Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smack (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 7 December 2003 (+History of Cossacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

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


See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

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

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

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

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

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

or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]] page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original.

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

Thanks, ~~~~

Notice for images

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


October 20



November 22

  • Supreme Court of India - This was originally tagged on 27 Mar 2003 by Zoe as a possible copyright infringement. It was restored a month later by Mkweise, saying that the "original poster states that permission was granted by copyright holder, a government agency." However, the original poster was anonymous (144.92.164.197) and has not posted since the day after the post in question. Can we rely on an anonymous user who typed "Used with permission" on the original entry? Kingturtle 09:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • After a look around their sites I'm inclined to accept this claim until there is an objection from someone local to the region. I had no idea that US federal government works were generally free of restrictons until I had spent significant time in the US and I'm cautious about the possibility of us having similar ignorance about Indian government works just because we don't know their system well enough. Both Mowgli and Mkweise appear to have greater knowledge of the region than I have and appear not to consider it unlikely, so I suggest we go with the views of those most local to the situation unless we have some reason to believe they are wrong. Jamesday 16:15, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No we should not accept such claims from anonymous users, and probably not from logged in users either. If the user can not provide proof, then the website should be contacted, which is what I've done now.Angela 17:10, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 25

  • MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg - description gives source Secretlondon 22:40, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • I don't see much sign of creativity here - it looks to be a simple arrangement of data dictated mainly by the purpose (an unrooted tree) and factual information (the myosin classes). That suggests that it's not a potential copyright infringement because the creator has no copyright. See Feist v. Rural and the reasoning in the Bender v. West case referenced there. Jamesday 21:06, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Do we want such a thing in Wikipedia anyway? I suggest that if anyone thinks we do, then they try to obtain permission from the copyright holder or to find an alternative version available under the GFDL. There's no point keeping things which might be fair use just for the sake it. Angela 23:02, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It appears to be appropriate in the context of the article Phylogenetic tree, which links to it. That notes that there's a standard for color selection, eliminating one of the larger remaining creative possibilities. I haven't considered fair use so much as just not eligible for copyright protection at all, for any type of use. Looking into it further, I find that the image is used with permission [1] "all we ask is that you use it as supplied, including the credits" and that page also appears to suggest that it's an automatically generated layout, eliminating yet more potential for creative activity. I'll leave it to the usual image description paste after the residence here to add that permission note to the image description. Wetman and Peak seem to be familiar enough with this area to have reasonable opinions about what is appropriate for the topic - I've asked Peak to comment here. Jamesday 05:30, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the precise issue is here, but let me point out firstly that there is a bug in the Wiki software, because the Image page is incorrect in saying "Image links: There are no pages that link to this image." On the contrary, as pointed out by JamesDay, the 'Phylogenetic tree' article uses the image.

Secondly, rest assured that explicit permission has been granted to include the image in Wikipedia. See the Image page Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg for details.

In summary: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE!

Peak 05:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've fixed the lack of a link from the image page - not sure whether the problem was the image at the start of the page or a known occasional glitch with links of all types, which occasionally don't show up as expected. Either way, it looks to be fixed now. Jamesday 12:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


November 27

  • Image:ReddFoxx.jpg looks professional, probably a copyrighted image, no information about source found on the image page. Maximus Rex 07:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • image:Ac.kevinrudd.jpg, Image:Ac.marklatham.jpg "© 2003 griffith university" from [2] --Alexandros
    • Probably not. At the website to begin with the picture image size is 146x192 for Rudd's, while the Parliament House web page and this image is different (130x170) [3]. Probably GriffithU copied Parliament House's. Should check Latham's pic, but I think Adam's got them from APH too. Dysprosia 14:33, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 28

November 29

  • Israel's declaration of statehood from [7]. --snoyes 17:00, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • An extremely easy fair use case in its context as a component of the history of the state of Israel and Middle East conflict. Fair use of this text is almost certainly broader than the rights granted by the GFDL. Jamesday 15:48, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, though this one is getting to about the limit of my own tolerance for source text size which belongs in the Wikipedia, saved by its historic significance and need in the print Wikipedia(IMO, some others definitely differ in their thresholds!). Not at all in this case, IMO - it's on my to do list now I've noticed it and being very fast with a move to WikiSource will only make it more difficult for me to make it a full article, because I'll need to go via votes for undeletion before I can write that article. I actually like writing about the early history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts - it's a place where you can work without getting into the flame wars which usually accompany those things. If you find it interesting, try describing the historical context and how well Israel has met the objectives it set out in each part of the declaration, so its an annotated source, not just a source dump. :) If someone does feel a dire need to delete this, please let me know and leave me a month to do the work before reconsidering listing it on VfD. Jamesday 16:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, technically it is listed here and not on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so if it is deemed that it is not a copyvio, then it shall not be deleted, regardless whether some think it should go to http://sources.wikipedia.org. That can then be discussed on the relevant talk page. I can withdraw this listing if you feel that it is not a copyvio (as you have previously said). --snoyes 17:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The following are orphans and possible copyvios. Their current format would not be acceptable anyway and the uploader of these seems to have left: Image:Basalflangeturtlebird.jpg, Image:Codexplate.jpg, Image:Codexshaman.jpg, Image:Incisedserpant.jpg, Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg, Image:Regional-Chevron.jpg, Image:Regional-Chochola.jpg, Image:Screwtopvessel.jpg, Image:Tabascovessel.jpg, Image:Trimamimfrom.jpg. Angela 20:50, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Except for Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg these are not copyrightable in US law because they are accurate mechanical reproductions of works which are out of copyright, with no creative lighting or other creative input. Not fair use - no copyright at all, so not even a need to consider fair use. Image:Preclassicvesels.jpg is not photographic but it appears to be a scientifically accurate hand reproduction of the works and my view is that it is properly treated in the same way as the mechanical reproductions and hence not copyrightable either. (added: this opinion is in part based on a case where an architectural drawing was described as only copyrightable if it had creativity - if it was simply accurate, it wouldn't be copyrightable) Given the way we're having troubles with links right now I'll try some searching for articles relting to Mayan civilisation to see if there are uses of these images out there. Jamesday 12:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've used several of these at Maya ceramics, where the edit history shows that the uploader apparently intended them to be used. I'll list on images for deletion any I don't eventually add to that page after editing them as required to make sure that they are suitable for presence here. Most are suitable, once text removal and cropping has been done. Jamesday 18:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

November 30

  • Image:Ac.philippoussis.jpg from [8]. Angela 17:15, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I noticed that the page the image was originally linked to made it on the main page. Shouldn't image permission information be provided before a page with images is placed onto the main page? RedWolf 02:05, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • In an ideal world, yes. Angela

December 1

December 2

  • Philips What's the story on corporate logos? I'm sure companies don't mind free publicity. Obviously logos are (usually) trademarks, but I would think they'd also be copyrighted and that most companies wouldn't be happy about releasing them under the Wikipedia license. I have not done anything to the page yet because I don't know enough about image copyrights. I'm talking only about Image:Philips.jpg which appears in Philips. Dpbsmith 10:21, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Two sides to the question. First side, we accept fair use images, even though we very strongly prefer GFDL and will eventually have replaced every possible image with a GFDL version if we can, even if we temporarily use something else. Second, the question of possible infrigement. Logos will be fair use here and in other encyclopedias as well as a vast range of derivative works of other sorts. It's hard for an unaltered logo to do anything other than favor and promote the company, so almost all uses are going to have a positive effect on revenue and that will swing almost all uses to fair use rather than infringing. See Wikipedia talk:Logos for more on the issue of logos in the Wikipedia. See fair use and what links to it for more on that topic. Jamesday 11:43, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Well, having read Wikipedia talk:Logos I'm not sure I'm any the wiser. I'll leave the Philips page alone, though. I see a set of guidelines, but: a) I don't see that they were accepted; b) I don't understand "Normal copyright requirements on the image." That would seem to me still to imply that permission must be obtained from the copyright holder. c) I have a problem with your statement that "we accept fair use images." Perhaps Wikipedia does, but I don't see how it is possible to upload one without lying, since the upload procedure requires an assertion that the owner has released the image under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.
That's a known limitation of the upload box - I've replied more fully to you over on the logos page, though. I suppose that there will eventually be a way to indicate that things are public domain or released under other or multiple licences but we don't have it yet. Just do the upload, then make an edit which gives the full details of origin and copyright status. Jamesday 15:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 3

  • Elbow Room - majority of the text, save the first line from [21] chance 13:51, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oops... sorry. No action to be taken. The author of the website HAS written the article. The talk page shows this factchance 14:00, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
This links to The London Museums of Health & Medicine. The other articles linking to this have been done by the museums concerned. I'm inclined to think they have given permission. Secretlondon 14:44, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
As expected they've 194.164.91.19 have now put down "I have copyright!!!!!" on the talk page. I've asked them to actually say who they are rather than leaving us to guess - although I think it is safe to say that all these articles on small London museums are being done by the staff concerned. The word has clearly gone round. Secretlondon 14:58, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
"I am from the museum - thanks for your help. I assume I can go back and carry on editing as before now?". I've made the unilateral decision to revert to the previous edition so they can continue editing it. Secretlondon 15:02, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I jumped the gun on that one. Saw a well written article pop up out of nowhere by an anon. user, made an assumption. Gentgeen 15:05, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 4

  • Image:Weston nude.jpg and other Edward Weston images uploaded by User:Hoot. The description is just "Nude by Edward Weston," no explanation of why it could be OK. It isn't really possible that Edward Weston's work is in the public domain, is it? This Library of Congress site says "Edward Weston's photographs are protected by copyright. Privacy and publicity rights may apply.... Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted, subject to P&P policy on copying, which precludes photocopying of the original photographs." Does that mean that a sufficiently reduced copy might be OK? Dpbsmith 02:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Public domain. The most recent, 1936 one, even assuming maximum renewals and extensions, entered it in 2003. I've added the details to the Edward Weston article and image pages. A thumbnail image in a biography is also an easy fair use situation. Jamesday 16:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Image:CanadaMapLarge.png - has a clear copyright statement in the bottom. Interestingly the image description page is empty and has no history - maybe it was already deleted before, but the image itself wasn't and is still used? andy 15:02, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 5

    • I just added a Simon and Schuster logo to the article on them... based on somewhat inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos. Some seemed to feel that the use of a corporate logo on an article about the corporation was surely fair use. What do people think? Is this OK or not? Dpbsmith 02:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • While his writings here and at Wikipedia_talk:Logos are not legal opinions in a formal sense, Alex756 is, I believe, Wikipedia's lawyer and IMO has a pretty good grasp of the issues. I feel pretty safe legally in going with most of what he writes about the law. He's a little less cautious in his writings than I usually am but that's fair enough, since he's a lawyer and I'm not. Jamesday 19:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Just to note that Alex has objected in the past to his name being used on this page as a justification for keeping things like this. Angela. 19:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Edward Barron Chandler. From [34], a Canadian government website, which says, "If the page you are visiting does not have a “Copyright/Source” link below the images or texts, it means that the information about who owns the copyright of the material is not available on the website. To obtain information concerning copyright ownership and/or restrictions on reproduction of this material, please contact the Copyright Bureau.'. This is not a permission to copy the material. RickK 05:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Red Hand Commandos from [36] and dozens of other web sites. This is just a mindless cut-and-paste job and not appropriate for Wikipedia as far as I understand how it works here. Dogface
    • I think this is okay. The indicated page is a US government publication which (per Public domain#4) makes it public domain, I believe. As to it being cut-n-paste, it should be noted on Wikipedia:Cleanup for improvement. -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


  • Continuity IRA from [37] and dozens of other web sites. Another cut-and-paste. Dogface 14:51, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this is okay. The indicated page is a US government publication which (per Public domain#4) makes it public domain, I believe. As to it being cut-n-paste, it should be noted on Wikipedia:Cleanup for improvement. -- Finlay McWalter 20:40, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


December 6

  • Image:MissVan041.jpg no source or copyright information given. Maximus Rex 05:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • As a thumbnail image in a biography of the artist, this one looks like easy fair use. Jamesday 19:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

December 7

  • Spellevator --Imran 17:05, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • From where? The page itself says from http://everything2.com/?node_id=550073 but I just went to that page, and the text isn't there! -- Oliver P. 17:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I assume that's because e2 is down, but I think as the statement was put there by the person who created the webpage that we can believe them. --Imran 19:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Olaus Murie from[69] - from a book © 1990 Eastern National Park & Monument Association - therefore I presume not PD. Secretlondon 17:51, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
  • History of Cossacks. Very difficult case. Immense text from [70]. However, the website claims the authorship of a certain W. V. Chereshnev in 1952. Under Soviet law, as I understand, Col. Chereshnev has/had very few rights of authorship over this piece. Its presence on a museum website, with a byline, seems to confirm that it is not copyrighted. -Smack 22:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=1899576"