open encyclopedia * Article Search: * *
*
*

Wikipedia: Copyright problems

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

Deletion Tools
 

Articles {{vfd}}
Categories {{cfd}}
Copyvios {{copyvio}}
Images {{ifd}}
Mergers {{merge}}
  {{mergefrom}}
  {{mergedisputed}}
Redirects {{rfd}}
Page moves {{move}}
Speedy {{delete}}
Patent {{nonsense}}
Templates {{tfd}}
Undeletion
Unfree images {{pui}}
  {{PUIdisputed}}
  {{nonfreedelete}}
  {{unverified}}
  {{unknown}}
{{Move to Wiktionary}}

Deletion policy
Deletion log

Deletion Humor
Extreme
People

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 which you believe to be a copyright infringement, 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. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. See Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion.

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

Contents
1 Alternatives
2 Notice to copyright owners
3 Copyright infringement notice

3.1 Actions to take for text
3.2 Actions to take for images

4 Special cases

4.1 Amazon copyrights
4.2 Pokémon images
4.3 Used with permission images
4.4 Non-commercial use images
4.5 Poster claims to be the author or to have permission
4.6 Fair use claims needing a second opinion
4.7 Suspected copyright infringements without online source
4.8 List of other copyright problems

5 Old
6 List of possible copyright problems

6.1 September 24
6.2 September 26
6.3 October 4
6.4 October 5
6.5 October 10
6.6 October 14
6.7 October 16
6.8 October 18
6.9 October 19
6.10 October 21
6.11 October 25
6.12 October 28
6.13 October 30
6.14 November 3
6.15 November 6
6.16 November 7
6.17 November 8
6.18 November 11
6.19 November 12
6.20 November 13
6.21 November 14
6.22 November 15
6.23 November 16
6.24 November 17
6.25 November 18
6.26 November 19
6.27 November 21
6.28 November 22
6.29 November 23
6.30 November 24
6.31 November 25
6.32 November 26
6.33 November 27
6.34 November 28
6.35 November 29
6.36 November 30
6.37 December 1
6.38 December 2
6.39 December 3
6.40 December 4
6.41 December 5
6.42 December 6
6.43 December 7
6.44 December 8
6.45 December 9

7 Footer

Alternatives

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations 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

Notice to copyright owners

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.

Copyright infringement notice

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. For example: 

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

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 today's section at the bottom of this page.

Special cases

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.

Pokémon images

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

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. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

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)
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: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)

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)
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)

Non-commercial use images

As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the link to http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/index.html from Wikipedia:Public domain image resources due to the non-commercial restricton. Shame, I was just about to use his Edvard Munch "Scream" image as it was from an "approved" source. PhilHibbs 12:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Lichfield3spires.jpg is from FreeFoto.com. The uploader asserted it to be a copyright-free image, but the rules seem to be pretty clear to me that it's non-commercial only (and indeed personal-only, which would rule out use by the Wikimedia Foundation). Could I have a second opinion please?

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

  • River Valley Ranch. User claims on talk page to have copyright. Wyllium 06:57, 2004 Nov 13 (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)
  • Dentsu from [3] (according to vfd discussion on talk page) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Dentsu, author claims to be copyright holder. However if this turns out to be the case the page would need to be re-listed on vfd for content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada from [4] and others - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Claims to be copyright holder on talk.Maximus Rex 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tsubasa from [5] , but the (possible) vio was uploaded by the (claimed) author of the website: does this indicate she gives permission for it to be used under the GFDL, or just that she doesn't understand the GFDL? Pyrop 23:56, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    No copyvio notice. E-mail given at extlink mentioned in article ends in "@dragonmount.com". www.dragonmount.com resolves to 66.221.104.33. No such IP ever edited the article. Somebody wants to follwo-up by e-mail? Lupo 11:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlos Martínez. Uploader is not the author but claims to have permission, see Talk:Carlos Martínez. Also, the site on which I found the text is apparently not the original either. I've reverted the copyvio, assuming good faith. Also I have contacted the email address informing that I've reverted and put the page here. If anybody feels the need for a follow-up, please do so. Sander123 11:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Harry W. Nice from [6]. --Zigger 15:20, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
    • User states that they have now received permission from the Archives. I have asked him to try to get a confirming email. --Zigger 00:06, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • Charley_Patton - first off, patton died in '34, and therefore all recordings should be public domain, correct? What about when effort was put in to remaster the tracks, like the Grammy award winning "Screamin' And Hollerin' The Blues: The Worlds of Charley Patton"? (article) lastly, much of the article is a lenghthy and (relatively) widely published quote, is this fair use as well?
  • Image:Saab91safir.jpg - this is box art for a commercial model kit. While it could probably be contended to be fair use to use it in an article describing the specific kit itself, I suspect that it might be problematic to use it outside that context, but "I am not a lawyer". --Rlandmann 12:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The scan is used in both the Heller and the scale model articles. That's within context. 213.51.209.230 16:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Uploader claims fair use. Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Lovcen from [8]. --Romanm 07:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe you didn`t know but that page is not copyrighted. In Serbia and Montenegro, nothing is copyrighted if you didn`t put the copyright sign. Law is different from the law in USA. Plus this page was made by Government, and by law , any information given or made by government is public. Conclusion is that this text is not copyright problem. If there is © sign means that webdesign is copyrighted. You can check by sending an email to webmaster. --Avala|★ 10:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Estellawarren.jpg copyrighted image. Maximus Rex 01:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Contacting uploader(s). Lupo 12:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Uploader claims fair use on his talk page. Needs a second opinion; i don't think this is "fair use". Lupo 12:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg from unknown Guanaco 04:23, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Under Iraqi copyright legislation, passed by The Revolution Leadership Council in 1971, a copyright lapses 25 years after the death of the author, but no more then fifty years after the publication of the work. It's shorter for private works, and there are several public interest exemptions." "Iraq does not have a reciprocal copyright agreement with the United States". [9] Works first published in a foreign country are subject to protection under United States copyright law if, "on the date of first publication", that country is "a country or intergovernmental organization other than the United States that is a party to" "(1) the Universal Copyright Convention; (2) the Geneva Phonograms Convention; (3) the Berne Convention; (4) the WTO Agreement; (5) the WIPO Copyright Treaty; (6) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; [or] (7) any other copyright treaty to which the United States is a party." [10] [11]


Suspected copyright infringements without online source

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Italian exports, Italian Government, and Islam in Italy all smell like copyvios but I can't tell where from. They were all put up by User:82.43.213.217, and share the same writing style. Dave6 05:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Matt Day is a huge text dump from an anon. Can't find the source, but it's obviously copied from somewhere. - Lucky 6.9 19:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Equality in internet age looks like a text dump from some source - I don't have proof though. No wikilinks and it says "Title: Equality in Internet Age Content:" at the top. Created by anonymous - Estel (talk) 12:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Jan riske is a fragment of a larger article from somewhere. It stops midstream through a word and picks up again at a later section. - Lucky 6.9 20:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Special Zone looks like it came off of a Sonic the Hedgehog fansite. - Lucky 6.9 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Nazi tales is a text dump from what looks like the Britannica, but I can't find it. - Lucky 6.9 22:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Semiotic terms is a bizarre, unencyclopedic text dump. - Lucky 6.9 01:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Forest Elephant.jpg was taken from my website, and is rfered to as from my website. This is no major trauma for me, except that I dont have the foggiset wehere I found the pic, and I m not happy, that its becoming fdl refering to my website withut being asked. I have, however uploaded aa picture of my own, which I gave GNUFDL, and I changed the pics. regards, Dan Koehl 01:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Formal axiology is a text dump from goodness knows where. Even the formatting looks like a cut-and-paste. - Lucky 6.9 21:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The same anonymous user created the redirects Value Science and Dimensions of Value. If Formal axiology is removed, so should they be. – Smyth 21:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've put an article on this idiocy under Science of value. It may be an edit war in the making. Gene Ward Smith 09:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The anon has removed the copyvio notice and reverted to the previous text (but with additional edits). I note the text has developed over numerous edits, so it doesn't seem like cut-paste to me. It could be being typed in from a paper copy, but the editing doesn't seem like that. Looks like original blather to me. -R. S. Shaw 09:36, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • Aside from copyright considerations, this stuff is complete rubbish. A critque of the rubbish might be worthwhile, but promoting idiocy is not what an encyclopedia is for. Gene Ward Smith 09:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Franklin Income Fund comes straight from a prospectus, though it's typed in (I doubt the missspellings are in the original.) --jpgordon{gab} 03:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Roberto Burle Marx text dump that looks like it's straight out of a press release. - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A Snog On The Rocks looks like it was hand-copied from a print source. - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Student Loan Consolidation - reads like an FAQ or ad, last sentence doesnt pertain to the article, google test reveals multiple sources. KirbyMeister 20:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Voice production reads like a copyvio, and the original version looks like one (first line begins mid-sentence, odd formatting (double spaced, short lines), only two wikilinks), but the only hits I get on Google are from Wikipedia mirrors. Suspicious, but I have no proof — Gwalla | Talk 17:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Your comment suggests that original non-copyvio wiki articles must be bad and good articles must be copyvio :( 80.131.78.65 08:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I have no idea how you could get that from what I wrote. The first version was not good—it began in mid-sentence and had extremely broken formatting. — Gwalla | Talk 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with Gwalla, the first part of the article defiantely reads like a copyvio. They use the terms we and our too often throughout. I've looked for a while online through various sites, search engines etc, and came up with nothing...how about a textbook or a plain book? CrystalZ 17:52, 28, Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an ancient article, dating from 2001. Circumstances then explain the odd formatting and the lack of wikilinks 1) the formatter was radically different then than now, so this might well have rendered okay. 2) there wasn't much to wikilink to. 3) I guess the "ancients" didn't care so much about format etc., there being such a paucity of content. Additionally, I've reviewed the contributions of the original author and all his other stuff is undoubtedly his own work (it's just as crappily formatted, and contains stuff that clearly identifies it as a (rather ideosyncratic) wikipedia original text. I think this shows the author was knowledgeable in the field, and wasn't in the habit of uploading copyvios. To conclude, M'Lud, I don't think there's cause for suspicion. - John Fader
  • Remaining image uploads of User:Avnionur are probably also copyright violations, but I didn't find them. Articles are all checked. Lupo 09:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Music of Palau and Culture of Palau. Probably from History of Palau: Heritage of an Emerging Nation which was mentioned on the first revision of the articles at [18] and [19]. Angela. 03:00, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Was pasted in one go by an anonymous user. That seems suspicious to me. --P3d0 18:04, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • James T. Dinneen has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion since September 26th, should have been listed here first. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/James T. Dinneen for the discussion there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Linguistic human rights appears to be copied out of book by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, but I am not absolutely certain -- JamesTeterenko 03:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Hazel tells LaVerne presumably copied out of book Deus Ex 00:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • On leaving ireland poem, presumably under copyright Deus Ex 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Edward Shortt taken from the book The Irish War of Independence by Michael Hopkinson. ISBN 0717137414.
  • Clapp oscillator definitely copied from somewhere, but Google can't find it. David Johnson 18:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of other copyright problems

  • This edit to Moldova introduced a clear plagiarism from [20]. I've reverted it; is there something we can do to get it out of the history? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like there was probably no problem here: I just got an email apparently from David Storobin of Global Politician, and he was apparently the anonymous author who pasted in the material. I've exchanged some email with him on this. I've proposed that he set up an account, make it clear who he is, and re-enter this and other material he wishes to donate from his excellent site in a way that makes it clear that the material is legitimately donated. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Moldova and Transnistria are ok. I am David Storobin, posting under User Name "Politician". You can confirm everything I post by going to http://www.globalpolitician.com and sending me a message via our contact box. Thank you for your cooperation and I am sorry for the original misunderstanding.
  • Charles Steen
    • Sadly from [21], which seems copyrighted. If someone wants to do the copyvio boilerplate I will rewrite the article over the weekend... -Fastfission 13:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation
    • I'm not sure if this is copyvio or fair use. This article quotes one of the user-submitted plot summaries from IMDb in its entirety (the second one at: [22]). It acknowledges it as a quote from IMDb. Does fair use cover quoting the whole thing? In this case, it's not the whole IMDb page, just one of the two plot summaries. The IMDb legal page ([23]) says that summaries uploaded by users are still owned by their writer, the uploader just implicitly gives IMDb unlimited use of their work. I've noticed other movie articles that do this, and I'm wonding if there's been any concensus about whether it's legal. - Eisnel 01:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Unfree images
    • Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses. anthony (see warning) 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Images with missing copyright information
    These should replaced and many should be listed for deletion. Those that are currently orphaned can be listed on images for deletion. Guanaco 00:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [24]. Other parts may be original text. Samw 12:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The whole text is from Infocog - but I wonder if this is a non compliant mirror. Some text also seems to be from [25]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [26] Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But this is a reprint of a document submitted to the US NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD - does that make it PD? Secretlondon 00:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Flecainide -- Seems that this was copy-and-pasted from a number of different web pages. See the talk page for more information. Matt 15:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) and Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) - is the compilaton of this information copyrighted/ RickK 22:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Battle of Rappahannock Station is a word-for-word copy of [27], which has a copyright notice. However, the webpage lists "source:National Park Service pamphlet on Rappahannock Station" at the bottom, which may mean that the text is in the public domain. Since our version of the article has no references or talk page explaining this, I'll mention this on the user's talk page and ask them to reply here. 68.81.231.127 12:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Author responded at Talk:Battle of Rappahannock Station. 68.81.231.127 13:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Apheresis has word-to-word copyvio sections from WebPath. I'm doing a rewrite. JFW | T@lk 18:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Early Childhood Autism - Comes from a private wiki where content is copyright contributors. Contains several images that are almost certainly copyvios. See link from original author's pages. It's unclear where the article came from (e.g. was generated on that wiki or not). This will require some research to sort out. --Improv 18:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Content is copyright contributors on this wiki too. I don't see anything wrong with it. The images are such low quality that they are almost certainly fair use.
      • Someone else who was looking into this on IRC has said that that wiki does not mandate GFDL. With regards to the images, it may be that the content (i.e. text that is used for medical purposes) is copyright. If so, regardless of image quality, it may be covered by copyright. We need to be careful (low-res pictures of an entire short story are not fair use) --Improv 14:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old

  • AA Grapevine from [28] - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone ignored the instructions to draft a rewrite at the /Temp page, so now the copyvio is in the edit history. --Diberri | Talk 04:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mikhail Alekseev from text of Great Soviet Encyclopedia and current paper edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. (<- dunno who posted this Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • The copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia may well be expired. Can someone weigh in on Soviet copyrights? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Unlikely that the copyright of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia has expired. English translation was late 1960s. -- Jmabel 10:15, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony Knowles (politician) - Much of the page, including several randomly-selected sentences, appears to be modified from [29] (Google cache of Knowles's election campaign site). Jxg 01:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    From the campaign web site's press kit. Would that be allowed? Anyway, has serious NPOV problems. Note: the /Temp replacement looks identical to the article itself. Lupo 11:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Devon1.jpg some random porn star. Picture has, erm, "artistic merit", it is not explicit but probably a bit embrassasing if you're at work. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • But is this necessarily a copyvio? (I know it looks like one, but you should have proof). If this is about prudence, you might want to list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion, but I doubt it will be deleted for moral reasons. Besides, there are far more NSFW pictures on Wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:10, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Anne-real.jpg Historical picture of Anne Frank, but the Anne Frank House aggressively claims copyright on all such pictures, as can be seen at [30]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [31] and used here under the fair use doctrine. I don't like to take proactive action—this should stay unless a lawyer really complains and the Wikimedia foundation then decides to remove the picture. As an alternative, consider using nl:Afbeelding:Dagboek anne frank.jpg, scan of a book cover showing Anne Frank, from [32]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Under the request by Rigel who reported many copyright violated edits in ja.wp. Rigel left a message on my User talk:Aphaia and warn that the edits by User:rantaro and anonymous user User:61.22.157.95(ja) in the below are similar to the Jehovah's Wittnesses publish matter (tr. in Japanese) according to their content:
Rigel pointed out Jerusalem Council are consisted by two Jehovah's Witnesses document, and Christian Cross has a similar part of their document in Japanese; Rigel suspected other edits by same contributers might be so and it is the same person of User:K.M. who has been banned from ja.wp because of copyright violation. See also Rigel's comment on my talk page. --Aphaea 17:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC), pointer added (by Rigel)
You will have to point out what exactly are the suspected copyright violations, and where they are supposed to be from. Then we'll see what is to be done about all this. Lupo 18:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rigel said Jerusalem Council from JW published Insight and Holy Spirit(I don't know their avialbilities). All of materials are suspicted by JW database Watchtower or its latest version Watchtower2003 which are only available to faithfuls. (I am not a JW faithful and have no copy. Information has been available in RfD on ja.wp). For exact information we need a cooperator and JW faithful who have materials in English; on ja.wp two faithfuls gave us information. --Aphaea 23:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please verify the contents of his contribution one of these days.And furthermore, see his first contribution.Rigel(ja-user) 04:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sayeret Matkal from [50] - rhyax 06:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • On the one hand, the external site claims © at [51], but state right after "If you see no author you are welcome to repost the page but you MUST mention specwarnet and give us a link back." The page in question has no author mentioned, and isn't attribution (maybe with a backlink on talk) compatible with the GFDL? Lupo 09:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Meteor.JPG from [52]. Diberri | Talk 22:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • The permission says "The photos on this site are the property of BAE SYSTEMS (Copyright© 2004 BAE SYSTEMS. All rights reserved) and are made available for publishing and personal use." That they are made available for publishing sounds like a pretty blanket grant of permission to me. --Delirium 19:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • And then they go on to say at [53] that "They may not be changed or combined with other images in any manner without prior written consent of BAE SYSTEMS". I think that is the showstopper. Lupo 21:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Malaria (some parts) from [54]. Diberri | Talk 18:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a long enough article that we should excise only the copyrighted parts, rather than deleting the article. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Shwebomin from [55] -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Original poster removed the copyright violation notice! -- Infrogmation 04:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole group of articles and images is claimed on the talk pages to be used with authorization, but the authorization doesn't seem particularly official, so would require some follow-up. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Student loan - I removed a large section of this article that was copied from [56] and it needs to be rewritten. --Chessphoon 01:56, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • SPQR: The image of an "SPQR flag" used in this article, Image:Romastemma.jpg, has had a note added by an anon user claiming it to be copyright NovaRoma Inc.: The flag appears on novaroma.org's main page. In any case it's anachronistic for the article so I've commented it out, but I raise whether the image should be deleted. -- Arwel 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of possible copyright problems


September 24

September 26

  • Uwe Holtz from [58] (PDF link). This is Holtz's own CV - does that get copyright protection? I haven't put up a copyvio notice yet. --rbrwrˆ 21:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Tambocor.jpg, copyrighted as stated on the image page -- Chris 73 Talk 01:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Actually: Proper fair use. (Learned something new today) -- Chris 73 Talk 00:02, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

October 4

October 5

  • Image:Feynman.jpg - used all over the web with no attribution including [60]. No evidence anywhere that it is Public Domain. - Redjar 23:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 10

  • Large number of images uploaded by User:El C, a couple may be fair use Rmhermen 18:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't fully checked but these are all probably violations also:

October 14

  • Caffeine has a section that is a possible copyvio, as mentioned on the article's talk page. Thinking remove/rewrite the section, which is only about 5-10% of the article. Pakaran.
    • Note that there's a discussion on Talk:Caffeine, as well as here, and duplication isn't a good thing generally. I believe we use other DSM descriptions in articles, with a disclaimer. Pakaran. 16:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


October 16


October 18

October 19


October 21

October 25

October 28

  • Sibiu, tourism section copied from [80]. -- Ferkelparade π 09:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Apparently so, polluting an otherwise decent page. I'm going to copy all the rest of it to Sibiu/Temp (also editing out one piece of vandalism I noticed). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
I'm reverting the page to the version prior to Ferkelparade copyright violation warning. the article was written in 2003 by Bogdangiusca, you should have talk to him instead of ruining an entire article. Two months have past and you solved nothing, you just erased the article. Have you thought that http://www.sibiu.ro/en/turism.htm could have copy-pasted information from Wikipedia ? Criztu 14:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No, reverting over a copyright violation is not a solution. That way, the copyrighted text is still visible in the edit history, which it should never do (the legal ramifications of copyright problems still persist, whether the text is currently visible or hidden in the edit history). So, unfortunately, if some anon user decides to paste some copyrighted text into an otherwise decent article, our only option is to delete and rewrite. Note that the anon ruined the earticle, not me -- Ferkelparade π 14:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i appologise for saying you ruined the article, i have to read further on the CopyVio rules Criztu 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted - this seems to be the Wikipedia policy regarding copyvio Criztu 15:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Cheung1303 persists in uploading copyrighted images, in spite of many warnings. Based on his statements (he's not a native English-speaker) it appears they are largely copied from Gakei.com but cropped to remove the identifying source information. Gakei states on their site that "ALL photo images were taken by GAKEI, who retains the copyright privilege over them. You are NOT welcome to show any of them to the public in any form or by any means without his permission IN ADVANCE." --Michael Snow 15:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Update: Cheung1303 is now putting random image tags on his uploads and still not properly providing source information. I think all images he has uploaded must be considered potential copyright problems at this point. --Michael Snow 02:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

October 30

November 3


November 6

November 7

November 8


November 11

November 12

  • Edits by special:contributions/64.95.73.208

November 13

November 14

November 15