Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maximus Rex (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 30 July 2004 (→‎Older than one week: Howard Wales deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

If you list a page or image here, 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.

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

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

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.

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied material here>}}

~~~~

Where you replace "<place URL of allegedly copied material here>" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.


Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav

Image:Amcoa.jpg Image:LondonEye1.jpg Image:BARBER01.jpg Image:Nokia-mobilephoneearpiece010.jpg Image:Belcourt.jpg Image:W D Hamilton.jpg Image:Ascaphus truei.jpg


Image:Peppered moth Biston betularia betularia f typica.jpg

This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Image:JohnBalance.png Image:JohnBallance.png Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png Image:NormanKirk.png Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png

I was the one who uploaded the images of New Zealand prime ministers: Image:JohnBalance.png, Image:JohnBallance.png, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png, Image:NormanKirk.png, Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png, Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png, and one or two others. I did so with the explicit permission of the National Library of New Zealand, which holds the rights to those images. At the time, I believed that Wikipedia text and Wikipedia images were treated separately under our implementation of the GDFL. I based this on Wikipedia:Copyrights, which merely says (at the top) that the text of Wikipedia is under the GDLF. Looking at things more closely, however, I see that I was mistaken in my interpretations - the same page also says "We do not allow special permission content to be included in Wikipedia since such content cannot be used by downstream users of Wikipedia content unless they also obtain permission." As these images most definitely cannot be used by third parties without permission (or even on other Wikipedia pages without permission), they should be removed as quickly as possible - the National Library was very explicit on that point. The permission for using these images is null and void unless we can adhere to their terms, and it appears that we don't. It's unfortunate, since I think the images do improve the articles, but I suppose that's just how these things work. I apologise for my mistake. -- Vardion 00:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes - no big deal. :) I see they also claimed copyright to some public domain images. I fixed that since it is a bogus claim. We still might be able to use the images under the fair dealing/fair use doctrine. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --mav
When was each picture taken? Who took them and held the rights to them? At least one or two appear likely to be in the public domain, given the dates of death of the subjects. Jamesday 12:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Contested or Complicated

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

  • King Me'emen's Story from http://www.dnidesk.com/meemen_story_01.html -- Jim Regan 04:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • King Kedri's Story, from same source as above? RickK 05:13, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, see from User:Lovanion, which are mass importations of copyrighted pages from [3] or [4]. RickK 05:24, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • I exchanged emails with the webmaster of [5], and am told that all that material is actually copyrighted by Cyan Worlds Inc. (producers of Myst) and used by [6] and [7] with their permission. He gave me the name of the guy at Cyan who deals with this permission - since Lovanion claimed on his talk page to have permission to use this stuff, I have emailed the guy at Cyan to double-check that he is aware that this is for republishing under the GFDL, not just for putting up on a fansite. —Stormie 11:13, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vertreibung_2.jpg
    • This is unverified (I doubt the web page using it is the original copyright holder) but is highly political which I guess is why it ended up here. Unless someone can find out who it actually belongs to I don't see why it should be deleted above the other thousand unverified images. Secretlondon 23:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swrdrose.JPG is a copy of the video box card for the Walt Disney film Sword and the Rose - No mention is made of copyright imagine it belongs to Disney Lumos3 15:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Someone will no doubt make a claim for fair use. Secretlondon 23:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Image:Bill clinton 150o.JPG, Image:Fordandclinton.jpeg
  • Image: Clintonmini.gif, Image:Bushmini.gif, Image:Reaganmini.gif, Image:Madisonmini.gif, Image:Jeffersonmini.gif, Image:Gwbushmini.gif, Image:Adamsmini.gif, Image:Washingtonmini.gif, - uploader has provided source of photos. --Jiang 02:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All the minis are copyright CSPAN and are painted portraits. Secretlondon 23:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • With FordandClinton the link doesn't work, and we don't know where askmen got its photo from. They could be official US government and hence public domain? Secretlondon 23:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Apparently none of these images are used by articles at the moment. We wouldn't miss them if they were deleted. --rbrwrˆ 20:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:JC2004.jpeg is a glamour shot of Jennifer Connelly from http://www.maximonline.com. The Maxim copyright notice is on the image, no note about permission, and even if there was I doubt it would extend to sublicensees. - Eisnel 05:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • We have thousands of similar cases - and they are generally excused as being fair use. Someone who knows US copyright law better than me should look at it. Secretlondon 23:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • That is most definitely a copyvio. Fair use doesn't apply since it's a creative photo. It even says "All rights reserved" on the photo. You can't get more explicit than that. ☞spencer195 05:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Data recovery: parts are from [10]. Other parts may be original text. Samw 12:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The whole text is from Infocog - but I wonder if this is a non compliant mirror. Some text also seems to be from [11]. Secretlondon 00:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • USAir Flight 427 from [12] Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But this is a reprint of a document submitted to the US NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD - does that make it PD? Secretlondon 00:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Birkeneskommunevapen.gif - claimed fair use but no source was given Guanaco 02:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a coat of arms - I don't know what our policy is on these. Secretlondon 01:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Felix Draeseke and image from [13]. - Lucky 6.9 19:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • An author has claimed that we have permission - and removed the copyvio notice. I have reinstated and asked for details of the permission. If this is not forthcoming then delete. Secretlondon 02:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Consumer Health Informatics from [14] -- Hadal 10:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    The copyright holder apparently has given permission on the talk pages. Guanaco 04:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Image:Idli.JPG - User:Vbganesh claims exclusive copyright and requires that his/her permission must be granted before the image can be reproduced. If this requirement stands, this picture doesn't meet GFDL requirements, and must be deleted. RickK 06:29, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, the user has changed the wording and released it under GFDL. RickK 06:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sidney Lanier -- an author seems to be asking on the page itself for right to attribution and right to all subsequent edits in a notice on the page; this quite possibly conflicts with wikipedia guidelines. Martijn faassen 16:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I have removed his copyright notice. By submitting the content, he is automatically licensing it under the GFDL and may not attach any extra terms. If he has a problem with this, he will have to send a takedown notice. Guanaco 02:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Flecainide -- Seems that this was copy-and-pasted from a number of different web pages. See the talk page for more information. Matt 15:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Older than one week

The scan is used in both the Heller and the scale model articles. That's within context. 213.51.209.230 16:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 20

The above was originally posted here on June 23, 2004, but was removed on July 14, 2004 at 12:35 (please feel free to check the history of this page). The history at Gucci, with the old copyvio., is still intact. Can someone delete the problematic old page, please ? There is an article at Gucci/Temp waiting. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 06:28, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

July 21

July 22

July 23

July 24

July 25

July 26

July 27

July 28

The text is for a long published on the open web page without any copyright clause. I think it belongs to public domain already. Cautious 14:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 29

and [213] Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 30

Image:Ansaldo.jpg From [221]. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 00:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Image:Kerry.4CF2.jpg Alexandra Kerry Cannes photo is not public domain
    • No it's not, but you (anonymous user 67.180.24.204) have not demonstrated that it cannot be used under fair use. (The image in question is a somewhat less-than-dignified flash photograph of Alexandra Kerry in which her breasts can be seen through her clothing.) The two photos on the Alexandra Kerry article came from the same source, but you only unlinked the more "controversial" of the two. I openly question your motives for flagging that image as a copyvio, and I have reverted your change on the page. Awaiting your response. --Ardonik 05:21, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Photo is taken by commercial photographer Pascal Guyot and distributed by the Agence France Presse (AFP) news service. Since the photo is commercial and not in the public domain, the burden of proof is on us to show that it can be used for free under fair use. Not the other way around. But, why should the Wiki be able to use this photo for free when no commercial publication can?
        • Okay, I read your message on the article's talk page. I am still under the impression that you have singled the image out because of its controversial nature, but I accept that you are more concerned about potential copyright violation than you are about the image's content. We are still left with the question of whether or not the image can be used under fair use--if we can't use it, then why can Snopes? I think we are within our rights to use both images, but I have no expertise in copyright law, so I cannot say for certain. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this, so I'm not going to undo your revert. --Ardonik 05:49, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • After further discussion with User:67.180.24.204, it's become pretty clear that only the "controversial" photo is definitively from AFP, and that the origins of the remaining photograph are unknown. I was wrong to assume that they were from the same source, and it was unfair of me to criticize 67.180.24.204's edit because of that. But my other point still stands: I still feel that we're probably within our rights to use this image for non-commercial purposes just as Snopes is. (I'm surprised to find myself defending an image that I wasn't very fond of in the first place!) --Ardonik 06:59, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hurlstone Agricultural High from [222]. Angela. 04:07, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Stara Zagora from [223]. Note that the same text also appears on a Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce site, but the site I've referenced here has the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. SWAdair | Talk 06:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Fiat ansaldo from [224] [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 10:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=4920550"