re-posted - but it may make sense to link back to Messaging Pipeline since they agreed to post article also
      • See the article's talk page for more. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:05, Mar 12, 2005 (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.

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

  • Pitts Special, smacks of copyvio though I can't tell where from. First sentance is used all over the internet though (Google it). -Lommer | talk 07:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kane x faucher is not only mistitled, it's a text dump. From where, I don't know. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Professor longhair -- pasted in one go by Contributions/68.107.251.155; article is suspiciously perfect in spelling, grammar and composition considering the poor formatting that would be caused, say, by copy-pasting HTML as plain text -- and of course the miscapitalization of the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Mi-2.gif - typical profile as found in many aviation books and magazines. Unlikely to be PD --Rlandmann 07:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Buffalo Bisons (AAFC) - I can't locate an online source, but the article helpfully says: "By Joe Marren, The Coffin Corner Volume XIX, Reprinted from The Buffalo Bills Insider" -Allissonn 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Unstable-chest-pain-algorithm.gif. Copyright obviously belongs to University of Texas Medical Branch Correctional Managed Care, but after a quick search I couldn't find the image on their website ([7]). I hope this is the correct place to list the image. SamH|Talk 12:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Gully dwarves - first half shows up at [8]; the second looks like it was lifted straight out of the same Dragonlance module that the web site took it from. As a whole, it's a fairly close but not exact match for their entry in the first edition AD&D Dragonlance Adventures sourcebook. There was a claim of permission on the page from [9], but in light of the above, I'm very, very reluctant to believe this is their IP. Also on vfd, at any rate. —Korath (Talk) 22:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Lisa raye. I can't find the original text online, but the sudden appearance of pages of unwikified text that reads like a promotional bio seems pretty obvious, particularly because it was posted by the same anon editor who posted Lil ma (listed below) which was clearly lifted from an online source. Postdlf 14:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Aqua10b.jpg. Clearly this has been stolen from somewhere.Konstandinos 19:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct. Taken from Aqua Express website. I know the person who runs that site, and will consult them as to permission for using the image. Meanwhile i'll fix the formatting you messed up in Aqua (band) and leave the image out.
  • Early Childhood Autism - Comes from a private wiki where content is copyright contributors. Contains several images that are almost certainly copyvios. See link from original author's pages. It's unclear where the article came from (e.g. was generated on that wiki or not). This will require some research to sort out. --Improv 18:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Content is copyright contributors on this wiki too. I don't see anything wrong with it. The images are such low quality that they are almost certainly fair use.
      • Someone else who was looking into this on IRC has said that that wiki does not mandate GFDL. With regards to the images, it may be that the content (i.e. text that is used for medical purposes) is copyright. If so, regardless of image quality, it may be covered by copyright. We need to be careful (low-res pictures of an entire short story are not fair use) --Improv 14:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I've listed the 3 images on WP:PUI. Does anything else still need doing with this article regarding copyright? -- Infrogmation 18:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is Arun Gandhi too similar to [10], [11], and [12]? 68.81.231.127 10:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio from [13] and [14], but not [15] AFAICT. But the offending material is probably small and can be easily reexpressed in one's own words. I'm too lazy for it, though;) -- Paddu 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Artificial_pacemaker#Patient_education seems to be copied from [16] or [17], or perhaps all three were copied from some other source. Before my edit in [18] it exhibited the exact same smart quotes problems as did both of the other sites. The text was added in [19] by 144.15.16.71, which has no other contributions. -- bd_ 00:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting. That IP resolves to nd016071.global.medtronic.com and the history part is straight from current Medtronic literature. [20]. As a pacemaker manaufacturer, they could even be the source of the commond Wikipedia/WebMD content. Since somebody there added stuff and they do make educational materials (albeit currently somewhat different) available, asking what they might want to donate wouldn't hurt. --iMeowbot~Mw 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • U.S._Marine_Corps_Force_Reconnaissance, large portions of the text are directly copied from [21]Fox1 15:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This one's difficult. What parts are copyvios? It's obvious that not all of it is. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it was a bit difficult, but I had time to remove and rewrite the offending sections. I'd appreciate someone double-checking my work, as this is my first contact with copyvio, but I think it should be taken care of now. Fox1 12:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 12

March 13

I created a temporary stub, and a request to move to Denton Welch. --Golden Eternity 01:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 14

Also Brumalia.--DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • All of the books at [Project Gutenberg] are in the public domain. The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Vol. 12, Issue 346, in particular was published December 13, 1828. DialUp 01:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting case: despite the .gov domain it is apparently a nonprofit corporation that can own copyright. --rbrwr± 23:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 15

March 16

[205] Rmhermen 14:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

March 17

March 18

(sleuth) 20:55, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

March 19

Wikipedian231 14:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My watchlistle=gallery&cmd=si&img=233] RedWolf 02:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current date is June 13, 2025. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=11295382"