Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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 Non-free content review. 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. Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner 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 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.

21 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

2 April 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) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. I've gone through most of this editor's non-trivial edits, and removed copyvio in a good number of recent articles. I think I got it all, but would be happy if someone would take a quick look to be sure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. CCI requested. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

14 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Pathogenic bacteria
Pathogenic bacteria was tagged for possible copyright infringement (Talk:Pathogenic_bacteria#Copyright tags placed), because of the tables of basic laboratory and clinical characteristics of pathogenic bacteria. The source textbook presented similar short descriptions of each type of bacterial group, including gram staining, shape, capsulation etc, as well as for individual species by transmission, diseases, treatment etc. However, it didn't put all bacterial groups and species, respectively, in rows to make up as large and comprehensive tables as can be seen in the Wikipedia article. Individual box entries are expressed as to avoid close paraphrasing, but there really aren't many ways to express for example "Capsulation: Encapsulated", so a major question is whether the layout itself, with the given column titles, is copyrightable. Please provide additional input at Talk:Pathogenic_bacteria#Copyright tags placed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Before weighing in in this, please examine both the single source, and the WP tables. The tables are large formal subsets of the published, copyrighted material, and at time of tagging (see article edit history), only a single source had been excerpted. Despite some selectivity of excerpting the information, and some creativity in the WP table design, as a table of specialist factual material derived from a single medical textbook (copyrighted source), I proposed to editors at that article that the use, at time of tagging, went beyond standard academic understandings of fair use. As this is a pervasive problem at WP, I applaud @User:Mikael Häggström for bringing this question to wider attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that standard academic understandings of fair use has anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not follow any rules and understandings from academia. What is important and only important here is whether the content of Pathogenic_bacteria article complies with the USA copyright law. Ruslik_Zero 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This phrase was used to communicate that I have dealt with the issue of fair use, the legalities associated with fair use decisions to appropriate content, for many years in an academic context. That is to say, I am not approaching this as an ignoramus. Yes, understood, the questions is whether the wholesale retyping of precise factual content from a copyrighted medical textbook into a Wikipedia table constitutes fair use (whether in an academic context or at WP). Based on my long experience, as a single sourced table, all content from the one copyrighted source, without any attempt to create a new table with unique attributes, this is not fair use. And I am sure Lippincott and the authors would agree: extend the principle, and say that all tabular information in medical texts is fair game for wholesale reproduction in WP. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see much difference with Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co. as both the table and phone directory are exhaustive alphabetic lists of something containing some standard information about this "something". Taking into account that individual box entries were paraphrased, I do not think there is any copyright violation here. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I must strongly disagree. A phone directory and specialist medical content in a copyrighted modern textbook—this is not a comparison I have ever seen made in this type of fair use discussion. The very act of compiling accurate information—of ensuring that strain names are up-to-date with regard to latest of evolving classification and nomenclature, that organisms are indeed Gram positive/negative, that their growth requirements and categorizations as to aerobic/anaerobic, capsulated or non, etc., etc. up to date and accurate—these are not simple acts of one compiling a phone book. Each reference of this type, while containing a table with a similar aim to summarize, contains a unique table of this sort, and each of them are copyrighted by their publishers/authors. I ask that we bring in individuals with legal expertise. As the author communicated, there is little one can do to paraphrase the factual content in a table of pathogenic bacteria, their examples, attributes, etc. Any comparison of the WP table with the original makes clear that it is the same content. What matters here is neither of our "I think" opinions. This is a far-reaching matter. I insist that it be settled firmly, not by accrued opinions of non-lawyers, but by people with position and true legal expertise to address it correctly and decisively. I am content to have this matter closed and my assertions refuted. But not in this superficial, inexpert manner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You still do not get it. The USA copyright law only protects creative expression of the author. It does not protect acts of compiling and verifying information regardless of how much efforts went into such acts. The "Sweat of the brow" doctrine is not a part of the USA copyright law either. The question that we are discussing here has nothing to do with fair use. Ruslik_Zero 20:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've commented there, to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

US Copyright law is clear here. Collections of facts, no matter how much skill and labor went into their compilation, are not protected. Their arrangement may be, but only if it is non-obvious, a natural arrangement such as alphabetical or chronological is not protected. The expression in individual entries may be protected, but not if there is only one or a few ways to express a fact. "John Doe was born in 1958" is not protected, nor is "Capsulation: Encapsulated". There is no infringement here. This should be closed. DES (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but neither your status at WP nor your professional credentials are sufficient to close an issue on the matter of copyright law. You may indeed be correct, but resorting to personal authority and bluster to close a discussion is inappropriate. This is a legal matter, and a formal legal voice should speak to it. From my experience, when tabular material in medical sources is lifted, the holder of the copyright of the overall work enters into copyright infringement proceedings to protect the non-fair use of their compiled work. Your stating otherwise here may align in the end with some authority with specific experience in this area (sci/tech tabular material, and the extent to which it is considered IP), but even so, such an expert needs to speak to the issue. Cribbing entire tables from published, in-copyright sources is rampant here, and your argument is that it is all fine—is far-reaching enough that I will have to hear it from someone with legal standing at WP. Otherwise it does not carry the conversation (or close the matter here). Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

21 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. I'd like to use the "t" option, but ticket has not yet been received by OTRS. Requested immediate forwarding of same. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I acted prematurely. Sorry! We still need specific licensing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Red XN In this case, we're in the clear. :) The source is dated from December 2010. The content in our article is older than that - over five years older with respect to some text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Preliminary check shows some issues; I have approached the editor at User talk:BrillLyle. I'm moving back to older days to process pending response there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

12 May 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I'm out of time; before I look at the article, i was poking at contribs. I found one seemingly blatant issue, now listed at today's CP. Then there's stuff like [1], [2]. This has been a long-standing problem, obviously. But his contribs are fairly narrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. But other contribs still need to be checked, as confirmed above by Moonriddengirl. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

9 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Rewrite seems valid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

21 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Gak. Front page, no less. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

22 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

23 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Phyllis Zagano (history · last edit · rewrite) from [3]. This article has been partially created by its subject and repeatedly IP edited, possibly by its subject. It seems to have copied her faculty page at the Hofstra site. Rewriting has altered some things, but some other plagiarisms remain, e.g. "She has published hundreds of articles and reviews in popular and refereed journals, and for five years hosted a monthly talk show on the National Public Radio affiliate station, WBUR-FM." vs " For five years she hosted a talk show on National Public Radio affiliate station, WBUR-FM." "Her biographical listings include" Further investigation of the article history is necessary. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

24 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

26 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Copyvio tag has been removed from article with the comment "rm copyvio tag; qustioned text is fully sourced and is just several simple declaratory sentences providing simple facts", however the text is two complete c&p'd paragraphs, the content of which is highly promotional (and appears not to merit inclusion). 81.141.41.56 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Rewrote copied material, which was more than siple declarative statements. CrowCaw 18:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

27 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I don't think this rewrite is sufficient, judging by the Google Translate version of the source. I've asked the author to revise the material again. MER-C 12:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

28 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

29 June 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Claim of permission on talk page. I'll let this one sit. MER-C 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

1 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 01:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

3 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

4 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

6 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

10 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. False positive. This is a reverse-copy. The material in question first appeared on Wikibooks in 2009. The Youtube page was posted on Aug 13 2014 and includes a link to the WB article as the source for the text. CrowCaw 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks link, which broke the template so linking here:[5] CrowCaw 18:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

11 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I've pruned the material that was copied from that site. EW comes back clean. Copyviocore tag is still present, for further evaluation. CrowCaw 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I trimmed the template to the location of the primary violation, which is the characteristics section. We need to rewrite it, not remove it... I fixed the other copyvios I found within the rest of the article and though it's still a disaster, the rest of it has such poor English that I doubt it would have been copied from anywhere... Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So can the infringing text be re-deleted, so we can close out this day? :) CrowCaw 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. Yeah, might as well; I haven't the time to fix it, so we'll have to wait until JLAN gets back. Go for it. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

12 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Several other recently added bits of this article appear to be copied from the University’s web site. Rwessel (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the mix of blatant promotion and copyright violations I have deleted the article. There were clean versions in the page history, but they also were promotional and didn't cite any references. It's probably better to start over from scratch. Huon (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

16 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

17 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

18 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

19 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Durga Mandir, Varanasi (history · last edit · rewrite) from The person adding this text (which happens to be photographically recorded) has not established it is out of copyright, therefore Wikimedia must assume we don't have appropriate rights to include it.. Brianhe (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

21 July 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

22 July 2015