Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Not sure if I've done this correctly

I don't think I've had to post here before, and I wonder if someone experienced with this page could take a quick look at what I've done, and fix it if necessary. I just tried to add a page to the September 23 list of possible copyvios, but although I thought I followed the instructions the article is not listed. If I click on the "today's section" link the article is there, but it doesn't show on this page. What did I do wrong? Or is the problem that the instructions which say "Go to today's section and add ..." are wrong?

The article in question is Dictionary of Literary Biography. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is in the instructions. The process has recently been revised, and while most of the instructions were repaired (in the template and at the bottom of the page), the one in the yellow box was not. I'll take care of it, and thank you so much for pointing it out! I'll need to make sure that this hasn't been a problem for others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The actual article did turn out to be a copyvio and has been deleted, so there's no need to post the note about that particular article any more. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you ran into this problem. :) We neglected to inform DumbBOT, which has been listing tickets in the old way. If you hadn't mentioned it, who knows how long we would have gone without realizing this? (What I did was transclude the date to today's, which made your note visible. Redlinked articles at WP:CP are quite common. Many of them are swiftly deleted.:)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to report someone is using a link to their blog on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Star_Force_3

This person has a blog titled Rockman Redux listed in references and the rules state blogs are "unreliable" sources of information. He has two links, one is listed as: ^ "Corocoro 9: Shooting Star Rockman 3 title, date; the other is listed as: ^ "Shooting Star Rockman 3: RED JOKER.

Blazinglight (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blazinglight

Hi. I was going to direct you to WP:COIN, but I see that you're already familiar with that page and with WT:CITE following conversations there about your own blog (here and here, as context for others). One of those may be better for this, if you cannot resolve the matter at Talk:Mega Man Star Force 3. I'm unsure why this would be a copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I am still getting used to the enormous size of wikipedia, thank you for redirecting me to the right source, I'll bring the discussion there.

Blazinglight

I am the maintainer of the blog in question, and the information I present through the blog (and in turn to WP) is cited and marked as much as the sources can be done so. Probably worth mentioning is that Blazinglight is nothing but a 15-year-old (as admitted here) who isn't getting his way. After being warned by Wordpress staff for plagiarizing of the content in my own blog and not crediting what he takes, should a kid who's only proving he's pressing a few buttons be taken seriously? He wishes to have my sources removed because he's acting the part of a typical "spoilt brat".

While I see that blogs are lower in the resource food chain, and that I might not be a credible source, some fully-fledged sites are leaning towards blog-style approaches for relaying information. Some software used by news sites is very similar to blogging software so what determines the difference between a blog and a site in this case? --Reploidof20xx ^(TALK) 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a blog and don't deserve special treatment any more than anyone else does. I was told that a blog would "never" be allowed on Wikipedia unless it was backed by a source like the New York Times, or the Scientific American, and It just seems that the same rules should apply to both of our blogs.

Legally, Wikipedia would have to observe an un-biased approach to either blog. The moderators are fair and they have their criteria. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to be gaining in tact or wisdom from any of these experiences, and your peers have told you so on other forums, so I'll ignore your immaturity, and the statements here that would not be allowed on any forum, considered to be "trolling", or trying to obtain a worse response than the above (which would be difficult).

I think that this discussion should be about Wikipedia rules, and not stoop to slander and libelous conversation, this isn't the high school cafeteria, it's Wikipedia. Your blog has material that is copyrighted material; which includes any picture, film, song, etc. that comes from Capcom.

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*."

If you look under these statements, you will see this very same line (below this post). If Wikipedia allowed you to post, you would be breaking their rules of Content. I have consented that, if I were to place my content on their site (and it is theirs, not ours) then I would have to follow their guidelines.

"Important note: The Wikipedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations. It is therefore useless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce content. Permission to reproduce content under the license and technical conditions applicable to Wikipedia (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) has already been granted to everyone without request; for permission to use it outside these terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question."

You have the rules dude, just like everyone else, and we all have to follow them.Blazinglight (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this coming from someone who plagiarizes and doesn't give credit. You're not above the rules either, on Wordpress OR Wikipedia. As for your "special treatment" idea, now you're being obnoxious. Unrealistic as it is, what makes you think globally reknowned sources The New York Times and The Scientific American are the only wiki-approved references that are usable by a blog? There's less immaturity in me than arrogance and laziness in your (deliberate?) copying of my material in my blog. You even went to the trouble of changing... 5-or-so words when you were reported to Wordpress for plagiarism.

I'm capable of trolling because you've got limited sources? This should disprove your blog as a source even more since you were too stubborn to check other sources which ended up contradicting others; there was no bias on my part, I checked all sources and I said you got things wrong. The other, MAIN source which you copy, The Undersquare, changed their news post after checking the other sources, which you didn't, again attributed to your stubbornness to change.Stooping to "slander and libelous conversation" is pure conjecture of yours.

Yes my blog has copyrighted material, thanks for noticing, but it's clearly marked on my sidebar what part of the blog belongs to whom (whether it belongs to Capcom Co. Ltd. for Wordpress or to RockmanREDUX). And again, you're just proving you can copy and paste, by quoting Wiki statements completely out of context; I am using everything for non-commercial reasons, so copyright is within junction. --Reploidof20xx ^(TALK) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You have serious issues dude, jealous of a 15 year old, I have better things to do than waste my time here. I truly hope you can get over this, but know I won't be sleepless because of you. Good luck God bless Australia (and the U.S.), peace. Blazinglight (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand now why you listed this here. Copyright laws do not give blanket approval for non-commercial reuse. Without digging through those pages to see how much of a concern they might for WP:EL, the real issue here seems to be reliability of sourcing. Policy at WP:V notes "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" and gives a footnote explaining when they may be: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl: Thank you for taking the time to look through this, thank you for replying, Saito Network respects the decisions of Wikipedia. Blazinglight (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsure of how to proceed, copyvios

Hi, I came across Louvre Abu Dhabi at its peer review. I was checking the sources and noted that many of the sentences in the article were quoted from the source (and not in quotation marks), although the source was attributed. I noted this, removed some, and left a note for the user. I went back today to take a deeper look at the article, and noticed --after a Google Search-- that some sentences were quoted that weren't even in the references section. I removed these immediately. Again, I left a note on the user's talk page, and asked for others to be fixed. This article was a Did you know? on the main page and recently promoted to a GA.

I then thought it would be prudent to check some other article work. I notice that Drakensberg has the same problem. To begin with the section "Key Geological Events" is cut and pasted from here; the section on "Geomorphology, composition" appears to be cut and paste from here; the ecology section is from here; etc.

Continuing, I looked at Guggenheim Abu Dhabi. A random piece of prose: The next ring of galleries surrounding the core then radiating out of the centre will be larger galleries in a variety of shapes, and less formally constructed, for special installations. The third ring of larger galleries will be "less finished" and" more like raw industrial space with exposed lighting and systems is from here; the facilities section is from here, etc. This article appeared on the main page a few days ago.

On the article Henri Loyrette this sentence: Prior to his appointment at the Louvre, Loyrette served as Director of the Musée d’Orsay from 1994 to 2001, and Curator at the Musée d’Orsay from 1978 to 1999 is from here (this was a DYK also).

I've been working with the editor for about a week now on projects relating to WP:FRANCE, and think that he is well intentioned. I am concerned about these edits because some are clearly copy-vios and others misrepresent WP as the author. The situation is deeper than I am able to rectify, and I am not quite sure how to approach the issue. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a difficult situation, and I am the user at fault here. Through my actions I have unintentionaly misrepresented Wikipedia as the author, by not citing correctly and sourcing quotations. Though my edits were made in good faith, I see now that what I have done infringed on the intellectual right of the author to their work. I myself am not sure what to do in this situation, as it is clear to me that I have made similar mistakes in many of the articles I have written. I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this matter. Jor dan ^Contribs 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a note about this. Since the whole section advising you of this conversation is no longer necessary, I will revise it. But let me summarize here that the best thing to do is to remove infringing material where it does not conform to WP:NFC and to attribute where it does. I'll take a look at your recent articles to see what I can find. If you believe that the problem is extensive, the best thing to do would be either for you to trace back into your own history or request assistance, as perhaps at WP:FRANCE. Thank you for taking steps to help address the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jordan, thanks for understanding. It is obvious you had no wish to misrepresent anything (you scrupulously used footnotes); but really, after awhile I realised I was unable to continue going through all of the contributions. Anyway, thanks; feel free to ask for help now or in the future. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted quotes in infoboxes

I have removed quotes from infoxes from a few dozen articles recently, but all have been reverted, so I bring the question here: is the use of quotes in infoboxes, without any further use of the text (not used to illustrate a point, reference an idea or statement, ...), taken from copyrighted books (the subject of the article), a copyright violation or acceptable fair use? If it was an image, we would need a good fair use rationale or the image would soon be deleted, but it is not spelled out as clearly for quotes. One example is The Scriptures '98 Version. Fram (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire purpose of including selections in the infobox is to "reference an idea or statement", as it serves to illustrate the style of translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is entirely valid in my view. And although I have no direct proof I can't imagine any of these publishers would object to this level and style of quotation. If the comparison issue is unclear, we can work on making it more plain and useful. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People want easy access to information. If "comparison of Bible translations" is important enough as a subject to permit fair use quotes in discussing it, (and it probably is), then it should have its own page(s) where people can get the comparison at a glance,notby going back and forth between articles on Bibles where some have the text and some haven't. I would be very frustrated by the current method of comparing the texts, assuming I intuitively understood their purpose in the infobox. An article like John 3:16 has a short comparison of different translations with some context already. More complete articles should be very well possible, and acceptable, since there the quotes would be used in context, as illustrations of the actual discussion, not as "a quote from this book which isn't otherwise mentioned on this page". Fram (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe that it illustrates anything without commentary; in order to illustrate a point, there has to be a point being made. As Wikipedia:NFC points out, we utilize deliberately more narrow criteria than are allowed under fair use. I can see the material meeting Wikipedia:NFC#Text if it were used in the body with other text establishing why these pieces are remarkable (making a point, in other words), but their use in an infobox seems murky at best to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are articles relating specifically to John 3:16 and Genesis 1:1 indicates these to be notable verses. People with an interest in bible translation generally know their favoured translation of these verses verbatim, in which case the comparison is immediately evident to them, hence illustrating the point. Fram's argument of frustration regarding "going back and forth between articles on Bibles where some have the text and some haven't" is a result of his own destructive edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody is questioning that they are notable verses. :) There is an article on Moby Dick, too, but we can't reproduce the novel in an infobox. Notability is not the issue. The point is compliance with WP:NFC, which indicates that brief quotations can only be used for certain purposes: "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." A quotation in an infobox does none of that. That can be done through text in the article body. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt however to reproduce the whole of the bible in an infobox. Your comparison is slightly invalid. These are just for "two" verses. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that reproducing an entire novel in an infobox would be unreasonable, the copyright on Moby Dick has expired, and is therefore not an appropriate comparison. But ingoring that, there are not a great number of comparative translations into English of Moby Dick to serve of any value to persons interested in the style of any particular translation. In connection with articles about bible translations discussing style of translation, the inclusion of verses immediatly familiar to people interested in the subject in the infobox provides a clear and consistent location for this to be demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Please mentally substitute Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. As to the rest, I have replied below. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The other point from Jeffro77 is to "illustrate the style of translation" which can be seen with or somewhat without comparison. Anyone familiar with the material would see the point relevant to each version at a glance. A comparison article could be written. If this route were taken I would reluctantly support it as an alternative to the infobox approach. However it would need to be comprehensive and include all the conversed version PD or copyright and the infobox itself have the quote elements removed. And that after the establishment of an appropriate article. Probably one with vertical axis of version and the ot and nt verses horizontally. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the "illustrate a point" point is valid but perhaps should be made explicit in the infobox or maybe the article. They are there it "illustrate the translation style" and be a point of comparaison between version articles. Maybe this needs work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my lack of clarity in my choice of example. My point is that the existence of articles on these verses is as immaterial as the existence of an article on Moby Dick would be to replicating that volume. The notability of the verses does not relate to usage of copyrighted text from them. To use a less exaggerated example (and one that hasn't lapsed into public domain), Let It Be (song) is notable, but we cannot duplicate verses from it unless our use conforms to WP:NFC. Putting a verse of two of the song into an infobox would not conform, as it offers no context for the usage. Quoting a significant line or two in the article to illustrate critical evaluation would. From a strictly encyclopedic standpoint, though, please let me note that Wikipedia's articles aren't written strictly for people who are familiar with the material. This is why we have {{context}} tags. I believe that the usage of these quotes is problematic with Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines, but, more, I suspect that the articles would be strengthened for general readership by incorporation of the text into the article with context. Making the point explicit would not only resolve NFC issues, but improve the articles. (Illustrating the style of translation still requires that a point be made; critical commentary seems the obvious solution.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The song example also isn't good as the typical "verse" is a large proportion (maybe 25%) of the whole. Where as a verse or two from the biblical text is extremely small proportion (maybe less than 0.5%) which puts it in an entirely different ballpark in terms of quotation for copyright material. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then forget examples altogether, if you prefer. The core issue: WP:NFC provides limited circumstances under which we may use brief quotations of copyrighted material. As it stands, the cited infobox does not meet those guidelines, as the quotations are left to hang on their own and do not explicitly illustrate or explain anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or Let It Be (song) ignores my previous point, specifically that "People with an interest in bible translation generally know their favoured translation of these verses verbatim, in which case the comparison is immediately evident to them, hence illustrating the point." (If you were to compare with something like comparative translations of the works of Josephus, or the Cyrus Cylinder, the example would be relevant.) The same point was also the purpose of stating that the verses in question are notable, rather than some implied notability argument in itself. To people with an interest, inclusion of the verses immediately makes the differences evident. However, I take your point that "articles aren't written strictly for people who are familiar with the material". This suggests that the infobox could be improved to more clearly demonstrate the significance of the passages for unfamiliar readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If the alteration of the infobox adds context sufficient that the quotation meets WP:NFC, then I would imagine that should resolve the matter. :) Context should not be implicit. We need actively to validate use of copyrighted material rather than to presume that the point it is illustrating is understood. This is not a style issue, obviously, but a matter of complying with the policies and guidelines we've developed relating to our adaptation of fair use. As long as use is defensible within that guideline, we're in good shape. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are relying too much on the "people who are familiar with the material" point, Jeffro77. I'll try to find a good comparison. Let's assume that you are not familiar enough with the Qur'an to know any texts by heart. As you can see in List of translations of the Qur'an#English, there are quite a few translations of this text in English. Imagine know that you open an article on any of these translations, and a few lines are quoted in the infobox. Are these lines of any use to you? You may be interested in reading about different translations and the problems when translating an Arabic text and so on, but these infoboxes will learn you nothing. An article (or series of articles or whatever) on translation problems, perhaps comparing a number of texts, would be very interesting and would be what you would hope for. The infobox, even if you would e.g. add the text "quotes provided for comparison of translations", wouldn't be any use. Now, add to that the fact that in some cases, the text is copyrighted, and you are left with no good reason to include them, and a good reason to exclude them. Fram (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree; but this last contribution is the first truly cogent statement of this viewpoint. Almost convincing. The only thing is as readers of an English wikipedia, many are going to be familiar with the material at least in traditional translations (e.g. KJV). I return to the point I made earlier if a comparison article could be constructed, links to it could be placed in "all" version articles, then the quotes dropped. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing about usefulness of the quoted verses rather than copyright violation, then you should be discussing on the template's talk page about whether the verses should be included at all rather than for only translations for which copyright has expired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that gratuitous or not obviously necessary use of copyrighted text is not a good use of "fair use", which is a problem for copyrigted texts, hence my removal. I don't think it is very useful in the non copyrighted cases either, but since it is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, I have not bothered with those. "Fair use" is about how and why you use it. Short quotes (like here) are better than long quotes, but if no quote is needed for understanding the article or as "evidence", as a reference for a statement, then no quotes from copyrighted text are needed at all. Fram (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just been looking at some of the copyright notices made by some of the major bible publishers (I beleive they are all fairly similar). Here is an outtake from the publishers of the Good News Bible. This is when small amounts are quoted (typically less than 100 or 500 verses) clearly this applies.

"When quotations from GNB are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials GNB must appear at the end of each quotation." reference for this quote

We might have to do a bit more about putting the version code (i.e. "GNB") at the end of each quote but I see nothing else to make objection. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has no bearing on Wikipedia articles, as we are released under the terms of GFDL, which permits commercial reuse (saleable media). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, however the proportion of the quotation is still well within permitted limits. I will investigate the specific notices that are required. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the quote is within limits, as long as context as provided to bring it into accord with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A single verse in the info box is well within fair use. There isn't a copyright holder out there who would object to a single verse from their translation in an article ABOUT their translation. If anything, it's free advertisement. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it meets fair use. The question is whether it meets WP:NFC. As that document notes, our policy rationale is a "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Below, it notes, "Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law." It also says, "Material that is not free is permitted only if it meets the restrictions of this policy.... Wikipedia distributes content throughout the world with no restrictions on how people use it. Legally, we could use any copyrighted material for ourselves that is either licensed to us by the owner, or that fits the definition of "fair use" under US copyright law. However, we favor content that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright." Adding critical commentary brings these passage into NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a single verse in an info box in an article about a translation. There isn't a copyright holder for any of those translations that would NOT want to see their version of John 3:16 out there for everyone to see. For them, it's free advertisement. Heck, they probably want their own John 3:16 plastered all over the planet. They didn't make their translation to hide under a bushel. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We really don't guess about the wishes of copyright holders. If they want to release the material into public domain, they have that option. Is there some specific reason to prefer that these verses decorate the infobox rather than being incorporated with actual original, substantive text into the article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter, most if not all comics publishers want to have as many covers of their comics on Wikipedia as possible, since it is free advertising. Still, we don't accept the copyrighted images of covers in articles unless there is a good fair use rationale. There is no reason the same policy would not apply to quotes. Fram (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting 2.2.1:

  1. Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source.

The source is attributed. A more comprehensive bibliographic citaiton might be useful --- mainly because there usually is more than one version of any specific translation of the Bible. (There are over 100 versions of the KJV. There are five different versions of the RSV, and an equal number for the NRSV. These textual differences aren't always the difference between British English and American English. AFAIK, John 3:16 and Gen 1:1 are "static" --- there are no textual differences between different versions of the same translation. )

  2. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.

Gen 1:1 & John 3:16 constitute, at most 2/31102 verses of a specific translation. For Bibles that incorproate the AAnglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Orthodox, Orietnal, or Coptic Canon of 81 (Broader Canon), the percentage is less --- to as low as 0.0000444444444444% )

  3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source.

This is not an image, so that doesnt' apply.

  4. All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL.

That is more concerned with creating the audio file.

Looking at 2.1.1 Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point,

It seems to me, that the point of the verses, is to illustrate a point --- that of how this translation differs from others.

establish context,

It seems to me, that it is obvious that it is used as an example of how the translation handles specific verses.

Going back to the example of the Q'ran, I may not have memorized a specific verse,but in an article on a specific interpretation of the Q'ran, into English, I'd be able to get a sense of how the different interpretations into English differ. (The Q;ran, by definition, is untranslatable. Everything that is not in the specific dialect of Arabic that Mohammad used, is an interpretation.)

A better example would be translations of the different version of the Dao De Jing.

The translation that begins with "The entrance is an exit, but only an emergency exit", is going to translate that work far more differently than the version that begins with "The way is not the way", and both of those will be different from the one that begins "The was that is, is not the way." OTOH, neither the Q'ran, in Arabic, nor the Bible, in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, has nearly as much ambiguity as the Dao De Jing in Ancient Chinese has.

or attribute a point of view or idea.

Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim.

The quotes are used verbatim. They are attributed, but it probably would be prudent to provide more precise attribution. (IOW, notjust KJV, but KJV-1758 (Oxford Press), or RSV-CE 2nd Edition (Thomas Nelson) IOW, incorporate the entire cite book ref tag into the infobox.

Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

The amount translated constitutes between 0.000128609093% and 0.000044444444% of the complete text, depending upon the canon that is used. ( To be a completest, 0.000331235508% for the Samaritan canon, 0.00015980823. 0.000284575982% for Protestant New Testament only. ) jonathon (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not addressing the material that doesn't seem applicable here, I fail to see how a verse, standing by itself, can illustrate "how this translation differs from others". It can't establish context if there's no discourse for it to establish context for. It can't explore differences if there is no basis of comparison. If these passages have been selected as particularly appropriate for comparative purposes, then surely it would add value to the articles, as well as settling any NFC concerns, to explain why and how those differences manifest. (To use your example, I would not be able to guess how a verse of the Q'ran, standing alone, deviated from other interpretations. Many of our readers will not be able to guess how a verse of the Bible, standing alone, deviates from other translations.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For persons with an interest in the topic, the comparison is immediate because they already know their preferred version. Because a 'preferred version' cannot be asserted in articles, it is not possible to list any specific translation for explicit comparison, though readers who are not intimately familiar with the subject can go to the category to easily find articles on other bible translations if they want to compare renderings. In addition, inclusion of the verses illustrates the type of translation (e.g. 'formal equivalence', etc.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it illustrate that, or anything, without a point of comparison? ("Equivalence" at its linguistic roots requires a point of comparison.) I would also question why you assume readers of this article already know their preferred version; surely scholars of any subject must start somewhere. But again, to illustrate a point, a point must be made. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'Formal equivalence' refers to a method of translating from the original languages. Even for a person who has no knowledge of the subject, they could see that a particular translation employs, say, 'formal equivalence', or 'dynamic equivalence' or some other method, and can immediately see a verse that has been translated using that method. But if you're set on having something explicitly stated to compare with, why not include the literal word-for-word rendering from the original languages in the info box - this can be sourced from Strongs concordance (of which the copyright has expired).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me. It provides context and therefore should eliminate any question of compliance with NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, but this solution presents its own problems. Strongs provides definitions for each word, but doesn't always provide a single English word to use. Selecting one of the available meanings for each word to translate the original text constitutes original research. The alternative is to use text from an interlinear translation - these are generally copyright, so they would need to be referenced, though it would be clear that they are being compared, so I think this should be acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good solution to me, if no free text can be found. As long as it makes clear critical purpose of the quote, then it should meet NFC without any issues. Sorry for the difficulty in finding a good base text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented some interlinear text. As the text is being compared with the (any) translation in question, the purpose for including the quote is self-evident. Have a look and see what you think. Template:Bible translation infobox, e.g., King James Version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the explicit point of comparison should make the critical function of the quote obvious and address any NFC concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The modified template may not show up on cached pages on the server, but will be updated when the pages are changed (or manually purged). I really couldn't be bothered manually purging the cached copy of every bible translation article. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek/Hebrew source text that is quoted needs to be stated. Comparing a Bible translated from LXX/Byzantine sources is going to be different than one using WLC/USB-4. Furthermore, for some translations, referencing Greek/Hebrew texts is utterly irrelevant--- Lamsa's is one such example. jonathon (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright issues

How does one tell if the wikipedia article is printed first, or an outside internet article. There is an article, which I started re-editing, which had also according to the talk page, also had a re-edit done previously as well List of Corner Gas episodes. If it did have copyright issues, then probably the history also needs cleaning. I got only so far and then came here for advice if I should just re-edit the article in this way to the end. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just as a general note, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of talk pages. It doesn't really matter, but on a page with more activity than this one, it's likely that your question would have been missed. I noticed somebody had edited it since I'd last been online and scrolled all the way up until I found you. If somebody had edited it after you, I probably would have stopped with them. :)

One valuable tool for determining which came first is the internet archive. If you put in a URL, it can often give you an indication of how old the page is. It's a wonderful thing when it works, because then there's no question of who was the first publisher. When it doesn't work, we usually look for other clues. Did the material pop out of nowhere newly formed, or did it gradually evolve? Was it added by an inexperienced contributor or one whose talk page shows other copyright concerns? Is the suspected source page a reputable or official one that would be unlikely to infringe on Wikipedia? The answers to these questions can help you figure out how best to proceed. For instance, I usually look for an idiosyncratic run of words and trace their history in our article. Once I find where they originated, I compare to figure out if the external source is an exact duplicate of that version. If it's not, I'll look to see if that material evolved in our article, with other editors adding, to a point that does match the external source. If it did, then it's likely that the external source copied from us.

Thanks for your revision of problematic material. I know it's not always fun, but it's important. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Army of Club Penguin

The Army of Club Penguin (ACP) is the biggest of the Club Penguin Armies. They have participated in most major Club Penguin Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazachster1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking of dates to date articles instead of subpages

Looking for a newly listed article, when I didn't see it on the main page, I clicked on the large, bold date above today's entries to see if it appeared there. I was taken to October 3. Not only didn't I go to the page I wanted, I can see no reason for this to be linked to an article instead. Why is the date linked at all, if not to the subpage? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

You got me. This seems to be one of those "it's always been that way" matters...at least it's been that way for a long time. I, too, have been irritated and puzzled by it, but not so much that I've tried to puzzle out why and put it to an end. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like WP:MFD has linked dates, too. I may tackle that after this. User:Zorglbot creates the new pages for each day and then adds them to the main page. Someone *cough*Moonriddengirl*cough* removes the old days manually. It should be easy enough to get the template changed for the main page addition (to link to the appropriate subpage), but is there any reason the bot can't also archive the old pages? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. :) It seems like a good idea to ask Schutz to take off the links for the dates or to link it to the subpage. The current system adds nothing and causes confusion. :) The reason the bot doesn't archive the old pages is because there's no easy way that I know of to communicate when it's ready to be archived. They're archived when either all the tickets for the day or done or all of them but one are, at which point I move the remaining one to "older consolidated" until the time or whatever has passed. When I got here, there were 20, 30 days of unaddressed dates. I've been hanging out here ever since. :) I think probably that system works okay; it only takes a moment. But I'm all for fixing the date link issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done — the bot has already created tomorrow's page as a test; let me know if there is any problem. Schutz (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast work! One minor thing - the format of the existing dates appears (to me) as YYYY-MM-DD, but your test page appears as "17 October 2008". I'll leave it to Moodridddengirl to decide if the format matters. Thanks again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

While YYYY-MM-DD is good for computers (it helps sorting), I usually choose DD-Mmmmm-YYYY for dates that are read by humans — especially for pages like this one, which change every day, I intuitively think the day is the most important piece of information and should be printed first. However, I don't mind changing it if users of this page prefer it in another format (it makes no difference from the bot point of view, of course). Schutz (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Starship Troopers Book

This article contains a large piece of text from the book, is that ok? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Probably not. There are specific rules about how we can use non-free text, here. It has to be in quotation marks, it has to be attributed, and it has to fill a necessary function. If it doesn't, it should be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So I should go ahead and remove it? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely, although it may be appropriate to summarize it or to abbreviate it so that it does meet WP:NFC, and I would put a note on the article's talk page explaining the removal. It may be worth quoting the following from NFC there: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"/Temp"

I think the template should be changed. I noticed that the "/Temp" page of a copyright problem page was speedy deleted as a "test page" . I would think that the name of the page probably has something to do with it, perhaps a different name would be in order. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, it's talk:Okayama Planet Search Program/Temp 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll consult with the admin who deleted it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note for the admin who deleted it. I've never seen one of these deleted as a test page before, but one known case may be sufficient to indicate a more widespread problem. It's possible that many of these have been tagged and simply never noted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, folks. I think we could rename the link in Template:Copyviocore to something more descriptive. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

TV synopsis copyrights

On the List of LazyTown episodes article, an IP has repeatedly added show synopses copypasted directly from the BBC's website. I reverted as copyright violations, but now a registered user has undone my edits with no comment or edit summary (other than the standard "undid" template). Is this indeed a copyright violation? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I have removed the episode summaries and left a note at the article's talk page warning against restoration. I have also warned the editor who restored it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright notices on User pages

I noticed that the User Page User:Dotnine has a copyright notice at the bottom of a page of javascript. Does this automatically make it a copyright violation and do copyright violations include User Pages? ChemGardener (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, copyright violations include User Pages. Copyrighted material cannot be placed anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing up this one. Whether it's a violation or a misunderstanding by the user that he can retain all rights to material placed here, it's worth pointing out to him (or her), and I have done so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on removing copyrighted material

I have recently been advised that reverting pages which contain copyright violations is needlessly disruptive and the process could better be served by merely removing the offending material, a move which is supported on WP:COPYVIO. However this page's instructions section is ambiguous on the matter: it says that "Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright ... should, as a general rule, be removed". However it then goes on to state in the instructions for where the speedy criteria would not apply (which would presumably be the case for only parts of a page being copyvios) that the first option is to revert the page. Furthermore, I had thought that merely removing the copied text would still leave the page open to derivative works issues. Could someone please clarify the situation, thanks? Icalanise (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The instructions here are minimal, I know. :) Infringing material is removed, though that doesn't always require deletion—reversion to an earlier non-infringing version or simple excising of the material may be appropriate depending on circumstances. If there's been substantial non-infringing improvement to the article since the copyright violation was introduced, reversion can have the unfortunate effect of removing that. In that case, if the copyvio can be easily identified and removed (say if it is one chunk of text), then removing it with a note at the article's talk page warning against restoration may be sufficient. If the copyright violation is diffuse throughout the article, that may not be possible. In that case, it may be necessary to revert to the earlier version. Sometimes if the copyright violation is particularly egregious, I will delete it altogether when I'm the admin addressing. When I do that, I incorporate as many improvements as I can without infringing on GFDL. (Categories and whatnot.) It is a risk, of course, that somebody will utilized violations from earlier versions in history; this is the purpose of the note at the article's talk. See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/Advice_for_admins#Articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it definitely doesn't cause any derivative works issues then? Icalanise (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Do you mean a risk that somebody will resurrect part of the material, incorporating it into a new derivative work? Yes, it can cause those issues. That's why we should make not of what we're removing and why at the article's talk pages. (For example, I've created my own template warning since I personally address a lot of these; you can see it at User:Moonriddengirl/cclean.) If you mean something else, I'm evidently not following you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean that if the article incorporates copyrighted material, any further revisions subsequent to the addition might be regarded as derivative work, which would (I think) imply that any additions since then are also in violation of the copyright, even if they are not taken directly from the copyrighted material itself, since they are effectively edits to a copyrighted work. However I am not a lawyer, so I might be getting confused. Icalanise (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get you. Original material is not added to the pre-existing copyright, though the work in whole would be a derivative work of the original. For example, if you illegally utilize a photograph in a collage, you have a derivative work. If you cut the illegal photograph out and replace it with a free image, you no longer have a derivative work. The collage surrounding the original copyrighted image is not tainted by its former association. Similarly, if you remove the copyright infringement from the article, then you no longer have a derivative work. However, obviously, care must be taken to ensure that all infringing text is removed. If instead of being cut away, the text is insufficiently revised, it might remain close enough to continue as infringement. Picking back up with my example, you can't put a color tint over that illegal photograph and call it okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

sysnopsises and copyright

On the pages about movies and fictions on wikipedia, there are sysnopsises or summary sections which shows plots (which may be copyrighted) in detail. Can anyone explain why these are allowed ...? Jtm71 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure entirely what you mean. If you mean that these synopses have been pasted from copyrighted sources, then it's not allowed. Keeping on top of that, especially in television episodes, is getting to be a bit of a pain in the neck. If you're talking about the question of whether and when summary infringes on the copyright of the original work, fair use makes allowances for critical commentary. This is one of the reasons why summaries are supposed to be limited in length. (You can see a bit more about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Fair use and Wikipedia:Plot summaries#Length of plot summaries.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful information. Jtm71 (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ODNB concerns

I have just added an entry for Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth after the author of the ODNB article complained on the article's talk page. Our article is heavily based on the ODNB article, which is currently free to view (for the next 5 days) as one of the "Lives of the week". (See http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28579 )

That case is pretty clear-cut, but I have recently noticed a similar problem with some other articles - Falkes de Breauté, William Tresham and Alan Garrett Anderson - and their respective entries in the ODNB: [1] [2] [3] (subscription is required for these).

There is some relevant discussion at User talk:Ironholds and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Copyvio_and_excessive_quotations, including examples of the text which causes me concern.

Our articles are, I believe, very thinly rewritten versions of the ODNB - not blatant copy & paste, but the same facts, presented in pretty much the same order, often using the same or very similar words. What should be done about these? -- Testing times (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are very thinly rewritten, and it certainly looks like they are from the examples you give, they may constitute derivative works or, at best, plagiarism and should be revised. Because copyright law protects creative expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves, many people think that slight revisions eradicate copyright concerns. Of course, as you know, this is not the case. US Federal Courts utilize a "substantial similarity" test. McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property notes about this, "Exact word-for-word or line-for-line infringement does not define the limits of copyright infringement." (Part of this source, including that quote, is available online here). This concept is divided into two: "fragmented literal similarity", which essentially covers lifting chunks and phrases from a source sufficient to outweigh fair use considerations; and "comprehensive nonliteral similarity", where the same language may not be utilized but the derivative work copies the basic form and structure of the original. Substantial similarity is generally tested in courtrooms through two questions: first, does a paraphrase borrow enough from the source to constitute a "substantial taking" from the original (representing a significant portion of that work, for instance, or a key element of it)? If it does, does the use of the material meet the test of fair use? If the answers to these are yes and no, then you've got copyright infringement. Even if the answers are no and yes, however, you may have plagiarism.

It may be helpful to point editors who seem to have trouble with this regards to these university hosted documents: here, here. Also useful is this publication aimed at medical professionals which gives a succinct overview of how to tell when paraphrase crosses the copyright line: this.

As for handling these, the first thing I would do is clarify this for the contributor. This is probably a good faith misunderstanding of copyright & plagiarism; after all, even Wikipedia's user copyright warning suggests that everything is a-okay as long as you have access to a thesaurus. Since this problem has first started to arise here, I've been wondering if we need to make that point more clear in policy somewhere.

The next thing to do is either revise the material or remove it. If the source were openly published, I'd suggest you tag it with the {{copyvio}} to give contributors an opportunity to eliminate substantial similarity concerns. However, when it comes up at the end of the week, I am likely to be the admin reviewing it, and I don't have access to that source. Do you or somebody else involved in these conversations? If so, would it be possible for one or more of you to help revise these articles? Alternatively, earlier versions of them can be restored with a note of explanation at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I will direct the author of these articles to this discussion. I have ODNB access, as I suspect does the author here (it is widely available from UK public libraries), but I don't really have time to revise these articles. In the absence of revisions, presumably they should be removed? -- Testing times (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first noting that I am not a lawyer though consideration of US copyright application to text is part of my "day job", I would say yes. Earlier versions should be restored until a complete revision can be done that eradicates "substantial taking". Obviously, we want to be careful not to be overzealous in the application of this, particularly as definition is nebulous and even copyright attorneys cannot always predict where the court will come down. :) But your examples seem to me to closely enough replicate the pattern of the original that they should be regarded as infringement. I can't speak to the rest of the text, but if you remove it with a note of explanation and others disagree, the matter can be opened for wider discussion, hopefully with additional contributors who are able to compare the original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DNB

I have been dumping DNB text directly into Wikipedia as a starting point for several articles. Note: this is direct literal copying, word for word. However, my article source is the 1900 version of the DNB, not the ODNB, and each article is specifically attributed, with a link to the Wikisource version, which in turn is specifically attributed to the page scans and OCR text at archive.org. As far as I can tell, there can be no question that the 1900 DNB published in the US is in the public domain, and that the process by which I am introducing the material into Wikisource and then into Wikipedia is acceptable. (But please tell me if I'm wrong...) I take this approach to ensure that the edit history captures an audit trail of the transformation from the public domain text to the current text. I do not have access to the ODNB. My question is this: If someone updates one of these articles with facts that have been added to the ODNB version, and the update is then substantially identical to the ODNB version, are we in trouble? Note that the ODNB version is likely a derived work, and so is ours, so we run the risk of "convergent evolution" of the articles. -Arch dude (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a question I haven't encountered, but at that point we would have the defense of the article's history, which should bear out that the version we duplicated was public domain. If the ODNB sent a take-down to the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be up to our lawyer to decide how to handle it. If all else failed, we could probably revert the updates substantially identical to the ODNB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think there may be some tricky questions lurking here. Certainly the 1900 DNB is as public domain as the 1911 EB, and can be copied wholesale without copyright concerns (ideally with attribution, of course).

But what if someone essentially copies an ODNB article which is substantially similar (or even identical) to the 1900 DNB? Are my concerns above misplaced, because the ODNB article is public domain anyway? How would we know? Is there an easy way to look up an article in the DNB copies at the Internet Archive (here)? -- Testing times (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB. It has a "sister project" at Wikisource, at s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB. I go to the WP project page to get a pointer to the DNB1900 volume at archive.org, and from there I retrieve the PD article and create the Wikisource version, with strict attribution. After that, I create the WP article by starting with a straignt copy of the Wikisource article, again with strict attribution. This results in a absolutely horrible initial article, but is also causes the article history to become an audit trail, and as long as nobody looks at the article before the first wikification pass, The ugliness doesn't show too much. (Whether the result is a good starting point for a WP article is an aesthetic issue, not a copyright issue.) Now to your question: What if an editor dumps an ODNB article into WP, but the ODNB article is itself a strict copy of the old 1900 DNB article with no copyrightable derivative inclusions? I don't know if any such articles exist, but if one does, and if we are challenged, then we will need to create the equivalent article at Wikisource from the original DNB 1900 material, and then verify that the ODNB version has no copyrightable changes, and then change our references to ref the old DNB version. depending on the later revisions history, it may be easier to re-create WP article. Conclusion: Don't copy from the ODNB even if you think the article is actually DNB1900: it's more trouble than it's worth. -Arch dude (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be difficult to tell. Wikipedia:PD#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain notes that when a new work is built off of a public domain source, only the creative elements in the new work are subject to copyright. If the ODNB article is identical to the 1900 DNB, it's not protected by copyright. If it is identical save for a few new sentences, only those new sentences are protected. I've spent part of this morning addressing your copyright concerns at Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth. I don't have access to the current ODNB article, but I did have access to the 1909 version, the whole of volume XX being online. :) (And downloadable, it seems, as a 120 mb pdf.) If we're lucky, the article we're comparing will be archived in googlebooks, as that is. If not, given demonstrable duplication, we may have to err on the side of caution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of that (the Wikiproject's index to the pages at Archive.org could be very useful, and I was not aware of the DNB archive link on the ODNB pages).

As it happens, the DNB article for Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth (available from here in various formats, or a long way down here in a 2.4MB text file - search for "Wallmoden") is very much shorter than the ODNB version, and quite different in several respects, so congratulations on the comprehensive re-writing of our article. -- Testing times (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one

I have similar concerns about User:Ironholds's article on Terence Fox, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the ODNB entry.[5] Here are some examples:

Wikipedia

ODNB

Terence Robert Corelli Fox (2 May 1912–5 October 1962) was a British chemical engineer and Shell Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Cambridge. He was the only son born to Corelli Fox, a electrical engineer, and his wife Mabel, and after being educated at Regent Street Polytechnic Technical School he was accepted into Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1930 to study for the Mechanical Science tripos. He was very successful here, graduating in 1933 with a starred first and all available prizes

Fox, Terence Robert Corelli (1912–1962), chemical engineer, was born in London on 2 May 1912, the only son of Corelli Fox, electrical engineer, and his wife, Mabel Ballard; he had two sisters. He was educated at Regent Street Polytechnic Technical School, and in 1930 he entered Jesus College, Cambridge, to study for the mechanical sciences tripos. In that examination he had unparalleled success, getting a starred first in 1933, with all possible prizes.

This chap died in 1962, and the ODNB entry is almost the same as that first included in the 1981 DNB, so there is no chance of the ODNB entry being public domain. -- Testing times (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been vaguely following this debate, and often use ODNB as a source myself, so want to make sure I'm doing it right. When writing a biographical article, surely it's harldy surprising that there is a similar structure, it's natural to write chronologically. ODNB articles fairly frequently cite newspaper obits as references, and if you can track down two or three different obits they will have broadly similar structures. The facts of the life can't be copyrighted, yes? and is chronological treatment actually particularly original? David Underdown (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the problem I encounter. I've actually rearranged the text I use from the ODNB source in several cases because they sometimes don't do things chronologically. ODNB articles are encyclopedic, and so are ours; there's only so much difference you can get from a source text without resorting to a thesaurus. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The facts of the life can't be copyrighted, but the creative expression, including the basic structure, can. By that I do not mean "chronological organization." But this example follows very closely on the original, including minor rearrangement of material (in the last sentence) and some chunks of literal duplication ("to study for the mechanical sciences tripos"--changing caps and removing the plural from Science is insufficient). Note, also, "He was the only son born to Corelli Fox, a electrical engineer, and his wife Mabel". (I've emphasized the text copied, in same order, from the source.)

There are tricks in paraphrasing to help avoid this, though sometimes it can be like going around one's back to scratch one's elbow. Helpful here is the use of multiple sources, as incorporating information from various can go a long way to eliminate this concern. Also potentially useful is Wikipedia's own MOS. Some of this information would be included in a WP:LEAD, others in a body. If organized accordingly, we would not be following the basic structure of ODNB anyway. As I've said above, we don't want to be overscrupulous in this respect, but we do need clear separation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the problem. Honestly, I do. But a thin paraphrase is just not enough, in my view. Here are some more examples from Terence Fox:

Wikipedia	ODNB
Fox apparently found it difficult to delegate and was a naturally rigorous person; these traits led to stress and a series of nervous breakdowns in the 1950s which caused him to resign as shell chair in 1959, with Peter Victor Danckwerts succeeding him. He died at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London on 5 October 1962	His desire for rigour often made him a trying colleague. He found it difficult to delegate fully ... These traits naturally led to strain and he suffered a succession of nervous breakdowns in the early 1950s which caused his resignation from the Shell chair in 1959... He died in the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases, Queen Square, London, on 5 October 1962.

Particularly telling, in this context, is the phrase in our article "a series of nervous breakdowns in the 1950s which caused him to resign as shell chair in 1959". ¡¿ resign as shell chair ?! Looking at the ODNB, it is clear where the peculiar turn of phrase "shell chair" in this sentence came from - "a succession of nervous breakdowns in the early 1950s which caused his resignation from the Shell chair in 1959". I could go on. -- Testing times (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Shell Chair" is not a "telling phrase"; the chair was a Shell endowment, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to it as "shell chair" or "resign as Shell professor". As for the second half; how the hell would you express it differently without being unencyclopedic?Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in the details, but would you really say "to resign as shell chair"? Would you say "Stephen Hawking has resigned as Lucasian chair"? It seems a bit odd to me, but it does directly parallel the phrasing of the original.

You could rephrase the last bit in many ways: how about:

According to his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Fox's natural inclination to intellectual rigour and inability to delegate effectively caused him mental strain which ultimately led to a series of nervous breakdowns in the 1950s. In the end, he resigned as Shell professor in 1959 in favour of Peter Victor Danckwerts. Fox died three years later at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. He never married.

YMMV, but I think this is substantially better. -- Testing times (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell chair seems fairly standard phraseology in British English to me too (though I'd probably cap-up Chair, he is the Shell Professor, holding the Shell Chair, as in the original ODNb, saying "from the" would be better grammatically, but I wouldn't say there's any particular originality in the phrase), same about the earlier comment about the mechanical science tripos, tripos is simply the proper name for a Cambridge degree course. The chagne to Shell Professor is better grammatically if you have "as" in front of it. David Underdown (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now tracked down his obit in The Times (Saturday 6 October 1962, p.12 Issue 55515, col A), this has "he was forced by ill-health to resign his chair in 1959", and "he read for the mechanical sciences tripos", so you could argue that the ODNB itself isn't being particularly original in using this phraseology-I've seen similar parallels in other ODNB articles where I've also been able to track down the obits. David Underdown (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well done in tracking down the original obituary. Using several independent source to write and article almost always helps, as they use phrases to describe the same events.

I agree, "Shell chair" would be a standard phrase to talk about the professorship, but I think you would usually talk about someone holding the chair rather than being the chair.

As I said above, I don't want to get too bogged down in the details of individiaul phrases: the overall impression I get from our article is that it is a thinly rewritten copy of the ODNB entry. The parallels go further than simply repeating the phrases "Shell chair" or "mechanical science[s] tripos". The small extracts from The Times you have given seem to use fairly different terms to report the same facts as the ODNB. By contrast, our article seems to use very similar turns of phrase as the ODNB. -- Testing times (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has just appeared on the Main Page in the WP:DYK section. Not great, when we are concurrently discussing whether it is a copyvio. -- Testing times (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CarloscomB

CarloscomB added alot of quotes from "Steve Gottlieb", I'm not sure if they're acceptable or not, could someone take a look? [6] 70.55.86.100 (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Glancing at this one, they seem to lack source information, which makes them very much not okay with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all that found, except that I cannot tell where the problem material begins here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of Wolfgang Paul

A Image of Wolfgang Paul which I found on the net states: Photo: Humboldt Foundation Reproduction free of charge - specimen copy requested Would a use in Wikipedia be OK? --Stone (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't at a glance see anything indicating what license they are releasing it under or if it is public domain. I'd suggest you pose the question at WP:MCQ, which is specifically for dealing with images. A responder there may be familiar with the site. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

I believe there is/was a talk page header template warning users not to re-add excessive fair use images to articles (e.g. "List of" articles). I am however unable to find it. Can someone please point me in the right direction? G.A.S ^talk 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't know where to find it. :) They may be able to point it out at WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good faith disagreement

A very experienced editor disagrees with me over the interpretation of the policy. I challenged and removed some article text on grounds of possible copyright violation (diff) (and possible plagiarism). If I understand his comments at Talk:Anglia Regional Co-operative Society#History (and the edit summaries) correctly, he believes that it is ok for him to restore the challenged material (diff), while he works on satisfying the licence requirements. I would prefer the text remain deleted until the issue is resolved.

It would be helpful if a third party assists in editing the article, or joins the discussion at the talk page, to help us resolve this cordially.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As the material clearly predates its placement here, at the article's inception, I have blanked the article pending verification of release. If the contributor does not verify, the material will have to be removed or revised. Thank you for noting your concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on format?

I am writing an article for another language edition of Wikipedia on global warming, inspired by the BBC documentary: The Climate Wars. I have used only the format of the program, for example, these themes regarding the history of climate change:

the program starts with "Letter to Nixon about global cooling in 1971" ->
"Environmental issues of the 70's" ->
"Filler" ->
"Filler" ->
Ehrlich's "Eco Catastrophe" ->
Scientists' opinion on new ice age ->
Cold periods of the 40s to 60s ->
Heating up during the 70s.

"Filler" refers to sections I didn't cover. I didn't use the narrative as presented in the program, but basically just used the format as used by the program, in other words, discussing issues in the same sequence as they did. Many parts, as presented by the program, differ a lot from my article (since I'm fact-checking everything, lots of sections tend to get rewritten). Am I on safe grounds, as far as copyright is concerned, or can they sue me for the creativity involved in choosing and ordering the information the way they did? Anrie (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay in response; obviously, this is not a heavily monitored page. :) This is not a run-of-the-mill question, and my opinion is based on some experience, but not legal certainty. I should also note that my experience relates to US copyright law, which is what governs en-Wikipedia. Copyright law governs creative expression of ideas. If your section heads were one word only, I would think you'd be okay. When you start to run into more complicated phrases, you could hit some trouble. If this were listed as a copyright problem here, I would probably play it safe by renaming the sections. As far as utilizing the division structure, as long as you aren't copying the text or too closely paraphrasing you should be fine. Utilizing multiple sources is precisely the way to avoid that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Anrie (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Repeating quotes verbatim is not plagiarism."

That statement appears in an edit summary [[7]]. It is in support of a quote of three paragraphs from a book which would be in copyright.

I expect that a brief attributed quote from copyright text can be justified, but where is the line drawn? Are three substantial paragraphs justifiable?

CBHA (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Three substantial paragraphs that do not serve any of the purposes for copyrighted text set out at WP:NFC are a problem. Quotations should be brief and should "illustrate a point, establish a context, or attribute a point of view or idea." I've removed it, as extensive quotations of copyrighted text are prohibited. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit summay is quite correct: a long attributed quote is not plagarism. Plagarism is unethical and is a violation of academic norms, and it can get you in trouble at school or as a journalist. Instead, the long quote is a violation of copyright law and it can get you arrested or sued. -Arch dude (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, three paragraphs, even long paragraphs, from a prose text is legal fair use is all countries that have a fair use provision, except when a short text being copied is copied entirely. (In US copyright law, there is a specific statement that there re no fixed guidelines to fair use. ) It usually however does not meet our Wikipedia standard of what fair use material to include, as it is usually excessive for our purposes in writing an encyclopedia. For purposes of criticism in a school paper or the like, if properly cited, ad provided one doesn't use it for the bulk of the aper, most teachers would or at least in my opinion should accept it. DGG (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidance for writing "in your own words"?

Is there a page anywhere that explains how to write things "in your own words"? I'm looking for someplace I can point new users who copy material from other websites in good faith. I'd like to find a general explanation, possibly accompanied by specifics like "short phrases taken from the source are okay but not more than n words." Thanks, FreplySpang 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know of any such document, although I've been considering that we need one for a while. My best suggestions are from off-wiki: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/, http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/paraphrasing.html and particularly http://www.cinahl.com/library/cinahlnews/Cnews173.pdf. The latter looks at things from a legal perspective, but it helps explain why just replacing words here and there is not sufficient. There is no hard and fast rule about how many words in a row can be taken. You often hear "three words" used as a basic in academic circles, but fewer can be a problem if they are a particularly "apt phrase." Sometimes, more can be okay. We couldn't say "The grotesquely gorgeous John Doe" without quotation marks if our source said "John Doe is grotesquely gorgeous." "Grotesquely gorgeous" is an apt phrase. We'd be okay copying "The 97th Chief Assistant President of the Bumluck Field Squad", though, as there's nothing creative in that title. But this can be very hard for people unfamiliar with the concept to understand. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for the external links and explanation! Cheers, FreplySpang 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a legal issue, so we need lawyers to provide a precise legal answer. However, you can at least try to work from the stated intent of copyright law, which is to protect the "creative content" of a work. If you start from an existing creative work and preserve any creative content, then you are in violation of copyright law. Any algorithmic translation is likely to preserve creative content. However, if you extract factual infromation, and then present the same facts in your own words, you are not preserving the creative work of the original. So, to document the fact that you are not copying someone's creative work, your best bet is to first extract the facts into a table or outline. Then rearrange the facts into a logical or creative order of your on and document the order: if the order of the facts is identical to that of the original, it might not be creative: it may be fundamental (e.g., chronological, albhabetical, etc.) Now, create your own article from the facts. The result is your own creative work. In an extreme case such as reverse-engineering a computer game, one team extracts the facts, and a second team that has never seen the orignal game creates the new game from the extractd facts. -Arch dude (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

guidelines for reverting to non-copyvio version?

If you see a Wikipedia article that seems to be copied from a website, and revert the Wikipedia article to a version that does not match the text on that website, should you still list the article at WP:CP to bring it to the attention of an administrator (so the copyvio. version can be deleted), or are you done? The instructions are unclear whether reverting is the only step in dealing with such a situation, or whether it is the first step. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, you should be done. Quite often, that's what an administrator will do (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins). It's a good idea to make a note at the article's talk page explaining why you removed the text. I have devised a template of my own I use for the purpose at User:Moonriddengirl/cclean. Should you ever have need of it, please feel free to use it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential copyright from Memory Alpha

It looks to me like this edit is likely to be a copy of content which was contributed at Memory Alpha about 7 hours earlier. However, due to the timing, there's a chance it may have been done by the same person. Neither account has been active in the past year. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Pity. :/ We either need verification that the content was added by the same person or the content needs to be removed, as the licenses are incompatible. I've blanked it and listed it at CP to be revisited after a week for processing. It could simply be removed, but since it's been there so long, it seems like a good idea to allow time to clarify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How about links?

There are a huge number of links to lyricwiki [8] which I very much doubt has permission to host all these lyrics. Is that a potential problem for us? dougweller (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless those lyrics are public domain, we shouldn't be linking to them according to WP:LINKVIO. Going to be a bit of a pain to clean them up, though. :/ I'm out of wiki time for now (real life! argh!) but did remove one (REM's lyrics are clearly not pd). Where the contributor is active, a {{uw-copyright-link}} is also probably a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a bot we can use to clear all these links from the article space? Also, maybe we should propose the site's addition to WP's spam blacklist, and/or XLinkBot's revert list. --Muchness (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we'd get it blacklisted or not, since Youtube isn't. I have found one article so far where the lyrics are likely public domain, though I haven't yet verified. It's been a bit of a relief to see how many of these are not in article space. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, here they declare that they are no longer attempting to pay royalties for use of lyrics, but are sheltering behind DMCA. This cements our inability to use them. I've proposed their removal from the interwiki map, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've gotten them all. I found one article where I believe the lyrics are public domain. Everything that I see left in that list is not in article space, but I'd be quite appreciative of further review. :) Muchness, I've gone on ahead and requested it at XLinkBot's revert list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, looks like you got everything. The only article space links I can see are from YMCA Camp Fitch, Springfield, Pennsylvania (probably PD) and Kaldbaksbotnur, which references a LyricWiki editor's translation of some Faroese lyrics. I left a note at Talk:Kaldbaksbotnur trying to outline the potential problems; hopefully interested parties there can resolve any issues. --Muchness (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if I'm in the right place

But I need some help with a few images. I nominated the article Paul Grassi for deletion a few days ago, and while it looks like the article is probably going to be kept (if only as a redirect), there are three images on it that had uncertain copyright and source status. I told the uploader to specify their statuses, and he did on Talk:Paul Grassi. I have no idea if his specifications are sufficient, or if they are, what to put on the pages for the three images in question.

Hopefully someone can help me out here. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think probably the best help I can give you is to point you to Media copyright questions, where people who work images tend to hang out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation warning template for editors' talk pages?

Is there one, along the lines of the vandalism templates? Maybe I'm overlooking it. Шизомби (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are several, depending on the circumstances. The basic template is at {{Uw-copyright}}. This is particularly useful if the copyright infringement was added to an existing article which is not nominated for deletion or tagged for investigation here, but it can also be used in those circumstances if it seems appropriate. If an article is nominated for speedy deletion, the CSD tag will generate a template for you to paste using {{Nothanks-sd}}. We also have {{Nothanks}}, which is not specifically engineered for speedy deletion, and {{Nothanks-web}}, which is useful if you can add the link to the url from which the material was copied. There is even a {{Welcome - Copyright}} for editors who have not yet been welcomed. I myself prefer to use a regular welcome template and add a copyright template independently. I also have a couple of copyright infringement templates of my own, which you or anyone would be welcome to use. :) For instance, this one was created for when the contributor says he or she is the copyright holder, but that hasn't been proven. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shouldn't those be on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or is there another page they appear on? Шизомби (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You responded before I even got the talkback on your page! :D That's not a bad idea, to include them. Except for the ones I've created, most of them are at Category:Copyright maintenance templates. I'll see if I can figure out a good place to point to those. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to "Alternatives to deletion", although it may not show up for a while, as that's transcluded from the CP Header. Thanks for the suggestion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion versus reversion

I reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_memory&oldid=264253487 which was taken from ttp://www.globalhealingtherapies.com/article_bmr_phenom.html and http://www.globalhealingseminars.com/article_bmr_intro.html and possibly other pages, but I think in retrospect it should have been speedy deleted. Is it OK as is? Шизомби (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You did the right thing. You should use WP:CSD#G12 when the copyright violation goes all the way back and there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. If it doesn't go all the way, you can clean (please warn the contributor and make a note warning against restoration of the material on the article's talk page, to make sure it doesn't come back accidentally) it or you can list it at WP:CP (process explained on the page). WP:CP is also used when infringement does go all the way back, but there's good reason to believe that permission might be obtained (as when the contributor claims to own the copyright) or when there is non-infringing content worth saving. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For when a Wikipedia page is copied with permission from an external source

This seems to be happening with page What's Following Me?: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#What's Following Me. I have seen the template {{Template:Backwardscopyvio}}; perhaps try a template {{notcopyvio|qwertyuiop|zxcvbnm}} that says that "this page is a copy of external page qwertyuiop with permission described in page zxcvbnm". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- A template could be a good idea for those circumstances when release is noted at the site. Most times people go through the e-mail process, though, in which case we use the OTRS template. Truthfully, that's a better process, because I have seen situations where the external site is later changed or taken down and somebody comes back and challenges our right to use the material. At that point, there's only the word of the original contributor. OTRS is forever. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness

Redirected here by the Novels Project; I hope this is the right place to raise the matter. I am very concerned about the content of the entry for Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness. Vast chunks of it are identical to the text of an external web site. It is not clear whether the Wikipedia entry is cut and pasted from someone else's thesis, and is thus plagiarism, or that we are looking at the original of a thesis here in Wiki, and that the external site has been created for the purpose of establishing bogus citation anchors. Either way, it seems to me that something very wrong is going on. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubstreet (talk • contribs) 23 February 2009

Ok, which text and which external web site! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You really were directed here slightly in error see: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions for full details on how to post this type of problem thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this talk page is probably a fine place to discuss such more complicated matters; they are occasionally raised here. There is seldom discussion at WP:CP. I'll take a look to see what I can figure out, but if I can't find the external website, more information will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the website in question is sparknotes, there can be no doubt that it predates our use. One way to determine this is to check the "wayback" machine to see when that page was originally published. The earliest archive of the plot summary is 2000. The plot summary we have was pasted from it in January 2009. I will replace it with earlier text and investigate other portions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

←I have cleaned the material from sparknotes, pasted in a series of edits by an IP editor in January 2009, by replacing it with earlier text. If sparknotes was not the source that concerned you and I have not addressed the problem you identified, please let us know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. That's very helpful of you. The extensive pasting of sparknotes material was precisely my concern. I think that possibly it was being deployed as a blanket response to a number of 'citation needed' flags, but 'quoting' on such a wholesale scale surely cannot be a legitimate response to that type of query. Again, thanks. Grubstreet (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio, unkown source & unsure - Curry Mallet

Hi, I can't find appropriate instructions or templates for a possible copyright violation (by an IP anon editor) where only part of an article is affected & I don't know the source - therefore can an expert help. On Curry Mallet this edit added a large amount of text about the manor house which feels like a copyvio (including previous refs & typos) but I can' find where it has come from. Subsequent edits have moved and changed it. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, without a source, it can be difficult. It could, for instance, have been a student pasting from a word processor document of his own essay. :/ I've done some google-searching, but I can't find it, either. If I discovered this article, I would do one of three things: (1) I would tag it {{Cv-unsure}}. This lets other editors know that you are worried about the material, but can't prove infringement. This tag is placed on the talk page, rather than the article itself, and you would place it like so at the top of the page: {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curry_Mallet&diff=264677458&oldid=261925435}}. (2) I would seek consensus with other contributors of the article to remove it based on my concerns. This works best if the article is actively monitored. Even if it's not, you can revert it out of there with an explanation of why at the article's talk page. If others disagree, you seek consensus through dispute resolution if necessary. (3) I would revise the material myself. Sometimes if I have good reason to believe that text is pasted but cannot prove it, I rewrite it to be on the safe side. This is something I might do if a source is given that I can't access, like a book. If there's no source given, then plagiarism remains a potential concern, unless the material is straightforward, widely publicized fact. In this case, it's not. It's somebody's opinion that "The most important private house in the village is the Manor House." It's somebody's opinion that "These fantasies were constructed by a member of the Mallet family at a time when such things were fashionable or amusing and have been oft repeated by the incredulous ever since with many references on-line." In your position, I'd go with either 1 or 2...probably 2, unless research could verify the facts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I've tagged the article as suggested & asked for the comments of others, but I doubt if the article is actively monitored - if there is no response in a few days I will remove/rewrite the text.— Rod ^talk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Description of actual events and copyright

I am reviewing the article Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson for Good article status and I am concerned that the level of detail in the three fight descriptions may rise to the level of a derivative work. An editor has disagreed, stating that "facts are not copyrightable". I agree, but the manner in which facts are presented is. Feedback on this issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading about NFL's excessive "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."-warning and how it really applies. From what I gathered, the mentioned "accounts of the game" would only include NFL's own accounts of the game, i.e. audio commentary etc, not say my own play-by-play on the basis that facts are not copyrightable. What makes describing a NFL game different from closely paraphrasing a book (which would be a problem as far as I understand) I'm not sure about... --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The manner in which facts are presented is copyrightable to the extent that creativity is used there; hence, an alphabetical phone directory is not copyrightable. In my opinion, the question would be whether the article is summarizing a blow-by-blow from a printed source (hence utilizing details creatively selected by the original observer) or simply detailing what occurred. To give an example of what I mean, if a newspaper journalist witnessing a car accident described it in a certain way and we base our article on his description, then we may be creating a derivative work if that newspaper journalist has creatively selected detail—choosing to focus on the expression of horror on a bystander's face, mentioning the startling silence after the last resounding screech of distressed metal. We are not creating a derivative work if we witness a straightforward, linear replay of that accident on a tv news broadcast and describe it for ourselves. The TV news channel might package and sell their footage to some reality tv show, but they still don't own copyright over the event. Those who broadcast a fight might own the tangible, fixed form of expression, but the facts they are filming are not copyrightable. (This would be different if the fight were fictional, since it would not be fact but creative expression in itself; in that case, too much detail would constitute a derivative work, as with plot summary.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A third case (other than real vs fictional event) would be one where the action was scripted and/or choreographed – in effect a theatrical performance. The event would be real (as opposed to imaginary), but also creative. In this case, care might be required in reporting it. However, the promoter or broadcaster of a football game or prize fight who tried to assert copyright on the basis that the action was predetermined would be committing commercial suicide. Nothing is hated by sports fans more than a fix! (The article in question here looks good – in both senses – unless Otto believes that the fight reportage was derived from another source who recorded the facts selectively or non-chronologically, and that such selection and/or nonlinear order has been copied here.) Grubstreet (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have any belief that the fights were either choreographed or fixed. I was concerned, based on a number of GA and FA nominations that I've made and reviewed, that this level of description was problematic. If consensus is that it's not then I'm all good with it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great to keep an eye out for that and hope you will continue to do so. :) I think this one is okay, but it's a serious concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot notices of copyvios

Could some people drop at WP:AAlerts/FR#Copyvio to discuss some ~~technical issues~~ Norwegian poetry? (This applies only to moonriddengirl, for all others it's still about technical issues).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Norwegian poetry? I'm so there! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad it made you laugh. Anyway thanks for answering our questions.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The boundary of copyright protection

I am translating 'Historical method' into korean which also was translated into japanese. The document has contents which are kind of the key ideas of several books. While these ideas were produced by creative work, isn't it againt the copyright policy(or law) ? Jtm71 (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It is against US copyright law to give key ideas from copyrighted works in too great a detail. In such a case, copyright problem would enter in (presuming no language is duplicated) at the point that the document becomes a derivative work as an abridgment or condensation. I can't access any of the cited sources at Google books, but I suspect given the length of the article that it doesn't cross the line into derivative work (which is a difficult matter to determine, obviously, and would have to be determined in a courtroom; this is one of those things where opinions may differ). I can't tell if it uses language from the original sources in a way that's inconsistent with our non-free content guidelines. Regardless, the article could use some work. :/ It draws heavily on the theories of a few and feels as though these have been rather baldly pasted together. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

List and excerpts of cites

I'm wondering if collections of journal citations in user space, with a 1-4 sentences of the text, qualify as fair use or if there are GFDL issues. Example: User_talk:FFN001#MSG_and_glutamate_references_which_suggest_that_MSG_is_NOT_completely_harmless

Thanks for clarifying. Phil153 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

European Regional Economic Forum

Could someone with a good understanding of our copyright policies take a look at the above? A user created the page, which is a direct copy of an article at http://www.ukf.hr/UserDocsImages/EREF%20Bulletin%20-%20Issue%201%2026%2001%202009.pdf, this morning, and added a hangon when I nominated it for speedy as a copyvio. The user says he is from the organization, and represents the copyright holder; I referred him to [[9]]. An IP then added the text "Copyright (C) 2009 Slovenian Business and Research Association. Avenue Lloyd George 6, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed" to the bottom of the article. This obviously isn't compliant with GFDL terms, but I'm not sure exactly what to do next with the contributor (and too busy IRL this afternoon to research it in depth). Could somebody go to the article talk and advise him on what to do?

Many thanks, Gonzonoir (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great. Much appreciated. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I invest a lot of time at CP, so this is routine for me. The good thing about a diversified Wiki. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: since I've received the recommended 5 supporters at the Proposal page, with several others who have indicated interest elsewhere, I've gone ahead and moved this into project namespace for further development. Please consider joining the project if you have time and interest. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Gastropods copyvio problem

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_very_large_and_widespread_CopyVio_problem.21 for some discussion of a widespread copyvio problem in the area of gastropods. Dcoetzee 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As it now seems quite likely that this is even larger than we knew, I have opened a new thread on the matter at the administrator's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Text on MLB.com

Hi, I was wondering if I'm interpreting the MLB.com ToS righting in that the writers retain the copyright for their works and is thus free to relicense if under GFDL should they choose so? I'm wondering because Planecrash111 (talk · contribs) have been adding text from mlb.com and is claiming he's mailed the writers and gotten permission to post it. What is required to show that such permission have been given? Is them saying so in an email enough, or do they need to contact OTRS? (This is assuming the text is only found on MLB.com.) Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There's more details about the actual issue at User talk:Planecrash111, but I guess it all comes down to whether the writers retains the copyright and what is required to show permission. I'm wondering how to interpret the writers' answer to his request to use the text though... When they basically say "go ahead and use it, but give attribution" I somewhat doubt it means they are OK with the material posted here with just their name in the edit summary... --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio site

I just removed a link to admusicbd.com/, which appears to me to be a massive collection of copyright violations (there's nothing on the website that I can see asserting that the copies hosted thereon are licensed in any way). However, I find lots of links to this site throughout WP. Any comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They need to be removed en masse and the site needs to be added to the blacklist. A bot can help with this. Dcoetzee 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out they only introduced a few. I've reverted them all and blacklisted the site at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Dcoetzee 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamsteria

With the disclaimer at the top of Wikipedia:Silly Things/Hamsteria, does that exclude me from being able to use that page's content in a profitable way? §hep ^Talk 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not unless Wikipedia's copyright policy was substantially different in 2005. :) Every time we press "save", we "irrevocably agree to release [our] contributions under the GFDL*." The disclaimer doesn't override that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can sport results be copyrighted?

This issue was raised in the FAC about a sport event, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race/archive1. Can a list of results be copyrighted? That's the first time I saw someone thoughts of that and I'd like some more opinions. If there's a better place to discuss this, please, direct me there. Thanks. --Tone 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can never copyright facts. The presentation of facts in a specific manner can be copyrighted; but not the facts themselves. If Sally from Sweden came in first, then Mai from Laos, then Fatima from Chile, those are facts and cannot be copyrighted. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes looking into this a bit more, fixtures are copyrighted, but the resuts are not Fasach Nua (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What is meant with "fixtures", in this context? (English is not my first language, and ll I can find is that a fixture is a scheduled match.) The results are not copyrighted, but would the race schedule be copyrighted? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fixtures" in this context means the incidentals: formatting, typestyles, punctuation, etc. - the "look and feel" of an item. The core content, including when events were scheduled and held, again is not copyrightable. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

fixtures are copyrightable, at least in the EU, as they are not facts Fasach Nua (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly a copyright expert, or a legal expert in general, but the 2005 case between the MLB and CBC Distribution and Marketing is a legal case I thought of when I read this question (even though it generally seems to be settled). Here is the decision. From it, a section called 'Application of the First Amendment to Factual Data and History' It's about baseball, but I see no functional difference between it and any other sport in this context. Edged (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Courts have found that First Amendment freedom of expression is applicable in cases where the subject matter at issue involved factual data and historical facts. For example, in Gionfriddo, 94 Cal. App.4th at 410, the court concluded that the “precise information conveyed ... consist[ed] of factual data concerning [baseball] players [and] their performance statistics” and that, as such the First Amendment was applicable. The California court in Gionfriddo characterized the information conveyed by the defendant as “mere bits of baseball’s history.” Significantly, the California court further held that the First Amendment protects “recitations of [baseball] players' accomplishments. ‘The freedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, and the publication of daily news is an acceptable and necessary function in the life of the community.’.

Quotes

I have a minor dispute with User:Ambaryer about the use of quote sections in TV episode articles. Is a quotes section like here[10] allowed or not? I can't see how a number of quotes from a TV episode, without any context (not used in plot summary or in description of characters, ...) can be qualified as fair use. It is a purely decorative use of copyrighted material, and thus a copyright violation. Fram (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Several pages containing text copied verbatim from a website

Not sure how to list this on the article page, so here. This page [11] looks to be the website of Radek Rybkowski, Center for American Studies, Jagiellonian University. [12] He doesn't put his name on the earlier lectures - he does later, as you can see at Lecture 32, which is in Powerpoint. [13]. Significant portions of the material in his lecture series are present in several WP articles:

History of the Jews in Poland and Lecture 18 - [14] "The Jewish Enlightenment, Haskalah, began to take hold in Poland during the 1800s, stressing secular ideas and values..." Pretty much an entire paragraph in WP lifted from the lecture.

History of the Jews in Poland and Lecture 22 - [15] - Most of the WP paragraph beginning with 'The Jewish cultural scene was particularly vibrant and blossomed in pre-World War II Poland....

November Uprising and Lecture 16 [16] - "Initially, the Congress Kingdom enjoyed a relatively large amount of internal autonomy and was only indirectly subject to Russian rule." "They were soon joined by large parts of Polish society. Despite several local successes, the uprising was eventually defeated by a numerically superior Russian army under Ivan Paskevich and the resistance was crushed." "Over time, however, the freedoms granted to the Kingdom were gradually curtailed and the constitution was progressively ignored by the Russian authorities."

Pospolite ruszenie and Lecture 07 [17] - "Pospolite ruszenie units were usually organised on voivodship (regions) basis and varied in quality. Nobility from regions like Kresy (Eastern Borderland), where combat was common, created fairly competent units, while those from peaceful regions of the Commonwealth (for example Great Poland—Poznan and Gniezno region) lacked battle experience and training and often were substandard..."

Lusatian culture and Lecture 02 [18] - "The economy was mainly based on arable agriculture, as is attested by numerous storage pits." "Flax was grown, and remains of domesticated apples, pears and plums have been found."

Maybe Rybkowski has authorized this, or maybe he is a WP contributor himself. The fact that most of the lectures are in Word or Powerpoint makes it difficult to analyze further. That is, if you put "remains of domesticated apples, pears and plums have been found." into Google, you wouldn't find the link to these lectures; only if you download Lecture 02. I would think there are more instances. Tools? Contact him? Pls advise. Novickas (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Clarification. Novickas (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I so much prefer clean, obviously cases. :) The first thing I'd do if I had stumbled upon this is check to see who introduced this text and when. I would want to be sure that Wikipedia didn't have it first. Checking the history of articles this heavily trafficked can be tedious in the extreme. Looking at the first case you've found, History of the Jews in Poland, I followed the history back every 500 edits looking for the sentence, "The Jewish Enlightenment, Haskalah, began to take hold in Poland during the 1800s, stressing secular ideas and values." That sentence was added to our article right here, in 2005. Next thing I'm going to do, since there are two sections tagged, is look to see if the same contributor introduced section #2. If he did, it's more likely he copied from them (though not conclusive). If he didn't, it's more likely they copied from us, since otherwise we'd have to presume two different contributors infringed on them.

And so he did, here. Oh, but here's a good sign for our article! I'm now comparing the current version of the text with the first edition. I see that at some point, somebody added the sentence, "Singer Jan Kiepura, born of a Jewish mother and Polish father, was one of the most popular artist of that era and pre-war songs of Jewish composers like Henryk Wars or Jerzy Petersburski are still widely known in Poland today." We see similar in the source you've identified: "Singer Jan Kiepura was one of the most popular artist of that era and pre-war songs of Jewish composers like Henryk Wars (later on he worked for Hollywood aka Henry Vars, The Big Heat, Flipper of 1963) or Jerzy Petersburski (he wrote Tango milonga, or more widely known as Oh, Donna Clara, the best known song ever written by Polish composer) are still widely known in Poland today." But this is not present when it first appeared in our article. Checking for the introduction of Jan Kiepura, we find it here, years later, by an entirely different contributor. That's very good news for us. :) It suggests that this lecturer may have been inspired by the Wikipedia article rather than the other way around.

Next I'll check one of the other articles to see if there is evidence to support this conclusion. (I'm saving at this point. I don't want to lose these notes. :))

All right, picking back up, I feel pretty confident now in asserting that this professor has utilized Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Some of the other articles are inconclusive. Although different contributors added the material, that doesn't definitively rule out our copyvio. But November Uprising helps. The language in the identified source says:

Initially, the Congress Kingdom enjoyed a relatively large amount of internal autonomy and was only indirectly subject to Russian rule. United with Russia through a personal union, with the Tsar as King of Poland, the Polish estates could elect their own parliament and government, and the kingdom had its own courts, army and treasury. Over time, however, the freedoms granted to the Kingdom were gradually curtailed and the constitution was progressively ignored by the Russian authorities.

In 2004, we see the first introduction here of this text:

Initially the Congress Poland enjoyed a relatively large dose of freedom and was only indirectly subject to Russian rule. United with Russia with a personal union, the state could elect its own government and parliament, had its' own courts, army and treasury. However, with time the liberties were gradually halted and the constitution of the Kingdom ignored by Russian authorities.

I've highlighted the differences. In February 2005, a different editor revised the material, including such changes as altering "dose"→"amount" and "with a"→"by only." More minor changes happened in November 2005, and in May of 2006 it underwent a general copy-edit that brought it more in line with the suspected source, including "freedom"→"internal autonomy" and the "United with Russia" sentence → "United with Russia through a personal union, with the Tsar as King of Poland, the Polish estates could elect their own parliament (the Sejm) and government, and the kingdom had its own courts, army and treasury." At this point, I feel like there's plenty enough evidence of natural evolution that we can safely assert that this lecturer bases his lectures on Wikipedia articles, for which reason we should logically presume that the text in the other articles probably originated here as well.

As just a general suggestion, if you run into problems like this, there is an alternative that comes up shy of outright blanking the article for investigation. You can also tag articles of concern with {{copypaste}} and explain the problem you see at the article's talk page. Combing through histories like this can be time-consuming, and it can be a real help to get other editors involved in that process. :) Meanwhile, articles tagged for copypaste are automatically listed at CP by bot, which means that somebody should look into the matter after about seven days. If the contributors to the article haven't resolved things, whatever administrator investigates should do so then.

I appreciate your bringing this up and your thorough and detailed listing of your concerns. Your giving specific passages and links has made investigating a lot easier. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are thorough and patient, thanks :) Another item that supports the lectures-were-from-WP theory: hirara.home.pl/rochester/lectures is not in the Wayback Machine [19], but hirara.home.pl dates to 2003. [20] Implies that the lectures were posted on the web < 6 months ago. Also, when Lecture 22 is opened in Word, the file properties-statistics give a creation date of Tuesday, March 18, 2008.

However, there are several other bits and pieces in the HoJinP that match external sites. Hidden Jewish children were kept in cellars and attics... ([21]) Other bits: At the beginning the Judenrat served as a representative of the Jewish community, trying with bribes and submission to soften the Nazi blows.[22]. The exodus took place in stages and the vast majority of survivors left for various reasons, often more than one....[23]. Could you guys could put it thru a tool, and then post the results on the article's talk page, so contributors can see what to fix? Thanks, Novickas (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't really a reliable tool, although there are some plagiarism checkers people use. I've had some luck with this one, but it's really only good for the obvious. Nothing matches the slow, meticulous manual search through google for finding duplication, though that's obviously a time-consuming process since much of what we find comes from Wikipedia's mirrors. If you believe that this article needs scrutiny for copyright concerns, you might want to start by suggesting that the regular contributors themselves try the plagiarism detector. Meanwhile, I'll glance at the additional text you've tagged when I complete today's listing at WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad about the tools. Maybe, since the site you linked to was built by the University of Maryland - would they consider creating a version for WP purposes? That would automatically exclude WP and its best-known mirrors? Just a thought. It would also be nice if they had some output that could be copied..but maybe that gets into legal issues, I think I saw a statement on some Pchecker site "not valid for use in legal proceedings". Later, Novickas (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've requested review from the contributors of the page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Vishal Arora

Vishal Arora is a journalist and writer based in New Delhi India. He is currently the Features Editor of The Caravan, a fortnightly journal of politics and culture published from Delhi. Arora writes on socio-political affairs and human rights for national and foreign media with a special focus on the intersection of religion and politics. Arora's articles have appeared in Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Deccan Herald, The Tribune, The Statesman, Mint, Indo-Asian News Service, Sify.com, Swagat, The International Indian (U.A.E), Compass Direct News (U.S.), Religion News Service (U.S.), and Religious Intelligence (U.K.). Arora's writing can be read at [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anugrah.kumar (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IET article

Hi - this article on Photoshop and Gimp, in the IET magazine seems to re-use a lot of content from the GIMP and Photoshop Elements wikipedia pages. Is there a problem with this? They don't cite wikipedia as a source, or mention anything about the licensing. I'm not sure if the amount copied is enough to justify calling it plagiarism or not, but there are entire paragraphs (with minor changes, e.g. from US English spelling to British English spelling) that match up. --mcld (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now removed, after the organisation was alerted to the issue, jolly good. Remove/archive this note please --mcld (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

copyvio vs. db-copyvio

Most pages that are tagged as db-copyvio and meet the 4 conditions for db-copyvio on this project page, I delete, but there are some that don't seem spammy, non-notable or obnoxious, and where I guess that if we told the contributor it needs to be rewritten or we need permission, we might get some benefit from the slower copyvio process. Does anyone object to my changing the speedy tag to a copyvio tag in these cases, and reporting the page here? - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object. I've done it myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are product specifications copyrightable?

I noticed that the specification contained in the Nokia 5130 XpressMusic article appears to be a cut & paste of the specificions from this web page. Similarly, this earlier version of the Nokia 5130 article had a similar problem, but that content has since been removed (although the reason for removal was not stated). Are product specifications or at least the presentation of such copyrightable? The source displays "Copyright ©2009 Nokia. All rights reserved." Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This ones a gray area. Product specifications are not copyrightable; the creative presentation of these is. Less of a gray area, the opening paragraph is also pasted except for a few minimal alterations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Userspace subject to copyright?

Is material posted temporarily to userspace, such as a sandbox, subject to the same restrictions applied in mainspace? Rotational (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Material posted to userspace is subject to more restrictions than that applied in mainspace. :) We allow "fair use" images in mainspace under WP:NFC, but these are not allowed in userspace. Copyrighted text, too, should not be displayed in userspace. Sometimes I have worked with individuals on revising copyrighted text in userspace when they are trying to address copyright problems where more non-free text than I'm comfortable with has been temporarily displayed. If this is going to hang around too long, I will blank the page between editing sessions. It can be retrieved when there's time or opportunity to work, but it's not being published in the meantime. User pages are picked up by google as well, and rebroadcast, so spreading copyrighted material in this way is a concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet another reason why userspace should be protected from being indexed by Google. Some user's pages show up in the top 3, exploiting Wikipedia for publicity, pov articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The content of The Secret Lovers is largely copied from [25], which is available "under license of Attribution-ShareAlike". I'll admit to being a bit of a dunce when it comes to this sort of thing, but basically is this OK or does it constitute a copyvio? PC78 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here: CC-BY-SA requires attribution, which is not supplied. This makes it a copyvio. This could be easily remedied, however, by giving credit if GFDL and CC-BY-SA were compatible. They are not ("This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.". Until and unless we transition to CC-BY-SA, we can't use such text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've removed the plot summary from the article. The rest should be fine, though. PC78 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleiades Club

A question related to #copyvio vs. db-copyvio above: when there are no issues to be investigated ... I know that the material is all copyvio, but it seems like a notable and interesting article and I suspect I can get the creator to re-write it ... and I add a {{copyvio}} tag and prod the page to put a deadline on the rewrite, do you guys also want me to report it here? I don't mind keeping an eye on it myself, and helping with the rewrite when necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you don't, DumbBot will. :) If you use the copyvio tag, it automatically sets a deadline for rewrite, so you might find it more expeditious to just tag it so and list it here with a note that you're listing a blatant vio in the hopes that the creator will rewrite it. Could save you some time on the PROD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There are two things I like about adding the prod in these cases ... a number of wikiprojects are checking the prod section of their article alerts, so the prod sometimes pulls in some people who know more about the subject than I do, and the prod lets me put something like this in bold at the top of the page: "This is an apparent copyright violation, but the subject is notable and interesting, so instead of a "speedy" deletion, I'm going to obscure the page. The text is still all there when you hit the "edit" button; please rewrite the whole thing so that it's not a copyright infringement before the 7-day deletion discussion runs out." That lets everyone (article creator, tagger who might wonder why I'm declining, other admins, visitors from the wikiproject tagged on the talk page) know what I'm trying to accomplish with that article. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles that are tagged with copyvio are also supposed to be listed for wikiprojects in article alerts, but I'm never sure if something like that works. (It seems to have done with one, at least; I coincidentally noticed that it was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Work_to_be_done the other day and wondered just how long it's going to stay listed.) But there's no problem with doubling up the tags. If you think that the PROD message is more clear, why not? PROD expires more quickly than copyvio (unless they did change that recently), but I certainly don't mind since that just means one less on my list. :) If the article is a G12, you're only giving extra time as a courtesy, so you aren't cutting down the generally allotted time. The only time you might actually be doing a disservice to the article is if it isn't a G12 and PROD is still five days long, since copyvio allows 7 + 1. So, for G12s, I'd say go for it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cydebot and the policy pages have been changed to a 7-day period for almost a week now, so I believe the change is going through. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Drew Peterson mugshot.jpg

This copyright doesn't seem correct. Isn't this the work of a state government, not federal? I don't think that necessarily means its free, does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.168.34 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm asking in the wrong spot. I'll ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 98.227.168.34 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

At History of the Jews in Poland

This article contains at least a dozen instances where text has been copied and pasted - some entire paragraphs. See its talk page; they're from several different sources. Tag it? If so, how? Novickas (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If the copying is that extensive, blank the article with {{subst:copyvio|url=}} (put in a sample url or two) and follow the directions that the template generates to list it at WP:CP. After noticing your ongoing concerns, I listed the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Problem article. But if problems are that severe, we shouldn't publish the text until it is cleaned up. Temporary space serves for that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's such a strong step! wanted to get an outside opinion first. OK, will do the template (presumably multiple urls are separated by commas?) Let me know here if steps were followed correctly or not. Thx, Novickas (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, but legally necessary. :/ Blanking will allow us time to address it, rather than immediately removing it. You've done excellent work tracking down duplication of text. I'll notify the various projects with an interest in the article and see if they can help with the clean-up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In an article that is almost 100kb long, 10 or 20 sentences which add up to what - 2% of the article? - hardly merit a copyvio template. That said, Novickas did a great job - I am in the process of removing/rewriting&attributing his finds, should be done soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time problems have been identified in this article. We need to find out who put the text here and make sure that there aren't other problems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Robert Hartshorne

This page, Robert Hartshorne, recently edited by User:Peter Hartshorne, states at the bottom:

For information please do not hesitate to contact ECG Studios where one of our team will be delighted to answer any questions that you may have. Copyright © 2000-2009 ECG

This user, who recently removed several tags from the article, is listed in the article as "Musical Director/Head of ICT and Communications: Peter Hartshorne." Little seems to be directly copied from this site, except perhaps lists from this page and here.

I've warned the user about COI but I don't know what else to do. Dan D. Ric (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also that I have added new tags to replace those removed. The article has many problems. Dan D. Ric (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to the project page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about copyright status: historical marker text

There's a question about the copyright status of text on historical markers. Please weigh in if you have interest at that thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Website of the Holy See

I would like a clarification about the copyright status for writings on website for the Holy See. I reported a few articles which were direct copy-pastes from the Holy See's website. The contributor stated the copy-pastes were legitimate because writings on a Vatican (.va) url were public domain, since the Vatican is a state government. However, the website seems to retain an exclusive copyright to writings of the Holy See. It might be an issue between the separation of the Vatican State and the Holy See. I'm sorry if this has been previously decided. If it has, please point me in the right direction. Otherwise, could someone give me the heads up or the lowdown on this issue? — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet found any indication that Vatican material is public domain. Instead, all indications I see are to the contrary. I am blanking the articles again and leaving a note requesting verification at Talk:Institutions connected with the Holy See. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And thanks for the (very speedy) response. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out for copyright problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

List of works

Would it be a copyright problem to take a list of works by an author, artist, composer etc. from a book, reference it, and place it in a Wikipedia article? Iceblock (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If the list reflects creative selection (best of, for example), then the answer may be yes. If the list is inclusive or the selection criteria is obvious (works since 2000, example), then probably not. So long as the details about these are straightforward and such that you might find at any source, it should not be an infringement to duplicate lists of works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

uddeIM (Joomla)

Would someone please look at my comment here and the comment to which I am replying, and advise on how to proceed? Is this situation salvageable? I am dealing with a relatively new user, who seems to be a SPA, but who is apparently working in good faith. Ladyof Shalott 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Providing feedback there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MoonRG! Ladyof Shalott 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation policy revision

Hi. I'm trying to come by a workable solution for dealing with massive, cross-article infringement by single contributors. I've opened two sections on the subject at Wikipedia Talk:Copyright violations: one on how to clean them up and another on how to work with the contributors who place them. This is a big issue on Wikipedia that I deal with routinely. The processes we have in place simply are not intended for this kind of situation, and I would be extremely grateful for assistance in working out processes that are. Please contribute there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding fair use

A reviewer of an article about a magazine I have nominated as a Good Article has asked if it would be possible to have additional covers in the article. I know that per our fair use guideline, it is ok to have a cover of a magazine to illustrate an article about that magazine - but I am not sure about having more than one such cover. NoCal100 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've seen a number of articles where more than one cover appears , e.g.: Unknown (magazine) - but I'd like to have some clear, explicit directives, rather than rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS NoCal100 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that the guidelines seem a bit unclear. The use of any non-free cover art is often debated and sometimes resolved on a case-by-case basis. In general practice, though, it is severely restricted -- most commonly to a single use (in the infobox) as needed to illustrate the critical commentary of the subject. Multiple images are sometimes allowed in an article in which that particular cover illustration is specifically discussed in the prose. FA articles like Imagination (magazine) and Batman are examples where multiple covers are used and the captions refer to some specific commentary in the text. The example of the Unknown (magazine) article you've cited actually fails the guideline because the second cover shot serves no purpose. Good luck with your article review. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Out 100 list

I don't understand why Out magazine's Out 100 was deleted. It says it is "unambiguous copyright infringement"? How is it different from Time Magazine's Person of the Year or any other list of honorees? None of the content from the magazine articles were included. Just the names of the recipients. Could you please undelete this article? Queerudite (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question; I think the answer is that there's been so much commentary on Time's Person of the Year that we can take the commentary as our sources. When similar lists have been reproduced, for example, List of America's 100 greatest golf courses, they've been either deleted, redirected, or shortened considerably out of copyright concerns. I'll copy this conversation over at WT:CP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I believe it makes it harder to get past the copyright problems that they aren't using measurable criteria; this is a completely subjective assessment of who's cool and out. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be the core issue as I understand it. If the selection criteria are creative, then the list is copyrightable. "most interesting and influential" is definitely a subjective, hence creative, list. Time's "Person of the Year" is also subjective, but what's being reported in that article is simply the winners who have been chosen and published year after year. We can report on People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" winners (and do here), but could not reproduce the entire list of "100 Most Beautiful People" or "25 Hottest Bachelors." (I have to admit that creative lists are not an area of copyright with which I've had much personal experience. It mystifies me that Billboard can copyright some of its charts, but it certainly does: "Use of a Billboard chart on any Internet Web site is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED without prior written consent from VNU eMedia, Inc." Are they blowing hot air? I don't know. I haven't put a lot of time into it, but I've looked a time or two for a test case or DMCA take-down, but I haven't found one yet.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but in practice, I don't think Wikipedia uses "creativity" as the core criterion for excluding award lists. See for example most any of the lists in Category:Award winners and its subcategories. All of the examples of "acceptable" content mentioned so far (Person of the Year, Sexiest Man, etc.) are "creative". I mean, I'm no lawyer, but if creativity is the primary criterion, we have a lot more deleting to do. Queerudite (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But those are annual winners, not a full list. For example of a previous conversation, see this archived conversation from 2004: a couple of quotes, "Compliation copyright occurs when the compliation has a sufficient creative element in it to recognize authorship in the list."; "In general, in US law, a list isn't copyrightable unless what is on the list has been creatively selected (a significant subset of all possible entries) or is in some other way either fictional or creative." Here's another archived thread from 2007. There are other threads. I've just added a search function to WT:C, if that might help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I have a follow up question. Creativity and volume appear to be the limiting factors. For example, I noticed that the Time 100 doesn't list all the winners, whereas they do for Time Person of the Year. My question is does that mean that individual articles shouldn't be tagged in a category that's part of a large creative list? Is it a copy vio to tag people as Category:Time 100 honorees or Category:Out 100 honorees? Apologies if that is a dumb question. Queerudite (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible incorrect tagging

Should this image be tageed as no copyright, since it is a work of the U.S. Government? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, the US government can have special rules for logos, as in Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: "Also, certain works, particularly logos of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws similar in effect to trademark laws. Such laws are intended to protect indicators of source or quality. For example, some uses of the Central Intelligence Agency logo, name, and initialism are regulated under the CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. § 403m)." I don't know about Customs, but if it is protected in any way, simply placing a "no copyright" tag may not be appropriate even if it is technically accurate...at least you may need a disclaimer such as is currently at File:CIA.svg. I'd suggest you might want to ask at WP:MCQ, since while it's possible that an experienced image copyright person will respond here, it's almost certain they will there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Far-ranging question, Billboard Hot 100 charts

See here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Individual creation or a direct derivative?

I made this image in Inkscape about a year ago, taking a picture in my pharmacology book (Rang, H. P. (2003). Pharmacology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Page 223) as a source. The colors, arrows, cell morphologies and box formats are all different, and frankly the original source looks much better, since I was pretty new to Inkscape at the time. Still, the overall layout is basically the same, so could this be regarded as a copyvio, and what could the general consensus here be regarding having it in the project? After all, it does much good to the world of free knowledge. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As with the contributor below, I'd suggest that you bring this up at WP:MCQ. This page doesn't have a lot of reviewers and some of those who do watch it (like me) are not that active with images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for directions! Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

fiction book blurbs?

See the articles for each book in the "James Axler" articles. Here's one example - Shadowfall_(Deathlands_novel)

The publisher may well want all the books to have an article, and each article to have the blurb. But is it allowed? [b]Where should I report this?[/b] I really can't be bothered to get involved with the articles for a series of over one hundred books, especially because there are multiple contentious issues here - copyvio, spamticles, cruft, encyclopedic or not?, and so on. So, uh, I'll let some wikipedian get trolled to hell and back if they try to sort out this series of articles. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong (even if the publisher does NOT want it) with having an article on a book. There are lots of articles on books on wikipedia and elsewhere. The problem comes if people start copying from the books then you have to look deeper into the rules but that generally isn't allowed. If you need a more detailed explanation of how copyrights work, let me know, I'd be glad to help.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time the blurb appears to be copied from the back cover and that is a problem; maybe that's what you meant but it wasn't clear to me at first.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for lack of clarity. I try again (I need to practice this stuff!) A series of many books has articles for each book, but those articles are all stubs, and seem to consist of nothing but copy-vio cut and paste from the book blurb. This poses several problems for me as a new editor: Are the articles worthy of an encyclopedia, are they notable? Are there guidelines for book-blurbs, maybe this particular publisher thinks they have released the blurb in a suitable licence and are not aware of wiki licencing. And so on. I'm not keen to tag a great number of articles, especially because I dont know if they need deleting or clean-up, and I don't know what criteria they'd be deleted under, so I ask for advice and help. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC) _{still not so clear but I try, huh?}

Hi. Thanks for noting this problem! The author himself seems to be notable; quite likely, it would be appropriate to redirect those one-line stubs to the author's page. The book pages aren't likely to be deleted (that is, erased completely) unless the author's article is. The plots are inappropriate. I will remove them with a {{Plot2}} note at the article's talk page. If you want to propose redirecting the stubs, you might want to read Wikipedia:Redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode summaries

I was wondering if any of you had an opinion on whether or not these episode summaries violate fair use? Each summary is properly quoted and is only a couple lines long, but in summation, the quotations are basically the entire page being cited. This sort of thing has is quite common on VH1 reality television pages, and I was hoping to get some guidance. This particular case is actually better than most as people generally copy-and-paste without citations. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an opinion. :) I agree that it's better than most, because at least it's cited, but when you have 13 paragraphs (albeit brief paragraphs) copied from a source, you have "extensive" quotation, which is forbidden by WP:NFC. These episode summaries should be written in original language with brief quotations as necessary in accordance with that guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In re: your change (:D), you may or may not get one, depending on who happens by (sometimes this page gets many viewers; sometimes not so much), but I'll note that I've already replaced the quotes and have left a note about it at the article's talk page, for any who happen along. Your link above looks very different now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did get another response, but on my talk page. I have reposted it directly below for anyone interested. Plastikspork (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: IANAL

So, when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976, they included section 107, which lists four non-essential, non-inclusive tests for Fair Use. The third item in §107 is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." The main thrust there is that you must examine quantity as well as importance - there was a case (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises) where 300 words out of 200,000 were found to be substantial given their content. Essentially, you're right to notice a potential issue in those episode lists, since quoting the entire summary is, well, the entire summary!

Really, though, it all has to be considered along with other factors, such as the fourth (effect on the market). If, say, you were copying directly out of a TV guide, then you might be affecting the market, but normally I'd still say you're probably fine since each one would be from a different (old and therefore largely useless) guide. Still, it would be worth going through some/most of them and trying to rewrite them in your own words if possible, or only using a fraction, as quoting the entire thing really IS a poor fair use validation.

However, since all the quotes are from one page, you're essentially committing a copyright violation of that entire VH1 page. With that in mind, you're not only copying a substantial amount (all) of each individual summary, but a substantial amount (all) of the VH1 page itself. So... yeah, I'd change 'em, since as it stands, you've essentially copied the entire page into different sections. Hope that (overly exhaustive and largely irrelevant comment) helps! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rudolph Belarski

Rudolph Belarski has been tagged as a copy-paste for over a year now. Its author is a publisher who wrote a book on the subject, as detailed in this discussion. The current article is still largely a copy-paste from that source. Thought on how to handle this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if I could clearly identify it as a copy, I'd tag it for {{copyvio}} and ask him to donate it officially, but I can't. You might consider stubbing/revising it. You might also consider a PROD? I see that a speedy for notability was declined, but there are considerably more issues here than simply notability, and I would imagine all factors combined would create an uncontroversial deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Content reused without correct procedure

I'm not sure how to go about resolving this as I've not dealt with this side of WP before. Basically, this web page uses content from two or three of our articles – without adhering to the content's licence. Could someone help out and explain what the procedure would be to clarify that a violation has occured, and to ensure that the material is removed (or attributed)? Cheers! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It should be fairly easy to determine if a violation has occurred. First, can you confirm that the material originated here? If you're quite sure that we didn't steal it from them and there's no reason to suspect we stole it from somebody else (say, if it evolved naturally here), then you look to see if they're attributing and licensing it properly. If there is no mention of Wikipedia and the material is not properly licensed under CC-By-SA and/or GFDL (if the article doesn't specify CC-By-SA only, either license is fine), then it's worth sending them a letter about it. The procedure is set out at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks under "non-compliance process". However, be warned that this dual-licensing business is so new that the standard license violation letter page is all of 22 minutes old. :) It's based on the one we used for GFDL, but has not yet undergone extensive review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

User:Fabrictramp placed a copyvio tag on Duration of Copyright (UK) and suggested that I placed the conversation here. Would someone who enjoys researching these things and playing with Copyvio tags like to check this out.

Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Thanks for visiting the page I created. It will be easier for you to judge whether this is a copyvio if I give a few words of guidance.

All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear.
I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly.
I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training. Original work.
I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols. Original work.
I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across. Original work.
I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry. Compare with Tim Padfields output boxes that breach this rule. Original work.
I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use matter of fact
I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes. Original work.

To my mind, all we have in common is that we have both chosen to represent the information in visual form, and both chosen to use the correct legal jargon. To my mind, Tim is the acknowledged expert, and any diagram must lead the editor to the identical conclusion. Tims representation is flawed because it does not attempt to stick to BS flowchart convention. My diagram is limited by Wikimedia not supporting the use of a background image in table cells, and the need for a high resolution monitor to display the image correctly.

After having read all the points above, could you let me know if I have missed something obvious and any point of the page does contain a copyvio, or what was the sticking point that caused you to suspect that any part of the page was dubious so we can tag that area for future users --ClemRutter (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my message to you, I'm certainly not an expert on copyright violations, but it definitely seems like the changes are superficial. I do know that things like changing a symbol or a color aren't enough to avoid copyvio. Perhaps the best course would be to post at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- feel free to link to this conversation to save on retyping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Posted as requested --ClemRutter (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some serious misgivings about this one. WT:CP doesn't always get that much traffic. I will invite other contributors from appropriate points. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the full discussion can be found here (which is why I suggested a link, not copy/paste.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Atle bakken

I'm not set on listing this one formally yet. I had a look at the above following an WP:SCV report, and it's a bit of a head-scratcher to me:

The article originated on Wikipedia
It was subsequently deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (author-requested deletion)
It was picked up by wikibin.org
It was then re-copied recently from wikibin.org

Wikibin.org licenses content under GFDL (unversionned), and hasn't switched to dual licensing. That being said, assuming no modifications have happened on wikibin since the deletion, the source was ours.

I believe the sanest course of action would be for an admin to retrieve the original author from the deleted version's history and credit him with a null edit, but I'll leave this up to wiser and more experienced minds to ponder. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikibin uses our deleted articles for reasons I don't fully comprehend (and doesn't seem to actually satisfy the terms of the GFDL, which it is using, but that's another matter. I've deleted it as CSD G4, as it's the same article that was deleted via this deletion discussion. – Toon 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Home of the copyright problem

Hi. Currently, copyright concerns that are not tagged by real people for G12 are reviewed at two venues: WP:CP and WP:SCV. While WP:SCV is specifically for handling listings by CorenSearchBot, these articles are also listed at WP:CP. This means that the teams of editors on both pages often wind up reviewing the same articles, since those working SCV do not come to CP to note resolution here and those working CP do not go to SCV to note resolution there. User:MLauba and I were thinking that one good way to reduce the redundant effort is to refocus listings on one page, probably this one. If the CorenSearchBot listings could be sectioned off in a subsection for each day, that would allow SCV volunteers to easily access the materials they usually handle. I wanted to gather thoughts on this idea. Good one? Bad one? A better way? Please offer input on this one, since I think it could simplify the lives of all parties involved. Seems like the best place for the conversation is probably at Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations, where this is also listed. Thanks for any input! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One core place for copyright violation discussion, concerns, reports, policy, etc seems to be a good idea. International law is tricky (see art galleries) and not obvious (see photographs of toys). A large effort is needed to make core policy simple to understand and obey, with clear pathways to report problems or remove material, and clear description of what happens to repeat copyright violation offenders. This page is *baffling* for new users. I suspect it's also baffling for new admins too. Yet, after BLP it's possibly one of the important parts of policy. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This procedure is baffling

See the page at Rohde_&_Schwarz. Then do a web search for "This brief journey through seven and a half decades is now nearing an end" (or many other phrases in the article) and you see that the article appears to be mostly copyvio. Thought you'd like to know. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. In future, all that is needed to mark a page is to add {{subst:copyvio|URL}} (where "URL" is replaced with the website) and to follow the instructions given on that template to add the page to the current list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about some images

There are 90-some images from a site which has been judged to be unreliable. The links were also seen as promotional and have been removed. Unfortunately, it appears that the site is also a copyright violating site, specifically with respect to images. For example, the image File:Ubuntu_on_Windows_-_Firefox_vs_Firefox.png is from this site, so has to have a source link to the site. But if you click through that source link, the site claims to have released a Windows screenshot into the public domain, something they are not entitled to do. I believe that by having a derived image and linking to the site, Wikipedia is aiding and abetting this copyright violation. What I'm not sure about is, do all images from this site need to be removed, or just the problematic ones? (i.e. ones that depict non-free software but don't acknowledge the software vendors interest in the image). Yworo (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Copyviocore, temp articlles, and fair-use images

{{copyviocore}} instructs use Talk:ArticleTitle/Temp if one wants to create a non-infringing version of the article. If that article contains a non-free fair use image (like a logo) then an officious bot comes along and deletes the image, because non-free images aren't allowed in the Talk: namespace. Could the temp article not be at just ArticleTitle/Temp?

Also, why does it take so long for simple copyright problems to get resolved? It looks bad when articles that have non-copyvio revisions and non-copyvio sections sit blanked with the huge warning for a week when very little work is needed from an administrator to resolve the issue. - htonl (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The process is designed to take a week and a day, since sometimes contributors will write for copyright permission, and this takes time. Administrators don't usually even look at the listing until it moves into the "old" list, when they're supposed to evaluate and close them. (Occasionally, I peak ahead. :)) The temporary page has to be in the talk temporary space because subpages are not supported in article space (see Wikipedia:Subpages. This is a bit of a pain with the non-free images. You might want to make a note at the article talk page what images they are and where they go so that contributors will remember to replace them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. In the meantime, is it OK for me to move text that is not copyvio (because I wrote it myself) to rescue it from the blanking, so that the article is at least slightly useful? In this case, the copyvio was just pasted in below the article's previous text, so there's no "mingling" issue.

Keeping track of the non-free image in this case isn't really a problem because the bot just replaced the inclusion of the image with a link to the image's page, which is easy enough to fix. - htonl (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad the images will sort easily. :) I've followed your contributions just to see which specific article we're talking about, and there's no reason to delay it. I don't have a strong expectation that the contributor who placed it will come back to give permission. I'll go ahead and process it. Ordinarily, if the material copied is limited to one section and you are not yourself the contributor who placed the copyrighted text (not that I imagine you would; you didn't here. I'm just noting the general principal), I think it would be fine for you to limit the blanking just to the text that is pasted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) - htonl (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

James Temple

I have been looking at what I consider to be a copyleft problem with a page called James Temple which is currently under review as a GA article. Unfortunately the page was initially seeded, with a copy of copyleft text, which I think is not compatible with the Wikipedia licence.

British Civil War-->licence says:

Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must give the original author credit.

...

Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one.

Non-Commercial is clearly a restriction that Wikipedia does not have. But I think in this case the killer is Share Alike, because as the article was seeded with this copyleft licence, all edits after that incrementally "alter, transform, or build upon this work" so unlike copyright information where removal of the copyright violation would fix the problem, deletion is the only solution, unless the Author David Plant agrees to allow Wikipedia to licence the text under its licence (with attribution for his original work) -- move to do this have been initiated.

User:Rjm at sleepers has done a lot of work on this article, and as (s)he pointed out on my talk page "I've looked at all the edits made by editors other than myself since 4th February 2007. As far as I can see, none of them makes substantive changes to the text. They are corrections of grammar, spelling and format, changes to wiki links or categories. None of the edits I made used material from David Plant's site. I'm no lawyer, but if all material that is subject to the unnaceptable license is removed, I don't see how there can be a claim against what remains."

What do others think? --PBS (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now had an opportunity to look in more detail at the original "seed". It differs slightly from the current text on David Plant's site, but I suspect this is due to subsequent changes in that site. It appears that the seed text was taken verbatim from David Plant. David Plant acknowledges as his source the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Virtualy everything on his site is also in the ODNB entry. In a few cases, there is identical wording between the 2 sites. The crucial question is what can David Plant claim as copyright. There are clearly some parts of the current article that are directly derived from the original seed and should be removed because the copyright belongs to him (or the ODNB). Most of the current article is not at all related to the original seed. IMO, David Plant cannot claim any rights over unrelated material that does not infringe his copyright simply because of the form of license he has choosen to use for material for which he does have the copyright. For example, I have added material to the current article about James Temple's residence in Chadwell-St-Mary. This does not appear on either David Plant's site or on the ODNB entry. I don't see how this can be subject to the Creative Commons license. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ack. It's so disheartening when that happens. :( From a licensing standpoint, I think that anything that builds off of the original text from Plant's website should probably be removed as a derivative work covered by the CC-By-NC-SA license. However, new material, even if placed alongside older stuff, should be okay. For example, the original says, "However, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on Jersey, where he died around 1674." This is incorporated in our article. If somebody had modified that to read, "However, he was sentence to imprisonment for life on Jersey, where he died of a very bad cold around 1674", I would delete that as a derivative of the original. If somebody had added a sentence, "Long after his death, his spirit was seen to be loitering in corridors of the Cleveland Astrodome" I would regard that as ours, fair and square.

Looking at actual examples, the article says, "With the establishment of the Commonwealth, he served on various parliamentary committees, but came under suspicion of corruption, which led to his dismissal from the governorship of Tilbury in September 1650." That's verbatim and needs to go (unless it's taken from an older, public domain source). "He attempted to escape to Ireland, traveling under his first wife's maiden name of Busbridge, but was arrested in Warwickshire and was held in the Tower of London before being brought to trial as a regicide." is a derivative of the source's "Temple attempted to escape to Ireland at the Restoration in 1660, but was arrested in Warwickshire and brought to trial as a regicide" and, in my opinion, should also go. It is the basis of a derivative work. "A few years later, he was accused of improperly benefiting from administering the estate of a prominent Sussex catholic - Sir John Shelley - whose heir was a minor" seems to be entirely our own. (I'm not saying those are the only passages that would need to go; those are simply examples.)

This, in any event, is my opinion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is the licence that was accepted when the initial copy was made included "If you ... build upon this work", and the normal meaning of that phrase includes expansion of the work. If the article had already existed I could under stand the argument that we could simply delete the paragraphs that were specific to the added text, but in this case we are talking about all the text in the initial article and that is a different issue as all the current article is built upon the original work, therefor all the work in it is still under that copyleft. The same issue came up with Military occupation. I decided that the work no longer had one sentence in it that came from the Wikinfo article and deleted the attribution in February 2007, but in March that year Fred Bauder re-added it with the comment "Required by GFDL" and on reflection I agree with him. I think this article is the same. Unless David Plant is willing to licence it under a licence compatible with Wikipedia, I think it will have to be deleted and rewritten. That is not such a trauma as it might have been as there is text already written that can be used (Wikisource:User:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand Box) and the additional information can be added to that seedbed. Rjm at sleepers have you tried to contact David Plant, to see if he will jump through hoops for us? --PBS (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

PBS asked whether I have tried to contact David Plant on this issue - I have not. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if additions to the work were released under CC-By-NC-SA, but contributors to Wikipedia have always agreed to license material under Wikipedia's terms (GFDL and, now, CC-By-SA). Good faith contributors to this article added their text under those licenses. In my opinion, the original article is a copyright violation because it was never compatibly licensed for use on Wikipedia. All of the original text and any derivative works utilizing it should be removed. But new, creative content is not under that original license (which was never acceptable here), but our own. However, we may want to get additional opinions on this. WT:CP doesn't get that broad a viewership, so I'll ask at WT:C and WT:COPYCLEAN. (Eta: have done. Here's hoping for good response. :))

I have not tried to contact David Plant (don't know if Rjm at sleepers), but I must have misunderstood your note that "move to do this have been initiated", because I thought you meant it was already being done? Who has initiated movement in that direction? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Digweed, I've left a message there, but I have not used the form at British Civil Wars to notify him directly. --PBS (talk)

Ah, I see. I hope he'll give permission, which seems like it would simplify things considerably. :) There's been one response at WT:COPYCLEAN that agrees with your take. I've asked him to bring it here so we can keep it together, but I thought I'd let you know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I'd like to say that anything entirely new added by contributors would be usable, but I don't think that's the case - I think that the original text with an inappropriate license essentially fouled all the further development regardless of the fact that later contributers wouldn't have known the work would be licensed as such. It would be different if someone had dropped the text in later but if all versions include the CC text we've essentially built-on and the derivative works clause comes into play. Hopefully a different release by the original contributor will make all this moot. Shell ^babelfish 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As MRG suggests, we apply the license both to the work as a whole and to user contributions individually. In the presense of historically mislicensed versions, one should be able to retain any user contributed content that isn't directly derived from the mislicensed text, since those individual contributions are considered to be licensed on their own. It will depend on the details of the individual case to determine what is derivative and what reasonably stands on its own. In general, we usually treat the addition of new sections and paragraphs as independent. The logical test here might be to consider whether the user's contributions would make sense if the copyright infringing text had been replaced by a legitimate passages expressing the same ideas. In other words could the user have made the same contribution under copyright compliant conditions. Whether or not what remains after stripping the bad content is worth keeping will vary from case to case. Dragons flight (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to concur with MRG and others' reading of the situation. Looking at the early development history, we have an article which has grown organically upon the initial contribution, and thus constitutes a derivative work. The addition of new material is often intertwined with rearranged and later refactored elements from the source. In accordance with the precautionary principle, I'd advocate, regretfully, starting over. MLauba (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> My take is as follows. The CC license permits the use of copyright material under the conditions stated in the license. It cannot give the the licensor (in this case David Plant) copyright over material for which the copyright belongs to someone else. To quote the examples given above by Moonriddengirl, the sentence about Temple fleeing contains material for which David Plant holds the copyright and must clearly be removed from the article. The sentence about Sir John Shelley's estate does not contain any material for which David Plant holds the copyright and is therefore not covered by the CC license. Whatever the details, the current article does contain improper material and this needs to be dealt with. The suggestion by PBS (and others) that we delete everything and start again would undoubtedly solve the problem. However, I do not believe it is necessary to be as drastic as that. (Obviously I have a personal and emotional interest in not seeing a lot of my work deleted.) I am willing to go through the current article and delete everything that is in the original "seed" material that came from David Plant's site. After I've done this, it would probably be appropriate for someone else to check. The resulting text would probably require some copy editing to ensure readability which I would also be willing to do. This could all be done in a sandbox (or similar) and once we have an acceptable text with no copyright violations this could replace the current text. I would then set out to replace the lost text with material from acceptable sources in a way that did not infringe copyright. I hope this suggestion is acceptable to everyone. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think removing the original text solves the problem, as this remain an article built (by incremental changes) upon the original. Have you sent a webtext message to David Plant via his BCW website asking him to look at his Wikipedia account? -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have had no contact with David Plant on this issue. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have sent David Plant an email. Lets now give it a couple of days to give him a chance to reply. --PBS (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to Rjm on the expanded article on James Temple and thanks for the additional information. I do not claim to "own" any of the information therein and, as previously stated, I have no objection to anything that originates from the British Civil Wars site remaining on Wikipedia. PBS has my e-mail address if formal relicensing notification is required, or I can be reached via the contact form on the BCW site. HTH. digweed (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Digweed for the above. I presume this means that we do not need to delete anything from the existing article (although there may be a need to provide an alternative source for some of the material in order to satisfy the concerns of the reviewer). I'm happy with this response, but I assume if someone wants something more formal, they will pursue it themselves. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I've done this correctly

I have to report someone is using a link to their blog on wikipedia

Unsure of how to proceed, copyvios

Copyrighted quotes in infoboxes

Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

Possible copyright issues

Army of Club Penguin

Linking of dates to date articles instead of subpages

Starship Troopers Book

"/Temp"

TV synopsis copyrights

Copyright notices on User pages

Clarification on removing copyrighted material

sysnopsises and copyright

ODNB concerns

Other articles

DNB

Another one

User:CarloscomB

Image of Wolfgang Paul

Template

Good faith disagreement

Copyright on format?

"Repeating quotes verbatim is not plagiarism."

Guidance for writing "in your own words"?

guidelines for reverting to non-copyvio version?

Potential copyright from Memory Alpha

How about links?

I have no idea if I'm in the right place

Copyright violation warning template for editors' talk pages?

Speedy deletion versus reversion

For when a Wikipedia page is copied with permission from an external source

Heart of Darkness

Possible copyvio, unkown source & unsure - Curry Mallet

Description of actual events and copyright

Bot notices of copyvios

The boundary of copyright protection

List and excerpts of cites

European Regional Economic Forum

WikiProject proposal

Gastropods copyvio problem

Text on MLB.com

Copyvio site

Hamsteria

Can sport results be copyrighted?

Quotes

Several pages containing text copied verbatim from a website

Vishal Arora

IET article

copyvio vs. db-copyvio

Are product specifications copyrightable?

Userspace subject to copyright?

Copyvio?

Pleiades Club

File:Drew Peterson mugshot.jpg

At History of the Jews in Poland

Possible copyvio on Robert Hartshorne

Question about copyright status: historical marker text

Website of the Holy See

List of works

uddeIM (Joomla)

Copyright violation policy revision

Question regarding fair use

Out 100 list

Possible incorrect tagging

Far-ranging question, Billboard Hot 100 charts

Individual creation or a direct derivative?

fiction book blurbs?

Episode summaries

Rudolph Belarski

Content reused without correct procedure

Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Atle bakken

Home of the copyright problem

This procedure is baffling

Question about some images

Problem with Copyviocore, temp articlles, and fair-use images

James Temple