Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

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

Update this page

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.

To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for dealing with copyright concerns can be found at Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns.


Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

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. There are well documented cases of plagiarism from Wikipedia by external publications.

Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation by emailing us at Please provide the address or title of the page, and evidence to show that you are the legitimate copyright holder. 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 or rewrite the infringing text avoiding violations of copyright or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons (allowing evaluation by non-administrative editors) unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. After determination that it is a copyvio, it should be 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 a header to the top of the page using the page for another date as an example.
  • 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

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)
  • Here is a link to all contributions. I didn't immediately see other copyright violations but I didn't look thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via 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)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 21:

  • To complicate things, the official listings are now licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See e.g. [4]. The tentative listings do not have this license. MER-C 03:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

30 May 2019

The deletion review was closed, but non-admins can't remove the copyrighted material, given the revision deletion --DannyS712 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The DRV closed as permit recreation - so anyone can replace the redirect with a sourced article. It's probably better to start from scratch in this case. MER-C 12:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

3 June 2019

9 June 2019

Indeed, Winged Blades of Godric, I did see it – the domain was created five days after our page, so wherever the content came from, it wasn't there. I tried without success to find any readable version, archived or not, of [ this document]; please let me know if you have more luck! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

15 June 2019

Link pending allowance by whitelist (link to request).MJLTalk 04:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Request denied. I've gone ahead and replaced the second (non-)link with a link to that conversation. It's inconvenient, but this is out of my control. –MJLTalk 18:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems that much of the content has been removed since this CP thread was first opened. Seasons 2 and 3 still report as copyvio, but as the source appears to be user-generated some investigation is required to determine the true origin of the affected material. Unfortunately, I cannot include a link to the alleged source as it is on the blacklist, but I can link to the Earwig report. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

1 July 2019

We have over 400 pages of Meanings of minor planet names that may have the same issue, so I picked the 100001–101000 example at random. For most of the entries, the description in the This minor planet was named for... column was copied or very closely paraphrased from the "JPL" source linked in the Ref · Catalog column. This was previously discussed at a tangentially related AfD where some editors felt it was a copyright violation while others argued that the data was "freely available from NASA" and not subject to copyright. JPL's copyright statements [8] [9] may be of use. –dlthewave 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Simple phrases such as "This minor planet was named for <name>" cannot be copyrighted. I don't know how many entries fall outside this "simple" phrasing, but it's something to consider. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Closely related to the above entry, List of minor planets consists of over 400 pages that attempt to reproduce the Minor Planet Center database. See copyright statements from sources JPL [10] [11] and MPL [12]. This was also discussed at AfD where some editors argued that raw data is not subject to copyright and that it comes from public-domain government sources. Please note that the data may have originated from private contractors and was not necessarily produced by NASA employees. –dlthewave 21:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not only is this an obvious copyright violation, but many of the entries we have copy-pasted are inaccurate and contradict our existing, better-written articles. NASA and other such bodies are not reliable sources for, for instance, classical Japanese literature and mythology.[13] The poor English on some of those entries implies NASA just took copy that had written by the planets' discoverers and regurgitated without any form of copy-editing, so we should definitely not be following suit. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if a site is "public-domain government sources" and not subject to copyright there seems to be copy/paste issues that, as mentioned by @Primefac: as possibly falling "outside this "simple" phrasing", could mean there are unintended attrition issues and could still be considered plagiarism, that does need to be examined?. Otr500 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be about the "Meanings of minor planet names" lists, not the lists of minor planets. Peter James (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

2 July 2019

Can someone tell me why this enitre article was deleted? I had contributed on the article in the past, but now it's gone. I think there has been some kind of a mistake here. Sf46 (talk)
This was explained here. MER-C 16:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

10 July 2019

  • There is significant overlap between the Britannica link provided above, and the Wikipedia article. What I am unsure about, and why I brought it here rather than taking further action myself is a) what license Britannica operates under and therefore whether we are free to use its material and b) whether there is any possibility that the Britannica content is in fact taken from Wikipedia. If you are content there are no copyright violations, however, then I'm happy to carry on my efforts to improve the article. Hugsyrup 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, there most definitely appears to be copyright violations; not sure what version of the article I was looking at, sorry. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

12 July 2019

29 July 2019

  • Draft:Patricia Driscoll (history · last edit · rewrite) A decent amount of the content seems to be copied from [15]. Not sure if it's worth cleaning a draft or just deleting it and if another editor wants to create a non-infringing version re-create it. Sakura CarteletTalk 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Or could it be from Adam9007 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    I did a comparison of the blinded section to the abstract of the thesis - the only part available on the web - using WinMerge and punctuation-slicing, and the passages are almost identical but for exchanges of a handful of words, such as "Experimental studies" vs. "studies", "in" vs. "within", "results produced show" vs. "results that were produced showed". The changes are a sign of willful plagerism with intent to fool computational comparisons - unfortunately. I'll work on removing the passage from the article+history shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC) (93 historical versions deleted)
  • Also, the history also seems to contain various copyvios of scientific various papers. Adam9007 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    If you have guideposts as to what to look for, would be useful to share those - would save a lot of time. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

31 July 2019

  • St Catherine's College, Oxford (history · last edit · rewrite) from [16] The section Theatre was copied from the college website, I have deleted it, but consider revision deleting from Revision as of 12:25, 30 July 2019 to Revision as of 09:16, 31 July 2019. TSventon (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. There were various other pieces of text copied from the college website by the same editor, they've all been removed now. Hut 8.5 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

4 August 2019

17 August 2019

19 August 2019

20 August 2019

24 August 2019

6 September 2019

9 September 2019

18 September 2019

💵Money💵emoji💵💸 12:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

19 September 2019

20 September 2019

21 September 2019

24 September 2019

25 September 2019

27 September 2019

28 September 2019

29 September 2019

3 October 2019

Definitely massive copyvio for almost the entire Cast section, and chunks of the Acts section. It seems at least some of that was added by User:A1 Federation in 2014 with this edit. Waggie (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

5 October 2019

Definitely copyvio in the History section (though some of it does not, strictly speaking, violate copyright as some bits are simply lists of company names, etc.) - enough is copyvio to warrant removing the whole section, but the R&D section was outrageously and blatantly promo and copyvio. I agree that I would consider the rest of the article suspect as well. Could possibly be saved, but I'm not convinced of notability here, either which is probably a topic for another venue and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. Waggie (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Presumptive deletion per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors, Billy Hathorn.

11 October 2019

New listings

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

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 October 16

17 October 2019

As the author has made no further edits to rectify the copy-vio , I have tagged it for speedy deletion.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent listings

18 October 2019


I am the owner of the content on...

I am the owner of Visual Narrative Inquiry...

the link does not work although there is a Taylor & Francis page.

I understand I have not cited the "outside" sources correctly...I will be working on those university links.

Hedy Bach (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC) regards Hedy Bach Hedy Bach (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hedy Bach: Please see WP:DONATE for how to allow use of your material on Wikipedia. If you have not already done so please see WP:COI and / or WP:PAID and make any necessary declarations. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

19 October 2019

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 October 20

21 October 2019

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 October 22 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 October 23


Wikipedia's current date is 23 October 2019. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 October 23. Files should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.