Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

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

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

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

"WP:CPI" redirects here. For the page that protects extremely high-risk templates, see Wikipedia:Cascade protected items.
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; otherwise list 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 Talk:PAGENAME/Temp 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)

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

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 October 25:

  • 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)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • 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)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 13:

  • 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)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 20:

Looks as if there may be around 234 articles to be checked, Doc James. If you've already identified about five instances of infringement, the next step could be a WP:CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User says they will rewrit [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

6 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Source checked. Page is now clear of any copyvio from gs.org page (which often violates copyright on the material it propagates too.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I found and removed another large chunk of copyvio. The whole article needs to be checked, as well as the edits of RabeaMalah. MER-C 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

24 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

25 February 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) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

29 February 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-02-29 Edit

2016-02-29 (Suspected copyright violations)
Link is a mirror. To judge from comparable articles text is from United States presidential election, 2016, so I've added attribution for that. Hut 8.5 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Link is copying Wikipedia, added attribution. Hut 8.5 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Cut and paste move, history merge requested or needed. Using G6 to make room for clean move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Link is a mirror of Draft:Robert Greenhill which was written by the same editor. No copyright concern. Hut 8.5 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Listed at WP:CP. MER-C 12:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Article content has been taken from [4]. Per the talk page this is CC-BY-SA. That link appears to have lifted a paragraph from the abstract of the linked paper, which I've removed as copyvio. Hut 8.5 22:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Listed at WP:CP. MER-C 12:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Should be an easy fix. I've removed the infringing content and requested revision deletion with {{copyvio-revdel}}. (Non-administrator comment) Mz7 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

4 March 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 04:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

20 March 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

27 March 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

3 April 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) 11:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Has been revdeleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

10 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Copyvio version deleted, recreation clean. MER-C 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. MER-C 12:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Zdzisław Piernik (history · last edit · rewrite) from Culture.pl. However, the Culture.pl page seems to be a translation of content itself based on the Polish Wikipedia's article on Piernik, compare [8] and [9]. It should be released under a free license as a derivative work of our Polish article, but I see no indication that it actually is. Huon (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

16 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 06:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The problem here is that while copying from TCDB is OK, assigning a copyright to a non-open access journal and claiming the content is cc-by-sa is not. MER-C 06:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently this article has been deleted pursuant to a WP:G7 request. /wiae /tlk 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

17 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

18 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Comment. I believe the above two reports are the result of the editor's failure to exercise proper discretion in the use of the duplicate detector tool. In the case of Jack Mitchell (photographer), the edits in question are over four years old: and include proper nouns, place names and generic statements of fact, which cannot be copyvios. And while it is a newer article, the same applies to Suzi Bass Award. Each article also has several other reliably sourced and properly attributed references listed. So to tag the entire articles, and before discussion on the article's talk pages, is a concern. As is the proposed threat of WP:WIKIHOUNDING my entire 10 year edit history, as has also been hinted at here. X4n6 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Timeheritage - contributions . This editor has been cautioned for copyvio a number of times since he began in 2015. This February (mainly 9-11th) he went on a spree of creating new articles on Ancient Greek monuments and sites, and adding to others, at a rate that would be impossible if he were writing them. I believe he is copying or translating from foreign language works (not all that well) such as site guides, which he gives as refs. This is also suggested by him not formatting the paragraphs correctly. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

19 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Creator's significant contributions should be checked. MER-C 12:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

20 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

21 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 08:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 08:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

23 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • The page was deleted on April 23 and it is recreated by the user again, marked for speedy deletion again by McGeddon. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Article cleaned, the content on the page seems to be trimmed and I can find only a few occasions where was a potential copyright issue. There are only a few terms, "of robotic process automation", "business process automation" that cannot be further. Justlettersandnumbers, can you please review it again. Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others.Kavdiamanju (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Text is pulled from many sources directly. The book mentioned above has excerpts in Google books and other sites. Examples of copied material: [12], [13], [14] and so on. Googling most phrases results in a match to an online source. CrowCaw 22:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

24 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
CCI requested. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Creator and a new user has removed the Copyvio template without approval from admin. Velella, can you please take a look at it. Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks as though most of the copy vio material has been diluted out. There is still some quite close paraphrasing of another of the sources but not sufficient to justify a current concern about copyright violation. I am content to withdraw this report  Velella  Velella Talk   17:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

22 May 2016

  • Redirected. MER-C 04:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite moved into place. MER-C 07:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

25 May 2016

  • Rewrite moved into place. MER-C 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted in accordance with discussion at article talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite moved into place. MER-C 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 09:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 09:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

28 May 2016

30 May 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg OTRS Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC-BY-SA. --MER-C 08:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2 June 2016

4 June 2016

1994 Heathrow mortar attacks (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch94.htm. Petebutt (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I have not looked in detail but the citation style in Causation (law) means that some of it at least will probably turn out to be a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

9 June 2016

  • Copyvio in this one is more extensive than the tagged section and given source. This needs a thorough search. MER-C 13:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
please help, i've written this article out of pure love for the music and don't understand why it is considered as copyright infringement. All the references are at the bottom. I know you all are super busy which is why I really appreciate your help. thx:Jonathan Tessier (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (moved comment to be under the entry in question). I will reply on your talk page CrowCaw 21:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Author is working on a rewrite on the Talk/temp page. CrowCaw 21:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

12 June 2016

14 June 2016

I just found a few sentences that closely matched a source. There were several passages which were close in wording to the source which is described as "Last updated 2011-02-17", but does not have a first appeared date. I suspect the BBC article is probably about four years older because it says it draws upon an article in Representing Slavery: Art, Artefacts and Archives in the Collections of the National Maritime Museum and describes the 2007 work as forthcoming. The wording was introduced to the article on 7 June 2007 and the references two days later. I'm reasonably sure there is excessive copying of the one source I read. Since several passages were introduced from several sources, I think an investigation is warranted. I made several changes to the existing passages before examining the article and source histories, but I'm not sure they were sufficient. More eyes and opinions would definitely be of use. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

20 June 2016

23 June 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 06:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Barry Hutchison (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.barryhutchison.com/about/. Article was created in 2010 from material that appears to be copied directly from author's own webpage [24]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Medical education in Jordan (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/01421590903196953. The article was started back in June 2010, with the first version appearing to be entirely replicating text from the first three pages of an article published in Medical Teacher, which was first made available online on 22 January 2010. The source, Medical Teacher, is a journal that requires subscription to view the full-text version of the article, so this might make it more difficult for the similarity to be detected using some of the online tools. The copy of the article that I have referred to is clearly marked as copyright. I had figured the copyright violation was so extensive that I initially opted to nominate the article for speedy deletion. The speedy was declined, with the admin Fish and karate making reference in their edit summary to the original editor Ymousa having indicated that that he had permission to reproduce the article in question. I cannot see any indication on the talk page of the article or the other editors of how this claim was made or verified, so I have brought the matter here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't make any claims to believe the original author or not, but it's enough that a slightly less cursory review than speedy deletion is warranted. fish&karate 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify-I don't have any issue with the nomination for speedy deletion being declined. I made reference to it to help provide any reviewers with some background. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

30 June 2016

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Backwardscopy. Attributes Wikipedia. --Kuru (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

5 July 2016

  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

7 July 2016

8 July 2016

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Most of the copy-pasted text seems to consist of quotations between quotation marks. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the article mainly suffers from excessive non-transformative use of quotes, similar to the form "According to <x>, 'long quote providing content'"> I've explained this on the talk page and suggested a collaborative re-write between disagreeing parties. CrowCaw 18:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 02:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • MER-C: I don't think so. The article is still a clear violation of copyright. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Claus Drexel (history · last edit · rewrite) from [26]. Article is not a G12 because not all of the article is copied and pasted from that website, however if you disagree with me, please let me know. Hx7 22:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July 2016

11 July 2016

12 July 2016

  • Benjamin Murmelstein (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/dec/05/defense-jewish-collaborator/. Extremely close paraphrase intermixed with direct copying. See this more complete Duplicate Detector report. TransporterMan (TALK) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • TransporterMan. there is very little wrong here. Looking through the "Duplication Detector" reults:
    1. "they were then sent off in second class train compartments well stocked with food and medicine only to disembark at the other end and be attacked by guards and dogs" - this sentence clearly should be paraphrased
    2. "his divided and ambiguous nature turned him into a symbol of the jewish tragedy" - this is a direct quote, correctly attributed.
    3. "murmelstein was born into an orthodox jewish family in" - debatable, but I don't see a strong case for changing it.
    4. Everything else is either proper names, titles of books or films, or very short and common phrases that cannot possibly be construed as copyright violations
    • conclusion Only one, or possibly two, sentences need to be rewritten. Comparing the texts from the DD results makes clear that Nishidani has actually made a considerable effort to accurately paraphrase the source, with only the exception(s) noted above. When the changes required are so simple, I suggest that in future you either make them yourself, or leave a short note on the author's talk page requesting him or her to make the changes. --NSH001 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
    • murmelstein was born into an orthodox jewish family
'born into an orthodox Jewish family' is a standard phrasing used in the biographies of thousands of Jews, and on wiki articles. The variants are ‘born into a secular Jewish family’ etc. No writer has a patent on these phrases
    • Terezin il ghetto modello di Eichmann is not a copyright violation since it is the title of one of Murmelstein’s books, which must be listed in the biography, and cannot be paraphrased.
    • on the unknown jewish soldiers of world war 1. 'Unknown soldiers' is a standard phrasing for all memorials to such, and they died in WW1. There is no way that 2 default terms like that can be in the possession of one of the hundreds of writers who would touch on that topic.
    • the rest consists of 44 words in two attributed quotations from an article with 4,542 words
    • (A) they were then sent off in second class train compartments well stocked with food and medicine only to disembark at the other end and be attacked by guards and dogs.
This was an attributed quotation. If one cannot quote 30 words from a 4,542 article, then it can be paraphrased easily as
'They were entrained to Auschwitz in comfortably furnished compartments only to be assailed by guards and dogs on arrival.'
    • (B) his divided and ambiguous nature turned him into a symbol of the jewish tragedy
That is a quote attributed to Murmelstein and supplied by Lilla in his review and simply requires attribution.
Generally the German article, far more detailed, uses basically 2 book sources -Hájková's Der Judenälteste und seine SS-Männer, 2011a and Rabinovici,'s Benjamin Murmelstein, „der Letzte der Ungerechten“, 2011- each cited a dozen or more times. Have I misunderstood something about wiki editing basics?Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Nishidani, you're quite right, that was an attributed quote, and in context, does not need to be paraphrased. Dunno how I missed that (but was in a hurry to post my comment before going out). Duly crossed out. --NSH001 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, NSH001, you fail to address the larger close paraphrase issue and, moreover, you have no prior history of working here at this noticeboard. I'd prefer to wait until a regular contributor here with a history of proven judgment in copyright matters such as MER-C, Moonriddengirl (who I know to be particularly experienced in close paraphrase matters), or one of the other regulars here chooses to weigh in, and I specifically request a second opinion from such a contributor.TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No, quite wrong. You have made a very serious allegation against a long-standing and respected editor, and ruined the appearance of a perfectly decent article. To justify that you need to do more than just vague hand-waving. You are also wrong about my having no previous experience of handling and correcting copyright violations, although I can't recollect whether or not it involved posting on this particular board. From memory (it was several years ago) I had at least two intensive spells of fixing copyvios (looking at the subpages in my userspace will give you a clue - I have no intention of wasting my time scrolling through many thousands of my past edits), and I understand perfectly well the principles of copyright. But by all means seek the opinion of editors experienced in these matters (I have dealt with Moonriddengirl before, and respect her opinion). --NSH001 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm perfectly comfortable with a third and fourth opinion. I would note that if my paraphrases from Lilla are COPYRIGHT violations, then all of articles I have edited should carry the same blanking tag, since, as opposed to the epidemic I encounter daily of loose spinning (see Leo Baeck I edited today (fixing the grammatical errors later !)), sheer invention and vague sourcing I try to correct, my principle has always been to hew to what the source is actually saying, not to embroider on it. I've never known User:Zero0000, who has commented on my page, to break his rule of firm neutrality, even in the POV-afflicted areas we edit. I can vouch too for NSH001's integrity in this regard as well. This is not a matter of collegial support: both have hauled me over the coals for slips. Still, all criticism is salutary, and I did not take that notification in any other than a positive sense, (even if I am somewhat bewildered). Cheers. By the way Lilla's review uses Ronny Loewy, Katharina Rauschenberger (eds.) "Der Letzte der Ungerechten": Der Judenälteste Benjamin Murmelstein in Filmen 1942-1975, Campus Verlag, 2011 pp.75-100, esp., and I guess that could bypass Lilla if any it is determined he shouldn't be a source. It's one of the basic texts used for the German wiki article where it is paraphrased a dozen times. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Nor did I mean it as an affront, Nishidani, just an expression of concern which I'm quite willing to let the experienced copyright folks here resolve, which is the purpose of this board. Close paraphrases can be difficult to judge for the best of us. I've dropped a note on Maggie's (Moonriddengirl's) talk page asking for her evaluation, but any of the other regulars here are welcome to opine as well or instead. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to look at this. I want to say that I don't think this is by any means a straightforward situation; I imagine it could inspire quite a bit of debate. I do believe the paraphrase is a bit close in places -- not through lack of effort but through the unfortunate difficulty of retaining all detail from a dominant source, which sometimes results in our taking more of the structure than we otherwise might. :/ In other places, it's quite fine. To illustrate the closeness, I'll quote a couple of passages from each.
Source text Article text
After the camp was liberated by the Russians he was arrested by the Czech government and spent eighteen months in prison while a case was built against him as a collaborator. In the end, prosecutors abandoned it and Murmelstein was allowed to emigrate to Italy, where he spent the rest of his life in relative anonymity with his wife and son in Rome, working as a salesman and occasionally for the Vatican (in what capacity is unclear). After the liberation of the camp, Murmelstein was arrested by Czech government and detained for one and a half years pending the results of an investigation into his role as a collaborator. When prosecutors closed the case without an indictment, Murmelstein emigrated to Italy, and took up residence in Rome, where he worked as a salesman and, desultorily, for the Vatican.[1]
Like the ludicrous Jewish elder of the Łódź ghetto Chaim Rumkowski, Murmelstein was widely despised by survivors of Theresienstadt, who considered him a traitor, his guilt sealed by the fact of his survival. In survivors' memories, Murmelstein was widely hated for the rigorous efficiency and inflexibility he displayed in carrying out Nazi orders.
In the first set of passages, we see some very close structural following. "After the camp was liberated by the Russians he was arrested by the Czech government and spent eighteen months in prison while a case was built against him as a collaborator." varies largely superficially from "After the liberation of the camp, Murmelstein was arrested by Czech government and detained for one and a half years pending the results of an investigation into his role as a collaborator." In the first half, some words are rearranged, but remain entirely the same (or same in root: liberation -> liberation), and an "of" appears. "by the Russians" is lost, and "he" is given his proper name). In the second half, there is substitution but, again, sustained duplication of structure: "and [spent time in prison] [while investigated as collaborator]." Duplication of structure happens when detailing the chronological events of a person's life. The degree to which it is a problem depends on how much of it happens and what other signs of taking there are around it. If it's an occasional lapse, it may not rise to the level of problem. If it's pervasive, it may. There is just no subjective test to determine when that line is crossed.
As a general rule of thumb, the best way to avoid these issues is to pay attention not only to changing language, but also to changing structure. (I could dig up a quote if needed, but the courts have stated that word substitution is not enough to avoid copyvio.) English being a word rich language, it is generally possible to make substantive change by taking the facts and stacking them differently. We don't have to lead with the liberation of the camp and the arrest. We could, for instance, lead with the Czech government. ("The Czech government tried and and failed to build a case against Murmelstein as a collaborator, detaining him for a year and a half after the camp's liberation before releasing him.") We could start with Murmelstein. "Murmelstein moved from one detention to another, held by the Czech government as a possible collaborator for a year and a half before he was released.") The shorter the passage you are dealing with, obviously, the harder that is to do. It is a real challenge to read a couple of sentences out of a single source and recast them in your own words and structure. In my experience, that's often how we get backed into this corner.
All that said, while I think this could use further separation from the source, if I were called upon as a witness in a courtroom judging for substantial similarity, I would be uneasy about calling it. Nevertheless, we are broadly called upon by policy to be careful about this kind of thing, so I am working on a rewrite. Which I must save to avoid disaster. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
That's very good of you, and deeply appreciated. I would note only that, having looked at further sources, anyone here who claimed copyright would have a problem. Reviewers we quote from in turn paraphrase, as often as not, several sources, and if a loose paraphrase of a review is seen to infringe copyright, the same argument could be thrown at the reviewer, as often as not, ending in a chicken and egg to-and-fro. This is particularly problematical in the googling world we now inhabit. I see it every day. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Maggie, for taking this on. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ness of Brodgar (history · last edit · rewrite). I've just removed a paragraph from this article which appears similar to this page, but I don't know how to tell whether this is them copying us or us copying them; nor am I really sure to what extent the paragraph (which mostly consists of quotes) really infringes. I'm listing it here for my own peace of mind rather than making any allegations.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

15 July 2016

16 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-07-16 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-07-16

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

19 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-07-19 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-07-19

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

22 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-07-22 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-07-22

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 08:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

27 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-07-27 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-07-27

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

29 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2016-07-29 Edit Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-07-29

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

2 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

3 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Fima (Efraim Roeytenberg) (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/nov/07/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries. Tagged as G12, doesn't seem to be wholly copyvio but definitively needs a looking at. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - line-by-line copy with almost exactly the same structure (and some bits are just copied through without even paraphrasing); I tagged for speedy myself. Someone may need to discuss sourcing with the author, as several of her other articles seem to be copied from copyrighted text posted by a museum she says she's volunteering at, which isn't ideal but could very possibly be authorised. Another of her articles has been deleted since it copied an art gallery's text. Obviously I don't want to discourage a university student editor, but this isn't great all-round and I've put a comment on her talk page. User hasn't made any recent edits, so it may be that she's decided to abandon the account. 18:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

4 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. 92.21.241.40 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)19:22
Article was not checked by an investigator, original user simply blanked sections and is now attempting to delete the draft. The359 (Talk) 20:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

6 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

8 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Quest Technology Management (history · last edit · rewrite) from lots of places. Verbatim searches are hit and miss. Looks like I removed a chunk of the article previously and it was reinserted. I'm assuming you guys have some kindof fancy search thingy to pinpoint which parts are direct copyvio and which aren't. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

9 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

10 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

11 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

13 August 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.

17 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

18 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

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.
Comment: According to this message on my talk page, the creator of the article apparently owns the copyright of the material. Hence, why I tagged it for investigation rather than speedy deletion. --My Pants Metal (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like an admin deleted the page. Disregard this request. --My Pants Metal (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 August 20 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 August 21

  • OTRS is pending, listing here pro-forma since I tagged the page and removed the content. CrowCaw 19:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 August 23

24 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Footer

Wikipedia's current date is 24 August 2016. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 August 24. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.