Wikipedia:Copyright problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
FOULMOUTH!
Line 752: Line 752:
:Pls, be advised that this "user" is a sock of a well-known banned [[User:Rovoam|vandal Rovoam]], who himself pasted this material from his web-site and now spuriously claims "copyright violations". Pls, see, '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#.22Copyright_Warning.22_-_Farce_by_Rovoam this message]''' for details.--[[User:Tabib|Tabib]] 09:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Pls, be advised that this "user" is a sock of a well-known banned [[User:Rovoam|vandal Rovoam]], who himself pasted this material from his web-site and now spuriously claims "copyright violations". Pls, see, '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#.22Copyright_Warning.22_-_Farce_by_Rovoam this message]''' for details.--[[User:Tabib|Tabib]] 09:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I just requested this article to be removed from Wikipedia, as it's being used without my permision. I assume, this article was submitted here by [[User:Tabib]], though I do not have enough proof for that assumption. It's strange though why Tabib behaves so bad: if this is not him who posted the article, why he is concerned so much?[[User:WikiAdm|WikiAdm]] 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I just requested this article to be removed from Wikipedia, as it's being used without my permision. I assume, this article was submitted here by [[User:Tabib]], though I do not have enough proof for that assumption. It's strange though why Tabib behaves so bad: if this is not him who posted the article, why he is concerned so much?[[User:WikiAdm|WikiAdm]] 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
⚫
::The guy sucks, steals intellectual property, only to foulmouth the author of the very same.--[[User:LastExitToBrooklin|LastExitToBrooklin]] 21:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*[[Reversed-Field eXperiment]] from [http://www.igi.pd.cnr.it/wwwexp/] [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 01:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
*[[Reversed-Field eXperiment]] from [http://www.igi.pd.cnr.it/wwwexp/] [[User:Denni|Denni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 01:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)


⚫
The guy sucks, steals intellectual property, only to foulmouth the author of the very same.--[[User:LastExitToBrooklin|LastExitToBrooklin]] 21:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


====June 25====
====June 25====

Revision as of 21:57, 25 June 2005

Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
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.

For requesting copyright examination before including questionable content to a Wikipedia article use Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations instead.

Notice to copyright owners: 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.

On the other hand, if you see an article somewhere else which you believe was copied from the Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.


Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, 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. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

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 also: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, Wikipedia:Fair use

Copyright infringement notice

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. For example:

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.

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 today's section at the bottom of this page.

Finally, do not forget to add a note to the uploader's talk page to notify them that the image's copyright status is murky and it has been listed here.

In addition

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations 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

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if they indeed are not available under a free license or a reasonable fairuse rationalle. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
These images are available for use on the Wikipedia web site, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale [1]. Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
From the mailing list:
As of today, all *new* images which are *non commercial only* and *with permission only* should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to liminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
See also this followup: [2]

Listings of possible copyright problems

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than a week old, but have not yet dealt with for specific reasons.

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • Image:Columbia debris falling in the sky.jpg. Claimed as fair use on the grounds that we can't get a non-copyrighted image of the event. I have my doubts on this. --Carnildo 06:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any difference between this image and the historical Hindenberg image discussed below. I think the rationale expressed on the image page indicates fair use based upon historical significance. 23skidoo 04:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded and replaced the image with the Time cover, this is more clearly fair use. I will delete the other image in a few days if there are no objections.--nixie 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg. The copyright for this photo is being asserted by the New Zealand National Front, who claim to have purchased it from the photographer for the purposes of suppressing the image. Talk:New_Zealand_National_Front#"nazi salute" image. Some editors, including me, think that this qualifies under fair use. This version of the photograph has been edited down to a lower resolution, it is directly relevant to the article, and there is no way of recreating it. Any opinions? -Willmcw 03:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a reasonable fairuse rational. But when I run it through the Wikipedia:Fair use decision tree I get a delete result, because the image was never intended for wide distribution. The decision tree there is a recent addition, and something I've never seen before. It's also somewhat subjective. --Duk 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following was moved here from ifd:
    • Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the image posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2004 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) are the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transferred from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing. - Molloy
    • Molloy has provided no evidence that he is a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front (he's a teenager, so it's unlikely), and has offered no evidence that the New Zealand National Front is the copyright holder. This is an embarrassing photograph for them because it shows them making Nazi salutes, which is why Molloy, who is a member, would like to see it deleted. The photograph is widely available on the Web, a source has been provided on the image page, and we are claiming fair use under United States copyright law. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a legal notice from the New Zealand National Front [3] - Molloy
        • This image is being used under the U.S. "Fair Use" and New Zealand "Fair Dealings" exemptions. Further, this is the wrong page to deal with this matter because it is a copyright dispute. It should be handled on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. -Willmcw 04:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
SHould this be deleted, or is it fair user?--nixie 13:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to think that this is fair use under the "Unique historical or newsworthy images which we cannot reproduce by other means" category. Besides i would like to see something more than a web page aparently created by himself indicating that Molloy is in fact a legal rep of the NZNF. Also what is th source of their clim to hold the copyright on this image? from whom did they buy or acquire the copyright, and when? who took the original pictures? DES 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dispute: Its a mere system map, which I uploaded out of convenience. There is basically no creative effort in the map whatsoever, especially since its schematic, with no cartological precision. I could basically duplicate it on memory on a piece of paper or using gimp/mspaint/etc. and it would look just as good, except it would be tedious to duplicate all 50+ stations mentioned. Is a non creative work eligible for copyright? I hardly think its intellectual property. -- Natalinasmpf 20:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The LTA may well think otherwise! Transport for London charges quite handsomely for the rights to reproduce its system map... Physchim62 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information from Physchim62. I feel that fair use or fair dealing should apply here. The image is created for disseminating information. Fair use still protects the copyright holder, in case wikipedia go commercial in future, (hope not). Vsion 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. A schematic map does have creative effort put into it, more so than a more accurate map. As such, it is very definitely covered by copyright. --Carnildo 23:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a tourist map complete with illustrations, then yes. The LTA map is pretty simplistic, only tedious and repetitive - nothing creative. I could basically reproduce it manually myself, since its just the order of the stations, with my own colour scheme, except it would take say, 15-30 minutes to add every station. It becomes purely a mathematical thing, nothing creative. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carnildo that schematic maps have creative effort, but let's not forget that it only needs the slightest creative effort to trigger copyright. The system map in its present form could not just be created from a mathematical function of the positions of the stations. It's copyright, and if the LTA don't want to let us use it under GNU then there's nothing we can do. Physchim62 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until someone contacts the LTA and clarifies the matter, the image should not be used. If someone wants to reproduce it (tediously) by hand, they're certainly welcome to. Alex.tan 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suspected copyright infringements without online source

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Women's healthcare in 20th century China has that certain scent to it - it's the in-text citations and the slanted quotation marks around “China” that give it away for me... could be someone's paper for school. -- BDAbramson talk 04:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Italian exports and Islam in Italy all smell like copyvios but I can't tell where from. They were all put up by User:82.43.213.217, and share the same writing style. Dave6 05:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notices on these articles. -- Infrogmation 14:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that these are almost certainly copyright violations, although they might be school papers this guy wrote. I can't find the sources either. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listed by User:Denni on VfD: The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), Pleven (horse), and Russian Trotter were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. - Mike Rosoft 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Others

  • FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 - this compilation of opinion is the property of FHM-US. RickK 06:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is this different than any other similar list, many of which are also the basis for a Wikipedia article? MK2 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one. More opinions needed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • FHM had creative input into the list, both in ordering and selection. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service#Implications. —Korath (IANAL) 12:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • FHM actually had no input on the ordering or selection. Both are the result of a reader poll. FHM's editorial content would be the selection of the pictures and text which accompanied the poll results and neither is included in the Wikipedia article. MK2 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a fascinating dillemma. On the one hand, I can't see why this list couldn't be copyrighted. On the other hand, we list the Oscar winners and runner-ups, and the Nobel Prize winners and nominees, which are essentially the same thing. I can't imagine it would be a problem to say "She was listed as one of FHM's sexiest women of 2005" in each woman's article, so why would it be a problem to list them in one article? I'd tend to vote keep, but if a lawyer wants to chime in, we'd all be obliged. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Greatest Cartoons - from [5] - intellectual property of Channel 4. RickK 00:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I question that a straight list can be copyrighted Burgundavia 03:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • See above. —Korath (Talk) 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus here, I've raised this issue at the Village Pump. MK2 15:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath that the FHM list is copyright as the "creative input" of the author(s) is non-zero. The list would have sui generis protection in other jurisdictions even if it were not copyright in the US. Physchim62 18:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that a reader's poll (with just the result list, no pictures, writing, etc.) has "creative input" from the magazine. I don't understand how either of these lists are copyrightable, where is the creative work by FHM or Channel4? They are both just results of readers polls.--Duk 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine chose to use to poll however. Superm401 | Talk 01:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a list like this is not copyrightable. I ask you to consider the following analogy: Some organizers had a sort of a contest. The results were made known, along with a a lot of interesting detail concerning the contestants and the contest itself. Later, a second party posted the rankings of the contestants. Did the second party violate the first party's rights in any way?
ExampleOrganizersContestMethod2nd Party
1Major League BaseballBaseball team standingsPlayed a bunch of gamesNewspaper Sports page
2FHMSexiest women rankingsAsked a bunch of peopleWikipedia
Why is example 2 any different than example 1?
However, that the New York Times disagrees with me. They have pursued action against other publications that have re-published their best-seller list. For example, they went after www.amazon.com [6] for using the New York Times bestseller list as a basis for providing purchase incentives (books on the lsit were to be discounted). This was quickly settled [7] with Amazon agreeing to certain terms, including; listing the books alphabetically instead of in-order, and sharing sales information with the New York Times. Since this didn't make it to a legal ruling, it does not set a legal precedent. Maybe someone can find an example that did go to court? Johntex 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New listings

May 19

  • UTVA 75 from [8] --Rlandmann 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue has not been resolved yet - the original contributor says he obtained permission for the photo to be used (by Wikipedia only). Last I heard, he was going to approach UTVA to ask if the material could be released under the GFDL. This was on May 19. --Rlandmann 02:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been over a month now, with no further contact. Article should be deleted. --Rlandmann 03:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 20

  • The Imperial March includes a full length(3:03 min) version as an .ogg file. I strongly doubt that this is PD in any way. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this) Fornadan 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will contact uploader to ask them to upload a shorter version.--nixie 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 28

  • Mathmagic from [9]. Xcali 20:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Submitter claims in a note on the /Temp page to be the original author. Credible? --Delirium 04:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • did you ask for an email confirmation from the address that appears in the cited webpage? They almost always answer in under 24 hours if legitimate.--Duk 04:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 2

Note: this article has been previously deleted, there has been editwaring over inclusions of copyright violations.--Duk 17:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Difficut to tell what is going on here.--nixie 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 3

  • House Ordos from several places. It isn't a complete copy but sopme sections are direct copies from places like this or this and here. Content minus copyvio should be moved to temp and the article deleted to remove the vio from the history. This link is Broken 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Technetium.jpg in article Technetium. The source cited is online, but the picture looks to me like the one in the "Life Science Library" series book Matter. Either way, it is not clear to me that the fair use claim is justified. -- Dominus 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 9

  • Blur - the whole article (or a great deal of it) seems to be copied from Allmusic. john k 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Reccomended the copyvio be dealt with through editing since it occured in January and much work has been done to the article since.--nixie 02:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ningde Copy/paste and some translation from [11] --Oneliner 13:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As above--nixie 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 13

Waiting for follow up on talk page, ie, where to send email with proof of copyright ownership. Also submitted NPOV version on /temp page, but that page appears to be gone now. Indigoskye


June 15

  • 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica much of the content on this page is a drict copy of [14]. It looks like the first version of this page was a direct paste from the source, and subsequent edits have diverged from the online source. The online text has a copyright 2004 notice. However, at least some of the same text also appears at [15] so it is possible that the online sources are copying from wikipedia. I would welcome other opnions on this. DES 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 16

  • JX Williams seems like an obvious copyvio, though I haven't yet found a source. Still looking. Gamaliel 04:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 18

ℬastique]]

▼talk 00:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was modifying the page when it was copyvioled. I've posted the cleanup at the alternate page. Bambaiah 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

June 19

Ok, that was foolish of me. It is copy-pasted completely and entirely but was written forever ago.-Splash 16:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Finswe2 b.gif, without source. This is a typical example of Material that we CANNOT include as fair use. It's a map which we can easily produce ourselves. By including this as fair use we steal the work's full value, thus invalidating the whole idea of copyright. I think we should replace this with a free image as soon as possible, removing the image if we can't do that fast enough. — Sverdrup 12:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SINGAPORE RECESSION most probably from [95], although I'm not entirely sure. The website requires registration, but this link was placed at the top of the original article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • St. George's FC from [96]. - ulayiti 14:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is taken from my own original site: http://www.geocities.com/cospicua2000/

This image is taken from my own original site: http://www.geocities.com/cospicua2000/

Alright, I'll withdraw this since, actually, the whole page is probably not copyvio.-Splash 16:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • And furthermore, furthermore, furthermore this person is me, and has written a rebuttal on "this page's talk page" READ (Unsigned comment by 24.209.8.14 (talk · contribs)

--Rlandmann 23:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The web site http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/ does not hold the copyrights to the above text. That above text is a historical text written by the Greek Cypriot leaders and appeared at the Patris Newspaper on 21st April, 1966. So claiming that the above cited website has the copyrights of that document is preposterous. The cited website is simply displaying a historical document which entered into public domain when it is published on a public newspaper.
From the same link that is cited as copyright holder of the document, one can read the following.
"The rising tensions of the early 1960s spurred the formation of paramilitary groups on both sides, and as the constitutional crisis came to a head in 1962-63, both prepared for violence. The Greek Cypriots were better armed and more ideologically driven, and appeared to welcome the crisis---possibly including Makarios's Thirteen Points, which it sets out as a course of action---as a likely provocation to Turkish Cypriots. An expected reaction from the Turkish Cypriot community, either to Makarios's constitutional gambit or some other incident, would in turn set the Greek Cypriot cadres into action. The plan for that action, revealed by a Greek Cypriot newspaper after the fact, was the so-called Akritas Plan, which is reproduced below."
You can easily see from that statement that they do not hold the copyrights to a historical document but was simply reproducing it.-Turkcyp
  • Francs2000 may have gotten the original source wrong, but it's still copyvio. --Xcali 04:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be a public and newsworthy document, now of historic interest. The online source does not claim copyright for the document, and reproduces it with no copyright notice of its own. It is not clear who is supposed to be the copyright holder. I think this is clearly fair use, if it is not PD as a published historical document. DES 06:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This document has no copy-rights because it is in public domain and it was a secret plan that can not be granted copyright by any goverment. The old president of Republic of Cyprus, Glafkos Clerides, had also admitted in his memoirs about the existence of Akritas Plan and how it is formulated by the leaders of the Greek Cypriots in the 1960s. This plan was a secret plan, and it all become public when it was published by Patris Newspaper in 1966. When a secret document is published in a newspaper it enters into public domain.
The original drafters of the document was a secret committee. And the mastermind of the plan was Republic of Cyprus Interior Minister, Yiorgadjis. So if anybody holds the copyright to the document it is him. :) But as this was an illegal secret document that is brought to public domain later on by a newspaper, there can not be any copyright given to this document. Copyrights, are by definition given by the governments for a legal work. This was a secret plan and thus no copyright is established on it.-Turkcyp
You have misunderstood how copyright works. Any document, created by anyone, is generally protected by copyright (the rules were somewhat different in 1966, but not as you describe them). Secret documents, and documents describing illegal plans, can still have copyright protection. Not everything published in a newspaper is therefore in the public domain.
The historical nature of this document may well mean that even if covered by copyright, it is subject to Fair use, so that its inclusion in Wikipedia is permitted without permission from the copyright holder.
Also, in 1966, in the US, any document published without a copyright notice lost copyright protection and entered the public domain. The law was similar in many countries (that is not the law in the US nor in most places today). I don't know what the law was in Cypress or Turkey in the 1960s. The web source doesn't include a copyright notice for the document itself. If it was published without a notice, it *might* be legally PD. Howver soemone would need to check the actual original printed source, and to research the appropriate copyright law, to use this argument. (Come to think of it, if published without a notice in 1966, the document might have forever lost US copyright protection, whatever the law where it was publaihed. This matters because wikipedia is hosted in the US.) DES 19:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it does matter where it was published, the no-notice provision of US law only applies to works first published in the US or of entirely American authorship (source). DopefishJustin (･∀･) 17:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Even if the plan is in the public domain, Wikipedia is not the place for source documents and as such it should be moved to Wikisource.--nixie 05:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource sounds like a good idea. We can write info about the Akritas Plan in the Wikipedia, and transer the contents of the document to WikiSource. -Turkcyp

June 20

June 21

June 22

User comment: The above mentioned works are available in the Internet. The artist agrees to use them at wikipedia under the either fair use. Images have been used to illustrate some articles of wikipedia(for example the image of Flying Dutchman is currently set at the flying Dutchman) I should ad that following the harsh discussion t caucasophobia page group of editors User:Radiant!,User:Mikkalaiand other users are repeatedly going through all pages where material associated with artist Nick Gabrichidze is posted and deleting the content. It should be noted that none of this users have any record of editing those issues previously, or adding any other content to the articles except from constantly removing images created by Nick Gabrichidze, hence their only intention seems to be deleting the material associated with particular name(which is very strange). God faith is disputed Gabrichidze 12 : 55 June 22

    • Fair use cannot be claimed for orphan images, I suggest you store your images somewhere else. If the artist agrees to release them under the GFDL they may be acceptable, however the quality of many of these images is so poor that they would not make it through images for deletion.--nixie 04:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 23

′]]

↔Talk

↔Contributions 07:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

′]]

↔Talk

↔Contributions 07:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

′]]

↔Talk

↔Contributions 07:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

and many many other URLs containing the same text (hunt for the first sentence of article on google etc) Proto 13:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

′]]

↔Talk

↔Contributions 16:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

June 24

© 2005, Information Office of Opus Dei on the Internet
Pjacobi 13:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Also Image:2 ladies at work.jpg --Pjacobi 13:34, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Fort Garland from [318] Dvyost 06:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Justiniano S. Montano from [319] TheCoffee 00:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Zimmer Massacre. The article's original contributor indicated that the text was copied out of an 1880 book written by A.A. Graham, entitled "A History of Richland County". So...that is a copyright violation, right? Please let me know if I am wrong, thank you. Laconic 00:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now I'm not so sure. Footer says The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York Wikibofh 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Poster claims to be original author, see talk--Duk 17:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The material that got a copyvio slapped on it was vandalism. I have not rv'd it due to "DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!!!!!111" plastered all over the copyvio notice. --Orborde 05:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Contacted via email. No reply yet. Bovlb 15:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Actually [373] says that text is in the public domain
Pls, be advised that this "user" is a sock of a well-known banned vandal Rovoam, who himself pasted this material from his web-site and now spuriously claims "copyright violations". Pls, see, this message for details.--Tabib 09:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I just requested this article to be removed from Wikipedia, as it's being used without my permision. I assume, this article was submitted here by User:Tabib, though I do not have enough proof for that assumption. It's strange though why Tabib behaves so bad: if this is not him who posted the article, why he is concerned so much?WikiAdm 20:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The guy sucks, steals intellectual property, only to foulmouth the author of the very same.--LastExitToBrooklin 21:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


June 25

′]]

↔Talk

↔Contributions 05:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Footer

Wikipedia's current date is May 15, 2024. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=15829574"