Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Texture (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 10 March 2004 (Columbia articles - deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Communitypage Add links to pages that you suspect of being copyright infringements here. If you list a page here, 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.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia: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?

Alternatives

In addition to nominating potential copyvios 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

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.

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following text. Replace PAGE NAME with the name of the page that you're editing, and replace ADDRESS with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text.

Removed possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]]. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source:
* ADDRESS

Please do not edit this page until the copyright issue is resolved, even if you are rewriting it (follow the instructions below).

This page is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please so indicate on [[Talk:PAGE NAME|the talk page]]. If there was no permission to use this text then please rewrite the page in original prose at:
* [[PAGE NAME/temp]]

or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]] page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original. This is done so that the copyright violation can be deleted from the history and you can be credited for your creation of the compliant rewrite.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission of the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Thanks, ~~~~

An alternative version can be placed with the below message:

{{msg:copyvio1}}

(place URL violated from here)

{{msg:copyvio2}} ~~~~

Notice for images

This image is a possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]] and should therefore not be used by any article. <explain reason for suspicion here>

This image is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click ''Edit this page'' in the sidebar) - see our [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]] for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[Wikipedia:Copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the [[fair use]] doctrine, then please add a detailed ''fair use rationale'' as described on [[Wikipedia:Image description page]] to justify this belief.

Thanks, ~~~~

February 27

March 2

  • Wikipedia:Columbia Encyclopedia article titles and all its subpages. Selection of articles is a non-trivial part of Columbia's creative task of writing an encyclopedia, and therby copyright protected. -- JeLuF 22:29, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the list is copyright, certainly the selection of articles in CE is copyright, but I don't know it would extend to a list of articles. After all we don't plan to use it as a framework for our own encyclopedpia. --Imran 23:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Using it to enhance Wikipedia is in fact the planned use ... - David Gerard 00:03, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • This list was brought up on the WikiEN mailing list. It's a list of ideas on articles that could be written for wikipedia, or may already have been, see the mailing list. [1] --Flockmeal 23:52, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to me that copying it is clearly a copyright violation. Using it, on the other hand, is much less clear. Anthony DiPierro 00:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It is in the Wikipedia: name space, i.e. where we get the work done - David Gerard 00:20, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Are you making a fair use argument? I don't see how it's relevant what namespace it's in. Anthony DiPierro 00:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I would not opine on that particular detail, not being a US copyright lawyer - David Gerard 00:35, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it were a list of ALL Columbia Encyclopedia titles, it certainly could be considered a copyvio. However, it is a list of their titles not found in Wikipedia. Thus, it's a factual comparison between competing products, which is entirely fair use. -- Jake 00:17, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
      • There are four factors of fair use, and effect on the potential market of the original work is by far the most heavily weighted one. On this factor we fail miserably, as Wikipedia has a great effect on the potential market for Columbia's Encyclopedia. Anthony DiPierro 00:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a derivative work. One reason most of our uses are fair use is that they are transformative, for a different purpose. Use of encyclopedia items isn't a good transformative use argument because both we and they are encyclopedias. Jamesday 00:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no point to this effort - the only possible point would be a copyright violation - it needs to be removed - Texture 00:24, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete it and the redirects created in association with it. The selection of articles (choice of which articles to include) in an encyclopedia is copyrightable and copyrighted. Derivative works based on that selection infringe that copyright. This and it's redirect pages are such a derivative work and result in the Wikipedia being a derivative of the Columbia work. Worse, they are from a company were are or will be doing financial harm to and which is or will be looking for any reasons it can find to take us to court, as part of moves to eliminate us as a competitor. Jamesday 00:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for everyone's information, Feist v. Rural is the relavant surpeme court case. Decide for yourself. →Raul654 00:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • The applicable portion is in the implications section: "cannot contain any of the 'expressive' content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also his choice of which facts to cover". Rural lost because it hadn't done any selection but had just included every subscriber, making the directory just a list of facts. Encyclopedias do select which articles to include. Jamesday 04:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am entirely swayed by the argument at [2]. Evercat 01:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Feist v. Rural is not relevant, it applies to the copying of purely factual information. As a group or even a subset, encyclopedia article titles involve editorial selection and judgment, and they are copyrightable. A fair use defense is unlikely to be successful, in my opinion. --Michael Snow 03:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • In case this is a vote (and it shouldn't be), delete. Anthony DiPierro 03:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Why risk it? We don't have a deadline, let the wiki take its course on its own. Dori | Talk 03:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete it. Optim 04:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete it. Catherine 02:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Fine. I still believe I'm correct, but there seems to be a lot of people who don't want to take any risks. I won't argue further, except to say that it should not be deleted before the normal copyvio term (and don't count this as a vote in favor of deletion, just that I won't stand in your way.). I'm going to keep adding redirects for things I see a need to (it showed me some points we could stand to reinforce), but will no longer use it as a guide. -- Jake 05:32, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
    • Note that Magnus Manske has scraped his orginal encyclopedia topic list (compiled from many sources). It would be great if we could have a little co-ordinated project to split out the unwritten ones from this list (which is more complete than the Colombia one anyway) and put these up over a set of pages instead... and get this Columbia specific list deleted. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, let's hold off for a few days. I have sent an e-mail to Columbia University Press to figure out whether this is a copyvio or not. And I edited the spacing above so it wasn't as confusing... ugen64 22:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I thought I had commented on this, but it seems my comment isn't in the history. Jimbo Wales said on the mailing list that he has no problem with keeping this AND using it. RickK 04:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Jimbo also said he would defer to normal community procedure on deleting it. [3]. This list advertises the fact that it's a copyright violation by telling you where it's from, and providing a link. Magnus' list is better, and anybody who owns the copyright will have a difficult time tracing it there, because it comes from multiple unidentified sources. I agree with Pete - Use the list Magnus made, and delete the Columbia one. --Michael Snow 23:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted - Texture 20:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 3

  • Jerzy Neyman - this is taken (with acknowldegment to the authors) from [6] and I have posted here because I suspect there is a copyright problem but would appreciate expert opinion.Cutler 20:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I got a reply from Edmund Robertson (one of the MacTutor authors) about a different article. See my comment about "Royal Society" under Feb 29 above. Yes, it is definitely a copyvio. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • SPECTRA from [7] - article says where it was taken from but the site shows a private british company as the copyright owner. (Green Dot Internet Services Pte Ltd) I don't see how we have permission to reprint the article. - Texture 21:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Nearly all articles listed at Polish mythology from [8] Ausir 22:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • We have specific permission from the original author to use that material; she contributed it herself. silsor 23:59, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:EuropeSatelliteImageSmall.jpg The copyright statement attached says in part: "No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme", which disagrees with GFDL, and no such grant is mentioned on the page. I suspect the same happens with other Satellite Images of Continents. Mikkalai 23:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a copyright infringement. Move to images for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 23:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 4

  • Image:Shashikapoor.jpg uploaded by user who was on Wikipedia for only one day. No information about source or copyrights. Jay 16:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like a publicity photo subject to fair use. Mkweise 17:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Horni Benesov from [15], complete with the ¹ for š encoding issue. I cannot find if this is fair use or not on the site it was taken from. Jor 20:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Aga Khan IV - from [18] - already been deleted once (about a month ago). Source says it can be used for non-commercial purposes. Doesn't seem to be GFDL compatible. Evercat 02:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 5

  • Kate Wilhelm from [[21]]. -- Djinn112 06:10, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please note that the web page from which information was taken directly is the author's web site and is not copyrighted.
      • Oh, okay. Do you have some way of proving that to us? -- Djinn112 06:30, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hi, this is my first time inputting to wikipedia; not exactly sure what I am doing. Anyway, the reference to the author's web site is what is given in note 69. I just copied her web site and pasted it here, with some abbreviation and formatting. I had been reading her biography there (very short) and looked here for more. When I saw there was nothing at all, I thought it would be worth putting in at least what she has there. She's a pretty famous writer.
        • Oh, I see; I thought you were saying that you owned the website and wrote it originally. Like Markalexander said, there's no copyright info on that page. You need to get her permission for the article to stay, but I can't see any email address on that site; maybe you could try asking in the guestbook. -- Djinn112 12:53, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • There's nothing on that page (that I can see) to say it's not copyrighted. In this case, it might be worth asking permission, though. She might want the publicity. Markalexander100 09:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Copyrights are automatic by law - there is no need to use a © or (C) to state ownership to be a copyright owner. "The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works." - [22] A good rule of thumb is always assume something is copyrighted unless otherwise noted. Davodd 13:44, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)


  • Gur Carletob -- has been noted for quite some time. Perhaps it is deliberate sabotage, given that it is mistitled. -Zhen Lin 13:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 6

  • IFATCA from [50]. Angela. 21:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Page was re-written, but is still based on info from website. How different does it need to be?--vodka 19:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • King Zhuangxiang of Qin seems like a translation of a copyvio. Haven't blanked it since I don't know from where. moink 01:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 7

March 8

  • High-speed minesweeper from [58]. Denelson83 08:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • All material from DANFS is published by the United States government and therefore is in the public domain. --the Epopt 20:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) I have removed the copyvio allegation and restored the page.
  • Image:Neve Campbell.jpg. The uploader says "appears on a number of websites", appearing to make a public domain argument ... clearly not true... but may hold up under the "everything is fair use" argument. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Thousand Islands Bridge from [60] - first two sentences of intro look clean, but the rest is lifted. Same user who created Assembly of First Nations. -- Hadal 09:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Omid 16b from [61] - of questionable value even if it were to be rewritten -- Hadal 10:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Fred Maslaki from [62] - from same user responsible for Omid16b. Also of questionable intrinsic value. -- Hadal 10:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • DJ Behrouz from [63] - from the same user responsible for the two above infringements (well, the user is a famous Iranian journalist, but it seems that he doesn't know about the copyright problems). Roozbeh 13:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Vulcani oak. Fuzheado added the copyvio notice on 16 February, but it seems to have never been listed here. Angela. 17:37, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find a website that any of the text is from, but it certainly looks like a copyvio from somewhere. -- Graham  :) 23:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 9

  • Manierism from [66]. Website states: All images and text on this site copyright 1999-2002 by Artcyclopedia Inc., unless otherwise noted--Vikingstad 00:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Could someone advise me whether uploading over the violating images with "fair use" images (scanned from original covers) is sufficient to remedy these? Thanks. —LarryGilbert 02:22, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
RedIckulous source is here (Slick Idiot Official Webpage). Crackshoe 03:28, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Low-resolution album covers should be fair use. Since they are being used under fair use, it doesn't matter where we get the covers from; scanning an image doesn't grant a person ownership.
--cprompt 00:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with the usage of these images. I believe it is "fair use" for a non-profit educational website to display these images. At any time, if Amazon itself objects, it is free to contact Wikimedia and address the issue. I doubt Amazon will object; if they do object, at that time we can remove them without legal penalty. The Amazon.com copyright statement states, "This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Amazon.com." -- We are not a commercial purpose. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have no problem with cover art being uploaded under a "fair use" defense. In fact, I probably wouldn't have objected at all if Crackshoe had scanned these in himself from his own CDs. There were two big red flags for me: (1) Amazon.com was not acknowledged as the source in the image descriptions (at least not until I put up the copyright-violation notices); and (2) the copyrights of the original works were never included in the image descriptions. My understanding is that both of those are big no-nos on Wikipedia (and, if nothing else, they're general ethical no-nos). —LarryGilbert 06:04, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
WHen uploaded the pictures, i had, in fact, neglected to put fair use notices on the images. the next day, howver (i think it was the next day, at least. it was as soon as i realizzed the mistake, anyway) i put fair use tags on them - which you followed up later that day with copyright violation tags. That was an error on my part. so do i put the fair use tags back up, aknowledgeing that the material is copyrighted but used under fair use? do i credit amazon.com, which i'm fairly certain doesn't hold the copyright, or whoever does for that particular image? Crackshoe 13:31, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the Amazon.com images, I have a proposal. I've created Wikipedia:Images from Amazon.com and thought that we could use that page to work out some quasi-formal practices for handling Amazon.com images. (I've also made a couple of new notes there.) So, I propose we downgrade the Amazon.com images from possible copyright infringements (at least unless new information comes to light), link them to the aforementioned link somehow (details to be determined), and move the discussion over to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Images from Amazon.com). Does that sound good? (Note, I think we still need to work on what to do about the SlickIdiot.com image separately.) —LarryGilbert 20:27, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Panay incident from[80]. Specific objections are detailed on Talk:Panay incident. Changes to the article were immediately reverted back to the copied version without, to my mind, adequate certification of our right to use. Rather than get in an edit war, I appeal for additional evaluation. Rossami 04:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I sent a request for clarification off to NARA, they stated that the article is public domain. Actual text of the reply can be found on Talk:Panay incident. -- Cyrius 20:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Devasish ray from [84] - last name should be capitalized, if it were to be rewritten. -- Hadal 13:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Mai Po Marsh from [85] (paragraphs 2-5) RadicalBender 17:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved from Feb 24th because it never appears to have had the copyvio tag (thus original contributors cannot check on copyright). Relisting here to allow that time. - Texture 18:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Hair follicle image (Image:Follicle.png from [86] (?) Steven G. Johnson 07:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The image is in violation of the following copyright: "Copyright © 2002 follicle.com All rights reserved." - Moved from March 1 since copyvio notice was never added. - Texture 18:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

March 10

  • Biafra (Image:Biafra2.gif appears to be the one at [88]] whose conditions prohibit us, even before GFDL issues.) Removed from article as Copyvio & discussed on article's talk. No notice put on image page, but i'll look that up too. --Jerzy(t) 00:48, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • USS Towers from [89]. However most of the text originally comes from a .mil-site, which might be PD. andy 09:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Seems to be the text from http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/ddg9.htm which is a transcription of the DANFS, Dictionary of American Navy Fighting Ships. DANFS is a US Navy publication and is public domain, therefore perfectly fine to post on Wikipedia. —Morven 09:52, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • After looking at it further, you're right -- it's the DANFS content BUT with some additions from that other site. We should have no problem deleting this version and putting up the original DANFS content. —Morven 10:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I took five minutes and did the conversion. Does this have to sit up here for the full week still? Stan 14:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Gandhi-wikipedia.jpg - The Catalan-language wikipedia has already gotten rid of this image as a copyright violation. It is © Vithalbhai Jhaveri/GandhiServe, www.gandhiserve.org. (I don't know the right way to do this for an image, so if someone can follow up this time & inform me on my talk page so I will know next time, that would sure be appreciated. Is this explained somewhere? Also, how do we inform the other langauge wikipedias, this was done almost everywhere.) -- Jmabel 18:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Americana city Brazil -- taken from various subpages of [91]; several images copied from there, too. Note left on User's talk page. –Hajor 18:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=2710783"