Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

please edit to insert a missing syntactical article[edit]

Either "an" or "the" is missing in the lead, after the pink box, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, in "Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license", before the penultimate word. License is a count noun, not a mass noun. I'm not an admin. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Important note" illegible on narrow screens[edit]

The "Important note" with a pink background has its style set with margin-right:20em but no min-width. On a narrow screen, such as a mobile phone in portrait mode, this squeezes the box into a single-character column, which is impossible to read. Please add min-width: 20em (or smaller, but not too small) to make it legible in such a situation. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification please[edit]

This is a great article in its own right imho but could someone clarify two things, both under: Linking to copyrighted works please?

if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright

Should this read "or could reasonably suspect"?

linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use

If there is fair use, eg of a still from a movie, then isn't that a general position?

I am also confused as to why eg. citing words published in hard copy seems to be treated materially differently to citing eg. a clip from a movie. Are all creative works equal but some more equal than others? And should that for instance have been written with quotes and a citation reference approved by the author/publisher etc? I find it difficult to wrap my head around these apparent differences.

LookingGlass (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For the first issue, I don't think the word 'could' is needed in the sentence. Removing the first verb (know), the sentence reads "if you...reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." For the second issue, the entire paragraph is needed for context (no pun intended):

Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.

This paragraph can be confusing and should use a better example, but the answer to your question is that there isn't a difference between types of works (print vs. video). The difference that the paragraph is referring to is the difference between linking to this webpage (assume it has commentary about the following linked image) versus linking to this image if this image is copyrighted and used on the webpage without the permission of the copyright holder but the use is OK under fair use law. It is OK to link to the page because the page complies with copyright law (the film review in the quoted paragraph), but not OK to link directly to the image URL (the film screenshot). Keep in mind that most images on websites are actually have their own URL because of the way that servers handle files, but the images are used on webpages with other text/graphics/etc. You can view most images displayed on websites at a unique URL by right-clicking and selecting "View image" (which is how I got the image URL linked above). AHeneen (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom final decisions and copyright[edit]

Please see my thread at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#ArbCom cases and attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Extensive plagiarism of Wikipedia by an "academic journal" article - not sure how to deal with this[edit]

This journal article substantially duplicates a large amount of text from Wikipedia's amphetamine article without attribution, substantially duplicates 2 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia's Adderall article without attribution, and reused 2 images that I drew, uploaded to Commons ([1] [2]), and published under CC-BY-SA-3.0, also without attribution.

Just to illustrate the extent of this issue, I've highlighted all of the sentences from the Wikipedia article and this journal article that are virtually identical in these pdfs: Amphetamine article (March 5 revision); journal article (March 10 submission date) (NB: orange highlighted text is copied from amphetamine; light blue highlighted text is copied from Adderall#Mechanism of action). Alternatively, see the results from the Earwig copyvio detector.

I'm not really sure how to provide an appropriate notice of copyright infringement in this context since the OMICS Publishing Group doesn't have a webpage dedicated to copyright issues. As far as I can tell, this contact page and the emails/phone numbers listed on that page appear to be the only means of communication with the publisher. Also, none of the model letters listed in Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter seem to apply in this context because this was published in an academic journal. Anyone have any advice? Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • They do have 2 links in the references section back to WP articles (Lisdexamfetamine and Substituted amphetamine)... if those were the only pages they re-used, then the hyperlinks in the page do seem to conform to the bare minimum attribution needed, per WP:REUSE. Your drawings being in those linked articles should fall under the umbrella cite of the pages. CrowCaw 22:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I actually only recently decided to transclude {{Psychostimulant addiction}} into the lisdexamfetamine article (see Special:diff/797902889/797906870). When viewing older revisions of the lisdexamfetamine article, it will show that figure as being a part of the article because it's being transcluded in from the current revision of the amphetamine article. In other words, at the time the journal article was published, only 1 of my diagrams was displayed in the lisdexamfetamine article. Even so, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires that a content creator be attributed unless waived by the licensor/creator (see the Creative Commons FAQ for attribution) and the url where the content is hosted be specified if reasonable; consequently, citing the lisdexamfetamine article as an indirect citation to my figures isn't adequate at the very least because I didn't waive that right and I wasn't attributed. Moreover, several sections that were copied from the amphetamine and Adderall articles into the journal article are not transcluded into the lisdexamfetamine article (e.g., the text that was copied from Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, Amphetamine#Chemistry, and Adderall#Mechanism_of_action).
So, in a nutshell, even if a single in-text attribution to those 2 Wikipedia articles were adequate for CC-BY-SA-3.0-compliant attribution with respect to duplicating ~20 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia, it would still fail to satisfy the license's attribution requirements for the text copied from the aforementioned 3 sections.
Anyway, I'm about to send OMICS Publishing Group a copyright infringement notice using a variant of Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter#If you are a significant contributor to the text. I'll follow up here if/when I get a response. That paper is also hosted on ResearchGate, so I'm notifying them as well. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I've sent the notices. Awaiting a response now. Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in hearing how they respond. If you get into a dialog, you may want to point out the irony of them listing a very specific way to attribute their journal if re-used. CrowCaw 21:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Crow: Roughly 12 hours after I emailed, they responded to me via email notifying me that they'd removed the offending content which I had specified in my email to them. They removed the pdf and HTML versions of the full text article on their website and all of the images from the article's figure preview page, even though only 2 of the 4 images violated my copyright. This is the pdf file from ResearchGate (NB: I'm hosting this file externally) that used to be available for direct download through this link, which now simply redirects to the article abstract on ResearchGate. The abstract contains no material that infringes upon copyrighted content from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; I assume this is why they left that intact.

These are the urls that I indicated as containing material which violates my copyright in my email to ResearchGate
  1. Full text of the article from the publication details page:
  2. Full text from the dedicated download link to the pdf file:
  3. Figures 2 and 3 from the following link:
  4. Figures 2 and 3 from the full text in the following two links:
  5. Figure 2 download link:
  6. Figure 3 download link:

All of the copyright infringing material on these pages was promptly removed by ResearchGate.

I have yet to receive a response from OMICS. I'm going to wait a few days before sending a follow-up notice via email to[nb 1] and request that they reply with information about how they intend to rectify the situation; if I receive no response to that email after exactly 1 week, I'm going to send a cease and desist notice. If even that doesn't elicit a response, I'm going to follow-up with a DMCA takedown notice roughly a week later. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I found two email addresses for the editorial board of the journal in which the article was published – and – listed on [3] and [4], respectively; so, I just sent them an email similar to the one I sent to two days ago. I also asked them to let me know how they intend to address the issue. Hopefully they'll respond. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I received the following response from the journal's editorial staff:

Dear [redacted name]
We informed the mistakes in the pdf to author and he had done the corrections, once we receive the final corrected pdf we will update it online
Feel free to contact us for any further queries
With thanks,

That was a very prompt reply. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent, seems like the best response we could get. Hopefully the authors will comply as well, but if not, it's out of publication. CrowCaw 22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working with the lead author to correct the issue. He seems eager to resolve the problem, so this issue should be resolved soon. I guess the lesson here is that when there's a copyright issue in an OMICS journal, the journal's editorial staff needs to be contacted directly. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ I only emailed in my original email to OMICS. In my subsequent emails to them, I intend to add (the contact address for medical journal content), (the contact address for "OMICS International Journals"), and (the contact address for the world headquarters). Since the OMICS contact page doesn't include any email for copyright-related issues, I'm including every email address that is listed on the contact page which includes the journal in which the article was published within their scope.