Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:CP)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback about the problem at the relevant talk page, to propose revisions to the material, or to request copyright permission. After the listing period, a copyright problems board clerk or administrator will review the listing and take what further action may be necessary.

Pages listed for copyright review appear in the bottom section of the page. The top includes information for people who have copyright concerns about pages or images, for those whose pages have been tagged for concerns, for community volunteers who'd like to help resolve concerns and for the clerks and administrators who volunteer here.

If you believe a Wikipedia page has infringed on your copyright, please see special note below.
If a page you created has been marked as a copyright problem and you own copyright in the original publication (or have permission from the owner), please see this section.

Contents

Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality (such as Copyright-free logos); or

C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This is not only a matter of respecting local custom. When content is under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's license, proper attribution may be required. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first

Shortcut:

In some instances, it is clear that two pieces of text (one on Wikipedia, and one elsewhere) are copies of each other, but not clear which piece is the original and which is the copy. "Compliant" sites that copy Wikipedia text note that they have done so, but not all of our re-users are compliant.

If you've found such a case, you might first check the discussion page to see if a note has been added to the top of the talk page to allay people's concerns. If not, you can look for clues. Do other pages in the other website copy other Wikipedia articles? Did the content show up on Wikipedia all in once piece, placed by a single editor? If you don't see good evidence that Wikipedia had it first, it's a good idea to bring it up for investigation. You might follow the Instructions for listing below or tag the article {{copy-paste|url=possible source}} so that others can evaluate. If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns

Shortcut:
Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

  • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the content was copied from that source to Wikipedia and not the other way around (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors);
  • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

Suspected or complicated infringement

If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

  • Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated:
  • Replace the text with one of the following:

    {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}

    {{subst:copyvio|identify non-web source here}}

  • Go to today's section and add

    * {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add {{subst:cppage}} to the top.
  • Advise the contributor of the material at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
  • Instances where one contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion.

Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; list images that are suspected to be copyright violations at possibly unfree images and images with disputed fair use rationales at Files for Discussion. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles.

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

Articles are listed for copyright investigation because contributors have reason to suspect they constitute a copyright concern, but not every article listed here is actually a copyright problem. Sometimes, the content was on Wikipedia first. Sometimes, the article is public domain or compatibly licensed and can be easily fixed by supplying attribution (e.g. through a dummy edit). Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.

If you can provide information to prove license or public domain status of the article, please do. It doesn't matter if you do it under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article; a link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. (As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before a response is provided.)

If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

Obtaining/verifying permission

Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

Rewriting content

Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, this is done on a temporary page at Draft:PAGENAME so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea - and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book - to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note at the talk page of the article to alert the administrator or clerk who addresses the listing. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)

Policy shortcut:

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

Information about the people who process copyright problems listed on the board

Copyright problems board clerks

For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

Copyright problems board clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's approach to non-free text and its processes for dealing with them. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings, although their closures may sometimes require completion by administrators, when use of administrative tools is required. Clerks are periodically reviewed by the administrators who work in copyright areas on Wikipedia.

Copyright problems board administrators

For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

Closing listings

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators, who close the daily listings. OTRS agents who verify images may close listings at any time.

For advice for resolving listings, see:

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for administrators, clerks and OTRS agents noting resolution.

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

Older than 7 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. At this point, they may be processed by any administrator (see WP:CPAA). When every ticket on a day is clear, the day may be removed.

25 October 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Yikes, Justlettersandnumbers! Do we still need to spot-check other edits? That one was pretty bad. If I had known how widespread it was, I might have stubbed it to begin with. :( I thinkI got it all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I haven't looked at this recently. But the quick off-the-top-of-my-head reply from what I recall is "yes, definitely". I'll try to dig a bit later today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Justlettersandnumbers, I've found copy-pasting in Ethnicity (album). That was an unsourced copy-paste, so we have plagiarism going on here as well. That means, sadly, that we can't rely on this user to identify where he copied his content from. :( I don't have time to look through it at the moment, but there's definitely copy-pasting in this edit (and close paraphrase) at least from [1] (the epiphany line and subsequent.) We may be heading towards a CCI here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

26 October 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Comment. I think admin attention may be needed here. This was deleted as G12, and promptly re-created, still with considerable problems. I'm afraid all contribs of this editor may need to be reviewed – please see Vicki Garvin, listed under today's date. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

19 November 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

23 November 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women (history · last edit · rewrite) from the actual lists. Given past discussions about copyright of lists this seems certain to be a problem. Listing in case any one wants to turn it into an article about the list or similar rather than just being a plain list. Not done any notifications since the original creator hasn't edited in 6 years and trying to pick apart who else had made major contirbutios would be a mess. Dpmuk (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I haven't added revdelete request; do you think it advisable to do so, Dpmuk (are these really "blatant" copyvios?)? I've removed similar content from several of the other pages linked from Template:Forbes Magazine Lists too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd agree that they're not blantant. The reason I may have revdel'd is it would make restoring a lot harder but as it's not a repeated problem yet I'd be tempted to leave it as is. This advice comes with the caveat that it's been at least a year since I was active in these areas so I may be out of date! Dpmuk (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 11:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned and revdeleted by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

28 November 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Comment Using Google to search for "provided funds to construct an auditorium, covered badminton complex" before 20 February 2007, produced a hit on http://officersclubdhaka.com/?page_id=148 dated 24 December 2006, which predates the Wikipedia article and led me to believe they had it first. Looking at the user's other contributions around this time, I immediately found an unambiguous copyright violation, paragraphs copied verbatim from Banglapedia's Chawk Mosque article into our Chawk Mosque, which lends further weight to the suspicion that Officers' Club (Bangladesh) is a copyright violation. Worldbruce (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I had my suspicions, but my go-to source in cases like this is the internet archive and for once they had no copy of the page in question. Based on your comment though I'm starting to think that this is not going to be a case of we had it first. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --BethNaught (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via archive.org. Can you provide a different link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [2]. That particular section was removed, though there is possibly more to be concerned about. MER-C 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

7 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
A substantial amount of text was added in 2006[3]. Parts were recently deleted and reinstated. I then deleted parts as copyright violations because identical or extremely closely matching text was to be found in various places including the subject's own official biography as president of Afghanistan[4]. I hadn't yet noticed the text was added to Wikipedia eight years before Ashraf Ghani became president.
In 2006, JesseW raised concerns about that text on the article talk page[5] and on the contributing editor's talk page[6]. The editor, Clarelockhart, didn't reply or edit again so the questions of copyright and conflict of interest remain outstanding.
When I realised that the 2006 text couldn't have been copied from the presidential biography, I considered self-reverting. But while it's possible - if very surprising - that the presidential biog was copied from Wikipedia, it's also possible that both spring from some other text that predates both, might have been written by Lockhart and/or might even have been partly written by Ashraf Ghani himself, e.g. in a book or a list of conference speakers.
If it was a copyright violation, then there's still some very close paraphrasing that should probably be removed. NebY (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

11 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Earwig's tool gives 27% "unlikely" even to that version. The phrases re-used contain standard clinches "until her retirement" or obvious ways to express ideas "as a cataloger and reference librarian" or related to proper names "Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.". These have already been removed to placate the bot - Earwig's now reads 1% identifying only the phrase "the League of Women Voters" in common.
If the Alexandria Library wish to sue me on the basis of either version, which is an almost vanishing likelihood, I wish them luck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC).
I have requested G7 deletion and will replace with the re-written version. Generally we don't worry about this sort of stuff in history. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC).
Er, actually yes we do worry about it, Rich Farmbrough. You copied several chunks of text word-for-word from the source instead of writing new text in your own words. Why? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It is futile to worry about reproducing short phrases of no significant creative value.

Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright.

— U.S. Copyright Office
Please don't derail a discussion about copyright into one about motivation.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

12 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 11:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
working on it. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

14 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article redirected by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 04:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

15 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

16 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

19 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Parathion methyl (history · last edit · rewrite) was translated from Parathion méthyl which is a copyvio from Université de Rennes I. 37.138.32.214 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've asked for a copy of the French Wikipedia page, which has been revdeleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

20 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. --Kuru (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

22 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Note: copying appears to go back as least as far as this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

23 December 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 04:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

3 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

The article Oldest people is over half copy-vio from http://www.grg.org/Adams/m.HTM and http://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM The major and significant components of these tables are completely copied over. This information represents significant research and is (outside of Wikipedia) uniquely the product of the GRG site admin. I am sorry this is not formatted correctly, my first time in this area and I just could not figure out what was expected. Thank-you.Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

last editrewrite) from http://www.grg.org/Adams/m.HTM And http://www.grg.org/Adams/C.HTM Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Red XNSee Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruptive_behavior_and_edit-warring_by_User:Legacypac indicating this is likely not the proper venue for this complaint. The article itself appears to be most entirely tabular in nature, and there is no claim that the tables qua tables are copyright here. Collect (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Kudpung appears to be interested in this case per AN/I discussion. Collect (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Can't see anything to do here. No specific content was blanked, the lists appear to be compiled from publicly-available data and without creativity. No copyright problem found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

5 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

7 January 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. This turned out to be the tip of an iceberg (of size as yet undetermined): CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please kindly open the page again.

11 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

13 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. As Trey Maturin has said, the editor wasn't notified; but he/she has been indeffed since 2012, so I don't think that matters. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This editor, Barbara Osgood, may need looking at more carefully. She has text-copyvio warnings going back to 2008 (from Moonriddengirl) and 2011 (from Shirt58), and appears to have copied publisher's blurbs (or descriptions from Amazon or somewhere) as plot summaries in several articles, including the one above and The Killing Doll, partly from the book itself. I'm having some trouble seeing whether there's enough to justify a CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

15 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

17 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • John Philipps Kenyon (history · last edit · rewrite) from the Guardian obituary; the article itself states at the bottom that "The bulk of this article is from the obituary of John Kenyon written by John Miller. ©.Guardian Newspaper. January 15, 1996", which is born out by the style. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

19 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Viable rewrite proposed; rewrite on temp page can be used to replace problematic article. --Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

20 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

21 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

22 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

23 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

25 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Rewrite moved into place. MER-C 12:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Brian C. Carroll article has been deleted following nomination at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

26 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

26

  • Caldasite (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.google.com/patents/US20020184972; http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM33/AM33_142.pdf; maybe others. Original creator of the article began with a copy/paste of the article Chvaleticeite, then modified it to refer to caldasite instead. It looks as if the copyvio was original with the creator, in this edit. The user has not been active on Wikipedia for more than two years, after creating only this article. The two links I found are given as non-footnoted references in the article (Franco and Loewenstein, 1948; and Williams et al., 2004); checking some of the others may yield even more sources of copied text. I could not tell what was a copyvio and what was not, so did not tag it for speedy delete. I'd like to try rewriting it. — Gorthian (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

27 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

28 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

29 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I believe PD-India is under some question right now, as a strict reading of the section on judicial rulings would lead it to be considered a "government work", and thus "In the case of a government work, government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein"[20]. Even if it is PD in the US (which is all that is required, I believe) I don't think we want to have the entire content of the ruling pasted in. That sets a bad precedent (we turn into the Indian Wikisource?). CrowCaw 23:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

30 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

31 January 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

3 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

4 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
The book was published in 2015, so the copyright notice says, but the "Retirement" section has been in the article since September 2010. [21] The more likely hypothesis is that Ms Morris lifted text from Wikipedia. 134.224.220.1 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

5 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

6 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

7 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

New listings

Notice:If the links below in this section are broken, it's because there are too many unresolved copyright problems, If enough issues are closed, they'll work again. (So help!)
(Above notice per MER-C.)
WARNING! It also means that some reported problems are not on this page!!!

New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

Older than 5 days

Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 5 days. At this point, they may be processed by a copyright problems board clerk. After 7 days, they may be closed by an administrator.

7 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

8 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Offender profiling

This page may or may not be a copyvio. Compare this, this, and this. I can't be arsed to figure out how to make a properly formatted and placed report. Please, correct it as you see fit.Wasell(T) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent listings

Below are articles that have been listed here for 5 days or less. Anyone in the community may help clarify the copyright status on these. See the section on responding for more information.

9 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Ink and Bone(novel) (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/u/lisa-unger/ink-and-bone.htm. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 21:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

10 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

11 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

12 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

13 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

14 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Footer

Wikipedia's current date is 14 February 2016. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 February 14. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.