Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grendelkhan (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 8 July 2004 (→July 8: +macrobiotics). 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 talk: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: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image 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

Charlotte_Casiraghi

IANAL. Per Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, wikipedia:page history, this is not a problem. Martin 16:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with documenting copyright violations in the page history. If, in the future, it is decided to selectively remove revisions this will make finding them easier. This is not a high priority. (The German wikipedia already does this.) Maximus Rex 17:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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 a month

The discussion on Pokémon images has been moved to Template talk:Pokeimage.

Older than 7 days

  • From [42]:
    • 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)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Knox Mine Disaster from [43] Probably copyright of author or of Pennsylvania Rmhermen 20:40, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • I strongly oppose simply deleting an entry for "presumed" copyright violations. Pennsylvania declares it's government archives without copyright notice as "for public use". Further more, IMHO this article appears to be fair use as a press release. Avoid Copyright Paranoia Buster 14:06, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I emailed the author for GFDL release on Jun 15, but have not received a response. The response I got from Pennsylvania's' webmaster was the standard, canned, pass the buck answer, "ask the original author for permissions". I suppose policy will dictate this articles future. When in doubt delete or keep? I don't care. Buster 05:12, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • K1A1 from [44] Ocon 06:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Coblynau from [45]. See the Google cache of the site to quickly get to the copied section. It's not a 1:1 copy, but I think it still counts as a copyright infringement. --Conti 12:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Wichtlein from [46]. Same site, same problem. (Google cache). --Conti 12:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • User:ViolentGreen (contribs) seems to make new articles with copied content from different websites. --Conti 12:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Harold Garfinkel See talk. Charles Matthews 16:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Sinitic Languages.jpg This image seems to be copyrighted, and the uploader has not stated that he has permission to use it, although a request for it now is a month old. --Vikingstad 14:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

June 23

June 24

  • Frank Nighbor from [59]. 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 [63] (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

  • Yeungling - posted text is described as coming from a company leaflet. Is replicating promotional material acceptable? EddEdmondson 12:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Mars probes from Copyright © 1999 Associated Press - this copyright was included in the cut-and-paste of the article. - Tεxτurε 15:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Riverview Amusement Park from [82]. Thue 21:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Same anon has posted "Text was originally authored by me on behalf of WTTW, and Wikipedia is welcome to use it" to the talk page. How do we verify? —Stormie 21:44, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I am inclined to just trust his word, but I don't know what the procedure is. Thue 22:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Nicotiana quadrivalvis from "Entry from 'The Flowering Plants and Ferns of Mount Diablo California' by Barbara Ertter and Mary L. Bowerman" - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 26

  • Image:Holly Valance.jpg - how can a copyrighted image be fair use? RickK 06:31, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Taken from her official site, is being effectively used to promote her; could perhaps seek permission? alternatively use an album cover. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • My what a silly statement we have from RickK above. A copyrighted image can be fair use because fair use is an exception to copyright in the United States! This case may not be, but of course copyrighted images can be used under fair use!!! David Newton 15:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Answer the question, and don't make personal attacks. RickK 05:13, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • What I said above may be classified as a mild personal attack. However it was a particularly silly thing for you to say. Under the law of the United States of America fair use is an exception to copyright. It is not an exactly defined exception and has plenty of case law, based on the fundamentally sensible proposition that something like the concept of fair use can never be fully pinned down by statute law. The Wikipedia server is based in the United States. Therefore images on the Wikipedia server can quite legitimately be claimed to be there under the fair use exception to copyright.
        • If the server is based in a second country, then the laws of that country apply so far as copyright is concerned and fair use does not apply as an exception to copyright to that image. Further if the user who posted the image is not in the United States, the same argument applies.
        • However, since fair use is an exception to copyright law of course a copyrighted image has the potential to be reproduced under fair use!! David Newton 22:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Err. Whut? How can a non-copyrighted image be fair use, given that fair use is a copyright-exemption clause...? James F. (talk) 03:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 27

June 28

June 29

June 30

July 1

July 2

July 3

July 4

July 5

All images uploaded by User:Brzq. From what I can gather he is a Portugese football fan who hasn't quite grasped the concept of copyright, and has taken 36 images mostly form uefa.com, clearly marked as copyright. Some of his uploads were accompanied by cut-and-pasted copyright text. Ed g2s 01:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 6

July 7

July 8

Windows Starter Edition from [270], among others - news story apparently copied and pasted. blankfaze | •• | •• 04:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[271] - could probably be left as a redirect to rafflesia once the offending text is deleted. -- Hadal 03:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saddam images
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=4515671"