Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acegikmo1 (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 5 June 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, 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?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

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: [[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. After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio1}} 

<explain reason for suspicion here>

{{imagevio2}} ~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

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.

Possible copyright violation in Page History

Awaiting response from Wiktionary


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. [32] --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:Billy Price.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]

Older than 7 days

May 11

May 15

  • May 15 - British_banknotes:£1 reverse Bank of England hold copyright and conform no poemision given - responsible officer mentioned on image page. garryq 00:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy fair use - illustrations are clearly transformative use and can't possibly replace the currency purpose. There are sometimes specific laws limiting reproductions of currency but those would only apply in the country concerned and aren't a copyright problem. Jamesday 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • May 15 - British_banknotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boed1f.jpg Bank of England hold copyright and conform no poemision given - responsible officer mentioned on image page. garryq 00:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy fair use - illustrations are clearly transformative use and can't possibly replace the currency purpose. There are sometimes specific laws limiting reproductions of currency but those would only apply in the country concerned and aren't a copyright problem. Jamesday 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Pinus.jpg, from [39]. Probably copyright, even though no indication of such on the page - MPF 01:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • From User talk:Avala: "By US law , I know that you don`t have to put sopyright sign but in Serbia it is necessary if you want to hold copyright for something. It is educational website. Avala 13:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)" - Can anyone confirm whether this makes it OK to use? - MPF 23:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • That description matches former US law - publish without a copyright notice and the work immediately entered the public domain. I can't confirm (haven't tried to) that this is current Serbian law but it's reasonable enough. Would be nice to have confirmation for future cases. Jamesday 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


May 18

Bob Dylan vector art

Image:Dylan.png

Someone registered the username of Sambo, uploaded this image, put it in the Bob Dylan article, then did nothing else on Wikipedia. I've posted a message on their talk page, to request an actual upload summary, which they failed to provide, and have had no reply.

This image is by "T. Ho", and looks like its vector art. Sambo does not claim to be "T. Ho" at any point. A search of the internet for T.Ho+Dylan-Wikipedia [40] reveals no results. -- user:zanimum

Apparently, there is a User:T.Ho, but Sambo, this new user, was just reuploading the image. Is still question the need for say, Image:Shakira.jpg, when other images of Shakira can easily be got. -- user:Zanimum

Others

May 21


May 23

May 24

May 25

May 26

Pokémon pics

  • Image:Bulbasaur.png
  • Image:Ivysaur.png
  • Image:Venusaur.png
  • Image:Charmander.png
  • etc.
  • Image:Odamaki.png - ref'd as being from Pokémon.com's "Ash and Friends" Wallpaper. See related © notice on Terms of Use: No material from this or any other Internet site owned, operated, licensed, or controlled by us or our affiliates may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Presumably we have dozens of such. –Hajor 02:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Image talk:Odamaki.png. Uploader deleted copyvio notice and changed source info. on the Image: page; on Image Talk he explains that the image was created from the original © pic on pokemon.com for his fan site [85] and is therefore the property of that site [86]. There's clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law at play; could someone please clear up whether it's on his part or mine? If mine, profuse apologies; if his, then there are a large number of "Pokémon Tours" pics in the same situation. Can they all be brought in under fair use? –Hajor 17:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using derivative works of the Pokemon.com pics isn't allowed under copyright law. We can't use those images any more than we could use [87] if we rotated and cropped it and superimposed a little Image:Wiki.png.
    • There are two categories of these Pokemon.com pictures, then: modified (eg, Image:Odamaki.png) and unmodified (Image:Ekans.png, below). From what you say, the modified pics cannot be legitimate; but can the unmodified ones be brought in under Fair Use? (Or are there simply too many of them?) Should we be drawing up a (long) list or two? –Hajor 21:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am the poster of that image. I may not be a lawyer, but I do know that editing the image the way I do is long, difficult, and tedious work for which at least some acknowledgement should be given. Maybe the whole copyright doesn't pass to me, and I'll be sure to change that on my website, but I do have to get some credit for that. That is what I mean when I say the edited image "belongs" to me.
      --Fern 03:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • The images in question are all either derivative works or copies of the originals from Pokemon.com or a similar source. Creating the derivative works may be long, difficult, and tedious work, but that does not take away from Pokémon/Gamefreak/whoever's legal monopoly on the creation of derivative works. Since it's definitely violating the copyright for us to use images that are derivative works, those need to be deleted. We may or may not be able to claim fair use. Image:Odamaki.png is modified, but, in my opinion, it hasn't had any creative modifications. I agree with Hajor; we need to make a list of all the Pokémon images. Guanaco 16:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And what, if I may ask, could constitute a creative modification, adding a curly mustache to the professor? Doing that would mean that it no longer is him, but a different character. Also, What is to be done for images in those articles then, fan art? And who is going to go replacing all the copyrighted pictures for non-copyrighted pictures? I'm sure nobody wants to do that since there's probably more than 300 of them (The actual Pokémon, the characters, and the related articles such as Pokémon Trainer)
      --Fern 08:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      PS; does what Jamesday said below about images about Pokémon count? Does this mean they don't need to be replaced nor deleted? Or some yes and some no? or should the source information be all that is changed?
      PPS:Would that mean that for the image to be fair use, it would need to be unmodified, and should have a link to the company's website?
      PPPS: This discussion is becoming quite long. maybe it should be moved to another page, together with the Ekans image discussion? This PPPS is merely a suggestion, though.
    • I just remembered something, well, two things actually. The first is that I had set the wallpaper as a wallpaper long ago, and didn't think about actually using the image untill I saw this which had a very similar picture of the professor. Now I don't know if this page is official or not, since I can't even read the language, but if it isn't would we be able to use this with permission from the site's webmaster? The second thing was that not all the pictures that say "From Pokémon Tours" were uploaded by me, for example the images of Professor Oak.
      --Fern 10:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Ekans.png - same as Odamaki. Copied unmodified from pokemon.com. –Hajor 02:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these - both original and modified - appear to be straightforward fair use in the context of articles about the Pokemon characters. Do take care with the modified ones to describe them so that the description is fair use for the original and GFDL for only your additions, with the net result being a fair use image. Images of anything in articles about the thing are almost always going to be fair use. A license can't restrict fair use, so that isn't a factor. Jamesday 13:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment has really got me thinking, Jamesday, as you might see in my post scripts above. Does this mean then that a company's logo could be used in an article about that company without requiring the company's written permission? I know that the talk about logos has been going on for long and its not my intention to mix it up with this but this just got me thinking (which is saying a lot since I was half asleep) :-)
      Would this mean then that images such as pictures of Pokémon can be used, but the company has to be credited for it? As in maybe putting in the images source "From Website Omega but character created by Company Alpha."
      --Fern 08:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair use. Mornington Crescent. Game Over.
      I'm surprised that the "substantiality" provision of fair use can be stretched to embrace the use of 300+ pics, including modified ones, to illustrate one cartoon/game/product, but Jamesday is a closer follower of the law than I am. At the very least, the image description pages must be modified to indicate the original source of the picture, identify the copyright holder, and state that it's being used under the fair use doctrine.
      Of all that's been said, I was most intrigued by Fern's suggestion of fan art: would derivative GFDL fan art based on copyrighted characters be more or less free than fair-using the originals? Or is that plain Just Not Worth It? –Hajor 16:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 27

May 28


  • All images uploaded without associated copyright information, by User:Soup. Not all URLs above may be the original sources, but the fact that I found most of the images with quick Google image searches suggests Soup used the same method. Since Soup has not provided any copyright information, I presume he has not obtained permission to use these images but simply uploaded them because he hadn't read the Wikipedia copyright policy. I asked him for an explanation on his talk page a week ago, but he has not responded since then. Fredrik 12:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

May 30


May 31

User:Qg

(name is suspiciously like "Quagga" as in vandal, as in User:Wik (see Wikipedia:vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Wik. Has previously uploaded apparently copyvio'ed images. Has uploadedImage:Samfox.jpg, almost certainly copyvio of professional shot. All previous offending images have been removed, so its just the Sam Fox one. His other contribution, (Image:EmileBerliner - is okay, US Gov't). Dunc Harris | Talk 09:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --gadfium 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. Martijn faassen 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Personally I think this one's a speedy delete. It's essentialy the Mind-Brain.com article which has already been VfD'd. If it can't be speedy deleted then for sure another VfD. --Starx 20:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I now have express Wikipedia-specific permission for the photos, from Stuart K. Lewis, the name listed on the page above. I am new at this, so please advise as to what further steps I ought to take.--Herschelkrustofsky 05:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 2


June 3

June 4

  • Fritz Strassmann from [226]. Note also that the links at the bottom of the article are not likely to be relevant. There should be an article on Strassman, but I could find no history for this article on Wikipedia. --gadfium 01:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Leopold Kohr from [227] - it seems the user who made this actually copied the material from green economics which was first added by another user (with only two edits in his/her contributions). I'm removing the material from that article too. -- Hadal 03:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Mastek from [229] - was listed as a speedy delete, and while it's obviously an advert, I don't know if that qualifies it for such treatment. -- Hadal 08:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Oops...my bad. Brain fade. - Lucky 6.9 22:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 5

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=3949047"