Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Articles 21 through 40[edit]

Articles 41 through 60[edit]

Articles 61 through 67[edit]

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2015-07-20T14:19:48+00:00 in 0.26 sec.

|}

Text copied from another article?[edit]

The long list of errors in the current version of the article Neuromuscular junction disease brought me to this diff by an IP from more than a year ago: [1]. I can see this as being a potential copyright problem on two fronts; first the large amount of text is not properly sourced, and I guess it has been copied from somewhere else within wikipedia without proper attribution. I do not know the proper forum for addressing such a concern, so I am posting it here. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Keeping this thread alive so it doesn't get archived. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The text matches a Wikipedia mirror that says it came from Neuromuscular junction, though I can't find the same text in the current article, nor in the version prior to the forking of the disorders article. I know there's a tool out there somewhere that lets one search through all revs of an article, just have to find it... CrowCaw 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Crow. I have looked through older versions of the article also but can't come up with anything. I hope somebody else can help. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on a government website[edit]

Dear copyright experts: This old draft User:Kvasconez/sandbox appear to be a copy of an article sponsored by a government department, rather than a policy document or other official publication. Is this copyright?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it was written by an employee of the Federal Highway Administration, which is part of the US federal government, during the course of that person's official duties (Copyright status of work by the U.S. government), so I'd say it's in the public domain. Hut 8.5 15:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Aye, this one is a work of the US government I'd say. That website appears to host third-party works as well (like this), though. I hope that these websites have a "third party stuff must have a copyright notice if it is copyrighted" policy, there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I deleted it anyway under db-g13, since it wasn't written as an encyclopedia article and had been declined at AfC more than six months ago. It can be revived if the user ever returns to improve it.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)