Jump to content

Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jripple (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 13 March 2006 (Skip Kenney). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

Wikipedia's admins will do their best to address any concerns regarding copyright violations listed on this page. In order to expedite this process, please provide some type of proof that you are the copyright holder or the copyright holder's representative. Remember that our admins are volunteers and not legal representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia.

If, after a reasonable amount of time, your concerns have not been addressed adequately, you may request that the offending page be removed from Wikipedia. To do so, please contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Post a message


Current requests

Issues which appear to have been resolved have been moved to Archive 1.

International Food Policy Resaerch Institute, Copyrighted Material

Recently I have observed that the material I added under the title of The International Food Policy Research Institute has been taged as violating the copy right. Please take note that I am responsible to add our institutes information in Wikipedia. There is not copyright infringement; the description posted is related to a boiler plate we have created for all our publictions. The content found at http://www.fisherieswatch.org/docs/326.pdf is a publication published jointly with IFPRi and World Fish Center. This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter. Please remove the copyright infringement as it obviously is our own material.Luza

Historic list of members of the Privy Council

(Also daughter pages and possibly other pages?)

Transferred from User_talk:Andrew Yong:

Please explain to me and all other members of the Wikipedia community the reasons why you have flagrantly breached my copyright in the listings of Privy Counsellors since 1679. It is patently obvious to me (and anyone else who cares to look) that you have merely copied these listings from my web-page at Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page. You have not provided as far as I can see any attribution or credit for MY work and have attempted to pass these listings off as your own research. Please remove these pages immediately. Sea Lion]

Transferred from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage:

Members of the Wikipedia community (and especially those who contribute to this page) will be aware of my page at http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/. A number of people have been kind enough to say to me that they consider my page to be valuable to their work in this area. Although each of my pages has a copyright notice at the foot of the page, I am happy for the contents of my pages to be used,quoted or published by other people, PROVIDED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES PROPER ATTRIBUTION/CREDIT IS GIVEN TO ME FOR MY WORK. I am however not prepared to accept wholesale breaches of my copyright - I stumbled across such a case yesterday and I am more than a little p*ssed off that this has occurred. I have added a post to the individual's talk page demanding that the offending pages be removed immediately. If this person had asked my permission to use my research prior to posting the offending pages, it would have been freely given, subject to proper attribution.

Some of you may be familiar with a practice long used by certain industries (especially by publishers of maps and street directories) of including, for example, a non-existent geographical feature on a map or a non-existent street in a street directory so as to be able to tell whether another company in a similar industry is merely stealing their work and passing it off as their own. Be aware that my pages follow a similar practice - somewhere in each page there is a hidden pointer which enables me to tell at a glance whether someone has stolen my work. In the case in point, the tell-tale deliberate error appears on the offending pages, something that would not happen if the owner of that page had done their own research instead of simply stealing mine. [Sea Lion]

Comment from me: I'm not sure why Mr. Yong has been singled out here. Most of the work on this was done by me. As such, I'd defend by saying that, as far as I have been able to tell by cross-checking, Mr. Rayment's work is based on publicly available reference works such as Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage, and so forth (which are not, however, acknowledged), and takes the form of lists of officeholders. As such, I question the validity of the copyright claim. My understanding is that factual information cannot be copyrighted. At any rate, I would be happy to add credit to Mr. Rayment (although I'd be more comfortable with such a position if he himself gave credit to his own sources for the information he uses.) john k 03:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What you have and what we have are both lists of factual information presented in chronological order. Both are thus not protectable under copyright law (see Feist v. Rural). Our list is also formatted in a different way than yours so how in the world can you claim that we even used you as a reference, let alone the allegation that we copied your work? You therefore have no right to demand anything from us. John - if you did not use this guy's work as a reference, then please don't list him as one. List the references you actually used. --mav 05:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, didn't mean to be unclear - I did use his page as a reference. (and you can probably find on talk pages various mentions by me, Lord Emsworth, and others that we have used the page as a reference). When I have checked against other sources, though, such as Complete Peerage, it's clear that his work is based on those sources. john k 05:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Facts are not covered by copyright. The only thing that may be copyrighted here is the list in the format it appears. The list of Privy Counsellors differs substantially from Mr Rayment's list in terms of format, and to a degree in terms of content (note, for instance, that only years, and not exact dates are listed, that there is no "age" column, that the peers' ordinal numbers are provided, and so forth). Neither has information been unlawfully taken, nor has the format been reproduced; therefore, I don't believe that there is a copyright issue here. Now, that said, I would definitely agree that a reference to Mr Rayment's site is in order, as Wikipedia Policy requires one to cite one's sources. -- 10:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

In short: it would be best practice to list Mr Rayment's page (and others that have been counter-checked, such as Burke's &c.) as a reference source on any and all pages for which it has been used, but this it by no means a legal requirement, it being an ordering of factual information.
Next?
James F. (talk) 11:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since it's claimed there are tell-tale errors in the list, it would be valuable for someone familiar with the subject to go through the list, comparing it to a second external source -- that way, not only would the information be correct, but the claims of copyright infringment would be made moot. -- Seth Ilys 15:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notes on copyright and fact listings

Lists of facts cannot be copyrighted. Their organisation *may* be. The law requires some *creative* element in the organisation of such material. This is a low requirement - but an essential one. Some methods of listing eg alphabetical order are now regarded scene a faire - material one would reasonably expect to be present. Listing of personages by date is also one such method.
The alleged(?) author above claims that the presence of deliberate mistakes in his work makes it copyrightable. The inclusion of *minimal* erronous material in such data does not protect the copyrights of the original author(s). This is a common and false assumption. The law only protects copyright infringment where there is *substantial* copying. If the listing contains (say) 1000 names of whom 999 are correct and one is an error even copying the entire listing is highly unlikely to be considered a violation of copyright.
The reasoning here is that the names and titles of the persons in such a list are *facts* and hence cannot be protected by copyright. A listing in historial order is *not* protectable because this falls under the scene a faire doctrine. 1/1000 entries is extremely unlikely to satisfy the de minimis criterion of the law and it might well be judged as falling under the "fair use doctrine".
The *correct* treament of such material is for the author to request that the infringing copyrightable materal *and only that material* be removed. This has the side effect in the instant case of improving the accuracy of the remaining material. It is the requestor's obligation to show that s/he holds the relevent copyrights to the data and explcitly identifies the violating material - excluding any uncopyrightable data. The requestor is exceeding his/her rights if s/he asks for a single line of unprotected material to be removed. To falsely claim copyrights is a federal offense in the United States and carries a jail sentence.
Underlying these 'alleged' copyright infringments there is frequently an underlying assmption that is false. Copyright law was not designed to reward anyone for work carried out by the 'sweat of the brow'. Copyright exists exclusively to protect the creative and novel element(s) in works whether or not they have any economic value of not. Attribution is *not* necessary if the material is not copyrightable. Nonetheless it is good manners to do so.

1 pound notes

I have uploaded an image of the front and of the back of what I think is a Series C Bank of England £1 note, but have now discovered I need prior permission, I am currently applying for permission to use these images in wikipedia, but my existing versions don't meet the requirements, so I request that they be removed in the meantime. They are Image:1pound note-back.jpg and Image:1pound note-front.jpg.

I don't know whether these would be allowed under "fair use" or similar, but if someone else wants to claim fair use, they could reupload them, so I see no reason not to allow the uploader to remove their mistake in uploading these. Angela. 18:15, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Bank of England has very strict rules on the reproduction of their notes, we've been asked to take similar scans downin the past, one must ger prior permission to reproduce BoE notes. Boffy b 16:07, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their rules i dont think they have a valid claim here, pictures of money are most defenetly fair use whatever the BOE thinks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:41, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Images of paper notes are problematic because of the potential for forgery. If the image is of paper money currently in use it would be best to avoid posting it. The image itself is copyrighted by the Bank of England. Whether or not it can be enforced is another story. The laws of a country are copyrighted but the copyright cannot be enforced. This would certainly be an interesting case just to see the logic applied here: exactly who does own the money?
  • Surely they can't object so long as the scan is of low enough a resolution as to be useless for printing?
I believe that any kind of reproduction of any English banknotes without prior permission is illegal under English criminal law. Obviously this law is not directly binding on Wikipedia, but it's still a factor. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 22:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Point of interest- The Clash wanted to use images of pound notes on the cover of their "Cost of Living" EP back in 1978, but were prevented from doing so by the BoE, even though the reptroductions could clearly not be used for counterfieting purposes... Or maybe CBS' legal dept was just playing safe??? I clearly remember the minor furore that went on in the music press at the time... 217.42.244.92 00:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) Appologies, that was me quercus robur, I forgot I was signed out (using someone elses PC)
The Bank's policy is at: [1]. I'd have to read the statue itself to check, but these regulations derive from laws governing counterfeiting of currency, and counterfeiting currency is a serious matter. The Land 11:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering £1 bank notes are not legal tender, does this really matter? The only place they could be redeemed, if at all, is the Bank of England itself. It's not like an image of a $1. GreenReaper 19:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all £1 notes are not legal tender; I've got a load of Bank of Scotland ones. I'm also reasonably sure currency is exempted from the usual copyright legislation due to fraud and forgery concerns. Md25 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Scottish banknotes are not legal tender, and the only bank that has been printing £1 notes recently has been the Royal Bank of Scotland, rather than the Bank of Scotland. The British banknotes page describes the difference. This doesn't really change the fact that the poster needed "permission", though. zootm
There used to be a good site at www.rulesforuse.org covering copying of currency, but now it's gone. There might be useful information in the wayback machine at [2]. silsor 20:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
In particular, http://web.archive.org/web/20040331012550/www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/appform.pdf contains guidelines which might be useful. Rob Church Talk 13:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of personal name

I recently received the following message on my talk page from User:65.48.148.152. I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I thought I'd copy it here:

Hey, Can you contact me "m y s p a m a i l"@yahoo.com please ? There is my personal name on one of your pages and I need it removed, thank you.

 – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So did you email him? silsor 20:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's been months since I put this here (sorry Silsor, didn't see your reply), but I thought I'd update it anyway. The above user replied to his post on my talk page and said it was on Indopedia (a fork of Wikipedia), not the main site. I replied to him on my talk, but didn't email as I don't feel comfortable sending email containing my address to people I don't personally know.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removal of private picture

this picture is a private unreleased picture and should be deleted at once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JaysonSaffer1.jpg 69.143.39.204

Okay, I noticed that you also removed this picture from Jason Saffer and removed the pd-release tag from the image. Could you demonstrate that you are the copyright holder? I will also ask User:Pacian, the contributor of the image and the person who linked it in Jason Saffer, to comment here. silsor 18:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've received personal email from the copyright holder, so I've deleted the image. silsor 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I found the picture in an advertisement placed by the person in question on craigslist.org under the "Men Seeking Men" section of the Washington, D.C. listings. Per craigslist's policies, photos that are posted there are released into the public domain, so the subject of the photo released that photo to the public. That being said, I couldn't care less if it is included here or not. Pacian 23:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the images posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2006 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) is the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transfered from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing.

To prove authenticity, here is a notice posted on the New Zealand National Front website: [3] - Molloy (added 06:19, 5 July 2005)



To Whom It May Concern:

The article Moses Kalankaytuk has been pasted from http://vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/kagankatvatsi.html. I am an owner of the above page that is being used on Wikipedia without my permission. On June 24, 2005 I have requested that the above page be immediately removed from Wikipedia. To expedite this process I provided the proof that I am indeed the owner of this Web Site by publishing this same request at http://vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/copyright_violation.html , at the same server, where the original article was published.

Since then the article Moses Kalankaytuk has been marked with the Copyright Violation tag, but its content is not deleted as it still can be viewed from the history pages. One week has passed already, but the article has not been deleted.

Please, remove this article now!

© 2001 - 2005, Библиотека «Вехи»,

Web Site Owner (preceding unsigned comment by 72.25.94.247)

We cannot perform that action. Section 1 of this page, Page histories, states:

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.

Please contact Wikipedia's designated agent regarding the material you wish to have removed. — Dan Johnson TC July 7, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Technically, we can remove infringing revisions - we can delete the article, then undelete only clean revisions. Rob Church Talk 13:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is hosting an image of Kyle Chapman former leader of The New Zealand National Front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Front I have removed this image several times, and replaced. This Image is my property and has been used without permission. This image has not been released into the public domain. As the copyright holder, and profesional photographer, I am requesting that this image be permantly removed immediatly.

If you have any further questions please contact me [email protected]

Regards

Cameron Burnell

The image is claimed under fair use, it has been used on other websites such as Scoop, uploaded I presume by Cameron.[4] It has also been posted in various other location around the net. - Molloy
While I wish we could find a reason to keep it, I do not see how, under the fair use doctrine, that we can keep this image. It is a portrait, it does not depict an unreprodable event, we are not using it for critical comment, and it is reproducced full size. The copyright owner is apparently a young photographer who depends on his copyrights for income. For these reasons it seems a proper candidate for immediate removal. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 10:06 (UTC)
Ok, I spoke to the copyright holder on the phone, he has seeked legal advice and confirms he may be subject to profit loss. Contrary to my previous comment, I advise speedy deletion. Molloy
Nothing is simple. Now the photographer has posted a note apparently saying that he is willing to license it. User talk:203.110.29.2. Hopefully we can resolve this soon. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 01:05 (UTC) Nope, didn't work out. Please proceed with removal. Thanks, -Willmcw


Use of European Defence material (Again)

Several months ago I complained about the use off material from the website, European Defence (www.european-defence.co.uk) without permission. A satisfactory solution was found to the problem at that point. However, while browsing the Internet, I came across the page on the German Army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heer

What particularly angers me is that Wikipedia claims to offer some kind of "GNU Free Documentation license". So, I look in google and I find:

http://www.1-electric.com/articles/Heer

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Heer

Which repeats everything on the Wikipedia page I'm complaining about!

While clearly, it is composed of various bits of information (or maybe lifted), I was alarmed to see that the editor of this page was actually lifting word-by word sections of:

http://www.european-defence.co.uk/directory/armedforces/gerarmy.html


For example: the Wikipedia version says:

"The German Army is presently divided...."

Under the command of Heeresführugskommando (Army Guidance Command) are 7 divisions ...."


So does European Defence.


Ironically, I recieved an e-mail recently pointing out that I'd actually got the translation of "Heeresführugskommando" which has since been corrected on my website. The Wikipedia version still uses my original translation mistake!


The Wikipedia piece then goes on.......

"Units from the 10th Armoured Division contribute ......."


And so does European Defence


Wikipedia then adds this useful piece of information:

"The German Army is equipped with about 2,560 MBTs........"


Guess what - so does European Defence


I'd advise you to read each section that I have referred to as I am not going to cut-and-paste the relevant pieces off European Defence onto this page.

With any intelligence, the "editor" or "author" of this page on Wikipedia would take what he reads, re-write it into his own words to make it sound different to the piece that he (or she) is writing to avoid possible copyright issues.

May I draw your attention to:

http://www.european-defence.co.uk/about.html

and in particular "Copyright issues"

I have stuck a Possible Copyright Violation on the above Wikipedia page and I would be grateful if your "editor" re-writes it, removes it or whatever. Obviously, I am getting pretty sick of this now. Do your own research and writing. Just stop lifting bits off my website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-07-08 17:42:40 CDT (talk • contribs) 81.168.125.182

  • Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I agree that this material appears to be a copyright violation. I have removed it from the article (along with the {{copyvio}} templates). There will be a delay before this propagates to any mirrors of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's been mixed in with other valid edits The material was inserted by the anonymous user 194.185.231.68. He seems to have contributed to a large number of millitary articles: French Army, Italian army, Special forces, French Navy, etc. We may have a much bigger job to sort out here. Bovlb 2005-07-09 14:38:54 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed most of the military pages edited by this user, and could only find a clear copyright violation in French Army, which I have removed. This change should percolate to Wikipedia's mirrors in a matter of days, or you can contact them directly for prompter action. Note that the violating material is still available via the articles' edit histories; please let us know if you require this to be purged, or if you have any other issues. Bovlb 01:29:02, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

The page on shoe size has taken much of the material from my web page and the shoe size chart is clearly derived from my web page. http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html

I do not give permission for this information to be copied.

Please remove it immediately.

I am also concerned that answers.com http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Shoe+size&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=shoe%20size

and other sites now believe they can use this material under your copyright terms. Please see to it that this is addressed immediately.

The chart and other materials is the result of extensive and difficult research and I greatly resent the use of the materials on other sites. My page has been in existence for a number of years, and discussed at Unicode conferences where I presented papers on it a few years ago.

I can be reached at 781 789 1898 or [email protected]

tex texin

  • I have removed the material that you believe to be a violation from the article you mention. Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia and the removal will take a few days to filter down to that site, as well as other mirrors that may have used the material; if you want them to remove it quicker, you can contact them directly. If you would like us to further remove the material from the Page History, you should contact the Designated Agent for Wikipedia. Gwk 23:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]



The text at the above link has been lifted directly from pages at

http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/white.html and http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/white2.html

The text is almost word-for-word with minor modification made to fit it onto Wikipedia. Please remove all text immediately as this is a clear breach of my copyright. No permission has ever been given to ANYONE to use the text from these links for their own purposes.

Posted Wednesday 10th August.

Page tagged as a copyvio and listed at WP:CP. The first two or three edits might be ok.--Duk 01:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used without permission. Although the header of the gallery it is taken from does say images can be 'taken', it does not give permission for them to be uploaded and displayed on other servers or used for other than personal purposes. Original image. I would like this image to be deleted from your servers. A DMCA notification has been sent to the designated agent email.

The wording of the original license terms on Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg is (from [5]) «C9 Las Vegas April 24-27 2003. Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though"». The image was used with proper attribution and is therefore fully compliant; furthermore in the original context (it appears only in the article promoting your site Encyclopædia Dramatica here on Wikipedia) it also qualifies under the doctrine of fair use. Your repeated vandalism of the article by unlinking the image is therefore uncalled for. See Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica, Image talk:Sherrod degrippo.jpg. --carlb 00:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image [6] uploaded and displayed without permission of copyright-holder. Ripped off from [7] - clearly labeled copyrighted, per policy/notice [8]. Immediate and complete removal from server demanded. 18 August 2005

See discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Others for more details on this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal Society Fellows

This page: [9] and its child pages appear to contain data taken from the Royal Society Fellowship database at [10], in violation of our copyright.

Your assistance in removing this material promptly will be greatly appreciated.

Hang on a minute, correct me if I'm wrong but I think that raw data such as those are uncopyrightable. I was just trying to obtain a definitive list of fellows in order that the public be educated, which is the aim of both Wikipedia and the Royal Society. I'll email you anyway, if I can. Dunc|☺ 23:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Raw facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. Rob Church Talk 14:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted and informed that an image as to which I represent the copyright holders is posted in Wikipedia Commons without permission. Please remove the following image immediately: [Wintu_Women_circa_1900.jpg].

The source of the image is listed as the website of the College of the Siskiyous, where the image appears with permission; the image on that website clearly contains the copyright statement: © 2001 Masson-Gomez Family.

I have read the statement of the person who originally posted the image, and it appears that he was under the mistaken impression that the copyright had expired - that impression is incorrect. While the image was created some time ago, it remained privately held by the family, and was not published or registered for copyright until recently. Under the Copyright Act, this image is clearly currently copyright protected.

Under 17 U.S.C. sec. 303, as a work created before 1978 but not theretofore in the public domain, which was then first published in 2001, the copyright remains active until December 31, 2047. There is a very useful chart published on the Cornell University website that sets out these complex rules in a simple way Copyright Protection Chart.

If you have any questions please contact the administrator of the College of the Siskiyous website directly, and he will confirm the copyright status of the image.

Again, please remove this protected image immediately.

CopyrightProtection 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amludovici.jpg

copied from WP:HD by Bovlb 00:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern You are using a personal photpgraph of my gt.uncle on your Anthony M Ludovici page without my or my family's permission. Please have it taken off immediately and contact us as to who gave you the authority to copy it onto your site.We have had it taken off the Anthony M Ludovici site for the same reasons,and I presume that is where you copied it from. Thank you Caroline Ludovici Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-09-23 16:15:08 PDT (talk • contribs) 68.80.145.214

I assume you are refering to Image:Amludovici.jpg - the user who uploaded that image, User:Dionysus83, stated when uploading it that the photo is licensed under the GNU General Public License. (I have removed Caroline's email address, as per the instructions at the top of this page; I have also emailed a copy of this response.) -- AJR 23:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly remove the following pages immediately as they are blatant copyright violations: [[11]] [[12]]

This is a claim of copyright infringement that is being made.

The term IIPM and the term Indian Institute of Planning and Management are protected by the Indian copyright laws and can be used only after explicit permission in a written format has been granted.

Wikipedia's policy clearly enunciates that only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable. And none of these has been given ever to the authors.

Moreover, according to Wikipedia policy, copyrighted material not licensed for Wikipedia (with very limited fair-use exception) is not welcome on Wikipedia.

IIPM should clarify that no such permission has been obtained by any of the authors of the above mentioned pages. Interested parties may kindly visit [[13]] and visit the legal terms of use section to understand the scope of the copyright and why it is applicable to Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia's policy also clarifies that slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.

We respect Wikipedia's policy and should mention that the above mentioned pages are also clearly full of slander, libel and defamation of character. IIPM wishes to utilize the pertinent forums available on Wikipedia to request that these pages be removed immediately.

Are you claiming that the article text is copyrighted or that the names "IIPM" and "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" are trade marked? If the former, could you please provide a reference to the publication (website, folder, etc.) it was copied from. If the latter, trade mark protection does not extend to allowing the institute to forbid the use of the name in an article about I'm afraid, see trade mark for more information. --fvw* 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Metalmaverick is acting on behalf of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). Metalmaverick claims that usage of the abbreviation "IIPM" and phrase "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" on Wikipedia is a violation of some copyright statute in India. See Special:Contributions/Metalmaverick. While outside the focus of this page, the activities of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management in Wikipedia deserve serious administrative oversight. Adraeus 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am Jin Wicked, I own the copyright to [14] which has been posted to Wikipedia without my permission at [15]. Please remove this copyright violation from the page's history. Thank you. Jinwicked 14:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from earlier in the page.
"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."
Please contact Wikipedia's Designated agent regarding this matter.
216.168.117.150 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Duk 16:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palacesaimin.jpg

A person, not identifying himself any further than 'Reid' is requesting the taking down of IMage:Palacesaimin.jpg, saying it had been taken without his permission from his blog at http://onokinegrindz.typepad.com/ono_kine_grindz/2004/05/palace_saimin.html, which is indeed older than the Wikipedia upload and contains the same picture. Therefore this takedown request seems to be legitimate. - Andre Engels 22:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this has been deleted the wrong way: The description page has been removed, but the image itself is still there. - Andre Engels 07:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Hartley. Lincher 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, Briana Scurry see this page Scurry. Lincher 20:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, Bricolage (CMS) see this page [16]. Lincher 20:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, Bristol 400 see this page [17]. Lincher 20:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, British American Institute see this page [18]. Lincher 21:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, Brother-Captain Tycho see this page [19]. Lincher 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lincher. Do you mind tagging them with {{copyvio}} in the future? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing it now, but didn't know if I had the authority to do it. Lincher 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any user can do it, but only admins can actually delete the pages, after looking if they are indeed copyvios. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is KLantis, and I want to inform you that the Wikipedia user going by the name of TheOrgy has blatantly stolen my work from my King of Fighters story FAQ to use in some character sections for King of Fighters characters here in Wikipedia. Allow me, first of all, to post the legal disclaimer that I wrote in my FAQ:

"This FAQ is created for public use, and intends to inform people about the story of the King of Fighters series. This FAQ is NOT to be sold in any way possible, nor can it be published in any page or printed media (aka those lazy bums at EGM and such) without the permission of yours truly."

The following document can be found at: http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/recognition/1410.html (click on the Story Guide link of the The King of Fighters '94 since I can't link directly to the document due to the page format)

Then I stumble upon the following pages which contains excerpts from my FAQ, which have been used without my consentment:

The user TheOrgy (as displayed on his discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheOrgy) then comments about him taking the sections from the site "Galactica Phantom" (http://kof.confusticated.com), which still pertains to my work, as displayed in the "Staff Roll" section of the site (copied below):

"Major props go out to Kailu Lantis for his KOF Story FAQ and permission to use it. The majority of the text that you see on the website is written by him"

Please notice that I have no trouble at all having my work uploaded here in Wikipedia, since my work is intended for use to the general public. However, since the user TheOrgy has deleted my contributions to the Wikipedia pages mentioned above (which are theortically based on my work), I find his actions to be childish and selfish, considering that not even TheOrgy himself has even written those sections, considering he only copied my work and pasted it on those pages.

What I demand here is mutual respect, and that the changes that I do to MY work are respected. --K Lantis 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

From the helpdesk-l mailing list:

A number of sections of your site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse
contains text copied from our website without our consent. (...)
We here by give you notice of 14 days to remove our copyrighted text or face legal action.
(...)
www.equiworld.net

This is all information I have. I can't really find it... Gerrit CUTEDH 19:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also cannot find referenced violations. -Lanoitarus 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Districts of Ghana article is almost entirely copied from a copyrighted page on my "Statoids" website, Districts of Ghana. In particular, the second column of the table contains HASC codes which were originated by me, and which shouldn't be found anywhere else on the Internet. The "history" of the Wikipedia page says that it was created on November 29, 2004 by User:OldakQuill. If you check the Internet Archive for my page, you will see that it was first crawled on November 3, 2004. That first version of my page is dated November 2, 2004.

I don't object to people copying and using my work; that's why I put it out on the Internet. I do object when they reproduce it on other websites, or sell it with no profit to me. I make a very modest income by selling my data. I also need to control the integrity of my data. If a Wikipedian changes one of the HASC codes, the result will be that there are two different versions of my data in circulation, to the possible confusion of the public. If anyone wants to reference my data on the Internet, I simply ask that they do so by inserting a link to my website.

Gwil 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Photograph of James Flynn

Note: The following was posted to the top of this page, I have moved it here and formatted it correctly. -Lanoitarus 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]


Jimmy Flynn The top photograph Image:JimmyFlynn.jpg has been lifted from Whiteywatch.com or WRKO.com. Please state your source of this photograph or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:06, December 10, 2005 (talk • contribs) 24.147.103.146

  • This image has been reviewed by several wikipedians and the consensus thus far has been that it is in the Public domain, as it is a Mug Shot taken by a law enforcement agency within the US. The source of whiteywatch.com was added and the correct copyright PD-mugshot {{mugshot}} template was applied. -Lanoitarus 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Additionally, in order to request immediate removal here, you need to assert that you are the copyright holder of a image or article, not merely that it is copyrighted by someone else.-Lanoitarus 19:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong. The burden of proof is upon you. You may have your own rules to guide you, you must conform to federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk)
  • My point was that to use this page to report copyrighted materials, you need to assert (not prove) that the ownership is yours. You have made no such assertion. This page is for copyright owners themselves only.-Lanoitarus 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other detail of interest. IANAL, but elsewhere on this page is the assertion that "To falsely claim copyrights is a federal offense in the United States and carries a jail sentence." -- Mwanner | Talk 20:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, where did wikipedia obtain this photo? The burden of proof is upon you. As I have already stated, a complaint has been filed with the hosting company. Your conduct is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk)
  • This is clearly a Mug Shot, taken at MCI Cedar junction prison in Walpole, MA. You proclaim infringement and illegality, but you continuously ignore the fact that under federal law, Mug Shots are in the Public domain. I admit that the image on our site seems quite similar to the one at the site you've mentioned, however, this is totally irrelevant- the image is not eligible for copyright. See for more detail Public domain and Bridgeman vs Corel, which found that photographic reproductions of visual works in the public domain were not copyrightable because the reproductions involved no originality. -Lanoitarus 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The comment below was accidentally added to a new section, I have moved it into the same section and added the {{unsigned}} tag. -Lanoitarus 01:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I removed the copywrite violation and it was restored several times. I have filed a complaint with Congent (the hosting service this site is on) and will work with them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk)

Please remove my photo

The articles under the heading Wilson Tucker and Bob Tucker uses my photo without permission. If you check the discusion of the page, the person that added it even states that you do not have my permission. Please remove any other of my photos used anywhere else on your site. - Keith Stokes [email protected] (posted anonymously by 4.244.132.101. Edited for formatting and links by Lanoitarus)

  • I have applied {{copyvio}} to the image and noted that you requested its deletion. I have also removed the image from the article and noted why on the article's discussion page. I cannot actually delete the image since I am not an admin, but I'm sure this detail will be taken care of in short order. In the meantime, the image is effectively removed from all articles, so noone is likely to run across it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Corallo

This entry appears to have been lifted from my website without my knowledge or consent and without any credit being given to me or my website. Find the original article at: http://www.onewal.com/w-corall.html

The Corallo article, and in fact almost all of the articles on my website, were recently revised to include Ads by Google. The text of these articles dates back several years to 2002-2003, though the last revision date reflects the moment the ads were included. I don't know exactly how it works, but I imagine there is an ftp log somewhere that can verify this for you.

T.Hunt


Thanks for bringing this to our attention! The infringement has been removed, I'll try to rewrite it myself later to provide the bare bones of facts. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's back as of today, and has been sent to WP:CP again. Stifle 17:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and has been speedily deleted. Move along, nothing to see here. Stifle 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mike Walsh Show

The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mike_Walsh_Show appears to be entirely copy-and-pasted from a separate website article which I had written in 2004, refer http://televisionau.siv.net.au/tvshowprofile.htm#TheMikeWalshShow but appears on Wikipedia with no acknowledgement or reference to the source article. Can the article please be removed from Wikipedia? Many thanks, Andrew Bayley, webmaster http://televisionau.siv.net.au

additional television show article violations

in addition to The Mike Walsh Show article i've just reported there are at least 3 other Wikipedia articles that have similarly been copy-and-pasted from my own website without my prior consent or any acknowledgement as such on wikipedia, refer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superquiz (copied from http://televisionau.siv.net.au/gameshows.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_2000 (copied at least in part from http://televisionau.siv.net.au/tvshowprofile.htm#Beyond2000)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chances (copied from http://televisionau.siv.net.au/tvshowprofile.htm#Chances)

Please remove these from Wikipedia accordingly and notify your editor. Thank you..

Andrew Bayley http://televisionau.siv.net.au


Dear Wikipedia,

It has come to our attention that copyright infringemnet and exposure violations have occured regarding one of our products. The Elevator Levitation. Here is the link to your website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_levitation

This is very harmful and damaging article to out business, since the secrets to these products is the true value of the product when the product is purchased from our company. This information is not free, it is only given to those that purchase the product and it is not for public exposure. We are requesting that this artcle be removed immediately. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. If you have any further questions please contact us.

Best regards,

Peter Loughran Master of Illusions Entertainment 916 Attersley Dr., Oshawa, ON, L1K 1V6 Canada Ph:(905)571-5537 http://www.masterofillusions.ca [email protected] (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.102.23 (talk) )


  • Hello Peter, i've gone over the article, but I can't find any valid grounds for a copyright violation claim. Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from you (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation. Magic trick methods are not copyrightable, and although they can be patented, a patent only prevents an unlicensed party from performing the trick, not describing its methods. For more information, please see Intellectual rights to magic methods. If you are alleging a copyright violation (that is, a direct copying of your wording), please provide a source and we will take care of it. Thanks! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Reid

Hi,

I am Dr Nicholas Reid, the subject of this page. I do not know who posted this, but it was not posted with my permnission, and I would appreciate it if you removed it from this site.

with thanks

Nicholas Reid [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.110.51.44 (talk) (edited for formatting and to create section Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The page has been blanked and listed as a copyright violation. Rmhermen 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sadowitz

My comedy lines are not available for free perusal..please remove them from my page immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.199.95 (talk)

  • Going over the article, it seems pretty clear that the few quotes on the page are being used to illustrate and critique your style and your performance. While a listing of your jokes with no other purpose would be a copyright violation, the use of a few selected quotes for the purpose of illustration and critique qualifies as fair use under US copyright laws. The quotes on your article seem there pretty clearly for these purposes only. Any further comments are of course welcome from you or anyone else, either here or at the articles talk page (where this discussion is going on simultaneously). If you like, you can also contact wikipedias Designated agent to lodge a further complaint, although in my opinion there is no valid claim to make. Thanks. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second this opinion, looks like classic fair use. You can also ask for a review at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Fair_use_claims_needing_a_second_opinion --Duk 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of copyright comment from AJJIF page

AJJIF - ALL JAPAN JU-JITSU INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION http://www.ajjif.org

All this information is not a copyright violation. This is my organization and I own this website. All the information is true and correct. You have my permission to publish the page and all it's information. Please remove copyright violation comment ASAP. Thank you, Alexey Kunin President and Founder of the AJJIF http://www.ajjif.org

Verification email sent. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


zulfiqar

Hi,

The image of the zulfiqar on the page of the same name has been taken from our website and is a sword we have sold in the past, all our material is fully copyrighted and this image has been taken and used without our permission. This is a first request for its removal, thanks.

sincerely, S.Domoney

www.ashokaarts.com

Image:Zulfiqar_1.jpg is currently marked as unsourced and unlicensed and will be deleted on the 21st anyway. I have marked it as a copyright violation. It'll be gone by Tuesday unless someone makes a fair use claim; an administrator may remove it sooner. You may also contact our designated agent to request removal faster. Stifle 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the image of the zulfiqar I am not as concerned with its removal as much as not being consulted, or the image being given clear and proper attribution or use of a link. It is a good illustration for the subject.

Image has been deleted. Thank you for your patience. --Duk 15:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarized article: Dick Nolan, Canadian musician

Please be advised that your entry on Dick Nolan, the Canadian musician, has been plagiarized from The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada. I deleted it last week and left a note in its place that the article had been plagiarized, but it is on your site again. We request that you remove the article immediately. Please see the link below for the original.

Laura Neilson Bonikowsky Associate Editor The Canadian Encyclopedia The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada The Historica Foundation http://www.histori.ca

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0002585

Article has been tagged as a copyright violation and will be reviewed at WP:CP. (looks like the very first edit was mostly a cut and paste). --Duk 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish-architecture.com requests the removal of this image of the Crown Liquor Saloon Belfast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crown_Liquor_Saloon_-_exterior_2.jpg

Crown Liquor Saloon Belfast

Irish-architecture.com requests the removal of this image of the Crown Liquor Saloon Belfast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crown_Liquor_Saloon_-_exterior_2.jpg


Original http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/antrim/belfast/19thc/crown.html

This image has been deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was an email received from Irish Architecture? Stu 09:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It was a fair use image that was not being used in any article and thus speedily deleted under criterion I5. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was being used: [20]. Up until 27 February when an unregistered user removed it from the page. So as far as I can tell it wasn't tagged under for seven days. Apologies if I'm not understanding the rules right, but it seems to me it wasn't deleted appropriately. Stu 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see your point and I have re-uploaded the image. To the user who requested the image's deletion, please send me an email. Please use an irish-architecture.com email address or provide some other proof that you are the copyright holder or a designated agent. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email received from irish-architecture.com email address. Image has been deleted. howcheng {chat} 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPBW -Copyright violation

Dear Wikipedia,

SPBW: Please free this from copyright violation -I am the secretary of the SPBW and our executive committee have permission and give prermission for mention of our website www.spbw.com. on the page. There is a message from both myself & the chairman on the talk page verifying this. -John Rooth Secretary SPBW 28/2/06 --JRSPBW 13:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verification email sent to contact address found on web page. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mianwali04 3 small.jpg from www.MiG-21.de

Picture /media/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Mianwali04_3_small.jpg was taken from www.MiG-21.de/Bilder/Mianwali04_3.jpg without permission. Remove it from Wikipedia immediately.

Holger Mueller www.mig-21.de

Preston Hollow, Dallas, Texas needs to be removed

Preston Hollow, Dallas, Texas, Wikipedia entry starting with "These pastoral Preston Hollow estate neighborhoods within eight miles of downtown..." and continuing for five paragraphs is word for word the copyrighted entry I have on my Web site www.dougnewby.com/neighborhoods/ Preston_Hollow_&_Estate_Neighborhoods/. If you Google Preston Hollow neighborhood you will see the description of the content on my site and the description of the content on Wikipedia is precisely the same, including the bolded words. Please remove the Preston Hollow, Dallas, Texas, entry from Wikipedia. For further information contact [email protected]. Thank you.

The content has been removed. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find a way to contact anyone there by phone so I thought I would try this approach.

You have an article entitled RUOK (Are You OK?) which states that RUOK is a "is the common name for a service offered by many local communities that contacts the elderly or handicapped on a daily basis using a phone service"

Please note that the above statment is incorrect. RUOK®, Are You OK?®, Are YOu Okay?®, etc is a registered trademark of Bruce L Johnson for a compterized telephone reassurance system and not a "common name" sor such a service.

Please remove or amend your article to reflect this legal infringement on my Registered Trademark.

If I am addressing this issue to the incorrect party, please inform me of where I should send this letter to correct the above sitution.

Please not your own statement below that "Content must not vilate any copyright" (ruok® is copyrighted as well) "and must be verifiable."

Thank you,

Bruce L Johnson

Just because you have registered "RUOK" and its variants as trademarks does not preclude the use of it by others in relation to products or services outside what you've registered it for. In this case, "RUOK" as specified in the article refers to a service as opposed to your product. Nobody else is allowed to use "RUOK" or "Are You OK" to make similar computer software, that's for sure. You might be able to file lawsuits to prevent the use of it with relation to the service, but you would have to consult with an intellectual property lawyer. If you do a quick Google search of "RUOK" you'll find it being used in a number of places all in the context of a service, none of which show the ® symbol after the name. Have you contacted all of them as well? howcheng {chat} 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is also ongoing at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous "RUOK - Registered trademark violation" Rmhermen 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Society

The picture of Raymond Armin on the page above is copyright and used without permission of the copyright holder. Please remove this picture.

In the same page there is a reference link to the copyright document 'the Alphacuriobet', which is displayed in its entirety without permission. Please remove this document.

Thank you.

Terry Gloag

The above image is being used under a fair use claim. I suggest you contact our designated agent regarding this. As for Alpha Curio Bet, is it possible for you to provide a link so that we can verify a copyright violation? Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Matanya_Ophee that was posted earlier this morning was taken verbatim from my copyrighted article entitled "Matanya Ophee's Strange Arithmetic", which is online at http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Ophee/ophee.html. As the copyright holder, I request immediate removal of this article's content.

I suspect this Wikipedia article was creating for the purpose of citing it in the Usenet newsgroup rec.music.classical.guitar, as an example of Wikipedia's vulnerability. See the thread with subject "4th mode of harmonic minor".

WilliamDClinger 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/groups/faculty/will.html

Matanya Ophee has been marked as a copyright violation and the content has been blanked. The page will be deleted in five days barring evidence to the contrary; a .edu is generally not considered a "commercial content provider" and as such I am not in a position to speedily delete it. If you wish the page to be deleted more urgently, please contact our designated agent. Stifle 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Kenney

Please remove the copyright violation under Skip Kenney. I have permission to submit his biography which is very similar to his bio listed on the Stanford Website. Skip is the head coach for the Stanford Men's swim team at Stanford University.Skip is on your list of Infamous Marines and is very proud to be on the list. However, now when you read his bio, you have listed copyright violation. Please do whatever is necessary to remove this immediately. Skip is one of the most notable swim coaches in the world today. I ask that you remove this as soon as possible or delete the entire article all together. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation&oldid=43595846"