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.
Changes to copyvio template
I've re-worked the current template. Why? It conveyed all of the essential information, but in a reader-unfriendly format. The same information is presented in a better format here: User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT.
The current, live template also confuses editors who flag articles as copyvios... the current text makes it seem that the pages are automatically added to WP:CP. This is not the case! I added a notice at the top of my draft template to make it clear that copyvios must be manually added to WP:CP.
In a perfect world, there would be a mechanism that automatically adds new copyvios to the WP:CP. I don't know if that's possible, but I tried to design my tempate to capture the necessary data that could be auto-added to WP:CP.
Also, I'm not sure about some of the date-stamp functionality if/when this template is transferred from my user space to the template space. Someone with more knowledge of wiki coding might need to tweak/add/delete to correct any mistakes I've made.
Feco 21:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Feco, I've reworked the template a bit in my user space (here). Mostly I abandoned the numbered list (I thought it was a bit confusing) and reordered some of the text for (I hope) added clarity. I can't comment on (and didn't mess with) the wiki coding—anything that was broken before is still broken now. :) Feel free to edit my copy, or steal any good bits for your template. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How to proceed with undeletable articles when a rewrite exists
Our standard procedure for dealing with blockcompressed articles that cannot be deleted seems to be to blank and protect the article, but what do we do if a rewrite exists (as is the case on Rock carvings at Alta)? Would it be acceptable to turn the article into a redirect to the temp page, or do we just have to wait until blockcompressed articles can finally be deleted? -- Ferkelparadeπ 07:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can you move the copyvio elsewhere and then delete the newly formed redirect? --SPUI (talk) 07:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an idea...I'll try if it works -- Ferkelparadeπ 08:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What do you know, it works :P Thanks for the suggestion -- Ferkelparadeπ 08:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alerting users
In some cases, users dump text on a new page and forget about it. If they never return to that page for further editing, they will not know of their copyright violation and may do the same thing again. Adding a boilerplate to a user's talk page accomplishes two important things.
Lets the user know directly of their violation.
Lets future editors more easily determine if a user has committed a copyvio before.
There is no universal boilerplate for this so I made a helpful one here User:Oo64eva/Template:copyvio.
For copyrighted images, Quadell has made this boilerplate, {{idw-cp}}.
I personally feel it's the responsibility of the person reporting the copyvio to alert the user in question. Does anyone think that this should be covered in the main project page? — oo64eva (AJ)(U | T | C) @ 22:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, most people won't think to do so unless it's mentioned there (although I suppose there's no guarantee that mentioning it will help either). I know I haven't been doing that because I didn't realize I should.
If it's something we want people to do, then yeah, we should probably discuss it on the main project page. Even if it isn't adopted universally, it can't hurt. Boilerplate text (ideally mentioned as part of the explanation on the project page) would make it easier to do and encourage such alerts too. Avocado 03:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. "{{:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse|suppress image=-5px|mWf={|mWb=}</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border:..." does not violate the GFDL... no more violated the GFDL than any other template. Reverting. Cool HandLuke 04:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No more a violation of GFDL than merging one article into another, as is frequently done on WP:VFD. In those cases, the history on the original article is enough for GFDL. In this case, the history of the original article, which is linked to at the top of the censored article, is enough for GFDL. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Asbestos | Talk 12:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. I would have been disrupting wikipedia to prove a point had I contributed to the orignal article and then issued a DMCA immediate takedown notice. I am now going to contact one of one of the substantial contributors and suggest they do as much. There is a real copyright violation going on here, this is not the same as making (no pictures) versions of every article to prove a point. Every wikipedia page has it's history attached in a way that is appropriate for that resource, for example on regular pages it's via the history tab. This is analgous to having a page at the back of a book listing its authors and is prefectly acceptable, and this is why my userpage is fine. In this case the (no pictures) article has a list of authors, but rather than listing the real authors it lists the people responsible for the censored version, this is dishonest. I am going to put the warning back up once more, this action is in good faith because there is a real copyright violation happening here, and I intend to contact one of the victims and bring it to their attention. I have not been involved in the abu ghraib issue (beyond once editing a template that I didn't know it used), and I think this would be sufficently solved by adding a feature to media wiki which would allow you to see the correct history. --Gmaxwell 16:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From reading the archived VfD and talk pages, it seems like the no pictures page is just a mirror, so the edit history of the underlying content can be found at the original article. Since that's the caes, I don't see how this violates GFDL. Feco 20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion this is not a violation of GFDL any more than inclusion into an article of an image which is governed by the GFDL. A more transparent implementation of this technique would provide an edit link in the article with instructions to use that link to edit content, and the normal edit method to edit the bowdlerization page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you try to edit the article, you see a line of nigh incomprehensible template gibberish (which is bad), and a comment with clear instructions on how to actually edit the underlying text (which is good). I'm not sure that that the benefits provided by including links either to edit the main page or get its history (as Gmaxwell suggested on my talk page) outweigh the harm caused by being self references, but if you do, they should be added just before the second </div> at the end of the first line. —Korath (Talk) 20:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we can add any additional message we want to the "no pictures" version. I'm not sure of the benefit because the link to the original is so prominent, but this is certainly a reasonable suggestion. Cool HandLuke 21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
copyvios replacing homegrown text?
What's the proper course to take when someone replaces the entirety of the text of a page with a copyvio? We had a stub article on David Miscavige that got "expanded" into a much larger text -- a much large text that turned out to be taken wholly from a copyrighted source. I'm not sure how we should handle this. If we simply revert to the previous version before the copyvio, we still have the copyvio in the page history; if we torpedo the page because of the copyvio, we lose a perfectly well-written (if short) article -- and set a bad precedent for how to eliminate articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The usual procedure is to revert the article to the non-copyvio version. If the copyright holder complains about the violation in the history, we can delete it and retain the good text using the selective undeletion feature, which I believe was designed to handle just this sort of thing. —Charles P.(Mirv) 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK. Good to know we have a way to handle that situation... I've gone ahead and reverted to the non-copyvio text. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Copyvios from the online Britannica
I have twice in the last few days found articles where somebody had used the introductory part of the EB article available on the web without subscription. I bet there are a few more of those around. Would it be possible to use a bot to systematically check and compare entries from the current EB with the corresponding articles from Wikipedia? -- Uppland 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was there anything systematic in the cases you spotted? Same user for example? Pcb21|Pete 11:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, but stealing from the EB is hardly a very original idea. A problem with these are that they don't look like the typical copyvios: large unwikified pieces of text. Since only a few introductory sentences of the EB articles are available to most people, something taken from there just looks like a half-decent stub and may well go undetected and soon be swallowed by other text. I don't know how big a deal it is legally if such a copyvio becomes the seed of a larger article. Uppland 12:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rats I imagined if it was just one user we could deal with it more easily. I can see why in an ideal world auto-scanning new articles to see if they match various other sources (inc. Britannica) would be very desirable. Sadly can't see it happening any time soon. Pcb21|Pete 12:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure how to handle the article at Danny Way. Each sentence in the article is pretty clearly a simple restatement of the list of biographical points at [1] (scroll down a page or two to get to the Danny Way section.) It sure seems like a derivative work, even though it's not a direct copy-paste. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
It is clear that the information was derived from that source or a very similar source. But it seesm, on a quick read to mave been reworked, with points combined and restated, and some new info added. Facts aren't copyrighted, text (and other forms of expression) is. Creating new text using the facts from a source isn't copyright infringment, it is research (altough the source should be cited, but thst is a different matter.) On a quick scan this doesn't look like a copyvio to me, although it is uncited single-source research, which is not a good idea.DES 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suspected copyvios?
What should be done with articles that are clearly copy and paste from somewhere (and therefore potential copyvios) but you can't find a source? An example of what I am talking about would be Hathigumpha. The WP:CP page seems to imply that I should add it to the list, but I just wanted to get confirmation.
--TheParanoidOne 22:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone offer any advice on this? --TheParanoidOne 15:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Articles usually don't get deleted just because they look like copyvios. I maintain a scratchpad in my user space where I keep track of suspicious pages. Sometimes the search engines find the source a week or two later. You can also add a note to the talk page of articles and warn other editors, or ask them for help finding the source. Of course that is not a solution, only an attempt at mitigating the damage. HTH. Rl 15:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess those are doable. The source of my slight confusion is that in the "older than 7 days" section of the copyvio page there is a section entitled "Suspected copyright infringements without online source". This seems to imply that some items have in the past been added to the list, without online links, and then moved to this section. Is this the case? --TheParanoidOne 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This would seem to be a very odd copyvio: the spelling and grammar (including spelling grammar as grammer) make it seem more likely to be a student paper pasted in whole. Even this hypothesis, though, is difficult to reconcile with the appearance of wiki links in the article. Perhaps it is a machine translation, partially (and badly) cleaned up? If so, its source could be another wiki. Note also that there is an author's name, address and telephone no. at the end. Do we have anyone from India reading this?
I assumed that the "Suspected copyright infringements without online source" section was for copyright violations with a known sourcce, but that source is not online. If soemone scans a book and dumps the text in, and you spot it, this would be the place for it, right? or have i misunderstood? DES 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale
Question: can fair use be asserted for an orphan image?
That sounds correct to me. Justinc 09:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Abuse
I would be grateful if a neutral third party would look at the comments under my additions of 16 May; and on Talk:Birmingham. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 19:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
MRC material protected by copyright may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context[2]
If referenced correctly is there any reason why this page should be deleted?--nixie 00:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not worth it. Let's just nuke the copyvio section and rewrite it. Ambush Commander 01:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Its not worth listing as a copyvio?--nixie 01:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the GFDL has a no-misleading-contexts clause, so that license isn't GFDL compatible. Too bad. --W(t) 00:17, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Seem to be problems going on with some Iranian articles. The Talk:Shush Castle page lists some of it. User:Zereshk wrote to my talk page for help as an admin, but I don't know enough about copyright issues to make the judgement call. Help would be much appreciated! Grutness...wha? 05:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the user does not have a good copyright record with other articles of his (see Takht-e Soleyman for example), so we shouldn't automatically assume that his claim about him having written the article himself is right. roozbeh 11:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not automatically assuming anything - that's why I brought this here. If he does have a claim, then it's worth upholding. If not, then the copyright violation stands. Grutness...wha? 13:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
If Iran is not a signatory of the Berne convention, and the source web sites were written/published in Iran, then where is the copyright violation? Can someone spell out the facts of these matters (were they actually published in Iran, etc.)? URLs for source data? More information is needed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The source is an Iranian travel site [3]. The server is in Iran, [4]. Looks like it could be OK. -- Mwanner 16:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
www.sogol.com is not hosted in Iran, it looks to be hosted by Shanje.com, hosted in Iowa. It looks like the domain is registered via Rasaneh.com, which does appear to be in Iran. Going only by the location of sogol.com, the text could be written by an Iranian-American and subject to copyright. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, that gets interesting, doesn't it? Does the citizenship of the author have anything to do with it? The About link on sogol.com, [5], lists an address in Tehran as their main office address, and www.sogol.com claims that their server is http://www.rasaneh.com/, which says it is located in Tehran, so I'm not sure where you're getting Shanje.com in Iowa. But, assuming you're right, which address rules for copyright law? Is this a settled issue in U.S. or international law? If the text was written by an Iranian citizen in Iran for a site registered in Iran but on a server located in the U.S., then what? -- Mwanner 23:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this certainly gets sticky, and there likely no or limited precident set for this kind of thing. If that is the case, I suggest erring on the side of caution and removing the material. The following is how I get Iowa. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
> host www.sogol.com
www.sogol.com has address 216.51.232.102
> whois 216.51.232.102
[...]
Shanje.com NET-SHANJE-COLO-BLK (NET-216-51-232-0-1)
216.51.232.0 - 216.51.232.255
> whois NET-SHANJE-COLO-BLK
OrgName: Shanje.com
OrgID: SHANJ
Address: 3323 Riverside Dr. NE
City: cedar Rapids
StateProv: IA
PostalCode: 52411
Country: US
[...]
> ping -c 1 www.sogol.com
64 bytes from ns102.fastdnsservers.com (216.51.232.102): icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=52.7 ms
Ping time is from California. It takes 90ms to get to NYC, so europe and points east are higher. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. No one reading this has any idea where to turn for a legal reading on this? What about bouncing it to Jimbo Wales? -- Mwanner 23:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Why not just rewrite it? I'll give it a once-over. However, since Zereshk and I aren't getting along, he may revert it. Zora 00:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
copyvio in section
How should a copyvio in a particular section of an otherwise okay article be handled? Most of Freed-Hardeman University: Student Expectations appear to be copied verbatim from the student handbook. --Chiacomo 00:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
As long as it's an adddition to the original text, just delete or rewrite the section--nixie 01:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. So having the copyvio in the edit history is okay? --Chiacomo 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that the whole page only needs to be deleted if it started life as a copyvio, there'd be endless deletion and recreation if we had to delete every copyvio added subsequently. Its kind of covered in here Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages in the section on GFDL & Deletion of Article History and here Wikipedia:Copyrights--nixie 02:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you, again! --Chiacomo 02:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Not fair use?
Been looking around for a while, not really sure where I'm supposed to report this so forgive me if this is the wrong place. I'm sure Image:Loop.jpg, Image:Arch.jpg, Image:Whorl.jpg (as used on Fingerprint) aren't fair use... Tjwood 17:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
copy vio's are not my area, but there is a claim in Talk:The Business (band) that the article is a copyvio. I removed a odd note at the bottom of the article page, which said "Matthew Isaac Kantor, All Music Guide", so maybe thats where it comes from. Sam Spade 21:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did a moments research, and found this: [6]. It looks like it is indeed a copyvio. Sam Spade 21:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More visible warning?
Can we get a fat, red warning box like the German WP? I keep running into editors who seem to have never heard of copyright. If a better warning prevented only a small percentage of copyvios, that would be worth quite an effort. For comparison, check out the text below the submit button EnglishGerman. Rl 14:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It would be even better if we could have it flashing, but even if it isn't possible we need something that is not easily ignored. Copyvios aren't easy to catch. Sarg 14:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But that would annoy the heck out of regular users! Unless you could have it turn off after some "probation period" of membership length... hmmm... Master Thief GarrettTalk 14:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Easy: Put it in a div class, so that users can hide it with their own CSS files. smoddy 15:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What you say?" Seriously, I've never heard of using CSS in Wikipedia... Sarg 15:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
File:Mainpage050605firefoxsmoddyskin.pngScreenshot of Main Page with smoddy's skinEvery user can modify their own skin. For instance, I use monobook (the default) but I have modified it quite a bit. Using User:Smoddy/monobook.css I can make WP load whatever styles I want for me alone. There is a screenshot on the right. smoddy 15:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice, I didn't know that. However, it might be too much to ask for people who don't know CSS. Unless we make a tutorial saying how to do it. Certainly, ayone editing a CSS to hide a copyright notice will know that it exists... Sarg 16:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's very simple. There would need to be this line at the beginning of the section: <div class="copyrightwarning">, then </div> at the end. The user would then need to put this line into their user css: .copyrightwarning { display:none }. I don't think that line would be too complicated. smoddy 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
user:Xcali flagged the page Dive into Python as a copyright violation. I have responded to this on the talk:Dive into Python page, as well as on the Copyright problems list. I have left a message for Xcali on his talk page.
I own the material - I originally wrote it. I modified the material and posted it as an Amazon review. I revised the original essay and posted it to the Dive into Python page - thus, it is a derivative work (derived by me) from an original work to which I own the rights. I have pointed this out to Xcali, on the Copyright problems page, and on the talk:Dive into Python page.
Then I rewrote the article, making it more appropriate for Wikipedia (as suggested by another user), and posted the rewritten article to the Dive into Python/Temp page.
What I want to know is how does this play out? Will somebody take the article off the cpvio list? Will somebody delete the page? Am I supposed to remove it from the list? Who does what now? All I want now is to change the Dive into Python/Temp article into the Dive into Python article. Am I supposed to do this? Will an admin?
Should there be a systematic effort to notify uploaders of non-commercial and permission-only images? It seems likely that many authors would be willing to re-license their images as GFDL or PD. The options for these images seem to be relicense, replace, or rationalize fair use. -- Beland 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Template for Permission
Is there a standard template that exists for indicating that an article is--in whole or in part--derived from another source, with permission? It would be nice if something could go at the bottom of a page, so that Wikipedians could know at a glance if a suspected copyvio has been permission-ified by the copyright holder under GFDL or GNU or whatever the appropriate initials are. Something along the same lines as the 1911 template:
This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.
Maybe something along the lines of
This article incorporates text from the website "URL" under the terms of "GFDL (or whatever)".
or something like that? func(talk) 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, I've started a template, Template:Gnuweb. I would appreciate any comments any one has, on its talk page. func(talk) 23:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Something like that would be wonderful, if the people posting the material were aware of it and used it. If such a template is created, it should have a big notice on the edit page because these editors are usually inexperienced with Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 03:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Template:Copyrightproblem
Template:Copyrightproblem, which User:Jpgordon was using to help place notifications of copyright violations onto the WP:CP page, is currently up for deletion at Templates for deletion. If any of the habitues of WP:CP think that this template will help them, they should vote to retain this template. BlankVerse∅ 11:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Image status
We have a problem here, and I would like legal experts wrangle this out. Image:Indian Railways Map.gif ([Source: http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/maps/all_india.htm]) is uploaded by a user under a Indian Govt. Public Domain: {{PD-IndiaGov}}. Now the Indian government maintains copyrights on its works for 60 years [7]. The Indian Railways site (a Govt. of Ind. undertaking) disclaimer says: The documents and information displayed in this website are for reference purposes only and does not purport to be a legal document. What licence should be used if it is not a copyvio? =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
As long as the site of the author is indicated one can copy the information.
From that page: "the reproduced material is a true copy of the original". Given the nature of this place (a wiki) it is highly probable that the article may be modified. Doesn't this then conflict with the conditions of that copyright notice? --TheParanoidOne 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
subpages
This needs to be set up to run on subpages for each day like WP:VFD as it's getting too large to handle properly. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)
I disagree, people would be less likely to comment and point out incorrectly identified copyvios etc. What this page really needs is input from more admins to resolve the copyvios, I think I'm the only one doing it at the moment, since Duk is busy with Real Life, it takes about an hour to delete a days copyvios. The mess of never resolved stuff at the top of the page needs to be cleaned-up too, which would reduce the page length.--nixie 1 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Procedure
I may have done this wrong. I rewrote Continuous automaton and replaced both the page and the copyvio template with the new version (someone added the copyvio template rather than replacing the text with it). Does it need to go to the temp page and wait for timeout on the possible copyright list? Should I go back, restore the copyvio tmeplate and move my new version to the temp page that points to?RJFJR July 2, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
Yes, restore the copyvio template (so it is the only thing on the page) and then put the new stuff on the temp page. The copyvio text has to be removed from the history by page deletion, and then the new stuff will be placed in the void. - Lucky13pjn July 2, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
Duplication
The entire page had been duplicated three times (4 copies in all), so it was over 470 kB. I removed the first 3 copies, because the last copy contained the most recent additions to the list. If someone made edits to other parts of the page, those edits may have been lost. --PrologFan 6 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Somebody managed to duplicate it again. I removed the second copy up to the point of the newest additions, and tacked those onto the end of the first copy. Edits may have been lost. UPDATE: Niteowlneils has restored the remaining edit damage. — Dan JohnsonTC July 7, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
I agree, the VFD on it is a waste of time as it's mostly being voted on by people (maybe younger on average than usual, and perhaps new users coming in from the main page) who, with all due respect, don't really know what they're talking about. Some professional opinion could end this matter once and for all. ed g2s • talk 23:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Any thoughts on what to do about this? Charles Taze Russell comes verbatim from [8]. As the poster owns that website, it ought to be OK - except that he continues to assert copyright and is unwilling to let it be edited. Should it be removed? Tearlach 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Non-Web imagevios
The suggested text for an imagevio is:
{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~
But, sadly not all imagevios are based on the Web. For example, they might be scanned from a book, or uploaded from a commercial CD or DVD. How should one note such violations? -Harmil 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Although the parameter in the template is called "url", in fact the final template just expands whatever you type (i.e., it doesn't automatically turn it into a link or anything). Generally, one would type in a url in this place, which the wiki software automatically transforms into a link. However, if you just type in a plain-English source in the space provided, e.g. "So-and-so's photograph from such-and-such book, copyright 1989", the expanded template will still look just fine and make perfect sense. — Asbestos | Talk 15:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! Good info. Also worth noting in the guidelines, IMHO. -Harmil 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Google Maps
I've noticed lately that Google Maps seems to be becoming a potential major source of imagevios. I've already found two satellite photos that were taken from that website and added them to WP:CP. The terms of use clearly state that the satellite images can't be used on Wikipedia, and yet I cannot help but think that people are going to keep taking screenshots, cropping them, and uploading them to Wikipedia, possibly in large numbers.
Personally, I think that we should have some kind of policy that states that other than on the Google Maps page, satellite images from Google Maps (the actual maps are something else altogether) can't be used on Wikipedia. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about this. Gwk 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Google's terms of use are somewhat irrelevant, because Google doesn't own the copyright on the satellite images. In fact, in some cases the satellite images are public domain. In some other cases they are owned by state governments. I don't think we should make a single policy for all these images. Some are OK, others aren't. anthony 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should'nt have a single policy, but making a page like Wikipedia:Acceptable Google Maps sources which would explain how to identify the source for a given image, and list which sources are acceptable for our use and which are not, would be nice to have, if someone wants to put in the time... JesseW 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can find out what sources Google is using for a particular map. You can tell this with Google Earth, though. Either way, whether or not an image is acceptable is largely a case by case issue. With aerial photographs the copyright itself is very weak, so a fair use argument is usually very strong. anthony 03:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs
50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs is mainly a list from a VH1 program. While a list can not be copyrighted is there a further detail that a list in order, that represents opinion and aesthetic effort, is copyrightable? i.e. is this article a copyvio? RJFJR 21:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I can't see how fair use would work at all for fan art. Ever. Fair use is a legal excuse for violating the copyright owner's rights for some reason, for us here typically for "comment or criticism". But that's for the original copyright owner's work, not fan art. It's not like we are commenting upon the fan artist him- or herself. So if we talk about Harry Potter, then we can make an argument for using some art of the book company that publishes that, or from the movie, but we absolutely cannot take some drawing some kid did and put it online without permission and try to claim fair use as justification, as we are infringing upon someone's copyright who is not a party to the give and take for public good that the fair use clause is intended for. DreamGuy 20:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Closing Old Violations
What's the procedure for dealing with articles once they've been here for 7 days? humblefool® 20:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
see the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions. Just do a few easy ones at first, you'll get the hang of it in no time. Basically, copyvios get reverted - or - if the page's first edit is a copyvio then it gets deleted. Most listings here get deleted. Don't forget to verify the copyvio, to check the Talk page and to check for a re-write at /Temp. Common mistakes to look for are improperly tagged pages, for example; public domain sources which are ok to use (they should be credited though), or a wikipedia mirror being confused as the copyrigt holder. --Duk 18:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's explicitly spelt out anywhere, but I'd recommend:
If it has been established that there is not a copyvio, make sure this is recorded somewhere (e.g the talk page of the article) and remove the listing.
If there is some doubt over the copyright status or an attempt to contact the copyright owner in progress, leave it for the time being (this can of course lead to long stays on the page, which is not ideal). Otherwise:
Look at the alleged source to confirm that
it's not PD (e.g. many .gov sites), GFDL or other GFDL-compatible content
it's not a Wikipedia mirror (if it's a non-compliant mirror this can be tricky)
it is actually the same text or image (occasionally it isn't)
(at this point you could of course initiate contact with the copyright owner, if you think it might be worthwhile; I admit I never did)
Look at the history of the article:
If there's a prior version you can revert to, revert to it (in fact the reporter should have done this).
If there's a lot of history, consider the possibility that the "source" is copied from Wikipedia (in which case you'll probably be able to see the text being build up in successive edits to the Wikipedia article); if in doubt, put a comment on the listing and leave it (again, you're covering the back of the reporter).
If there's a /Temp version (look for a blue link in the copyvio boilerplate)(and it's not just the same text cut-and-pasted), delete the article with a reason along the lines of "Listed on WP:CP since (date listed), content was {{copyvio|url=http://example.com/copyvio}}", move the /Temp page into the place of the article and (optionally) delete the redirect from /Temp that the move has created. Be careful not to lose track of the /Temp page - if you're using Firefox open it in a tab before you delete the article.
If there isn't a /Temp version just delete the article with a reason such as "Listed on WP:CP since (date listed), content was {{copyvio|url=http://example.com/copyvio}}".
Remove the listing.
For extra points, add the copyvio article to your watchlist before you delete it; when it appears again, check whether it's the same text. If so, unless there's some reason to think they might have permission, you can speedy it under WP:CSD general case 4.
I think that about covers it. You can take a harder (delete everything) or softer (contact everyone) line as you see fit, if you're willing to take the consequences. Disclaimer: this is not policy, just advice. --rbrwr± 19:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I should have said: for images, remove them from any articles they are still in before deleting them (again, given that the imagevio templates says "should not be used in any articles", you'd think the reporter would have done this already).... and, as Duk says above, check the Talk page for all articles. --rbrwr± 09:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
All tagged articles automatically show up on Category:Possible copyright violations, but they need to be manually added here. Sometimes people forget or don't know that they have to do that. If you see any tagged pages that aren't listed here, please add them. I have a script that checks for these, but there still might be some that slip through the cracks. --Duk 17:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be very few articles in Category:Possible copyright violations that are not already listed on this page (I checked this by marking all the links on WP:CP as read with the LinkVisitor extension for Firefox, and then looking for blue links in the category). I think you're seriously understimating the number of listings here, Elfguy - I figure an average of around 50 per day, and there are nearly 11 full days that haven't been dealt with. Duk's system is working well. --rbrwr± 20:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Plot summaries are copyrighted?
I'd just like to ensure that I did the right thing on Manifold: Space, part of which was a direct copy of the summary on the inside cover of the book. ~~ N (t/c) 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes blurbs and other cover text are copyrighted unless the publisher explicitly releases them in soem way. Since they are intended for publicity, a fair use claim might be supportable, but i think this is a bit dubious. For the matter of that, and independantly created but highly detailed plot summery (such as the ones recently posted for several Harry Potter books) is at least arguably a derivitave work and therefore a copyvio. DES(talk) 19:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Time to archive?
Shouldn't some of the page (not the talk page, the main one) be archived? It's awfully long and saving a change takes forever. Tualha (Talk) 13:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Important copyright question
This RFC is shaping up to be a confusing legal issue. Specifically, guidance is required for material copied from another Wiki that also utilizes the GFDL. Would a copy/paste job suffice? Should author information be recorded? If so, how: on the talk page, or via Special:Export or its equivalent, or via a link to the original wiki in the article which can be construed as advertising? Legal people please advise. Radiant_>|< 15:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Overrun
We need to somehow need to reduce the losses from this gigantic time drag. One simple suggestion: Move this warning, "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!", from the very bottom to the top of the edit page. lots of issues | leave me a message 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest also that users conversant with copyright should be encouraged to delete material themselves, and to refer it to the copyvio procedure only where the poster disputes that decision. Tearlach 10:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And you can also agree this simple change should be implemented? lots of issues | leave me a message 11:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
More or less. I'd put the warning directly adjacent to the Save page button, where it currently says "Templates used on this page". Tearlach 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Encarta, Webmuseum, and WP
Can some of you guys take a look at Talk:Hiroshige, especially if you have access to Encarta? A copyright problem may have turned up with that article. I prefer to keep the discussion with the respective article. Thanks. Rl 18:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have now put foward a preliminary proposal to allow some copyvio stuff to be speedy deleted, please go and say what you think. See the above link. thanks! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
In the new quick (yellow) instructions at the top, case IV (images) — should the reporter also be instructed to remove the image from pages which it's on? Stephen Turner 16:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I tend towards 'no' -- if permission can be obtained, it's then a bit of a pain to find out what those articles were and reinsert the image. It's simpler just to remove it from those pages when it's verified as a copyvio. --Ngb?!? 12:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Conflicting/contradictory instructions on CP page
So... where do you put new suspected copyright infringements without an online source? Do you put them under "Suspected copyright infringements without an online source" - which is in amongst the older listings - or do you put them in the new listings - among all the copyvios with online sources?
Whichever is the answer, I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look at Hayle. It looks mightily suspicious to me. Grutness...wha? 12:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think there are more competent people to answer your question than me, so (because I am in a helpful mood today ;) ) I searched the Web concerning the article you've mentioned. I found a page that seems to be the original (at least to me). -- Sandius 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that - yup, that looks suspiciously close to the Hayle article. The phrases I'd used for my google search had been altered slightly :) Grutness...wha? 02:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Glad to help. I tried Google too, without success. But both Yahoo and MSN Search found the page. -- Sandius 20:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly a CP regular but I did clear some days yesterday so maybe my opinion will count for something: List them in "Without an online source", they're a lot of work to close and nice to have in a separate pen. You could even be bold and move it out of the older than 7 days section, I'd be for it anyway. --fvw* 22:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Subpages (again)
This page has gotten to be really enormous (329KB!). Of course the ideal solution is to clear the backlog, but given the rate that new entries are added, would it be acceptable to start using subpages for at least new dates? At the moment it takes so long to make changes that the page is becoming more and more difficult to use. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of clearing the backlog, what can non-admins do if they'd like to help out? I'd be willing to pitch in doing some of the research and so on, as I'm sure others would. I saw this asked within the last week or so but I can't remember where I saw it or what the answer was. Rx StrangeLove 03:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
If what is resolved is that there isn't a problem, then a non-admin is welcome to remove the entry from the list. If it hasn't been resolved, then of course any help in getting it resolved would be great... You could also help to weed out articles where all that is needed is a revert to an earlier, non-copyvio version. These are things that tend to take more time than just confirmation a violation and deleting (for me, anyway), so it could save a lot of effort. Possibly someone who has more experience with this could come up with some other ideas. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I second that - we need subpages. I live in fear of an edit conflict when I edit this page - subpages would help (a bit). Not the three stage structure of VfD (why has it been renamed AfD?) but the two stage and still displaying as one page structure of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If I am around at midnight GMT one day, I might just open up a new day thus. -- RHaworth 09:45:35, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
VfD was renamed because soem pleople felt that the name Votes for Deletion unduly emphasized voting and discouraged discussion. Also this allowed separating oput WP:MD for non-article pages. The way AfD is working seems exactly like what VfD was like, so i don't think the change had and significant effect execpt for the split off of MD. I agree with sub-pages here, a simpler systerm than AfD could work, I think. DES(talk) 16:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Confirmations of permission
A note for those us following up on claims of permission or ownership.
Per a recent thread on the wikien-l mailing list, suggested good practice is to forward confirmations of permission received from copyright holders to the Wikimedia PR department (permissions at wikimedia dot org) for safekeeping. This is to ensure that an accurate record of permission is kept, but to avoid the necessity of including sensitive, personal or private information such as email addresses and telephone numbers on article talk pages. There is also a template {{confirmation}} that can be used on an article's talk page to note that permission has been received and filed with the PR department. --Ngb?!? 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Flag problem
This is an intriguing one. I just came across Image:Nz mtak.gif, which claims that - because it is of a historical flag, it is outside copyright. Yes, the image is of a historical flag, and the flag itself is outside copyright, but the image is not. The irony here is that I created the image, for the Flags of the world website (see here) - a large web resource on which the images are controlled by copyright. Now, I have no objection to a flag image that I created being on Wikipedia - after all, I create quite a large number of images for here anyway. However, not all contributors to FOTW migh feel the same way, and that website does have pretty strict rules about the use of its images. Be aware that just because something is a drawing of something out of copyright, that does not make the drawing itself a free image!Grutness...wha? 12:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Are there not laws which say that a work which lacks originality (ie. a photo of another work) is ineligible for copyright itself? So if you take a photo of the Mona Lisa, your photograph is ineligible for copyright. I assume this would be the same for digital representations of uncopyrighted works. plattopustalk 13:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
no copyright violation - I am the author and copyright owner
There is no copyright violation. I am the author and sole copyright owner of the biography, from which I wrote the shorter version submitted to Wikipedia.
Please can someone help to get the Andreas Scholl biography in Wikipedia undeleted and restored?
I can be contacted through mail@REMOVE-SPAMandreasschollsociety.org or through jill@REMOVE-SPAMgunsell.net (delete REMOVE-SPAM from the email addresses)
My name appears in the text I submitted to Wikipedia. Johnannes Scholl, acknowledged in that text, is Andreas Scholl's brother, who supplied me with some details for the biography.
Thank you for your help.
Regards,
Jill Gunsell
{subst:article|Article}
I'd like to strongly suggest the use of:
{{subst:article|Article}}
which produces
since this will make life much quicker for closing copyvios. At present, it's one click to get the article, another to get the history, and at least another to see the earlier edit. When Wiki is slow, as it has been often lately, this is a huge waste of time. At least subst:ing the template would cut it back a little. Note that with a subst: there'd be no additional server load for transclusions.
Any objections? If there are none, I plan to amend the instructions very soon indeed. -Splash 17:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, now I see it, it doesn't subst: the path templates. Hmmmm. Is there a way around that? Like hardcoding it in a new template since that new template'll only ever be used on en: ? -Splash 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
True, but does it realy matter? Anyway it's easy enough to make a new template with the URL hardcoded, I wipped up an example : {{subst:User:Sherool/temp|Article}} produce this: Article(history · watch). --Sherool 18:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, great. Since we're making a new template, what I'd really like is Article–history–last edit. Then, in Firefox anyway, I can get all the relevant things in tabs very easily. I've tweaked your template to see if I understand how to do it. Did I get it right?:
Yes, it appears I did. Excellent. Any objections to instituting this template? Call it Template:Article-CV maybe? -Splashtalk 23:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. I really like it, thanks for putting this together...Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, I was going to suggest {{copyvio2}} to mirror {{afd2}} and {{cfd2}}, but it's aparently already taken. {{article-CV}} is good too. --Sherool 15:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I will go and make that template properly now. Shall I speedy your subpage Sherool? I'll update the instructions too, and post it somewhere on the VP owing to the new autocopyvio script that's doing the rounds. -Splashtalk 23:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure go ahead. I don't rely have any other use for it right now. --Sherool 01:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Humph. It's in {{article-cv}} but it doesn't work when there's a space in the name of the article: it presumes the URL finishes at the first space. I think the only way around that is to do it in the form of {{article}}. I wonder if we get in trouble about the number of transclusions of {SERVER} and things that might cause? -Splashtalk 00:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It works if you use localurl, which isn't a transclusion since {{local}} isn't a template. See this version where it seems to be working. Angela. 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, Angela. I didn't realise those things weren't templates. I think I'll manually change over the few of today's copyvios that we already have, and add an exhortation to the subpage and the instructions. -Splashtalk 01:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason to keep the listings like "[[article]] from [url] ~~~~"? The URL is listed on the article and I've never seen any advantage to putting it on WP:CP as well, especially since it's not in a readable form. Would just *{{subst:article-cv|PageName}} ~~~~ be enough? Angela. 02:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't make a lot of difference, I guess, but it does mean that you can just click along the links in each line to open up the stuff you need to read. Then, if Wiki is a little slow, I can search the webpage for a copyright statement while the article loads. But doing away with it would make the process here a little easier. -Splashtalk 02:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a minor question here: I notice the instructions for images says you should just add [[:ImageName]] and that's it, no template, no link to source. Is that deliberate or just an oversight? I "accidentaly" added the template to an image listed, and it seems to work just fine (if you add the colon at before the imagename), and was in the process of updating the instructions about the colon thing (so people don't accidentaly display the image), when I noticed a seperate instruction for images already existed (yeah RTFM ops :o). Just curious why those two instructions are not merged, the extra information can hardly hurt. --Sherool 11:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I left it because the content of the image description page and its last-diff isn't so important for images, and I didn't want to add any more instructions than were absolutely necessary. However, now that I'm awake today, I realise it is a little inconsistent, particularly with the new plea I added to the top of today's subpage which certainly doesn't say it doesn't apply to images. So, for the sake of consistency and, as you say, the possibly handy extra information, we could ask them to use the template for images too. The omission of the link was an oversight; I'm inclined to think it's useful to have like I said above, so wouldn't object to its addition to the instructions. -Splashtalk 11:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I just nominated these two templates for deletion at WP:TFD as I could think of no good reason to keep them around, they do the exact same job as the {{Copyvio}} template except instead of taking sources as a parameter you have to put in the first template, add your source list and then add the second template. Might be a relic from an older version of Mediawiki that didn't support parameters for templates or something like that, some people aparently still use it though, so if anyone can think of a good reason to keep it pop over to WP:TFD and cast your vote. --Sherool 17:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Cvio be templates like vfd
It is hard for me to load a page this large constantly, if we had 1 template per day we wouldnt run itno this problem. --Cool CatTalk 11:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok I created the folowing templates. They contain standard material commented out. When UTC hits 18th the Cvio template will link to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 18. I reccomend something like this be continued. One can create a month load of templates with a bot in one go. It is not like we have a day without cvio reports.
There is now a bot (Uncle G's) taking care of all this. -Splashtalk 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
confusing instructions
OK, if I ever spot a copyvio image I understand how to use this page to get it deleted. And I'm sure I can figure out what to do if I find a brand-new page which is nothing but copyvio.
But what happens when patently copyvio text is added to an ancient and well-established page; and this text is not noticed for months; and more edits are done both to this text and to the rest of the page since that point in time? Well, common sense tells you what to do with the page: no amount of editing a ¶ can remove the copyright from it; so every sentence which was ever copyrighted simply has to get deleted. But we can't revert to an earlier version, since that would lose edits to the rest of the page.
So, finding myself in this situation today, I took a common-sense approach and deleted the offending ¶s. Then I rewrote a stub to replace them (lest the article be incoherent) and added a stub notice to the page (since not much was left). That was easy.
But when I stopped by here to see whether I needed to mention the occurrence here, I found myself awash in a sea of contradictory instructions. 7 days' of listing first? administrator action? temp pages? all these seemed predicated on the assumption that WP:copyvio is a deletion tool -- which of course it is. But the instructions should be much clearer for people like me stopping by for other purposes. Thanks. Doops | talk 07:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Doops, when you find a copyright violation added to an exisiting page, there is only one thing you need to do, remove the added material. You can do that by reverting the page to the last copyright free verions or by cutting the copyvio from the current version; just include a note in your edit summary. Pages like this don't need to be listed on this page- so breathe easy. --nixie 02:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I figured. Sorry if I sounded overwrought! :) Doops | talk 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Virgo Consortium
I am the owner of the text given on the Virgo Consortium webpage and give permission for its use. Webadmin Virgo Consortium - stephen.wilkins@dur.ac.uk
Fair uses for cover art and stills
It has generally been my understanding that in claiming fair use for magazine cover art, CD cover art, and stills from videos one is expected to be using them to illustrate a discussion related to the magazine, CD or video. This kind of reasoning seems to be built into the current text of templates like {{magazinecover}} and {{film-screenshot}}. First off is that correct?
Secondly, if it is correct, how tenuous can one allow the connection to be? Stills and cover art are in many cases being used to illustrate articles related to the subject or person shown and often only tangentially referencing the source of the image, if at all. The most pervasive example of this is the usage of cover art from Playboy and related magazines as a source of "fair use" images for porn models. Look through Category:Fair use magazine covers. There are other cases I wonder about as well. For example, is a film screenshot an okay way to get an actor's image even if the article it appears in doesn't discuss that particular film at all? Dragons flight 06:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Some of these are clearly not fair use, so I have started removing them from the articles. Others are less clear, so will leave them for the moment. Justinc 09:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
As we don't have articles on individual playboy issues I think none of them are fair use. Adding a magazine cover isn't a way round not having a licensable image. Secretlondon 08:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
If I find an image on the Web, of a CD or magazine cover, can I just take that and use it in an article? If not, what specifically do I need to do? Thanks. paul klenktalk 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
It needs to illustrate the CD or magazine issue concerned. The image can't be used just to illustrate an article on the cover star. Secretlondon 11:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Is there a reason for this, and can you tell me if this is covered in policy somewhere? Many thanks. paul klenktalk 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Whats the correct tag for Images from [[9]]. I came across Image:Aimee2.jpg when checking fair use usage, and tagged it permission (which means it will probably be deleted). Then I noticed that this is one of Jimbo's ventures, so thought I should check. For a Jimbo venture it has a very vague and sloppy license "Please feel free to use any of these images on your own web site. All we ask is that you include a link back to Bomis.com. Thanks!" Justinc 10:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah thats a very useful and explicit clarification. Could someone else speedy it please as I am hiding under the parapet at the minute. Justinc 13:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Polish Hill River and advise on how to procede? The top section is taken from this website. The lower section looks copy-vio also, but cannot be found on the web.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The original edits claim the source was Adam Kukielka - see the deleted edits there for more info. I would put it for deletion probably, but only scanned the discussion. Justinc 10:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Navy photos
I just noticed that most of {{permission}} consists of images from Navy photos (eg Image:HMS_Ajax_(Leander-class_frigate).jpg. However reading [11] I do not think that the owner of that site can give us permission as he admits he is not the copyright holder. I think therefore that they should be retagged. Some may be UK government PD (if made by the government over 50 years ago ie before 1955) - that would be ideal as then we could upload them to Commons. Someone who knows more about ships and photos should give us an opinion on this. You can examine them in Category:Images_used_with_permission; I would guess that the colour ones are dubious, but eg Image:HMS_Emperor_of_India_(Iron_Duke-class_battleship).jpg which was scrapped in the 1920s (and it looks like an official photo, and the source pof the photos on the website was mostly official), is 99.9% chance public domain. Justinc 17:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually rereading Crown copyright is less clear. It depends if the photos were published or not. If they werent the copyright doesnt expire until 2040, but it is 50 years if it was published. So we also need an opinion on whether the images were ever published, which someone should be able to find out. Justinc 17:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The situation does seem difficult - as is evident, Royal Navy articles are really dependent upon the Navyphotos site. User:Gdr has stated that using some type of fair use argument for the images - you should probably contact him as he knows much more about this than I do. I'm not sure how easy it would to ascertain whether the images were published; also, it's likely that some of these images weren't taken by the Royal Navy or other Government officials, so I'm not sure what status they could be given. Anyway, sorry if this wasn't of much help. SoLando 20:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. There is some discussion at User_talk:Gdr#Navyphotos that is very relevent. My current feeling is that we should give them their own template (subcat of Unknown) so they are all together while the issue is resolved. If we put specific disclaimers (process, if you are the copyright holder please get in contact etc) I think we are in a good position, while leaving them as {{permission is avoiding the issue. Justinc 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Please note that they already have their own template, namely {{Copyrighted-navyphotos}}. The wording of that template could be changed. Gdr 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Good, I should have checked. I think the safest place to move them is as a subcat of Category:Images with missing copyright information, with a wording refering to here, and a note saying that many are believed to be Crown Copyright expired. Similar wording in the category itself. Any objections? Justinc 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like a response. You people who care about these pictures are going to have to make an effort to determine copyright, as it requires knowledge of the pictures. Alternative is to label them as {{unknown}} where they will gradually be deleted. Justinc 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been really busy lately - why can't "real life" accomodate for Wikipedia? :-( Like I said, it will be difficult to determine whether they were published, or even if they are crown-coypright. I think your proposal of using disclaimers would be the way to go. Hmmmmm, how about an e-mail to the Royal Navy or Ministry of Defence asking whether they can identify any copyrighted images. I'm not sure if they can/will help, but its a try. What do you think?SoLando 11:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, not done this before (help!)
Basically, every contribution of User:C1289H2051N343O375S8, at least for imagees is a copyvio. And the ones I started marking recently s/he has reverted without bothering to discuss on the deletion page (eg see [12][13][14] etc ). I havent looked at the text contributions, but have marked pretty much all the images as {{nosource}} now, but I suspect they will be reverted tomorrow. I think this user should be banned, and all the text contributions gone over very carefully. If someone could look into this I would appreciate it very much. Will report here on what happens. Justinc 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has banned a today who uploads only copyvio photos. He was banned from de (German) for doing the exact same thing. The images were copyvio porn images and magazine covers. I suggest a block that lasts forever, due to the legal harm the user is bringing to the project. Zach(Sound Off) 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
fair use on user pages
How would people feel about some sort of policy against the use of fair use images on user pages? The cases where there's a valid fair use claim are very few and far between, and now that we're finally clearing up our image copyright mess it'd be nice to get it all right. --fvw* 01:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Technically I believe there is no difference legally between user pages and any other pages, so this would be difficult to justify. Although it is writen into policy somewhere. I tried vfding some of these but the author added the images to article space. I dont think it is worth persuing at the moment (although the justification for fair use is very weak indeed on user pages in general, but it is best to just enforce real fair use everywhere equally). Justinc 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
As I'm sure we all know, "fair use" applies to the use of the image, not the image itself. Each use of an image must therefore be separately justifiable. Adding the image to an article may justify having the image on Wikipedia, but it does not justify having it appear on a user page. In all honesty, I cannot think of a fair use argument for any namespace other than the main article one. Pragmatically, however, this would be very very unpopular to enforce. Bovlb 01:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
While it is unpopular to enforce, I believe that if the image is fair use and only used on a user gallery, it should be deleted, IMHO. Zach(Sound Off) 02:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
But if it is fair use, and used in both an article and a user page, would you edit the user page to remove it? And get into a revert war? And end up protecting the user page against the user? Hypothetically, we could generate a list of images tagged as fair use that are used outside of the main article namespace, and start working our way through it. I fear it would raise a lot of hackles unless we do it very carefully. Bovlb 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
What I do is I remove the picture from the article it is used, then delete without editing the user page. If it was not used in an article, but in the user space, I just delete it. Zach(Sound Off) 02:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we must be talking at cross-purposes here. Let me try to explain myself more clearly. The scenario I have in mind is that an image is properly sourced, and marked with an appropriate fair use tag, and it is used in an article in a way that is justifiable fair use, but it is also used on a user page where there is no clear fair use justification. Are you saying that your response would be to remove it from the article and delete it? Bovlb 02:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Your're right, I am going down a different path than you are. To address your situation, we write up a policy where fair use images are not used and calmly explain to this person on why we removed the image. If the user gets pissy, then get other admins to back you up. Zach(Sound Off) 02:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair deal. Let's write up the policy very clearly first, then start enforcing it. Maybe I can generate a list from a database dump. Bovlb 02:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Just go the Wikipedia:Fair use page and just make a line saying that fair use images on user pages is highly discouraged. Then, we can work out a permament policy. Zach(Sound Off) 02:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
And Fastfission is there ahead of me.[15]. "Fair use" images … should not be used … on user pages.Bovlb 02:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Whee, thanks. I was quite aware that this isn't something that enforcing is going to make you popular, which is all the more reason I wanted some concensus or policy for it, and the note on WP:FU is just what was necessary. Thanks everyone. --fvw* 22:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Image purging campaign, wikilove, and common courtesy
To those active in deleting images, please consider placing a notice on the uploader's talk page, preferbly before actually deleting said image/s. Less cold, procedural bureaucratism, more wikilove and common courtesy is called for in this purging campaign. Thanks in advance. El_C 02:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
In general, if the image is a copyvio or untagged, orphaning a few days earlier is preferable. Unfortunately this is difficult if different people are doing the orphaning and deletion, as you cant see the orphaning from the image page. Ideally a bot would delete all image uses of the images that are untagged, and a week (or more - the bot would gove more flecibility) later all images that are still untagged could be deleted. This woould actually save a lot of manual work too (12000 images to delete). Any volunteers? Justinc 03:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
My focus is on a simple note to the uploader, dosen't matter if it's a bot (directing to its operator), or an editor. Nv8200p, for example, much to his credit, is quite consistent in this practice, yet his work in that area is prodigious. El_C 03:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I would assume that the uploader would be watching at least the image or the article using the image, and therefore tagging either would be sufficient. But yes a bot could notifiy the uploader as well. Will see who can operate one. Justinc 03:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I have many thousands of articles on mine; it's too often easy to lose track of individual changes until long after the fact. El_C 04:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Besides, if it's the article you're watching, you won't find out about the image deletion until someone deletes the link to the image-- long after the image itself has been deleted. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Film screenshot images
The current template says in part "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film or television program and its contents..... qualifies as fair use". My question is : is the performer considered to be part of "the contents"? In the examples that follow, is Sharon Tate part of the "contents" of Valley of the Dolls, allowing for a screenshot to be used to identify her? Is Kylie Minogue part of the "contents" of her various music videos, therefore allowing screenshots to be used for critical commentary of her? I think yes, but that's just my interpretation.
If not, and the rule is intended to apply for discussion of the film, television program, music video etc only, are there exceptions that are determined on the way the image is used in related articles?
I find it easier to relate to specific examples rather than general talk, so could somebody please comment on these examples:
1. Image:KylieMinogueBettertheDevilYouKnowVideo2.jpg
Used in three articles:
a.Kylie Minogue. Featured article. Part of the strength of the article I think, is the relationship between the text and images. Since promotion to FA it's become bloated with images, but several screenshots illustrate key events in her career, and illustrate critical commentary of the videos from which they were taken. Where images serve a purpose other than merely decorative, and illustrate the text in its specific discussion of the videos/movies etc, I think a good case for fair use can be made.
b. Better The Devil You Know. Article is about the single, but the text also briefly refers to the video from which the screenshot was taken, but in passing only. Under the current definition I think a stronger case could be made for fair use, than in the article "Kylie Minogue", although the article itself and the use of the image are much weaker than in the "Kylie Minogue" article.
c. Rhythm of Love (Kylie Minogue album). Article is about the album from which the single came, from which the video was made, from which the screenshot was taken. You have to make all these jumps before finding a tenuous claim of relevance. Image is not relevant to the article, and seems to be an opportunistic and purely decorative inclusion. I think it's not fair use and should be removed.
2.Image:SharonTateValleyoftheDollsnightclubscene.jpg is a screenshot from the movie Valley of the Dolls and is used as the lead image in Sharon Tate purely to identify her. This is also a featured article and I think the images in the article add to its strength. This image shows only the subject and is not clearly identifiable as being from the movie. Can it be considered as fair use using the same rationale that would be used if the identical image had been a promo photo instead? I think a case for fair use could be made of other images of Tate in film roles, for the same reasons I stated about Minogue in 1a above.
Thanks. As some of the tags and guidelines being used are possibly outdated, I'm glad they're being reviewed. On second thoughts, I think I'm making a similar interpretation here, as you made with Image:As03-martha updat.jpg and Image:OJ Simpson Newsweek TIME.png. ie those images are not being used in articles about the magazines themselves, as indicated by the tags, but in articles about photo manipulation, where a direct reference is made to the image in question, so therefore are discussing the contents of the image, or a related aspect of the image rather than the image in total, or the magazine itself. So I guess the rationale is similar. Rossrs 03:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Missing info on copyvio page?
I see a fair number of people saying thing like "There's no copyright notice on the web page this came from" and "This came from my webpage, so it's OK". Do we maybe need some basic copyvio statement at the top of the copyvio page? Something along the lines of An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or the equivalent of a gfdl statement will suffice unless the material is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source. Ideally, this would be followed by a link to a page giving brief explanation copyright issues (written with the explicit aim of keeping readers eyes from glazing over). -- Mwanner | Talk 19:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think something like that would be good. -- Kjkolb 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Poster claims to be the author or to have permission
Suspected copyvios in this section should have their copyvio tag maintained as long as they are listed. A quick look shows that this isn't the case for a lot of them. --Duk 14:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
They should? Why? I had presumed that until we had confirmed permission (anyone cna leave a talk page message), it remained a possible copyright violation, as the tag says. Maybe that's just copyright paranoia on my part, though. -Splashtalk 13:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Splash, did you misread me? Yes, articles need to stay tagged as a copyvio as long as they are listed here at WP:CP. Did you think I was saying the opposite? --Duk 02:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, I do seem to have done, don't I. Pretend I never said that. :) -Splashtalk 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, we have out first (that I know of) Image claiming under the above act: Image:01-ricky-byrdsong.jpg. I see that Jimbo claimed Bomis and wikipedia [16] as Online service providers under this act. I labelled it as {{unknown}} as the source given is not the copyright holder. And its claimed as fair use and fair use reviewed (minus correct tagging). Can anyone tell me whats the legal posiiton with this (because either we should always use it on non free images or never). I dont see we can claim it in the case of no source as we have to claim:
not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing (512(c)(1)(A)(1)).
not be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent (512(c)(1)(A)(2)).
Looks like it was designed for P2P services, but the fact that Jimbo registered us seems important. If its tagged that implies awareness, maybe we should mark all untagged images with this?
Now we are registered we must
adopt, reasonably implement, and inform subscribers and account holders of a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers (512(i)(1)(A)).
accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures used to identify and protect copyrighted works (512(i)(1)(B)).
So we must block anyone who uploads copyrighted images, admins take note. Apparently because Jimbo paid his $20 this has become a legal requirement (bad use of $20?). Justinc 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ordnance Survey
Meant to post this earlier, the web site seems to be down (out of Civil Service office hours no soubt). Appeared on Jimbos talk page, but got swept away. The opinion at Wikipedia:Maps from Ordnance Survey is that we can have 10 of these. However the terms and conditions say that we have to have specific text and links under each usage (which is one some not all of them at presnt), and that we can make 10 copies of the page at a time for teaching use, which is rather hard to enforce. And we agree that this can be enforced in English courts. (From memory). I dont think we need to agree to these terms; in fact I dont think we can. The interpretation of we can have 10 at once is a rather lax reading. And OS are known for their enforcement (even though as a taxpayer I pay for them and I want free use). I think we should delete them all alas. Justinc 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Black box
What does that black box mean? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The black background forces readers to highlight the text to read about "speedy deletion" for "blatant commercial copyright infringements". I'm guessing it was meant to "hide" the text but instead it actually draws attention. Looks like Splash added it along with other "Instructions" section changes. -- Sitearm | Talk 07:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, the background is speedy-delete pink where I'm sitting. -Splashtalk 12:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
That background looked fine in Firefox, but was black as charged in IE. I think I fixed it now. At least according to my IE I did. Sorry about that. -Splashtalk 13:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
That works, thanks, Splash. I had been using Firefox, but have been having a lot of problems with it and have just switched back to IE. It would probably have been fine in Firefox. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyright problems posted on copyright examinations (by accident).
Many copyright problems have been posted on the Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations page which is used to discus and solve problems before uploading and/or copy-pasting stuff into Wikipedia. It is an attempt to reduce the number of copyright violations, and makes it possible for Wikipedians to get attention for their problems without having to violate a copyright first.
The page now has a List of requests which don't belong here. Please help in moving these requests into proper places so they can be solved. Use Wikipedia talk:Requested copyright examinations to suggest ways of avoiding more such requests being posted on the copyright examinations page in future. Thanks for any help on the issue. --Easyas12c 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the page. Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice and fair use is a defence. That page will attract things that belong here - and the few questions would get more exposure here or on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Secretlondon 21:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Speediable copyright infringements are the ones that have the most potential to harm Wikipedia; leaving their content visible (and indexable by search engines, and mirrorable) instead of blanking them immediately as with "slow" copyvios strikes me as a remarkably poor idea. I have seen speedy-tagged articles languish in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for twelve hours or more on occasion, and since this speedy criterion requires more steps for the adminstrator than most others, these seem likely to longer on average than other speedies. Furthermore, administrators must check the history of the article anyway, to confirm that the article is less than 48 hours old, to confirm that all revisions are infringing, and to find the submitter of the article in order to confirm that he's been warned on his talk page. —Cryptic(talk) 03:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the leave content visible instruction should be removed, it makes no sense, and was not a provision of the proposal. --nixie 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on. This just makes the admins life a few mouse clicks (and with tonight's Wiki-speed several minutes) slower. There's not reason to make this more cumbersome than it already is. -Splashtalk 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The page age has to be checked anyway, and technically the notification of the original poster should probably be verified too.--nixie 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
New CSD not being applied
I'm going to remind reporters form the last 2 days that copyvios can now be speedied. The new CSD was supposed to reduce the workload on this page, if it's not applied it's quite useless.--nixie 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding notification: should one attempt to notify anonymous users who have contributed copyvio articles? In many cases, IP addresses are assigned from a block and so the message might not reach the right person. I agree that notification would be a good thing otherwise. --Big_Iron 09:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Never mind; I should have re-read CSD first. --Big_Iron 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Mainpage050605firefoxsmoddyskin.png
Image:Mainpage050605firefoxsmoddyskin.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
plattopustalk 13:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Spa.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=23810583){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mapofco.gif&diff=prev&oldid=23810879){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kbryant.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
