Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Copyright issues)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback about the problem at the relevant talk page, to propose revisions to the material, or to request copyright permission. After the listing period, a copyright problems board clerk or administrator will review the listing and take what further action may be necessary.

Pages listed for copyright review appear in the bottom section of the page. The top includes information for people who have copyright concerns about pages or images, for those whose pages have been tagged for concerns, for community volunteers who'd like to help resolve concerns and for the clerks and administrators who volunteer here.

If you believe a Wikipedia page has infringed on your copyright, please see special note below.
If a page you created has been marked as a copyright problem and you own copyright in the original publication (or have permission from the owner), please see this section.

Contents

Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality (such as Copyright-free logos); or

C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This is not only a matter of respecting local custom. When content is under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's license, proper attribution may be required. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first

In some instances, it is clear that two pieces of text (one on Wikipedia, and one elsewhere) are copies of each other, but not clear which piece is the original and which is the copy. "Compliant" sites that copy Wikipedia text note that they have done so, but not all of our re-users are compliant.

If you've found such a case, you might first check the discussion page to see if a note has been added to the top of the talk page to allay people's concerns. If not, you can look for clues. Do other pages in the other website copy other Wikipedia articles? Did the content show up on Wikipedia all in once piece, placed by a single editor? If you don't see good evidence that Wikipedia had it first, it's a good idea to bring it up for investigation. You might follow the Instructions for listing below or tag the article {{copy-paste|url=possible source}} so that others can evaluate. If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns

Shortcut:
Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

  • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the content was copied from that source to Wikipedia and not the other way around (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors);
  • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

Suspected or complicated infringement

If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

  • Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated:
  • Replace the text with one of the following:

    {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}

    {{subst:copyvio|identify non-web source here}}

  • Go to today's section and add

    * {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add {{subst:cppage}} to the top.
  • Advise the contributor of the material at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
  • Instances where one contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion.

Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; list images that are suspected to be copyright violations at possibly unfree images and images with disputed fair use rationales at Non-free content review. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles.

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

Articles are listed for copyright investigation because contributors have reason to suspect they constitute a copyright concern, but not every article listed here is actually a copyright problem. Sometimes, the content was on Wikipedia first. Sometimes, the article is public domain or compatibly licensed. Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner and this simply needs to be verified.

If you can provide information to prove license or public domain status of the article, please do. It doesn't matter if you do it under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article; a link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. (As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before response is provided.)

If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

Obtaining/verifying permission

Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

Rewriting content

Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, this is done on a temporary page at Draft:PAGENAME so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea - and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book - to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note at the talk page of the article to alert the administrator or clerk who addresses the listing. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)

Policy shortcut:

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

Information about the people who process copyright problems listed on the board

Copyright problems board clerks

For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

Copyright problems board clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's approach to non-free text and its processes for dealing with them. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings, although their closures may sometimes require completion by administrators, when use of administrative tools is required. Clerks are periodically reviewed by the administrators who work in copyright areas on Wikipedia.

Copyright problems board administrators

For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

Closing listings

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators, who close the daily listings. OTRS agents who verify images may close listings at any time.

For advice for resolving listings, see:

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for administrators, clerks and OTRS agents noting resolution.

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

Older than 7 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. At this point, they may be processed by any administrator (see WP:CPAA). When every ticket on a day is clear, the day may be removed.

16 November 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Pictogram voting info.svg Note: {{OTRS received}}, see Special:Diff/638852659.    FDMS  4    01:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

27 November 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cleaned. Haven't looked at the other edits yet. MER-C 08:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

11 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Wizardman 00:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

12 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Thank you, Anotherclown, for your vigilance here. :) It seems that the user has given up on this. If the copyright returns, please drop a note on my talk page, and I'll look into semiprotecting the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

21 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

27 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • This is the state of one of the sources given in the 2005 addition of the content in question. Preliminary checks seem to suggest that the content added used this source as intended (for concepts not content). CrowCaw 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

30 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Bali Mauladad (history · last edit · rewrite) Most of the sources for this article are not available online. Text from one of the offline sources, Encounters With Lions by Jan Hemsing, has been copied verbatim into the article. The other online and offline sources should also be checked for copying. The image also has copyright issues: it's cropped from an image (File:Bali Iqbal.jpg) whose licence tag contradicts the information given in the summary. (That is, the summary template says the copyright holder is a third party, but the licence tag says that the uploader himself is the copyright holder.) —Psychonaut (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The main problem seems to be this edit which has the summary "Added 2 paragraphs from page 118 ewl". The editor who made this has a copy of the book, Encounters with Lions but is very new to editing and so doesn't yet understand the need and format for attribution of exact quotes within the article. I suggest that the edit be reverted as all the other text should be fine. The image tag seems like a minor mistake as the photographer (Marion Kaplan) is well attributed in the image description. I am able to contact the editor who made these mistakes as I am training and mentoring her and so can ensure she does this better in future. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm expecting that we'll be reviewing and resolving this at London Meetup #89 where the relevant editors and a bunch of admins will be present. Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have pulled up the OTRS correspondence to prompt the photographer to give us a usable license, as the one she has provided is not consistent with our requirements. I don't see any issues with the online sources, but cannot check the offline sources. HOWEVER, the content was copy-pasted by a user whose only other text contribution to the page is this: [5]. That's not really creative. In the absence of reason to believe that other editors have copy-pasted content, the best thing to do here seems to be to simply remove the creative material. Has there been evidence of copy-pasting from anybody else? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the copying, I'm at the London meetup where I am getting more information on editing and learning more about editing and copyright. I have come to know how to rewrite content.Mauladad (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

31 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey, MER-C. :) You want to just pull out whatever concerns you? Your blanking starts with "The bell tower was damaged by the earthquake of October 15, 2013 with the two upper levels collapsing. The front façade of the church (portico) added by the Recollects also collapsed." - the source is from 2004. I'n not sure what you're seeing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I deleted the suspect content when I blanked the article. The comparison before I did this is here. The earthquake stuff should be OK though. MER-C 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MER-C, Moonriddengirl, I had a quick look at this to see if there was any chance it could be closed now. I didn't much like what I found. I'm not happy that the earthquake stuff is completely OK: I found some limited copying from the Manila Standard, which appears in its turn to be copied from here. My main worry is that the many large edits by Briarfallen may contain other copied material (see Michael de Aozaraza, listed today). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, this is Briarfallen. Please maybe you should restrain yourself a little bit and treat other editors with respect. We unselfishly contribute our time here to help Wikipedia as I believe in its purpose. There is nothing personal to gain here. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Instead of treating me like a criminal first, maybe you should checked my contributions first one by one, and you find any, maybe we can work together on it and help improve it. I am aware and try to follow Wikipedia rules including about copyrights. Yes, I used to contribute a lot in Wikipedia especially improving Philippine articles, but not starting this year because of a new job. Thanks.
Maybe this is the reason why some people don't add references. You are more like HOUNDS that hunt copyright violators instead of fixing those articles that you think have violated. It is easy to find faults on others, but is it harder for you to help others? Why don't you just wait till the original sources complain about infringement as some, I believe, would just let it go. If you think about it, this is also beneficial for them as this is like free advertising if their articles were added as references. In my opinion, not only you are wasting your time, but you are also teaching others NOT to add references, instead of being honest and follow Wikipedia rules. This is akin to bad parenting. Yes, you could erase it but would you, if the article is actually true just unreferenced? Wikipedia rule is only leaving a template on top about searching and adding references. In addition, this is not personal opinion or personal research, which Wikipedia is more strict about.
I'm just trying to find the rationale of what you guys are doing, as you could use your time in something more fruitful for Wikipedia. As for myself, I always try to follow Wikipedia rules ever since, not unless I'm unaware of it. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

2 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • This seems to have content pulled from all over. Before I found the article and ran a check on it, 2 different editors had already removed other copyvios. The author's other article, TONG ZENG is similarly structured, and has some close paraphrase issues from these same sources. CrowCaw 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

3 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Plot rewritten to comply with policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have spoken to Menace Demarco, and he staTed that he copied the wiki article for his bio on his mtv.Com page after the wiki page was created. Cameron bates (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

4 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Having checked both the web.archive.org page for Bitburg (which is blank, without any of the offending text), and the origin globalsecurity.org page (which does have the three paragraphs, some copied), it seems more likely that the text was copied directly from globalsecurity.org without going through any mirrors or suchlike. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

7 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

8 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

My issue is copyvio links in iamages. If you see [9] realhistoryww.com/ is linked in a number of images. I've looked at this website and it has quite a few full copies of newspaper articles, articles from the BBC website, etc, so as I understand it we should have no links to it. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

15 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

16 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
This is the first time I've come across this sort of article tagging, can I just rewrite the copyvio section and remove the tag? Editors do this all the time and it seems weird that and admin has to proof it if someone else has done the legwork. — TAnthonyTalk 17:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've boldly rewritten the offending section and removed the tag, which should make it easy for an Admin or clerk to check this off the list. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

17 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

18 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Preserved main line steam locomotive support in the United Kingdom (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.standard4.com/crew.html. 81.153.54.212 (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

19 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

20 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

New listings

Notice:If the links below in this section are broken, it's because there are too many unresolved copyright problems, If enough issues are closed, they'll work again. (So help!)
(Above notice per MER-C.)
WARNING! It also means that some reported problems are not on this page!!!

New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

Older than 5 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 5 days. At this point, they may be processed by a copyright problems board clerk. After 7 days, they may be closed by an administrator.

21 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

22 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Recent listings

Below are articles that have been listed here for 5 days or less. Anyone in the community may help clarify the copyright status on these. See the section on responding for more information.

23 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

24 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

25 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

26 January 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

27 January 2015