Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Copyright problems)
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
Non-U.S. copyrights
Copying within Wikipedia
Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations
Copyright problems
Possibly unfree files
Contributor copyright investigations
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. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

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 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 an explicit statement (by the author or the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects 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.

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for noting resolution.

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

[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] 14 November 2009

  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Tagged a week ago, but not blanked. Remedied, notified contributor. Relisting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New listings

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

[edit] 15 November 2009


[edit] 16 November 2009

[edit] 17 November 2009

[edit] Copyright Investigations (Manual article tagging)
While the original 2006 article was a copyright violation, the current article is significantly cut down, is now mostly paraphrased, and the part that is a longer direct quote is in quotations with a reference. (These edits were made a couple of years ago.) I've worked on this article in the past, and if a specific section is problematic, I'm willing to rewrite it now to prevent deletion. LyrlTalk C 23:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 18 November 2009

  • Manny Villar (history · last edit) from http://www.mannyvillar.com.ph/theman.php. Wilfordsy (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Economy of Gibraltar (history · last edit) from http://www.gibraltarchamberofcommerce.com/docs/GCoC-24920-FletcherReport-Abridged.pdf. Ecemaml (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Selectively deleted removed copyvio. RedCoat10 • talk 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Selective deletion is something a little different than regular removal. :) However, I see that another contributor restored the content. Unless the source is free, material from it cannot be placed on Wikipedia outside of the allowances of WP:NFC, which require that direct copying be denoted by quotation marks or other markup (such as block quotes) and which forbids in all cases extensive quotation. ~604 words is likely to be extensive from a document of any size, but particularly from a 6 page pdf. (300 words was found extensive from a 30,000 word manuscript: http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The included text is far too long to be considered a fair use of quoted material (regardless if the original report was even a 10,000 page thing). And more importantly, there is no creative expression in the text; they are simple facts, which means we can paraphrase and cite the report for those statements. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • My understanding is the summary of the report is released to the public domain, in which case there is no problem. --Gibnews (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you verify that it is pd? (If so, of course, I'd agree with you.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
          • The PDF aside the quote was from Fletcher's report, the fact that a summary reproduces the same text in a single document is immaterial. The report is the named original source, the quote represents a fraction of that document. The copyright violation report is linked to the wrong document. Justin talk 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
            • That isn't likely to help. As I pointed out above, 300 words out of 30,000 was found to be a violation in one court case. This text is over twice that. If the report is not public domain, the content is far too extensive to be safely used verbatim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I would suggest you reread the citation you supplied, in the case you mentioned it was not the fact that 300 out of 30000 words were quoted, it was the fact that the circumstances of publishing in the way they did caused significant financial damage. The selected quotes used in this example do not pass the 4 tests applied by the Supreme Court it fails on all points. Justin talk 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
              • You can also find the summary reproduced verbatim in numerous sources [16][17] Justin talk 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                • It doesn't matter who else has reproduced it. If it isn't public domain, we cannot. You may use brief quotes in accordance with WP:NFC. Wikipedia's viewpoint on fair use is explained in that policy & guideline: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • That was not the point, it was a brief quotation and I merely point out it was extensively reproduced. Its perfectly within fair use guidelines, the original report mislead as to the extent of reproduction of the original. We have not reproduced the document, a small portion of a report was quoted. A simple formatting fix should be sufficient to comply with NFC. Otherwise any citation including a quote is not valid using such overly narrow criteria.
                  • The original objection was that most of the document was quoted, however, that was not the original source, it was a derivative of it reproducing only the summary. The legal precadent you're quoting has no coherence with the use of the document. Now it seems that only public domain information can be used. Can we have a stationary target please? Justin talk 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • In the grand scheme of things, the court tests are not really material to the discussion either. WP:C and WP:NFCC are the binding Terms of Use for the English Wikipedia, and they are, by necessity, stricter than what law mandates. In essence, the relevant test for inclusion of an extensive quote remains only three-pronged: Does the quotation add to the article in a significant manner, does its replacement by a synthesis significantly detract from the comprehension of the viewpoints described in the article, would its removal significantly impact the credibility of the synthetic statement made in the article (so that the users would have to click on a reference link to verify by themselves that party Example did, indeed, profess some specific view)? If the answer to any of these is "no", regardless of the legal implications, a copyrighted quote has no place in a free encyclopedia. Length is immaterial to the discussion. MLauba (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • 600 words is not a brief quotation; it's an extensive quotation, even if it is from a longer work. Even in most academic books, that would be more than a full page. You perhaps misunderstood me when I said, "~604 words is likely to be extensive from a document of any size" if you thought I meant that it would be fine if the six page .pdf were longer. Subsequently, another administrator User:Masem also chimed in indicating that the text is unusable. You may paraphrase the material, quoting from it briefly as necessary in accordance with the usages suggested at WP:NFC. You can't reproduce it without verifying that it is public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • OK, well on point 1, the quote does add significantly to the article, that is why it was added on point 2, (albeit a subjective criteria) its removal has substantially reduced the comprehension of the article (one of the reasons why someone has been so keen to find a reason for its removal), it has been included because it significantly adds to the credibility of the article due to its rigorous approach, substantial evidence base and independence. So as I've already indicated I believe it passed the NFC criteria.
                      • So if I understand you correctly the only thing up for discussion is to how quotations are used? Justin talk 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                        • Two administrators have already told you it does not pass the WP:NFC criteria. The quote is too extensive. The text is replaceable with free content. Hence, you cannot use it unless it is public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                        • And now that I've reviewed the text in dispute, it is not a brief quotation by any means, and while it adds in a significant manner (at least quantitatively) it can be very easily synthesised without detracting from the article, and the replacement by synthesis would not leave the article in a state where a reader must necessarily click on the reference link to believe what the article claims. The quote will be gone for good in 7 days, the only thing left to decide is whether the synthesis will be proposed by someone knowledgeable of the topic, or a copyright managing admin who may not be as familiar with the subject matter. That makes three admins in my book. MLauba (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                          • I've already placed a summary temporarily in place till this was sorted. To answer the points you raised, it does add to the article significantly. The report is significant because it is independent and authoritative, its neutrality acts as a counter point to the many POV pushers on that article. To answer the second point that it can easily by synthesised, you're possibly correct but equally its quoted directly as the original poster here tries to criticise any synthesis on the specious reason that you have to reflect the source exactly (which if you do is now described as a copyright violation), describing any attempt to do otherwise as OR, then using that specious reason to remove text. Whats especially frustrating here is that you ask for guidance as to what is appropriate usage and you don't get it, rather you're told what you can't have but not what you can. What is a brief quotation? I would hope that the 3 admins saying we can't quote that report, for a reason I don't pretend to understand, will put that article on their watch list and defend any synthesis from attack by POV pushing. Justin talk 00:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                            • No one can give you a specific definition, because there isn't one. However, this one isn't even close to brief. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                              • If you don't have a definition or guideline, its entirely subjective, a matter of personal opinion, subject to arbitrary sanction and utterly useless in helping editors produce content. Not only that any POV warrior can wikilawyer away content he doesn't like. Fabulous, simply fabulous. Justin talk 09:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                                • Well, first, no POV warrior can wikilawyer away a proper paraphrase. Second, if you want to propose an actual word count, you're as welcome as anybody to do so at WT:NFC. However, you can expect the discussion to become complex. Even if we were able to devise some kind of ratio of words to source(x words out y), we'd also have to find some way to assess the importance of the text to each document (a concept embraced in the term "substantiality"). You might be able to quote 50 words from a 300 page book in a lengthy article. You can't quote it in an article that has 52 words. And you can't arbitrarily quote 50 words from anything. Among its several prongs, the law requires, very vaguely, that we copy only what is necessary for our intended use. It also requires that we not copy the "heart" of a copyrighted work. And it isn't at all interested in our opinion on how much we think we need or whether the material is the heart. The only way to determine if a quote is fair use is to take it before a federal court ([18]). There is no easy rule on this, because the US courts that govern Wikipedia haven't set one. Our job, as set out at WP:NFC, is to come up with a standard that is well within the vague definition the US courts have given, so that we do not inadvertently cross the line and put the project and our downstream users into danger of copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                                  • So again I ask you the question, will that page go on your watchlist and will you intervene when we see specious reasoning and edit warring used to remove content? And I ask a straight question what can and can't we use and there is no answer. That may sound belligerent but I ask for help and guidance and from my perspective all I get in reply is waffling and hand waving. I want to know what CAN be used and I'm getting no help whatsoever. Justin talk 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
                                    • Really, I am sorry. If you want help with a copyright problem, I'm your (wo)man. If your cohort needs help with the permission process, I can certainly walk him through that. Addressing copyright problems is where I dedicate the vast majority of my time, and we can barely keep on top of those. But while I might be able to intervene in blatant POV pushing or edit warring, I don't have sufficient background in the subject to recognize subtler disruption and I don't have time to familiarize myself with it given the backlog in copyright concerns, especially at WP:CCI. About the best I would be able to do is protect the article in whatever version I happened to find it (unless there was a lone warrior or two who could clearly be blocked) and leave the contributors to come to consensus on the talk page. Not knowing the background, I do not know the venues you have tried. If localized boards like WP:NPOVN don't help and mediation proves fruitless, I'd guess there's always arbitration. If it reaches that point, it's not really about content anymore but about the inability of contributors to work within the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • William Haldimand (history · last edit) from http://books.google.com/books?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&um=1&q=%22One+of+twelve+children%2C+most+of+whom+died+young%2C+after+receiving+a+plain+English+education+he+entered+at+the+age+of+sixteen%22&btnG=Search+Books See talk. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Francis Vernon, 1st Earl of Shipbrook (history · last edit) from http://web.archive.org/web/20060925164443/http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~ipswich/History/Vernons/Vernons_at_Orwell_Park.htm. Some close paraphrasing, some literal duplication remaining from foundational copyvio. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • International Home + Housewares Show (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg OTRS Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC-BY-SA. --MLauba (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 19 November 2009

[edit] Copyright Investigations (Manual article tagging)

[edit] 20 November 2009

[edit] Copyright Investigations (Manual article tagging)
  • The exact same text is on de and fr, the site bears the relatively cryptic statement "this document has been forwarded to Wikipedia", and the source site itself links to the fr article. Deferring to MRG for another look. MLauba (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • OTRS request sent out, relisted from November 12. MLauba (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 21 November 2009

[edit] Copyright Investigations (Manual article tagging)

[edit] 22 November 2009

[edit] Footer

Wikipedia's current date is November 22, 2009. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 22. 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"