Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license[edit]

I feel sure there must already be an answer to this somewhere, but I can't find it. Can anyone tell me whether material licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? JBW (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Compatible license -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MLS Expansion Draft articles[edit]

Just in case there is anybody working copyright problems who is also a Major League Soccer fan, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#MLS Expansion Draft articles and copyright -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reusing deleted material[edit]

Is WP:Copyright problems the correct place to list possible violations of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD)? I understand that they can be repaired and are considered less serious. The articles' deleted revisions have not been restored, and I did not find supplementary attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will provide more information about a specific example. The article was deleted presumptively after listings at WP:Contributor copyright investigations and WP:Copyright problems. An administrator restored a cleaned version, but without undeleting any older revisions or providing attribution. The refs include old accessdate values, so it may not have been rewritten completely.
Is the preferred approach for repairing attribution to restore the deleted revisions and revision delete them under the RD1 copyright criterion, leaving the usernames visible? History subpages and {{Attribution history}} seem not to be used anymore: using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Attribution history, I found Talk:List of international goals scored by Milan Baroš/Attribution (created 2016) and Talk:Ernst Rothauser/attribution (repaired 2018). Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Flatscan: I have seen (and done myself), if the history is not filled with many users, manually listing all non-bot and non-minor edit contributors in a dummy edit. That method may be preferrable as it only requires an administrator to view the deleted page history, and then either provide a list to you or make the dummy edit themself. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! A dummy edit is a good alternative that I should have remembered. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freedom of information requests[edit]

I noticed several good faith edits by user:IndependentSchoolsMonitor which include information from, and link to, an emailed UK Freedom of Information report.[1] The articles and edits are Ardingly College [2], Farnborough Hill [3], Millfield [4], Dauntsey's School [5], The Oratory School [6], and Sherfield School [7]. The FOI report contain the following copyright notice:

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research, and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can be also used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder.

Is this copyright compatible with this use on Wikipedia? Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not compatible, since it doesn't allow commercial re-use. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial licenses. DanCherek (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except it is being used as a reference, nobody is proposing to upload the document. We use copyrighted materials and links to them as references all the time. Nthep (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the link that has me concerned. It's the fact the information is in a personal response to a freedom of information request. The information is allowed to be used for the requestor's "own purposes", which include "private study and non-commercial research" and unspecified exemptions to copyright law. So, can this information be used on Wikipedia, where anyone can use it, including for commercial purposes? Meters (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright does not cover facts, just the creative part of a work. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, where it says Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, concur with Nthep and StarryGrandma. DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing date[edit]

Why is Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 January 26 not showing on this page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]