Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 06:45, 16 February 2004 (Heterophenomenology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Communitypage 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.

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, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?

Alternatives

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!).
  • 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.

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

Please do not edit this page until the copyright issue is resolved, even if you are rewriting it (follow the instructions below).

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 in original prose 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, ~~~~

An alternative version can be placed with the below message:

{{msg:copyvio1}}

(place URL violated from here)

{{msg:copyvio2}} ~~~~

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, ~~~~

January 10

January 13

  • Other material User:JamieTheFoool has the same problem (possible copyvios from mid-2001). It would be nice if someone else checked them over as well before anything else is done:
  • Seems he was talked to by Jimbo in May 2001. Maximus Rex 04:33, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted Mandinka and the history of Al Quaida (since it was just a redirect), but the others all look okay now (been completely rewritten). --Delirium 06:36, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

January 15




January 29

  • Three images from the same user:
  • The uploader claims that these three aren't copyrighted (I deleted the other two you listed which had the copyright notice on the image itself; he didn't defend those two). --Delirium 09:41, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have not been able to find the first one, but the last two seem to be from http://www.nejmeh.com/gallery/, which states "Copyright ©1998-2003 Nejmeh Sporting Club All rights reserved." Andre Engels 05:14, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


February 7

  • [deleted articles]
    • Above 5 all by User:Kolab; someone needs to check for similar violations in their other contributions -- Infrogmation 18:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Leaving this here for a bit until someone checks (I may soon). --Delirium 04:30, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

February 8

February 9

  • Dikumud from [7] Sennheiser! 01:23, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I cannot that text on the website given. On Talk:Dikumud the author states that it was a link to his homepage (which should be removed then). However the article definitely needs some copyedit and wikification. andy 16:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • António de Fragoso Carmona from [8]. Angela. 18:40, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Anyone know if the Portuguese repulbic government can hold copyright? If it is the same as the US, this should be removed from the copyright violation page as this is the official government website and makes no mention of copyright. --Sennheiser! 03:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes of course they can. The question is "do they?" The government does: [9] states roughly that any info is copyrighted, but may be copied freely for non-commercial purposes as long as the source is given. I do not know whether that applies also to the web site of the president's palace. Lupo 09:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Forbes 500 - cut and paste, only contrib of an anon who grabbed it from Darwin knows where... even if not copyrighted it could at least be organized or something. Pakaran. 01:34, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This isn't a copyright violation. Its a list of companies in Forbes 500. It should probably be moved to List of Forbes 500 companies. --Sennheiser! 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Where can it be from if it wasn't copied from Forbes Magazine? Pakaran. 01:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • That list is copyrighted. Anthony DiPierro 01:48, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • A ranked list cannot be copyrighted. Forbes annually ranks 500 of the "top companies" based on sales, assets, earnings, and capitalization. --Sennheiser! 01:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • A ranked list can be copyrighted. Anthony DiPierro 02:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • Ok, feel free to remove the copyvio header. But the list could be better organized in any event. Pakaran. 01:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Actually, after just having just said that, I talked to a lawyer who told me that it can be copyrighted. --Sennheiser! 01:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
              • Isn't the frmt copyrighted ... but not the data itself [that is why there are different phone books (@least here)] ... the Data isn't copyrighted, but the presentation is ... but I could be wrong. JDR
                • No, the list itself can be copyrighted. Phone books do not make any creative selection or ordering, so they are not copyrightable. But a list of 500 selected companies may be. As for the Forbes list itself, I guess it depends on the formula they use. If it's just pure market cap, that would clearly not be copyrightable. Anthony DiPierro 02:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Public domain data, needs a little care about trademark but it's obvious that we aren't Forbes magazine. Time to think back to first principles: you only get copyright for creativity. Forbes describes the lists as Our Super 500 list is based on the individual rankings of the 824 firms that made one or more of our lists: sales, profits, assets and market value. So, 824 firms, and in each case the top 500 in rank based on public domain data, in the order given by that public domain data. And the article here is in alphabetic order, another obvious and uncreative ordering. Where's the creativity? Answer: there isn't any: it's all public domain data and public domain arrangements. There's no copyright to be had in this list, though it does need to say which of the lists it is and to be made into wikilinks so we can be sure we have articles on all of the companies. Jamesday 06:02, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The creativity is in the choice and weighting of the factors: sales, profits, assets, and market value (as well as the definition they give of market value). Anthony DiPierro 07:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Is their definition of market value something other than the one or one of those normally used in the markets and by analysts? Jamesday 04:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • This is copyrightable. A simple list of the top 500 firms by sales is not copyrightable. A simple list of the top 500 firms by profits is not copyrightable. A simple list of the top 500 firms by assets is not copyrightable. A simple list of the top 500 firms by market valuation is not copyrightable. However, a top 500 list chosen from 824 candidate firms based on some averaging of sales, profits, assets, and market valuation, is creative and is copyrightable. Somehow they chose to leave out 324 companies on their "super rank", so obviously some creativity is going into choosing which of the 500 of 824 to list and the 324 to drop. The list at Forbes 500 is apparently the "super rank" which is calculated as "an aggregate score based on where a company falls on each of the 500s lists." Minesweeper (sig added based on [10])
        • If it's the super rank and is no more than an aggregate of the ranks from the other 500 lists, that's an obvious ordering and not creative. It's probably the first way anyone would try to use to do it - I know it's the first one which came to my own mind when I considered how they might be selecting if it was the super list. So, it doesn't pass any creativity test, IMO. If it was some creative averaging (some complex weighted formula of some sort), I might agree with you. Not for a simple sum of ranks, though. If you read the full West decision linked from Feist v. Rural you'll see some discussion of their page numbering system not being creative, a system they had been seeking to prevent others from being allowed to use. However, that aside, I'd like to see this contain the merged alphabetic list of all 824 in the individual top 500s, since that's really a better indication of the companies which we should cover first and this list already doesn't give the actual ranks. That happens to be more assuredly safe on the copyright side as well, so it would be good all around, IMO. Jamesday 04:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • I double-checked this using the list available by clicking on rank here. The list is no more than the list formed by adding the ranks in the four public domain lists and sorting by lowest total score. Since that's the first way that I thought of doing it myself, I don't think it passes the creativity test. Jamesday 04:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • Yeah, the only thing it's really got going for it is the fact that those four lists were combined in the first place, and I just doubt that's enough. You're probably right that this particular list is not copyrightable. Anthony DiPierro 05:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
            • In any event, it should be cleaned up, and we should incorporate (if we can) some of the other lists (e.g. all the US dollar billionaires in the world, etc). [11] Pakaran. 04:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. I think this is creative enough to count as a copyright violation. Angela. 03:41, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

February 11


February 12

  • Ted Husing - This reads like an article in a news site but I can't find it - byline included: [John Lewis is sports broadcasting historian and biographer of Ted Husing. You can contact Mr. Lewis by e-mail: [email protected]] - Texture 16:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 13

February 14

  • Battle of Cut Knife - I can't find this through Google but the last sentence is not referencing Wikipedia articles and makes me suspect it is a copyvio - Last sentence: "SEE ALSO Frenchman's Butte, Battle of; North-West Rebellion" - Texture 17:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Ronald Melzack from [34]. RickK 01:54, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • The poster claims to be the coypright holder. I've reverted the page. RickK 23:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Imperative programming from Nupedia Anthony DiPierro 03:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Stop trolling this page. --mav 09:28, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Copyright violations are serious and not trolling. Espectiallly when presented flatly without comment. - Texture
    • It's not worth arguing about. Delete it and rewrite it. Beats cluttering up the article with the GFDL history anyway. Jamesday 05:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Boynton v. Virginia from [41]. - snoyes 21:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Public domain. This is a US court decision. All US court decisions are in the public domain. If you find something in the caselaw part of Findlaw, you've generally demonstrated that it's public domain. West Publishing, the current owner of FindlLaw, has lost a number of cases attempting to get copyright for Wests collections of such public domain works and in the process has nicely clarified that they are PD. Needs Wikipedia:Cleanup though. Jamesday 05:30, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

February 15

  • Folsom culture. As it says at the bottom of the page, Copyright ©1994, 1995 Columbia University Press

February 16

  • Heterophenomenology. As stated on the page, "This account of heterophenomenology is based on that given by Daniel C. Dennett in his book, Consciousness Explained." RickK 06:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2410587"