Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

See also: m:copyright, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop, and m:non-free content

List of explosions news sources

Hello. On the page List_of_explosions I noticed a bad habit of copying in the last column the first or first few sentences of the online article given as a reference. This is mostly short text with the reference given afterwards, but not quoted or really needed. Some exemples like "An explosion killed x and injured y persons in z place" may not even be worth considering, but there were/are worse cases. I tried to fix some of this issues, but didn't check the references of some suspicious cases because of regional restrictions or broken links and I'm not really sure this is a copyright violation, so I'm asking if it's worth some further action. The article isn't exactly in a good shape, so the same entries may have problems of notability, reliability and, unsurprisingly, news-style writing. Personuser (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that even from a copyright point of view for the sipliest phrases using the same wording across the list would be better than just changing the wording case by case, even if this means accidentaly using the same wording as the reference or some other texts, but would prefer to get some confirmation. Personuser (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Adjust default Twinkle block expiry for copyvios to be indefinite

@Moneytrees and Diannaa: Please see https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/1272 . My intention is to give the rest of the admin corps a nudge towards handing out only indefinite blocks for copyvios. Twinkle developers are much more responsive than the Foundation, so the turnaround should be fairly quick. MER-C 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely! It's hard to imagine a situation where'd you'd want to hand a limited-duration block for repeated copyvios – in every case I can think of, before allowing someone to edit further you'd want to see clear understanding of (a) what the problem was and (b) how to avoid it in future. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This was actually something on my to do list, I think I mentioned it in my AN post last month. Would be very welcome. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been fixed by Amorymeltzer. Thanks! MER-C 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do about a book that copies Wikipedia without attribution?

• Syed Ramsey (2016). Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times. Vij Books India.

I was looking for sources and noticed the book above (at Google Books) appears to have copied from Pike (weapon). Probably other articles as well, I haven't had a chance to check. I'm not sure what to do next. - Bri.public (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Republishers for this phenomenom and WP:MIRROR#Non-compliance process for what can be done about it. Note that any demands have to be made by the actial Wikipedia editors who wrote the content being copied. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service public domain?

Hey there. Just want to double check that I can copy/paste the content from page 2 of this report from the government agency Congressional Research Service into a Wikipedia article and not have copyright problems. It's public domain, right? And I would just need to tag the footer of the article with Template:PD-notice? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything produced by the Congressional Research Service should be in the public domain, yes. But see Congressional Research Service#Copyright status - just check to make sure materials do not state internally that there are copyright issues. BD2412 T 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Jaap.07

Hi. User:Wiki.Jaap.07 creates most of his articles by translating an article from the Croatian Wikipedia. While they often attribute this, they too often also forget this. I raised the issue at their user talk page in User talk:Wiki.Jaap.07#Attribution required, but their reply indicates that they believe these articles(e.g. Ernest Jelušić or Antun Kalac) to be attributed correctly, and they don't want me to discuss this with them any further (as they had problems with my listing of their article Petar Stanković as a copyright violation). Cab someone else explain them what the problems are? Perhaps he'll accept it more easily from someone else. Alternatively, if these are attributed correctly already, please enlighten me how I can see this, as no attribution is visible (page, edit summaries, talk page). Fram (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Fram, my problem with you isn't due to you listing me for copyright violation, which I immediately recognized and accepted. My problem with you is due to you being not polite and making personal attacks towards me and other editors; also showing lack of good faith. You seem also to lack patience, because if you'd waited, you would've seen that I edited my answer to your request for attributions (see time when I edited and time when you opened this section). I didn't know about the attribution thing, I hardly ever created articles by translating before. Thanks for telling me and, again, you are welcome to help. Also, consider this: from the first moment, you started treating me as if you thought I had a grudge on you for your marking Stankovic as copyright violation. Go back and read the history. I never opposed it; I actually proposed to rewrite the article. But you chose to be impolite, and that's not nice.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: By the way, which are the possible places to place the attribution? In what format? thanks.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

_EDIT 2: Hey Fram. Upon reading everything over, I realize even more clearly that I wholly misunderstood everything, which admittedly was caused by me jumping to conclusions as soon as I read your name, without even carefully reading what you were trying to tell me; remembering the recent conversation we had. I apologize for this, and I'm really sorry about that... It shouldn't happen, but if in the future I don't attribute again, it will be simply because I forget. In that case, I invite you to correct my mistake and/or notify me of my mistake.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to keep my post to your talk page neutral and acknowledged that most of your attributions were correct, but I misjudged how badly you felt about our previous interaction. I'm glad that it is sorted out now. Fram (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep! And btw, thanks for correcting me! If nobody told us when we are doing things wrong, this place would be a mess!--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

24 February 2021

As no page has been created for today yet, could someone please add this report for me?

{{subst:article-cv|UNI Global Union}} from https://www.uniglobalunion.org/about-us-0. 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Direct plagiarism without attribution

To whom it may concern,

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that almost the entire History section of Wikipedia’s Grey Alien article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_alien)

has been directly plagiarised from

Iman Ital (undated) THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF THE RIVER CITY. Lulu.com. ISBN: 1329755219, 9781329755215. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books/about/THE_BOOK_OF_CHILAM_BALAM_OF_THE_RIVER_CI.html?id=VPpCCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, 05 Mar 2021.

Beginning from page 56 on...

Your timely consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

116.240.144.209 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure that the book predates the article? There isn't any date on the Google preview that I can see.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly reverse plagiarism. For example, take the extract "The Greys also appear as the (benevolent) aliens" and search for it in the Google book preview. The quote is found in this context: "The Greys therefore sometimes became known as Zeta Reticulans. The Greys also appear as the (benevolent) aliens in the 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

This is a clear tell - The first sentence is present in the article for instance in 2012(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grey_alien&oldid=517249167 ), while the sentence about the movie is absent. However, the reference to Close Encounters of the 3rd kind appears in a 2013 diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grey_alien&oldid=556270067 ), and then disappears from the article again later. The exact wording is present in both book and article, but in the article it was clearly an ongoing editorial process that added, then later removed, that sentence.

This is quite likely a reverse copy, and given by the rest of the book extracts I'm able to see, this should not come as a surprise. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

→→ Thank you for your reply MLauba. Yes, I see your point. In fact, now looking on the Lulu site I see the book was published in 2015. I do need to check my sources more closely. Sorry. However, that means Wikipedia itself is the original source for the relevant section. But doesn't that strike you as kind of odd in itself? It kinda begs the question of who wrote the section? For all we know it could be some kid in his basement having a laugh at all of us. I mean, how common is it for Wikipedia to just make stuff up, like it has in this instance? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)