Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PlatinumX (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 25 June 2004 (→June 17). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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, 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: 

{{copyvio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied material here>}} ~~~~

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

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. [39] --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 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 [40]. 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 [41] 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 23

May 24

May 26

  • Mumbai from [46]. --Golbez 04:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely in the extensive history of the article there's a non-copyright violation? Have you checked the history to see what version can be rolled back to? RickK 04:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only violation I see is that one paragraph, so I figured that could be removed and/or retooled. I certainly didn't mean the whole article. --Golbez 04:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Soviet Union 1.jpg Image whit no listing of source or copyright status. Uploader is not longer a active user Walter 08:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • fair use? --Jiang 01:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Burro-halloran-springs.png image whit copyright, non-free Walter 09:02, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every GFDL image has to be copyrighted to be released as a GFDL image - if it wasn't, it couldn't be GFDL licensed, it would just be in the public domain. The image description identifies the copyright holder and says that it is used here with permission. I assume that that permission means GFDL permission. Including details of the copyright holder does not mean that an image is infringing or not GFDL - we always want that information and its absence is greater cause for concern than it's presence accompanied by a statement that the use is licensed. Jamesday 13:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:1043031531 10.jpg copyright violation--Shizhao 11:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Zappa.jpg - from [47]. User:80.33.18.37 claims to be the rightful copyright owner, and does not give permission to Wikipedia. Listing here on his behalf. -- DrBob 19:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, his permission doesn't matter at all if the use is fair - he can give it or not and it makes no difference. However, his comments on the now deleted image description page 'The image is NOT a "publicity image". It is a scan of my original negative and was licensed for use on the “Chunga's Revenge” album where it appears printed through a line screen' suggest that the image here is not the one on the album cover but the original work - the album cover image would seem to be fine as fair use about the album. Jamesday 13:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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 [48] and is therefore the property of that site [49]. 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 [50] 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)
      • I believe each article is considered a separate document, so we are really only using 1-3 images to illustrate each article. The total number of images does not matter. It seems that it's similar to a free web-hosting site storing and displaying 300 images on its server, while each of the 100 Pokémon fan sites only uses three. Guanaco 16:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Here's something interesting and fresh: Someone just put a template on image:Meowth.png! Is this template to be used on all the "Poké-images" (as the template calls itself) or is it just something created by an individual not relevant to this discussion?
      --Fern 21:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 28



June 1

  • From [51]:
    • Gothic alphabet
    • Ogham
    • Greek alphabet
    • Old Italic (original history at Etruscan alphabet)
    • Latin alphabet
    • Runic alphabet
    • I'll be checking for more of these, too. It seems pretty clear-cut since the source is a journal and includes things like full citations of references that are only named in the Wikipedia articles. The original is actually a persuasive essay and not an informative article, so lots of POV-removing has been done since. The copying would have taken place years ago; there's been a lot of editing since that's obscured the source, but it's obvious if you go back to the first revision, which in some cases predates what's in the database. Hopefully new articles can be built from the content added on since. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 01:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • To whoever goes through this stuff, these articles will probably need to stay around longer than the norm for copyright problems because there's a lot of non-infringing material that will need to be salvaged from the existing versions. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 02:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


June 3

  • Image:DrewBarrymore.jpg from the cover of Drew Barrymore (Real-Life Reader Biography) by Susan Zannos Guanaco 01:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Aren't album and book covers fair use? If not, we have tons of album covers to remove. RickK 18:39, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but whether fair use applies depends on how it is used. There's a difference between using an picture of a book cover to illustrate the book and using part of the book cover as in Drew Barrymore. Guanaco 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see any possible explanation as to how this image could be compatible with the GFDL yet Image:Italy protests 2001 injured protester.PNG is incompatible. Regardless of compatibility (I believe an argument can be made either way depending on your interpretation of the GFDL), this image should be deleted because it is unlikely to be legal for reuse by commercial reusers. anthony (see warning) 01:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • So are we going to delete all of the album covers? RickK 05:32, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyrighted image. Delete. Maximus Rex 05:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 5

  • Superman Biography cut and paste job from several sources. We already have an article at Superman so I see little point in rewriting it unless a Superman-expert and experienced user wishes to create subpages. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:32, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And several others. Standard cut and paste jobs. Just google sections. see special:contributions/66.2.146.96. These are...
      • Horatio Hornblower - copyvio material removed, but still in history.
      • Progenitors - can't , but on evidence of above, user can't be trusted.
      • All other edits are minor edits to Star Trek articles.
      • The same user insists on vandalizing my home page through shifting proxies and he further insists the work is original. Riiiight. - Lucky 6.9 17:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 9

June 10

June 11

  • Everything by AdamG. Not listing indivudually as there are about 20 or so. All star trek races taken from [52], which is a personal site run by someone called 'Mike'. Morwen - Talk 07:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Justin Guarini has been tainted by an obviously copyvioed article. The closest I got from Google was a message board posting, but it's clear enough that something stinks here. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Just the wrong entries should be removed from the page history. There was a legitimate article here before someone dropped in copyvioed material. Johnleemk | Talk 13:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I reverted to the pre-copyvio article, to preserve its history. Not sure how to delete the copyvios from the history, but usually it's not a big deal. I think there is a procedure to do so somewhere though... --Delirium 18:29, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

June 12

  • Politics of Kyrgyzstan from [53]--has noncopyvio parts from CIA, but I'm not sure how to remove the copyvio w/o removing all of it. Meelar 22:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 13

  • A recent edit to BlackBerry had copyvio material from [54]. However, since there was already a sizeable BlackBerry article, and the edits were from a user who had only produced spam up to this point, I just moved the copyvio notice to the Talk page. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:45, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Joachim_Peiper, unregisterd used added a bunch of info with a spam link to an external Nazi memorabilia site. Has been making a bunch of other edits, all with the spam link.GeneralPatton 22:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Whereas that is a Wikispam problem which should be reverted, it probably belongs on [[Vandalism in progress] instead of here. RickK 23:03, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Roger Knapman/copyvio from [55] Morwen - Talk 23:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 14

June 15

  • Image:Trump.jpg - it says on the description among other things: "The terms of the permission do not include third party use." which I believe conflict with our GFDL terms. If it's fair use for us, it should be fair use for all, but I doubt this is fair use. I listed it on WP:IFD on the 5th and it was promptly removed by the uploader with no comments [57]. I should have listed it here, but I don't think removing it like that was appropriate. Dori | Talk 04:28, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Megadeth (page now blanked) content listed several times in google; I was going to ask in cleanup to have it merged with the article and taken out of the category until I realized it was just unwikified copyvio. There is a good article already, so no need to try to rewrite. --ssd 12:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 16

June 17

  • Treat Williams from [82]. Maximus Rex 04:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Golden Path - posted by a new user, pretty obviously a copyvio, but I can't find from where. Haven't put a boilerplate on the article page yet. RickK 05:04, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Poster claims ownership, will give us GFDL permission. RickK 19:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Presov from [83]. I have requested permission from them a week ago but got no replay. Brona 17:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Bombing of Guernica - This is so frustrating. I translated es:Bombardeo de Guernica, which had a long edit history, and then after putting about two-and-a-half hours into a translation, I came across [84], which appears to have most of the same content. It seems very unlikely they had permission to use this, and the parallel content goes way beyond fair use. I've also posted a notice on the Spanish-language equivalent of this page. -- Jmabel 06:52, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • [The following comment is copied from my discussion page -- Jmabel 00:08, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)] Hello, Jmabel. I'm Comae, from the Spanish Wikipedia. Si no te importa, sigo en castellano, porque mi inglés es bastante malo. Siento el problema con el artículo Bombardeo de Guernica. El artículo lo empecé yo, consultando fuentes diversas y redactando la práctica totalidad del artículo, pero hace poco otro usuario (LievenX) agregó el texto de un libro, sin que lo supiéramos. Aún no sé si dispone de permiso pero, como este usuario es nuevo (llevaba 2 días registrado cuando lo hizo), probablemente ignoraba las políticas de Wikipedia. Imagino que gran parte de la traducción que hiciste seguirá siendo utilizable, y lamento profundamente lo ocurrido. El compromiso de la Wikipedia en español con el cumplimiento de la licencia GFDL es completo (además, en la ley española no existe el "fair use"), y revisamos continuamente los contenidos agregados por usuarios nuevos o no registrados, pero esta vez se nos había escapado. Agradezco tu aviso, y espero que este incidente se solucione pronto. --Comae 20:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Here is my shot at translating the Spanish portion of the above: "If it's not important to you, I'll continue in Spanish, because my English is pretty bad. I'm now aware of [literally "I feel"-JM] the problem with the article Bombardeo de Guernica. I began the article, consulting diverse sources and editing practically all of the article, but after a little while another user (LievenX) added in the text from a book, without us having known. I don't actually know if he had permission, but, since he was a new user (registerd for two days at the time he did this), probably he was ignorant of Wikipedia policies. I imagine that the bulk of the translation you made will continue to be usable [I have my doubts - JM], and I'm very sorry about what happened. The Spanish-language Wikipedia intends completely to comply with the GFDL license (also, Spanish law has no concept of "fair use"), and we continuously revise the contents added by new or unregistered usuers, but this one got by us. I agree with your notice, and I hope this incident will promptly be solved." --Comae 20:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC), translated by Jmabel 00:20, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten at Bombing of Guernica/Temp in a manner that should deal with the copyvio. Although I still draw heavily on César Vidal, I am explicit about what I am taking from him, and I have made my best effort to separate his POV material from the factual account. I hope this will be an acceptable rewrite, and I think it will be worth translating back into the Spanish-language Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 05:52, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Well, if this is not fair use then all those Pokémon illustrations aren't either and should be deleted as well. IMO it would be most appropriate to include both screenshots and illustrations. Fredrik (talk) 18:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Some of the Pokémon pictures at least come from a site that claims they are in the public domain. -- Schnee 21:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Claims mean nothing if they provably aren't. Fredrik (talk) 23:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that it's well established that screencaps are public domain. However, this picture looks like Nintendo promotional artwork. We already have mario screencaps, can we just remove this image and put the screencaps at the top of the article? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:37, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Screencaps are not public domain. I don't know if they're restricted fair use or if you can put them under GFDL, though. But this kind of promotional artwork should be OK under fair use, it's essentially the same thing as album covers. Fredrik | talk 09:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 18

June 19

[111] ✏ Sverdrup 01:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 20

June 21

June 22

June 23

June 24

  • Frank Nighbor from [175]. The poster has kindly included a link to the source in the article, but no indication that he/she has permission to add it here. The material is also not encyclopedic in style. --gadfium 00:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Raphael Patai from "Louis Werner, Al Jazeera Opinion, June 16, 2004" according to the post. - Lucky 6.9 00:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Catharine MacKinnon from [179] (most of that page was just dropped in the middle.) Not sure whether to remove all of the text on that page, since only the middle chunk is a copyvio... grendel|khan 01:43, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

June 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=4270462"