Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request that the offending page (or page version) be immediately removed from Wikipedia.

To expedite this process you will need to provide some type of proof that you are the copyright holder. We certainly will not immediately remove anything without being reasonably sure that it is in fact a copyright violation.

All suspected copyright violations should be listed at Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Our policy page dealing with copyrights is at Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Post a message

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church

Hello,

I've noticed information on Wikipedia (and on other sites that acknowledge Wikipedia as a source) that I have written, but for which I have not given permission to be copied. Information (but not the entire text) in the following pages has been taken from my page: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church and http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_juris (and there might be others that I haven't discovered yet).

My page is located at http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html .

Unfortunately, I very recently updated that particular page on 27 Dec. '03. However, the information that I wrote and that is now in Wikipedia was available online between 1 Sep. '01 and 27 Dec. '03. Luckily, the old page is still available in Google's cache: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html I don't know how long the old version will remain in the cache, so please act quickly!

Actually, I don't mind so much that what I wrote is posted on Wikipedia, but if it is here, then I _insist_ that I be acknowledged. Moreover, if information that I wrote is quoted directly, then I insist that direct quotation be indicated.

Than you in advance. I very much appreciate your cooperation. If needed, you can contact me at [email protected] .

Sincerely, Alex C. J. Neroth van Vogelpoel

Page blanked. I've sent you an email regarding this issue. --mav 09:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Portions of Al Gore article, possibly

In discussion at Wikipedia:Possible_copyright_infringements#January_9 User:Anthony DiPierro asserts that the non-GFDL images are infringing the copyright of the text of this GFDL edit by him to the article, reasoning that the images are not GFDL and arguing that the article is not only the text but the text and image combination and must all be GFDL. Our image use policy and practice is inconsistent with this claim, so I've asked him to clarify whether he wishes to make this a formal infringement complaint and have us remove his text from the article to remove what he believes to be an infringement of his text. Mentioned here because this is the central place for complaints of infringement by creators. Jamesday 13:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note that as of the current edit, the content has been removed, so it's not a problem. Anthony DiPierro 00:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why should his text be removed? It isn't his text that is infringing - it is the photos (or at least he is claiming the photos are infringing - I don't intend to express an opinion on whether that is the case). He released the text under the GFDL, so anyone could put it back in under that. I don't see what you hope to gain by removing text which is obviously not infringing. Angela. 13:32, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

My text can only be used under the GFDL if the derivative work is released under the GFDL. Adding non-GFDLed images violates the copyright on my text. Anthony DiPierro 00:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I realise that, but shouldn't that mean the images would be removed, not the text? Angela. 00:56, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the images should be removed. But I was getting into an edit war trying to remove the images, so I removed the text instead. Anthony DiPierro 19:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If a third party site frames the Wikipedia article, what portion of that site do you believe must be GFDL? Just the article? Any ads on the same page, served from a third party ad server? Site navigation around the article? Articles it presents under non-GFDL licenses on other pages at the site? If you answer yes to any of the questions, I will suggest that you be asked not to contribute, because you would effectively be blocking most reuse of the Wikipedia articles you contribute to and that's contrary to the core objective of the Wikipedia: producing a superb encyclopedia which can easily be reused. Jamesday 01:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is his view that any non-GFDL image violates his GFDL license grant (because he considers the image and the text to be a single work). I disagree, for a variety of reasons. However... Since the article on Al Gore is effectively certain to include a non-GFDL image eventually, removal of his contribution is his only useful recourse, because it's certain that he will believe the article to be infringing eventually. I'm happy to accept the desire to remove the contributions of people if they do not like the way the Wikipeida now or in the future interprets the GFDL. This is mostly because it's the best decision to encourage people to participate - handing over control to others always discourages participation, regardless of the merits of the legal claim, so leaving control with the creator best serves the interests of the Wikipedia. As for anyone else who may be using the text outside the Wikipedia, that's a risk the contributor assumes - we can at least try to help them contribute only willingly and on terms of the contract they believe they have. Alternatively, we could ban him, on the basis that he's making contributions which inhibit the way the Wikipedia normally works, but I think that's excessive so long as he's content to accept that removing his text if he disagrees is his only recourse. If he doesn't accept that, we probably have to ask him not to contribute or ban him, because he would be contributing then with the intent of blocking the way the Wikipedia normally works and that's too great a risk to accept, for both us and those who would reuse the articles. I think that we'd prevail in court. I think that we'd lose anyway, by losing contributors and contributions, even if we won in court. If he asks that we remove the history, that has the effect, arguably, of removing our right to use the contributions of others and requires us to delete the whole article. In that case, I suggest that we ask him not to contribute at all and ban him if he continues to do so, because we can't accept giving him that capability. Jamesday 01:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You want to ban someone because they are worried that the requirements of the GFDL are being broken? Am I missing something here? Angela. 01:49, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

You may be missing the consequences of the interpretation he is expressing. Assume that he considers the whole web page as the content, as he appears to be arguing for images in the pages here now. That would bar sites using ads from using Wikipedia content he has edited, because it's impractical for them to obtain GFDL licenses for the ads served by third party ad servers. Hence my questions about where he draws the line between his text and what he considers has to be GFDL. Jamesday 05:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia plan on using ads? In any case, my interpretation is meaningless. The GFDL means what it means. If it's impractical for third parties to use the GFDL, then maybe Wikipedia shouldn't be using the GFDL. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, however. As for where I draw the line, that's defined in the GFDL. A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language. I'll go no further into hypothetical cases, except to say that section 7 provides for aggregation with "separate and independent documents or works." Images which are embedded in the document certainly do not qualify. Anthony DiPierro 19:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No this guy should be banned for being a troll. Does Wikipedia not ban people like this? He has admitted he is a troll, uploaded inappropriate images, accused people of copyright violations, and is just being a disrupter and vandaliser on other pages. Please look into it. ChrisDJackson

One has contributed the work to Wikipedia, it states that one's work can be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" on the edit page copyright warning. Once one submits the work it can be edited, if someone puts a copyright violation into the work that does not mean one's text that has previously been contributed is also a copyright violation. It is the text of the other person that violates copyright and should be removed. Regarding the fair use issue, if there is fair use on Wikipedia, then that is not a copyright violation on Wikipedia, if someone reuses it in a fashion that is not within fair use, they must remove the infringing material because of their use. Wikipedia has not violated anyone's copyright, it is the downstream user that has violated it. No where in the GFDL does it state that fair use materials cannot be included in GFDL texts. It is not prohibited. Fair use is not a copyright violation, so one cannot complain if fair use materials are included in Wikipedia. If one wants to make a fair use free fork of Wikipedia one is free to do so, so I do not see what the problem is; please clarify. — Alex756 09:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair use requires fair use in both directions. It must be fair use to use the images without permission, but it also must be fair use to use the text without permission. Anthony DiPierro 19:42, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

>> Fair use requires fair use in both directions. <<

Fair use is defined in the Copyright Act, I see no reference to "both directions" and have no idea what such use of the term fair use means or what one is intending to indicate by the idea of "both directions".

Every fair use is distinct. Using one part of an article can be fair use and using another part of an article may not be fair use. It is use specific. This is no general concept of "fair use" that you can label something as fair use. Please provide case citations for the principle that "Fair use requires fair use in both directions." Thank you, we will happily read the cases and keep them in mind. In any case some one can remove the images under the GFDL, just as someone can re-edit any article and use only part of an article under the GFDL. There are no moral rights to integrity in the GFDL and the US copyright law does not generally recognize such a right in these contexts (as I am sure you know). — Alex756 05:48, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)