Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

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

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

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

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


Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns

"WP:CPI" redirects here. For the page that protects extremely high-risk templates, see Wikipedia:Cascade protected items.
Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

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

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

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

Suspected or complicated infringement

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

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

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

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

  • Go to today's section and add

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

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

Instructions for special cases

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

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

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

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

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

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

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

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

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

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

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

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

Obtaining/verifying permission

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

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

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

Rewriting content

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

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

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

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

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

Copyright problems board clerks

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

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

Copyright problems board administrators

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

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

Closing listings

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

For advice for resolving listings, see:

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

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 October 25:

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

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via Can you provide a different link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [2]. That particular section was removed, though there is possibly more to be concerned about. MER-C 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 13:

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

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 20:

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

Older than 7 days

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

6 February 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
Source checked. Page is now clear of any copyvio from page (which often violates copyright on the material it propagates too.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I found and removed another large chunk of copyvio. The whole article needs to be checked, as well as the edits of RabeaMalah. MER-C 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Best as I can see, there's none left in this article, but am doing a small CCI. The biggest issue I see is unattributed translation from ArWP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Got it down to three articles and am out of time. Most issues are unattributed copy-pastes from other articles or translations from other languages, but there is also some blatant copyvio. Buckshot06 helped keep some of this from being worse by holding the line on sourcing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll poke at this when I can, but if somebody wants to help out there are some tells: if the content is not particularly comprehensible English, it is likely a poor translation from another language Wikipedia. (It is also likely to have been unsourced and to be already gone.) If the content is properly formatted on arrival, it is probably copied from an English Wikipedia article without attribution, which needs repair. If it is polished English without sources, it is most likely copied from an external site. Country Studies has been copied without attribution many times, but so have fully reserved sources, and some of that content remains. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Remaining articles to be checked
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

10 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Copyvio version deleted, recreation clean. MER-C 03:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Article cleaned, still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. MER-C 12:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Zdzisław Piernik (history · last edit · rewrite) from However, the page seems to be a translation of content itself based on the Polish Wikipedia's article on Piernik, compare [4] and [5]. It should be released under a free license as a derivative work of our Polish article, but I see no indication that it actually is. Huon (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --— Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Death of Manon Dubé, direct copy from this book from the first edit by User:Jallore. According to Talk:Death of Manon Dubé, the editor was a contributor to the book and that was enough for those people but I don't know being a contributor is sufficient since the book wasn't released a copyleft so I think that means that the other author's copyright and the publisher copyright remain. The editor's other editing at Death of Theresa Allore I had to extensively delete due to copyrights existing at a particular blog which has the same name with the editor's but it's just complicated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

17 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

18 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe the above two reports are the result of the editor's failure to exercise proper discretion in the use of the duplicate detector tool. In the case of Jack Mitchell (photographer), the edits in question are over four years old: and include proper nouns, place names and generic statements of fact, which cannot be copyvios. And while it is a newer article, the same applies to Suzi Bass Award. Each article also has several other reliably sourced and properly attributed references listed. So to tag the entire articles, and before discussion on the article's talk pages, is a concern. As is the proposed threat of WP:WIKIHOUNDING my entire 10 year edit history, as has also been hinted at here. X4n6 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Timeheritage - contributions . This editor has been cautioned for copyvio a number of times since he began in 2015. This February (mainly 9-11th) he went on a spree of creating new articles on Ancient Greek monuments and sites, and adding to others, at a rate that would be impossible if he were writing them. I believe he is copying or translating from foreign language works (not all that well) such as site guides, which he gives as refs. This is also suggested by him not formatting the paragraphs correctly. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

20 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

21 April 2016

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

24 April 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted for a reason other than copyright concerns. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
CCI requested. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Creator and a new user has removed the Copyvio template without approval from admin. Velella, can you please take a look at it. Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks as though most of the copy vio material has been diluted out. There is still some quite close paraphrasing of another of the sources but not sufficient to justify a current concern about copyright violation. I am content to withdraw this report  Velella  Velella Talk   17:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

22 May 2016

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

28 May 2016

30 May 2016

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

2 June 2016

4 June 2016

1994 Heathrow mortar attacks (history · last edit · rewrite) from Petebutt (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

9 June 2016

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

12 June 2016

14 June 2016

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

20 June 2016

23 June 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 06:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Barry Hutchison (history · last edit · rewrite) from Article was created in 2010 from material that appears to be copied directly from author's own webpage [14]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Medical education in Jordan (history · last edit · rewrite) from The article was started back in June 2010, with the first version appearing to be entirely replicating text from the first three pages of an article published in Medical Teacher, which was first made available online on 22 January 2010. The source, Medical Teacher, is a journal that requires subscription to view the full-text version of the article, so this might make it more difficult for the similarity to be detected using some of the online tools. The copy of the article that I have referred to is clearly marked as copyright. I had figured the copyright violation was so extensive that I initially opted to nominate the article for speedy deletion. The speedy was declined, with the admin Fish and karate making reference in their edit summary to the original editor Ymousa having indicated that that he had permission to reproduce the article in question. I cannot see any indication on the talk page of the article or the other editors of how this claim was made or verified, so I have brought the matter here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't make any claims to believe the original author or not, but it's enough that a slightly less cursory review than speedy deletion is warranted. fish&karate 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify-I don't have any issue with the nomination for speedy deletion being declined. I made reference to it to help provide any reviewers with some background. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

30 June 2016

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

5 July 2016

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

7 July 2016

8 July 2016

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Most of the copy-pasted text seems to consist of quotations between quotation marks. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the article mainly suffers from excessive non-transformative use of quotes, similar to the form "According to <x>, 'long quote providing content'"> I've explained this on the talk page and suggested a collaborative re-write between disagreeing parties. CrowCaw 18:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 02:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • MER-C: I don't think so. The article is still a clear violation of copyright. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Claus Drexel (history · last edit · rewrite) from [16]. Article is not a G12 because not all of the article is copied and pasted from that website, however if you disagree with me, please let me know. Hx7 22:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July 2016

11 July 2016

15 July 2016

19 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

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

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

29 July 2016

Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

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

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

3 August 2016

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

4 August 2016

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

11 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

16 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • I have cleaned, revdeleted, tagged the talk page and warned.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

25 August 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

Jock Scott fly (history · last edit · rewrite) from Mike Cline (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

29 August 2016

  • Not a copyvio (backwards copying). MER-C 11:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask some questions in here? In my sense, the exact text focuses on the introduction of snuff, however my draft is based on introducing snuff box, not snuff. And I didn't see the exact text before, so I had no idea about it. Also in my draft, I don't feel the exact text is relevant my draft very much indeed. All the resources I cited came from the Archive Room of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regimental Museum. The most part of text I cited from the Thin Red Line (The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regimental magazine), the images I just took photos from the object of the Museum and the images of the magazine. Sorry about I still confuse why did the experienced editor think there is copyright issue between the exact text and my draft, can anyone help me to understand? Sorry to make inconvenience in here. Many Thanks Iphigenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphigenia Wang (talkcontribs) 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iphigenia. Citing sources does not mean you get to copy the source's text. Sources are cites to verify the information, that must be written in your own words (but for short quotes, marked as such using quote marks and cited using an inline citations). I am even more sure now that you copied the text from the various sources you cited since it is quite polished and based on your note above, it's plain English is not your native language. You may write gorgeously in your native tongue and, by the way, your English is good (I am always impressed by people who can write understandably at all in another language) but you could not have written this text. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear sir and Madam Thanks indeed to answer me again, but I just feel a bit language discrimination in your reply. When I was writing this article, I used language dictionary to get some new vocabularies to replace some old vocabularies in the cited text, also I rewrote some sentences structure in the draft. When I finished the draft also asked my colleague's help to do proof reading , as I placement in a regimental museum is a part of our team work.Yes, And I have clear sense about the difference between paraphrasing and quoting. I know my language is not good enough, and still looking forward some editors to help me improve it! Many Thanks Iphigenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphigenia Wang (talkcontribs) 10:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1 September 2016

  • I have cleaned, revdeleted, tagged the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

3 September 2016

Specifically, at least:
  • Scrubbed. Unfortunately, had to revert back to a stub; all tainted. No use warning here – user's last edit was to this article in 2011.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

5 September 2016

  • Problem solving - sentence "Problem solving consists of using generic or ad hoc methods, in an orderly manner, for finding solutions to problems. Some of the problem-solving techniques developed and used in artificial intelligence, computer science, engineering, mathematics, or medicine are related to mental problem-solving techniques studied in psychology." is from this book: [17]. It should at least quote it. --Glenn (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Actually the sentence is in many book [18] and I do not know the original source (might even be Wikipedia?). --Glenn (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

6 September 2016

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
NB: see also User:MoscowFF/SDV. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Willem George Frederik Derx (history · last edit · rewrite) from Michel Doortmont 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm the author. I did not take over texts from Doortmont's website, I rather incorporated information from that source and wrote the article in my own words. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • For this and all the other infringements: the original materials were acquired in contravention of the regulations of the website. User:Fentener van Vlissingen did NOT register for the use of the website (a requirement) and downloaded the materials and used them for the Wikipedia articles. Even though he used "his own words", this stipulates a violation of copyright and intellectual rights, as well as the legal provisions put in place for the use of the website and the materials thereon (see:, all in good order under Dutch laws, which regulate the use of that website. The website in its current form is NOT a source, as Fentener van Vlissingen states, but a publication in its own right. The article Willem George Frederik Derx is fully based on these materials, others are so also in full or in part. Michel Doortmont 20:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm confused now, do you accuse me of a violation of copyright or a violation of the terms and conditions of your website? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Both, because the use of materials from the database, in whatever form is regarded as a copyright issue in law. The core issue of the usage of data from is about the right to use database materials, which in this case is governed by these considerations:, more specifically the European Database Directive. And this should then govern both the use of raw data, text, format, and images.Michel Doortmont 20:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
            • As far as I understand database rights, that concerns the protection of the database as a whole. To reiterate: I did not copy any material from your website. I used your website as a source for my article, just like I use other publications as sources for articles I write. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Doortmont, the "regulations" of your website have no standing whatsoever in a Wikipedia discussion. Wikipedia is not responsible for enforcing a private website's terms of use, only for enforcing copyright law and its own policies. Since you acknowledge that Fentener put the information on your website into his own words when he used your website as a source, under the law his use constitutes "fair use" and there is no issue for the Wikipedia community to deal with. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The complaint seems to be that because it is used as a source it's a copyright violation because it violates the terms of service. How ever under US Contract Law these TOS should be considered null and void. Signing up amounts to agreeing to the TOS but you can not read the TOS until after you sign up. Your database was not wholly copied. The information it's self, the dates and facts regarding to Willem George Frederik Derx do not have a copyright. If you have any copyright at all it's in the arrangement of data and the specific data chosen. You do not dispute the data as presented on Wikipedia by editor Fentener van Vlissingen is in this editors own words. There's a clear case of fair use.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg No vio found, claim has been actively invalidated by the claimant's own words. Neither copyright nor database rights (which aren't relevant to this US-based website anyway) are infringed when someone uses a website as a source for writing his own original text. Tag removed from article. --Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. The copyvio tag has been reinstated by Doortmont to the article, however, as he argues nothing was resolved. There's also a copyvio tag on Carel Hendrik Bartels by the way, for the same reasons, but tag was not reported here by Doortmont. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, Mmyers1976, the No vio found action disregards several issues. Most importantly, the usage of materials from a digital database is strictly regulated in law and does not depend on the location of the database, but on the location of the author / owner. In this case this means that European laws on digital database usage - much stricter than the US ones - apply for any usage of the materials. Also, it means that any additional regulations added to the (limitations on the) use of such database are binding. See, more specifically the European Database Directive. And this should then govern the use of raw data, text, format, and images inclusively. Contrary to your opinion Mmyers1976 I think this is an issue for the Wikipedia community to deal with. There is no case for "fair use" here -Serialjoepsycho- nor has it anything to do with US contract law, as the materials were under the Database Directive rules possibly neither legally obtained nor used. As a second consideration I would put it to the WIkipedia community and the administrators that if Wikipedia is not responsible for enforcing a private website's terms of use, only for enforcing copyright law and its own policies this means that the community is in danger of condoning the use of stolen materials on Wikipedia pages. I do not think that can be the intention of this consideration (b.t.w. not saying this is necessarily the case here). Moreover, in this case it is not about enforcing a private website's terms of use, but about upholding the rule of law that governs usage of materials. And in the administrators opinions I g=have so far not seen any evidence based position with regard to my complaint that the rules of Database Directive were not upheld. Hence I have reinstated the tag, and request a further investigation and discussion on the issue. I have removed the tag on Carel Hendrik Bartels for the moment. If and when my objection is agreed upon, I will claim the issue on all other articles involved as well as the images now in Wikimedia Commons. Michel Doortmont 12:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First of all, the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are located in the United States, which means the contents on Wikipedia are subject to US law. A US judge cannot enforce a Dutch copyright law or database right law. Secondly, I think you misunderstand database right. Database right was invented to protect data that can normally not be protected by copyright, such as telephone numbers or birth dates. Database right protect the maker of a database against the further distribution of his entire database without his consent, something which is not protected by copyright law (because database entries are not always an original work). Citation rights apply to database rights, see articles 3 and 5 of the Dutch database rights law, so my citation of your database also amounts to fair use under Dutch law. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • With regard to the Dutch database rights law, the quoted articles are less than straightforward, as you make them out to be. Your claim that the database is / was open to the public is false, I contend. Access is limited to screened and registered users, which is a group of people that, under Dutch and European law, cannot be defined as "the public". So there is a legal issue there, which would focus on (a) whether you accessed the database legally; (b) if the fact that you could access it was intended by the owner; and (c) if you accessing the database as a non-registered user means that the database "is made available in any way to the public". I would like to see jurisprudence on that. And when dealing with a non-public database, the regulations for use of the database are valid. Equally so, the European Database Directive then makes for a very clear position: not the location of the servers, but the location of the owner / publisher is decisive for the application of law. The fallacy is here that you keep emphasising that the database is a public database, which it is not; it is PRIVATE. Your access to it was not intended, which is made very clear in the description, the necessity to register, and the regulations for its use. Michel Doortmont 14:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Michael Doormant, No Database right exist in the United States. The Database directive is incompatible with the United States constitution. A US Court can not offer you Sui generis database right. The English Wikipedia is Governed by US Copyright law. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's unlear what this has to do with the case here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho It is a copyright violation I found on Sept 6 which is why it is under this section. (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry this blends in so much with the above. I bolded them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

7 September 2016

8 September 2016

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

10 September 2016

  • Copied from [19]. The copyvio URL could have copied from either here or OrthodoxWiki, that site didn't exist in 2006. MER-C 12:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

11 September 2016

12 September 2016

13 September 2016

14 September 2016

  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. ticket:2016081910002945 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I might be screwing up how i'm doing this...fix as needed please. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

15 September 2016

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --MER-C 12:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Source webpage is now released under a compatible license --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

16 September 2016

  • Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) (history · last edit · rewrite) from which has some of the same content at (not clear which came first), The latter two urls are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 but appear to themselves copy from Twin Cities Picture Show: A Century of Moviegoing Minnesota Historical Society Press, November 1, 2007 By Dave Kenney

    This is an unfortunate one. There have been many hands involved in editing this one (because there is a controversy going on right now over the potential tear down of this historically significant theater, many people trying to save it, a lawsuit involved, and so forth). I was adding and fixing some content myself when I saw many hallmarks of copying and began looking. You'll see in the history I spent a fair amount of time trying to remove violations to try to save save it from a G12, but then I kept discovering more, and once I looked more globally, I found the first revision appeared to have been a copyvio.

    If someone is willing to spend hours separating the wheat from the chaff, to figure out what interstitial parts are not tainted and save those portions, then maybe we can save it, but substantial effort will be needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Update. So upon further investigation, the website of the society is licensed under CC-By-SA 4.0, but (as noted above) and putting aside the Facebook issue, there is some indication that it, in turn, copies from the 2007 book. I have requested that someone who has access to the book check at WP:RX.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. That is, I have independently checked the book's text and found sufficient paraphrasing so I am closing the investigation. There is a possible other book involved, but it appears the author of that significantly contributed to the CC-by-SA 4.0 website, so I presume that is a sufficient release of their copyright.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

17 September 2016

  • Location-based advertising (history · last edit · rewrite) from, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Olivier Anthony Theurillat (history · last edit · rewrite) from Trumpet Greats – A Biographical Dictionary by D. R. Hickman, M. Laplace and E. H. Tarr (2013). The article creator implied that this was a copyright violation by saying that the text was extracted from this book. (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Tomas Karlsson (history · last edit · rewrite) from ???. Im not sure exactly where this is from, but I found one closely phrased paragraph in the first version uploaded and I suspect there may be others in there. If it is true that this is a G12 article I'd rather delete on those grounds than on A7. Can someone look into this? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

18 September 2016

20 September 2016

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.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 September 21

22 September 2016

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.

23 September 2016

24 September 2016

25 September 2016

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 September 26

27 September 2016

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 September 28


Wikipedia's current date is 28 September 2016. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 September 28. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.