Welcome to hypercone.com on July 4 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
"WP:CP" redirects here. For the Community Portal, see Wikipedia:Community Portal.
ATTENTION: For blatant copyright infringements:
  • If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it.
  • If not, and it meets the criteria, request speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld/}}
  • If it does not meet the criteria or you are not sure who originally authored the material, list it here instead for investigation.
Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Copyright policy
Copyright violation policy
Reusing Wikipedia content
Text of CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License
Text of the GFDL
Guidelines
Public domain content
Non-free content
Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations
Copyright problems
Resources
General help
Copyright assistance
Media copyright questions
Requesting copyright permission
Image copyright tags
Donating copyrighted material
Shortcuts:
WP:CP
WP:CV

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. For images and text 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.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia

Policy shortcut:
WP:IOWN

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), 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, while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. It is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

[edit] What's copyrighted?

Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or is otherwise compatible CC-BY-SA, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

[edit] What about fair use?

Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.

Purge server cache if recent edits are not visible.

[edit] Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright

Main article: Wikipedia:Plagiarism

Wikipedia will naturally refer to and include some material that comes from outside sources. This material may be in the public domain, may be included under a fair use argument, or it may be under a license compatible with the license used on Wikipedia. Examples of public-domain works include text and images from United States Government publications, and older works—such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica—that are no longer, or never were, covered by copyright. Some further examples are at Category:Attribution templates.

Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.

Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.

If an editor has copied text or figures into Wikipedia without proper attribution, politely refer him to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and/or Help:Citations quick reference. Editors who have difficulties or questions about this guidance can be referred to the Help Desk. Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing.

[edit] Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project, see 17 United States Code 512.

[edit] Instructions

Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright (ie. the material is not Public Domain, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License, or specifically licensed to Wikipedia on suitable terms) should, as a general rule, be removed.

Blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:
  • Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia;
  • There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving.
  • The text on Wikipedia really is an infringement of another source (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors — Make sure we're copying someone else, not the other way around)
  • Uploader does not assert permission, or the assertion is questionable

After notifying the uploading editor, add one of these to the page:

{{db-copyvio | url=insert URL of source here}}
{{db-copyvio | describe non-web source here}}

An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

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. Please note the reason for removal in edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{cclean}}).
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems:
    • Place on the page one of the following:
      {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}
      {{subst:copyvio | identify non-web source here}}
This will blank all text beneath the template. (To limit blanking, place </div> at the end of the text to be blanked.)
    • 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)
  • Advise the contributor of the material at his or talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.
  • You're done!

[edit] Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article 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 article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)

[edit] Alternatives to deletion

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you may:

  • Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text, including — unless you give credit — text authored by others on Wikipedia. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner and ask for permission. Check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). Also see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission.
  • Where appropriate, please address the matter with the contributor who added the infringement. {{copyvio}} and {{db-g12}}, for speedy deletions, will generate a notice that you can paste on the contributor's page. Other notices can be found at Category:Copyright maintenance templates.

[edit] Instructions for administrators

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before they are checked and processed by administrators. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins for some help.

All pages tagged with {{copyvio}} are placed in Category:Possible copyright violations.

[edit] See also

[edit] Listings of possible copyright problems

[edit] Very old issues

[edit] Remaining older issues, consolidated

Inoysterbay points me to other wikipedia list-articles where there are copies of historic plaque texts, including New Hampshire Historical Markers and List of historical highway markers in Hampshire County, West Virginia (the latter discussed in this AfD ). Offhand, it looks to me that these are in copyright violation as well. To be honest, though, I think i have seen complete texts of historic plaques for buildings included in articles about those buildings. Perhaps it is okay to write out text, as if by a fair use copyright allowance, in an article specifically about the subject of the plaque? But list-articles consisting almost entirely of text of plaques does not seem like fair use to me. What usage is fair and what is not fair? I look forward to some guidance from copyright experts here. doncram (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There was previous plaques deletion discussion in January 2008 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 6#Plaques deletion which referenced also referenced this commons discussion [1] regarding one plaque that was exempt for a Minnesota state exemption. My understanding from then was that permissions are needed or it is copyright violation, and non-Minnesota plaque photos were deleted. doncram (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that these are copyright problems except in states that release their official publications into pd. However, let's seek additional feedback. I'll pose the question at WT:C and see if there are any takers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Contributor had indicated permission was forthcoming; seeking update. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This one needs more time to process. Conversation ongoing. Consolidating. Please report conclusions here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Combinatorial library was listed on May 26th. The contributor tried several times to revise, but latest version still contained duplicated text from at least [2] ("This technique was pioneered by Furka and has been enthusiastically exploited by many others since its first disclosure.", etc.) I have deleted the main article and moved the temp for a short time to User:Informagenesis/Combinatorial library for further development. I have not closely compared it with other sources to be sure that those have been fully revised. I am consolidating this to be sure that we do not keep this temp version around too long without addressing copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than 7 days, but have not yet been dealt with.

[edit] 25 June 2009

[edit] 26 June 2009

Personally I believe the claim is ridiculous Dared111 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New listings

[edit this list] (to add or to remove per-day pages)

[edit] 27 June 2009

  • I've deleted the article as an expired PROD nomination, with a note in the deletion summary about the partial copying from another source. Jamie☆S93 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 28 June 2009

[edit] 29 June 2009

Doc Films (history · last edit) from http://docfilms.uchicago.edu/dev/about.shtml. – DroEsperanto(talk|contribs) 04:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Copyright template. Content was created on the wikipedia, and was used on the website referenced. It is marked as copy written, which violates the GFDL under which it is held. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 15:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 30 June 2009

[edit] 1 July 2009

[edit] 2 July 2009

  • Article was tagged speedy, I moved it here. The issue to me is whether the list is merely information under Feist. If the list represents editorial choices, that is "it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity," then a copyright seems to apply. If not, I don't see the copyright as applicable. In this case, the determination of Who is a Jew? might represent an editorial choice, ergo make the list fall under copyright. For instance, the inclusion of John Harsanyi, whose parents converted from Judaism to Catholicism before his birth, may be an example of editorial decision-making. My inclination is towards deletion. I should note, however, I am not a lawyer and copyright subtleties are not much in my line. What are other folks thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • See also the discussions: [87]and [88].Jinfo (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3 July 2009

[edit] 4 July 2009

Jennifer Batten (history · last edit) from [115] WTucker (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Footer

Wikipedia's current date is July 4, 2009. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 July 4. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs