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)

31 December 2014

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey, MER-C. :) You want to just pull out whatever concerns you? Your blanking starts with "The bell tower was damaged by the earthquake of October 15, 2013 with the two upper levels collapsing. The front façade of the church (portico) added by the Recollects also collapsed." - the source is from 2004. I'n not sure what you're seeing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I deleted the suspect content when I blanked the article. The comparison before I did this is here. The earthquake stuff should be OK though. MER-C 08:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
MER-C, Moonriddengirl, I had a quick look at this to see if there was any chance it could be closed now. I didn't much like what I found. I'm not happy that the earthquake stuff is completely OK: I found some limited copying from the Manila Standard, which appears in its turn to be copied from here. My main worry is that the many large edits by Briarfallen may contain other copied material (see Michael de Aozaraza, listed today). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, this is Briarfallen. Please maybe you should restrain yourself a little bit and treat other editors with respect. We unselfishly contribute our time here to help Wikipedia as I believe in its purpose. There is nothing personal to gain here. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Instead of treating me like a criminal first, maybe you should checked my contributions first one by one, and if you find any, maybe we can work together on it and help improve it. I am aware and try to follow Wikipedia rules including about copyrights. Yes, I used to contribute a lot in Wikipedia especially improving Philippine articles, but not starting this year because of a new job. Thanks.
Maybe this is the reason why some people don't add references. You are more like HOUNDS that hunt copyright violators instead of fixing those articles that you think have violated. It is easy to find faults on others, but is it harder for you to help others? Why don't you just wait till the original sources complain about infringement as some, I believe, would just let it go. If you think about it, this is also beneficial for them as this is like free advertising if their articles were added as references. In my opinion, not only you are wasting your time, but you are also teaching others NOT to add references, instead of being honest and follow Wikipedia rules. This is akin to bad parenting. Yes, you could erase it but would you, if the article is actually true just unreferenced? Wikipedia rule is only leaving a template on top about searching and adding references. In addition, this is not personal opinion or personal research, which Wikipedia is more strict about.
I'm just trying to find the rationale of what you guys are doing, as you could use your time in something more fruitful for Wikipedia. As for myself, I always try to follow Wikipedia rules ever since, not unless I'm unaware of it. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I've responded at Briarfallen's talk page. a CCI check is probably necessary here, but I won't have time to do a broader check for probably a few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. Did you check my revised version of the article following from instructions from the template? Could you please tell me what CCI stands for? Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have checked and have made several articles compliant with WP:Plagiarism where content was copied form public domain sources. The copying was not acknowledged as per our requirements, although the sources were cited. Some content in Balete tree was a problem, as it was taken from WikiPilipinas. WikiPilipinas is not compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, but even if it were copying would have to be explicitly acknowledged to meet the license. For my own notes, I have looked at articles 14-20 on the contribution surveyor. I did not look as deeply as I would if this were a CCI. It's more of an in-depth spot-check to see if one is needed so we can close this listing out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 11 January 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) 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. CCI requested. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

4 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. It seems okay now? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I rewrote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1960435 is or has lately been licensed compatibly, but that doesn't help us when Rogerson created his account on that website in 2009 and the text in his listing was published here in 2007. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't close out this listing, not with stuff like this September 2004 edit and this August 2004 source. There's also a fair amount of this (see edit summaries). This needs more review than I have time for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

10 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. This one kind of skirted the line in most places. The bulk of content is noncreative, but it took enough that it didn't just copy the facts, but some of the structure. And then what was modified was unsourced. I've replaced it with a less detailed rewrite that sites a source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I did a spot-check and found some unattributed copying within Wikipedia (repaired and advised), but although he closely paraphrased in both of these, I didn't find any other such issues. I'm not removing the day myself in case somebody wants to poke more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

13 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 3 May 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)

19 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Author re-wrote on temp page, OTRS volunteer copied back to main article, Anthony Appleyard histmerged it all together. Done? CrowCaw 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, Crow, if it was me I'd probably request revdeletion of the "bad" part of that complex history. Actually, come to think of it, does the previous version usually get histmerged with the rewrite like that? Asking Moonriddengirl for comment (yet again!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I looked at it, and I'm not totally comfortable. It rings alarm-bell no. 1, curly apostrophes; and there seems to be some close paraphrasing. Does changing "John B. Tsu worked particularly to promote Asian Americans in public service for more than 30 years" to "He worked to push Asian Americans in public service for more than three decades" (whatever that may mean) really constitute writing in your own words? Crow, you know the history here; do you think it is OK? Was the rewrite really a clean start? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct JLAN. For ease of perusal: Before rewrite and After rewrite, and DD Comparison. Looks like it was paraphrased enough to get the Earwig percentage down, but still very close to the source. This may need some merciless gutting, as much as I hate to do so. (But yes: Histmerge is "warts and all" so a revdel or selective-delete-restore is needed). CrowCaw 21:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: I'm afraid all contribs by this editor need checking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

21 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
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)

24 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

25 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. --CrowCaw 21:48, 2 May 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.

27 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
There was no copyright violation on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, as John Carter knew before he filed all of these reports. He is just wikilawyering in an attempt to get me or and Sturmgewehr88 blocked, as he has been doing for the past month or so. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

28 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
    • I fail to see where the copyright problem arises from. It seems there are ample sources to the section. The original poster should substantiate his implications. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is substance to this report. The section in question is amply sourced, yes, but crediting the source does not allow verbatim content to be added. The blanked section appears to contain material directly copied from [3]. That source asserts copyright here:[4]. A spot check of other random phrases from around the article, outside of the blanked section, seems to indicate there are other copy or close-paraphrase issues in the article. Earwig went nuts:[5]. CrowCaw 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent listings

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

29 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

STMicroelectronics (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.st.com/web/en/about_st/st_company_overview.html. Edit that inserted the copyvio back in 2013. Probably more... haven't looked. By an IP that seems to be a source of good work these days; if you think there's a point in notifying the IP now in 2015, do so. Elvey(tc) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

30 April 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

1 May 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I think I have this cleaned, but given the scope of the associated CCI, second set of eyes would be appreciated before removing the tag. CrowCaw 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Crow, I hate to say this, but don't you think that page should become a redirect to Tuzla International Airport? I don't know any of the history here, but this edit appears to copy all of this page (if I remember right, not the first time this editor took from there; interesting date coincidence too). It seems to me that all that content is (unless it ultimately derives from a PD source?) corrupt and should be deleted forthwith, so I'm a bit perplexed to see that some of it has been copied over to the main article. Buckshot06, how confident are you that that content is OK? As I say, I don't know the story ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Justlettersandnumbers. Sometimes I'm a bit too close to these articles. Would advise deletion of all copied content, deletion of the page history, and redirect to Tuzla International Airport. The globalsecurity.org page ext link could be left, and I added a completely new line re a Yugoslav Air Force squadron that can be saved as well. I'll save those two items into my userspace, should you wish, and then everything else can be deleted. After that I could readd the items to the airport category. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

2 May 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I looked at this one yesterday but it wasn't a straightforward case like the Matthews one, though it certainly started with a bunch of copied sentences. There is no doubt that Pilot's regular MO was copy and paste. I'm not familiar with Behel (or at least I don't remember) but that's interesting. Yes, CCI may well be warranted, especially given User_talk:Moonriddengirl#About_copyright. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DrM, the copyvio was never removed, just fudged about a bit. I remember Lee Behel because of the editor's intransigent and unrepentant remarks on MRG's talk page. Also, a confession/apology: I knew Doug Matthews was bad when I looked at it at SCV , but I seem to have failed to do anything about that at the time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

3 May 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

4 May 2015

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Footer

Wikipedia's current date is 4 May 2015. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 May 4. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.