Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 9. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Related Discussions: Copyright Violations on Page Histories

See also: Wikipedia:Public domain, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:copyright, m:fair use, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop.

Linking to site containing copyright violations

Kt66 keeps adding a link to the site diamond-cutter.org to Michael Roach (Buddhist) which I have been objecting to on the grounds of WP:LIVING (anonymous potentially libelous content). However, after looking through the site more thoroughly, I find that the site republishes private letters written by several parties including the party being criticized (Michael Roach), as well as the Dalai Lama. Surely the subject of criticism didn't give this critical site permission to republish his letters which were clearly written to specific individuals. Can this site be blacklisted to prevent further edit-warring over it (I am not the only party objecting to the use of the site, though one of the objectors has retired from Wikipedia recently). Or is blacklisting only for spam? Could repeated insertion of a link to the copyright violating site be considered spamming? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're hardly ones to talk, given that our article has an entirely unsourced, uncredited photograph spuriously tagged {{promotional}}. We don't typically blacklist sites because they may be infringing on someone's copyright. That said, that link is inappropriate, and this should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Jkelly 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiPakistan1.png

I reported a copyright violation for WikiPakistan1.png on 17th December. However, I saw that no action was taken over it (not even any discussion), and now an anonymous editor has removed the copyvio template from the image page. Based on my past experiences, I have known such images to be copyright violation per Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. I request an experienced admin to look into this matter. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Transformers character bios

Far too many users create articles about Transformers characters as a verbatim copy of their biographies in official Transformers comics. These comics are copyrighted works by commercial companies. In the case of the original 1980s "Transformers Universe", this might not be such a problem, because the comic has been out of print for decades, but some are creating copies from "Transformers: More than meets the eye", which is still sold in comics stores. I would like to mark them all as copyvios but there are far too many articles to sift through. What should be done? JIP | Talk 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikify equals copyvio??

I reported the Taj Burrows article as being a copyvio.

My problem? That someone already knew and just putzed with a few words here and there when the wikified, thinking that that kept it from being a copyvio.

While the user who added this information was 138.130.73.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a one day user who seemed to think that good parents equal noteable people, the real problem is/was User:RedRollerskate, a member of WikiProject Wikify, who knew that the article was a copyright violation, and during her wikification, slightly modified the copyrighted text, leaving whole chunks of copyrighted text in. RedRollerskate seems to be under the impression that she properly "wikified as part of WikiProject Wikify, rm copyvio and POV" (her edit summary), when while the article was properly wikified, it was still a blatant violation of copyright, so much so that I suspected so while reading it, and the first phrase I googled got me the article it came from. The other problem is that the wiki article was not encyclopedia at all. Had it not been a copyright violation, I would have added both the NPOV tag and the magazine tag.

I know that users are left messages on their talk pages in re copyvio, to explain it to them, and that no message has been left for anyone in re this article. I don't think that there's a point in leaving one for the user that added the stuff to begin with, but I think it's really important that some sort of message be left for RedRollerskate, only these sorts of messages are supposed to come from admins and stuff.

Also, my concern is that articles needing to be wikified and also unfortunately articles that are often partial or complete copyright violations. If this is just one users confusion that you can slightly reword a source and it's not a copyright violation, it's not too big a deal, but if a lot of users don't get that that's no ok, and are going around wikifying and at the same time making it harder to catch copyright violation, that's a big problem.

Anyway, thoughts? TStein 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, moving sentences and changing some words does not clear a copyvio. Try leaving a message in the WikiProject and the user's talk page to prevent future misunderstandings. -- ReyBrujo 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is GFDL compatible with CC-BY-SA?

The text of Onegai Senorita was taken from a CC-BY-SA-2.0. Does this licence grant enough rights to publish the text under GFDL as well, and thus include it in Wikipedia? Conscious 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found answer at m:Guide to the CC dual-license: incompatible. Conscious 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Wojciech Wielgus

Hi, please help me to check copyright status in this article. I think is improbabile a copyviol by New York Times. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What parts? What New York Times article? —Centrx→talk • 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion here. --F. Cosoleto 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are similarities in, but not a word-by-word copyviol. I could well imagine that the New York Times is using a text from an unknown European news agency (the text is written i Paris and not in Warzaw where the story is developing). , regards Odengatan 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe true concerning to a common European news agency, but I see always around 1840 bytes of word by word copyright violation. --F. Cosoleto 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Text rewritten by Crestodina. --F. Cosoleto 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalton Road 1912

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring this out, and I'd appreciate your help. It's about the image Image:Daltonroad1912.jpg, taken in the UK in the year 1912. The editor who uploaded it used the {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} template. The problems are:

• It is extremely unlikely that the editor is actually the author of the photograph, given that the photo was taken in 1912.
• In the UK, this photo may very well still be under copyright. Under UK law, works by known individuals fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. That would mean that if the person who took the photo lived as long as 1937, a distinct possibility, it's still under copyright. ("Anonymous" works dating from 1912 are I believe in the public domain, but it's not possible from the information we have to tell whether the author of this image is/was anonymous under the meaning of the Act.)

So it's all but certain that the editor who uploaded it is not the author of the photograph, and there's a slight but non-trivial possibility that it's still under copyright. What should be done? --Charlene 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Images by Stevvvv4444. Conscious 07:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Charlene 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Corporate Travel Executives

Greetings. Kktg4620 (talk · contribs) has asked for help at the talk page for the above article, noting that s/he has sent permission information to the correct address. I was wondering if someone with access to that system and more experience in copyright problems would be able to assist. Thanks! --Rkitko 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Notifications?

Why doesn't the process include notifying the author the article at the time an article is listed as a copyright problem? (If it does include this, I missed it - is it somewhere in the fine print?) John Broughton | Talk 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At WP:CP#Instructions: Add the text following Maintenance use only at the bottom of the now-blanked article to the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material. The text to add is a {{nothanks-web}} template. Conscious 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. John Broughton | Talk 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DreamworldAdmin

DreamworldAdmin (talk · contribs) is uploading images claiming to be the web admin of Dreamworld, and applying a license tag that reads like fair use. I have contacted him stating this license is not necessary because a) we claim fair use if the image has been authorized to be used only in Wikipedia and b) they could be deleted in the future as it can be replaced with a free version. I am leaving a note here in case someone wants to converse with him, as he gives contact information in the images he has been uploading. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lustra

The Lustra history page is word-for-word from their MySpace. Are those copyrightable? Makgraf 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Conscious 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaked DVD's of a tv show to the internet

Recently the first few episodes of the new fox series 24 were leaked to the internet. The plot was subsequently added to pages concerning 24 pages. Is the inclusion of information only obtainable illegally a copyright violation in this context?--Lucy-marie 09:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Copyright is associated with a thing, not an idea -- the 52 minutes of video, or the written screenplay. Descriptions of illegally obtained material, while they may indicate that the authors have committed an illegal act, are not themselves a copyright violation. Of course, IANAL.  ◉ ghoti 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, material that is not supported by reliable published sources can be removed from Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Backlog?

The template for possible copyright infringement states Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. I notice that there are articles on the project page that have listed there for over a month, so presumably the one week action is not being taken as stated.

A month also seems a long time to block an article from being edited, and a long time to have a very large banner at the top of an article page. If there is some major problem here with a backlog, I'll be happy to post notices in a few places asking additional admins to help out. John Broughton | ♫♫ 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can help here, as User:Wherebot appears to be down. However, what about those that had sent mail to the foundation giving permission of usage? Those are handled by OTRS directly, right? -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are handled separately from this page. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The oldest articles in the queue still have been there for more than a month. If no one has any objections, I'm going to look for ways to let others know that there is a backlog here. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then of course, there is the editor who solves copyvio issues by deleting tags ... That's a good way to make sure a questionable image does not get deleted. Cbdorsett 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fair use images of art and modern artists

I have proposed on both Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that nearly every image in this category is indeed a copyright violation and not just merely appropriate fair use. In fact I've laid down the gauntlet and asked if anybody anywhere can show another publication of any kind by a major publisher who uses art work like those in this category under fair-use applications as opposed to seeking (and getting) specific licensure for these image.

I am not talking about older works that can or should be in the public domain (museums assertion on copyright like the Louvre in regards to Leonardo Da Vinci are not the part of this debate). These are works by modern artist who have clearly asserted copyright in many cases on these items. The copyright is very clear in this case, and except for those few artists who have granted a GFDL license to their work (or similar FLOSS license), I don't see where this sort of image has a place in Wikipedia at all. Fair use simply does not apply and is being greviously abused in this situation.

An argument has been offered that perhaps an article about the particular artwork, if it is notable, might be permitted. I have a very hard time even accepting this argument and as I've pointed out, I'd like to see anybody else who is using this rationale for any other publication besides some website that doesn't care about copyright in the first place, or a hand-out by a teacher using educational fair use principles that don't apply to Wikipedia. Besides, most of the uses of these images is more illustrative of an artists work, or perhaps as a gallery. That is simply unacceptable completely.

I really want to find anybody who is willing to defend keeping these images at all. I don't seem to find any, but I may be mistaken. The Village Pump post simply landed dead in the water with no reply at all, and the discussion on the Copyrights page has largly languished with mostly "it is fair use.....I think" and "I agree... delete". Certainly we shouldn't be forcing artist to doing a WP:OFFICE before this content is removed. --Robert Horning 22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the works of living artists. Wikipedia should require explicit permission or an absolutely clear statement of why "fair use" applies. I've written a little about this issue in Talk:Khazars#About that coin image .... Maybe some of it can help you decide what your next course of action is. Friendly tip: be prepared for backlash. It might be wise to get a bunch of admins on your side before you do anything. You can incinerate a lot of your own positive energy with the controversies people can generate. If this page does not attract the attention you think it should, find a more prominent way to get help. Good luck. Cbdorsett 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

McHale

Could somebody take a look at McHale? The page is a clear copy of [1] but the author of the article claims he has permission to use. I would suppose that makes little difference as the company's webpage is not GFDL but just in case I'm wrong, I'd appreciate advice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any permission claim needs to be verified by the copyright holder sending an electronic or postal mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, or by adding a notice to the website explicitly stating that the text may be published under the GFDL. Without such evidence, claims make no difference except for telling the user who is claiming how to confirm the permission. In this particular case, the article was created four months ago, the uploader is inactive and is never going to be contacted, and the article is just an advertisement, with no independent sources. So, just delete it. It is common for companies that want their public relations propaganda on Wikipedia to give "permission", but even if they had a full idea of what that means under the GFDL these articles warrant deletion as advertisements. —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do I bring a user talk page that consists of nothing but cv material here, or to MfD? Thanks, delldot | talk 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The people at the MfD might refer it to here. If a discussion is warranted on the class of content, e.g., if it should be deleted even if it were not a copyvio, then a MfD could be initiated anyway. Also, if it is a blatant copyright infringement, it can just be speedily deleted with {{db-copyvio}}. —Centrx→talk • 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Schematic of scientific apparatus

I am interested in illustrating a specific piece of scientific apparatus, and the only illustration I know of (a hand drawn diagram rather than a picture) currently exists in a paper that is (probably) copyrighted by someone. I assume that using the diagram would not qualify as fair use, because I could make my own diagram instead... but is making my own diagram ok either? It would illustrate more-or-less the same things as the original; does that mean it is a derivative work and hence a copyright violation? Any suggestions appreciated. -- SCZenz 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this some piece of apparatus that you can look at independent of the illustration? In terms of copyright, if you have actually put forth some of your own creative effort into the creation of the content, you become the "author" or "creator" of the content, allowing you to assert copyright on that new version.

It is also important to point out that in the case of most scientific aparatus, its form is largely there because of the specific scientific principles that are being tested or demonstrated. Presuming that you could find another skilled individual who understands all of the scientific principles involved, I would dare argue that another apparatus built to do the same thing would look almost identicle, with only minor differences.

You should note that this is where patent and copyright break down completely. You may be able to patent a process or device, but you still don't control the copyright over images of that device, unless you are the person who took the photos as well. If somebody else comes along and photographs them, you can't stop them from using those photos... well mostly. I guess you could call the device a "sculpture" and assert copyright, but that is going a bit far.

If you make the drawing based on the actual device rather than copying another photo or drawing, it would make it a bit easier to claim original copyright rather than being a derivitive work. Still, I think you would be fairly safe even making a copy of the diagram... if you understand the principles involved and why everything is where it is at. Depending on the article that the diagram is being used for, adding labels to point out the various parts of the apparatus may also be useful to help add details to the article if the display of the apparatus is really that critical. --Robert Horning 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The apparatus, a particle detector, no longer exists as far as I know. It was a unique instrument—only one exactly like it ever has been and ever will be built. Thus if I want to illustrate it (as part of discussing particular discoveries made with the device), I am copying its unique design. If that's not ok, perhaps I could construct a general illustration of the type of device it is—what do you think? -- SCZenz 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Highway Patrol Possible erreoneous Copyvio

I was looking at Mississippi Highway Patrol and User:Kintetsubuffalo has placed a copyvio tag on the article. The tag does not indicate the source of the copyvio nor have they made notification to the copyvio problems page. What is the best route to address this page? Rob110178 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend removing the tag and putting a note on the user's page that you've done so and he/she is welcome to put the notice back up if he/she cite a URL when doing so. The note might also say that part of the tagging process is to post to the page, which wasn't done. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and Done. Thanks for the guidance with this article. I may clean it up if I can get a few minutes to do so... Rob110178 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on other WIKI sites?

Hello. I recently started my own wiki page, glasspedia.org. I hope this site will mature into a vibrant wiki site catering to the highly specialized needs of glassworkers worldwide, with information on technique and tools and other things that only a glass artist or collector would care about. I have imported some glass related content from wikipedia, using the export tool on the special pages section. I have read and re-read the copyright notices on wikipedia and the copyleft page. I am confused about the fair use policy. I am trying to figure out that in users on my wiki page change the content I imported from wikipedia as per the philosophy (as I read it) of wiki engines, does this violate section two of the copyright notice, the verbatim rule? Yes, I copied the work verbatim, but the idea was to provide a starting point for others to edit and add to. Under this idea, the first time someone edits a copied page the work is no longer a verbatim copy, does this create copyright infringment issues? I believe the export tool was created for users to mirror articles on their own wiki's so wikipedia would have to know that the data would be changed right? Please advise me, if I am violating any policies I will remove the data and start from scratch on my site. Thanks. --Glasspedia 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that Citizendium, which is essentially a "fork" of Wikipedia, copied the entire Wikipedia database of articles, with the intent to use those as a basis for new and rewritten articles. So you're fine. To respond more in detail: my reading of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License is that (a) under section 4, you are allowed to modify articles; (b) you need to give credit to Wikipedia, somewhere on the page (e.g., a template at the bottom) as the source; you might even link back to the version you originally copied; and (c) you can't copyright articles you get from Wikipedia, whether unchanged or modified; in fact, these articles have to comply with the GFDL as well. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You should note here that there is quite a bit of misinformation and simply wrong headed advise on Wikipedia telling you what you can and can't do with Wikipedia content. Note that all of the content on Wikipedia is available to you (or should be) under the terms of the GNU Free Document License (mentioned above) or perhaps under a license that is even more open. This would include images that are in the public domain.

You don't have to give credit to Wikipedia (although it is significantly appreciated), but you do have to acknowledge somehow at least five "principle authors" or others who were involved with creating the content in the first place. The "five author" rule is not part of copyright law but part of the GFDL. Copyright law may require you to acknowledge everybody who has touched the article... and something I wish Moglen and Stallman (who authored the GFDL) would explain sometime.

A link back to Wikipedia is not strictly needed, but it is "suggested" if you want to be nice to Wikipedia and encourage others to help create similar content. A link to the specific version you forked is not needed (legally speaking) at all. All that is strictly necessary here is that you maintain that the content is licensed under the terms of the GFDL and that any additions to that content must be under the same license.

You can copyright articles from Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you havn't authored the content yourself, you must also acknowledge the other authors. And if you formally register copyright (as you still can in the USA), you must include the names of the other authors together with where they live and their nationalities. How you do that is still a mystery to me, but I've griped elsewhere on other forii about this particular topic.

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with fair-use, but that you have been granted a copyright license (specifically the GFDL) to reproduce this content, as long as you keep within the terms of that license. One of those restrictions is that you must also allow others to be able to copy this content under the terms of the GFDL from your website as well. --Robert Horning 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Recently on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) there was a discussion about large Plot summaries in articles about creative works. It was mentioned that for instance large summaries are a violation of copyright by precedent of [2]. Another point was that having small plot summaries falls under fair use, but that WP:FUC holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible".

This led the editors to believe that scene-by-scene plot summaries definetly do no qualify as such. I couldn't really find any indications towards this from any official wikipedia copyright or fair use policy however. Can we get this noted somewhere? Can we hold a discussion or anything that would result in this being added to either WP:COPYVIO or WP:FUC ? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reproducing information vs Using it as a source

When researching information about Salvador Dali's works for Wikipedia, I came across a copyright notice in a book that prohibited reproduction of the information in any way without written permission. I don't think I've ever seen the word 'information' used specifically. Does this mean that I cannot give information about the ideas presented in the book, even if I credit ? Does that mean I have to say something along the lines of "The author of ___ believes that..." Or is this simply another way of saying to not copy it verbatim? Verloren Hoop 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I think (based on some reliable sources) that copyright doesn't prevent you from using the information. Once you have access to it, you may use it (unless it's classified). The expression of information in form of particular text is, however, protected by copyright. Conscious 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunno how to list these ...

A new user, Zsorathia, has been uploading various large images and labeling them as "bookcovers" -- which they aren't. I don't know how or where to report these images. If someone could please help ...

Image:Zkhan.jpg

19:53, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Zkhanvaada.jpg 19:13, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Blacksari.jpg ( 19:09, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Air-hostess.jpg 18:57, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Indian-bride1.jpg 18:37, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Rimi sen.jpg

That's from her contribs list. Please stop this editor. I've reverted all her edits for now, but she keeps going, sticking huge copyvio images into articles and throwing off all the formatting. Zora 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you left a message on his/her talk page? If not, that's definitely the first step. Similarly, did you just revert the pages, or get rid of the images? If you just reverted the pages, try tagging the images correctly. They're probably copyright violations, so you can tag them for deletion, and then he/she might get the message. If you've done these things, and no editor has responded to this message, I'd suggest you directly contact an admin, particularly one attached to this or a similar project. Verloren Hoop 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User-created drawing of a copyrighted image

There is an image: Image:Wildwar.JPG which is a fair-use logo. I noticed it being used in a userbox and replaced it with a free alternative. The box's creater then drew their own version of the logo: Image:WildWar.JPG (notice capitalization) and uploaded it as GFDL-self to use that in the userbox. My question is: Does this qualify as GFDL-self, or as a derivative work, does the original copyright still apply? —Dgies^t c 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter - the original is a logo, which is copyrighted and fair use. Derivative works of copyrighted works aren't allowed, unless perhaps it's a parody...but this obviously isn't. So posting the work is a copyright violation. At least - that's my interpretation. See Wikipedia:Logos:

"Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign." Verloren Hoop 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not okay. The intent was to create a "copy" to avoid the copyright. Also, the "created" version is too near perfect to the original, that is, I think they took the original image and just changed colors and did things to it to make it "look" created. The second image should be deleted and the user warned. --MECU≈talk 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that 'no, not okay' directed towards me...? Because what you said is the same thing as what I meant...Verloren Hoop 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Naus

I was checking images in RuWiki and found several which were linked here. Some examples Image:Residentialshanghai.jpg, Image:Shanghaipudongrear.jpg, Image:Shanghai ashish100 pudong.jpg. The license was {{cc-by-sa}} but when i checked the source http://www.flickr.com, I found out that it wasn't so and the true license was either {{cc-by-nd}} or {{cc-by-nc}}. I suggest checking user contribution.--Vayaka 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The images could have been uploaded when the license on flickr was appropriate for Wikipedia. It's really easy to change the license on flickr, and could have been changed afterwards. This is why it's much better to upload flickr images to commons: They are setup and have a bot/system to check the license of these images. If the bot/reviewer verifies the license, it doesn't matter if they change the license to a non compatible one, as we used it under the compatible one and they can't "undo" that ever. It's happened to me. --MECU≈talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns regarding images from BrainMaps.org

I originally came across a BrainMaps.org image at b:Image:NeuronGolgi.png, then followed it to Image:NeuronGolgi.png. I discovered at the terms of use that the images from that site were explicitly not licensed for commercial use. I listed the two I found at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because they were licensed incorrectly. I then thought to use Special:Linksearch and found that another was being listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 25 in both the "images" and "articles" section.

In my discussion with the user at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, I expressed my concern that the images were not licensed for commercial use. They then responded that the terms of use was updated to release the images into the public domain. I expressed concern about public domain on their talk page [3], and they replied that "the screenshots are now CC-ed." [4] The link on the terms of use [5], however, is only to http://creativecommons.org/, not a specific license page. I am unsure what to do, and am concerned I am providing misinformation to the user.

I know that a specific license needs to be selected. I apparently have a choice here whether the image could be released into the public domain, GFDL, CC, or any other license. I don't, however, know what the legal requirements on part of BrainMaps.org are for whichever image they ultimately choose, and I seem to be the one deciding what legal action they should take in licensing the images, which I am not qualified to give. Furthermore, I am afraid that I am providing misinformation to the user, and I don't want to exhaust their sympathy and patience. Could someone more knowledgeable than I please help out, preferrably directly with the user at the user's talk page? I would sincerely appreciate that. --Iamunknown 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind here it is the responsibility of the image uploader to select the license, and to provide documentation that its use on Wikipedia is perfectly legal. If they don't want to provide that sort of documentation, it is necessary for administrators on Wikipedia to simply delete the image even if it results in a loss of context and information in an article.

That you are going above and beyond the call of duty here and trying to work with the uploader to try and put a proper license attribution on these images is admirable, and certainly some patience with these individuals is warrented, particularly if they are completely unfamiliar with FLOSS licenses and the positive or negative aspects of each of the various license approaches that you can use. For example, I prefer to upload only under either public domain or GFDL-only restrictions (depending on the source I use), but it appears as though I am in a minority opinion on this subject.

You also have to at some point "cut your losses" and simply suggest that these images can't be on Wikipedia if they insist on certain licensing requirements. Don't be rude, but be firm and try to educate people like this about what the goals of the GFDL really are about. This is about the freedom to copy and add to content. Even if the WMF goes bankrupt and what we currently think of as Wikipedia is a virtual and digital black hole of a website that no longer exists, all of this content will continue to be available for future projects to draw upon and still be useful. We don't need "permission" from Jimbo Wales or anybody else to copy this content, as the GFDL allows us the freedom to move on if necessary. We hope that images that are uploaded to Wikipedia can enjoy this same sort of tradition and lack of restrictions, even though we also encourage uploaders to retain copyright on anything that is uploaded, if they want to keep the copyright. --Robert Horning 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SultanAliShire.JPG

Could someone please check this image out and let me know if it's a copyright violation. It was uploaded by User:Sanaagian who I have already blocked and been in conflict over his uploading of fake pictures for POV work. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as copyvio. Either it is or the source is different. Conscious 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible GFDL-violation

The electronic book http://www.biomedicalphysics.org/images/CompenMedPhyswebAUG_PDF.pdf acknowledges the use of "many text fragments, figures and tables of the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia" (page 2), but is not published under the GFDL (copyright notice on the first page). I believe this does not comply with the GFDL. Can someone please take care of this? --Andreas