Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7

message: Hello, I am new and would like to know how I go about finding out if I can use images from Crimson Skies Universe.  Much of this material is available in a downloadable "Fansite Kit".
~ E. Todd Quigley 03:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all this material is © Microsoft, there is zero chance they will be released under a free license. The only way to use the material is under a fair use claim, and for that, you don't need Microsoft's permission. You should read the requirements at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, and make sure that each use follows these guidelines. If it does, you can upload appropriate images, tag them correctly, add a valid fair use rationalle for each, and everything should be fine. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images from [http://crimsonskiesuniverse.com/ Crimson Skies Universe] 

message: Could do with some advice on the copyright status of :Image:Triforce.svg.  I created it using a text editor as a replacement for :Image:Three Triangles.svg and use in .  I originally released it under  but this has since been removed by Durin who subsequently then removed it from several templates it is being used in.  I don't personally think it is copyrightable because it is a basic Sierpinski triangle and not a Nintendo image but I could do with expert opinions. — Ian Moody (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Triforce.svg]] 

message: I have found a copyright violation in the article on Leeds Town Hall--most of the article is copied directly from a website which is copyright of Leeds City Council. The article does acknowledge that this is the case, and the person who has been involved in editing the article has quoted an email from the original author of the text (note: not Leeds City Council) saying that it's OK for her text to be used in Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't amount to a GFDL licence, and I've told the editor so.
Should the article be reverted until he can get proper permission? I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so am not all that confident that I know the right proceedure to follow. MLilburne 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should revert the article to the pre-copyvio version (as I have done), or if the article started as a copyvio list it as a copyvio. If we do have propper permission then the page can always be restored. --Peta 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leeds Town Hall 

message: There seem to be a problem on Wikipedia:Copyright problems:  is not transcluded anymore. I have looked for what could be the cause of the problem, and the only thing I found is that it may be related to the number of transcluded pages in the article (pages may not get transcluded if there are too many of them). Anyone know anything about this ? One easy way to improve the situation would be to sort out the backlog, but there is not much I can do (admins needed !). Schutz 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a feature: see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#New template limits.2C Special:ExpandTemplates. Schutz 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new page about this at Wikipedia:Template limits and moved the relevant discussion section from "Village pump (technical)" to the talk of that new page. --Ligulem 12:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We may need to remove the backlog quickly... 

message: I came across an article that appears to be a copyvio. The article is here: Jeremy Michael Boorda and the page a majority of the text comes from is here: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/May1996/940421-A-0000D-001.html. I know that images that come from government sources are PD but I did not know if that applied to biographical text. The bio is on a military site but I still think that the article is a copyvio but I wanted to check here before I blanked the page.--NMajdan•talk 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is also ineligible for copyright, and is therefore PD. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military bio copyright? 

message: I am rather pissed-off today.  On this article John Tavares, I have been the originator and primary editor.  On that article, I had an image and, as required by Wikipedia, I explained the origin of the image.  Months later, I was flagged as a potential copyright violation, but was given the chance to explain further.  I seriously perused Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.  After some serious consideration, I felt use of the image was, in fact, valid fair use.  Today, I learned that some person from Norway deleted my image with this statement "removing image with invald fair use claim".  Furthermore, with that deletion, was the deletion of my fair use claim, so now no one can even review what I wrote.
My question is this:
Considering that I strongly suspect this person is not a member of the American Bar Association nor a lawyer I challenge 1) his authority to delete, and 2) his competency in American copyright law for passing judgment that the image should have been deleted.  I wish to have my fair use claim re-examined.  So, the bottom line question for me is this: What, if any, is Wikipedia's process for resolving such disputes?  If one exists, what is the next step?  
I submit to the authorities and administrators of Wikipedia.  I value the service and recognize its importance.  Furthermore, I realize and accept that, do to the open nature of the project, problems may arise such as sabotaging articles or distributing false information.
Still, there needs to be some formal process in a matter such as this.  Again, I submit and if there is a consensus that my use of the image was not a valid fair use instance, then I accept that.  I would accept it because several experienced people gave it thought, not a single judge whose judgment is suspect.
I love Wikipedia - I really do and I plug it every day - but if it claims to abide by the laws of the United States of America, I would hope that Wikipedia reviews American History, government, and dispute resolution processes.
Thank you for any assistance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree (talk • contribs) 
:Hi.  It is strongly recommended that you do not get invested in any unfree content that you upload to Wikipedia servers.  Wikipedia attempts to be maximally reusable, and unfree content is a compromise on that goal.  Even more so than appropriately licensed contributions, material that is not freely licensed is subject to the editing process, which very much includes removing material that is not absolutely necessary.  No legal standing is required to assess whether particular unfree material is essential enough to compromise our goals for.  Thanks for understanding.  Jkelly 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When commenting on talk pages, please add your signature.  You can do this automatically by typing four tildes ~~~~.  I'll go take a look at the image and see if it is obvious why it was deleted.  Jkelly 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like it was deleted because the fair use template was , while the image seemed to be a photograph of an athlete. The web screenshot template is for images which are screen captures of website design; perhaps you thought it was appropriate because you found the image on a website? In any case, that kind of disconnect is enough for an image to be deleted during image cleanup. Best practice would not be to just upload the image again, but to attempt to find a freely licensed photograph. I assume that we have Wikipedians in Mississauga Ontario who might be willing to photograph him. He should be easy to find if he teaches mathematics at a secondary school. Jkelly 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)It looks like Wikipedia:Deletion review is what you need. Since images can now be undeleted, everyone is encouraged to less cautous about deletions than in the past. If a mistake is made by an admin it can be easily corrected. I would suggest you approach this open to the possibility that your understanding may be incorrect, however please pursue this as whomever misunderstands Fair Use does need to learn exactly why or mistakes will continue to be made. I would also suggest you accept the fact that authority at Wikipedia comes through consensus not law degrees, and to argue that non-lawyers should not make deletions will not help your case. I can understand why you are upset about this, but remember that everyone is doing what they believe is right to make the encyclopedia better. When these things happen try to keep in mind that the decisions are not binding and calmly make your argument. Don't forget this is a giant collaboration, it is impossible that your toes will not be stepped on at some point, but aren't the results worth it?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Wikipedia have a Copyright Judicial Process? 

message: I replaced some transclusions with links to cut down on template transclusion load for this page. See Wikipedia:Template limits for the relevant discussions, especially Wikipedia talk:Template limits#Limit increased, links added. --Ligulem 12:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template limits 

message: What happends if there is a copyright violation but the source is a book, not a URL. --Deenoe 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, double checked I'm an idiot :) --Deenoe 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation off a book 

message: This page is bloody rifed with copyright violations.  I counted a total of 11 images to illustrate an article that's not even that long.  I need help in deciding which ones would fall under fair use and which ones would not, and whether those could safely go on other pages, or if they shoudl be deleted outright. Hbdragon88 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good rule of thumb that no article should have more than three fair use images, unless there's a particularly good reason to do so. There isn't in this case. My personal opinion would be to keep :Image:Spidey3promopic.jpg as the main image, and then also keep either :Image:Topher Brock.jpg, :Image:Sm3 wp2 1280x1024.jpg, or :Image:GG2.jpg as well. Two images are certainly enough to illustrate the article. One would do, in fact, but I can see two. Three is too many, and nine (which is what's there now) is clearly a violation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Spider-Man 3]] 

message: I have been putting messages on Talk pages where some text in an article has been copied from somewhere but it turns out the text is actually in the public domain or under the GFDL, e.g. , . I think the idea is good, perhaps there is a template that already does this or one should be made, or a message put on the main article as was done for Britannica 1911 and similar things? —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk notice when source is public domain or GFDL 

message: I have an issue with the copyright status of this image.  The tag says that it is in public domain as a work of the United States Government, but the image itself claims copyright by someone else.  The image itself also states that permission has been given to use, but I suspect this permission was only for the source website, which is not listed in the image description.  What should I do?  -Runningonbrains 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does NOAA employ storm chasers? The image page doesn't say where the user obtained the image, which should always be given. You should ask the user for a URL where they obtained the image. I agree with you that this seems suspect. "Used with permission" makes it sound like not from NOAA (or any government group) since they wouldn't need to give permission. But asking the user directly for the URL should be the first step. If they fail to respond (and are active in Wikipedia) then just submit for delete. MECU≈talk 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, talked with user, got the url.  The government does not employ storm chasers, definately not storm chasers who copyright their pictures (federal employees are not allowed to copyright materials created during official duties).  It is my opinion that this image is not public domain, however, I think a fair use rationale may apply.  In all honesty, Im not sure how that works, I was hoping someone here could make sure this is (1) okay and keep it the way it is or (2) not okay so I can work on getting an acceptable image for the article.  -Runningonbrains 02:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link makes it sound like NOAA is using the image with permission from the photographer that's in the image. It's not a work of NOAA, thus the tag applied is incorrect. Fair use could apply, but you should search for another image that is free. MECU≈talk 02:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[w:Image:Jarrell TX tornado.gif]] 

message: Hi, having a few problems. User:Lahiru k has been creating articles on Sri Lankan Military Medals, but has been taking text (and possibly images) from the Sri Lankan Navy website . He's asserting that as a member of the navy he has permission to use the text. I'm not familiar enough with copyright policy to determine whether that is enough, and there is also a language barrier. Please see User talk:Lahiru k, User talk:Djbrianuk, Desha Putra Sammanaya, Weerodara Vibhushanaya and Parama Weera Vibhushanaya vs the navy website link above. exolon 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lankan Medal Articles 

message: A user recently added a link to a trailer for this show on YouTube. I removed it as I didn't think we should be linking to non-copyright use of BBC material, but the user has reinstated the link saying that a trailer is acceptable fair use and not a copyright infringement. What's the Wikipedia position on trailers hosted on third party sites like this? Angmering 06:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a trailer available on the BBC website? Fair use doesn't apply since it's not hosted on Wikipedia servers. It's just a link in an article. The real issue seems to be whether the trailer is legally allowed to be distributed through the Internet. I believe that since the trailer is advertisement for the show, the BBC shouldn't mind if it's distributed since it would increase the publicity for the show, as long as it remains in tact in its original version. I think this link is fine, but many links to many trailers should be discouraged, such as links to actual TV shows or links in general to any illegal items. (I am not a lawyer) MECU≈talk 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer on [[Life on Mars (TV series)]]

message: I stumbled accross :Image:Myoregonsymbol.png. The author states explicitly "I created this to avoid copyright infringement - it is close, but my own design." It is apparent they they copied the exact Oregon Ducks logo :Image:Nikeized logo.jpg. Just because they created it themselves and it's not an exact replication, it gets the point accross that the image is supposed to represent the University of Oregon Ducks sports teams. It's mainly (only?) used in this template . Is this a simple copyvio and should be speedy deleted? Or is this okay since the image is actually the work of the author? Any help is appreciated. My gut feeling is this is wrong. MECU≈talk 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it's a copyvio, just like your own drawing of Mickey Mouse is a violation of Disney's copyright. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduce a Trademark/Coprighted Image ok? 

message: I noticed that this user had been given several warnings (see User talk:TournamentKing14) for uploading images with the incorrect tags. He's now taken to uploading images like :Image:ImaginationIsland.jpg with Self-published work, Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 and GFDL. Yet these look like fair use images at best. They look like copies of VHS covers, screenshots, etc. They have been at this for a while upload log. Not sure what the correct procedure is here, do I delete the images or just change the tags? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should convert them to Fair Use. Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use  which these seem to apply for. You should ask the user (good luck on a response) for a URL where they found the image. You should at least educate them on the proper use of the tags and put a link to the copyright tags that I just gave you as well, maybe it will help. MECU≈talk 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:TournamentKing14]]

message: Would another editor kindly review the removal of my copyvio report on :Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg? This image is indeed a copyvio as the artist (whose name Wikipedia actually knows) is not being attributed as Fair use policy #10 specifies. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Netscott has been trolling several boards now, trying to get this image deleted on all sorts of different grounds. Most recently he's been claiming the image is a violation of WP:BLP because it had the creator of the poster's name on it, and linked it to Anti-Semitism; yet it was Netscott himself who insisted on claiming the image was anti-Semitic! Even worse, when the name of the creator of the poster was removed, Netscott restored it, then tried to have the image deleted based on CopyVio. He's been playing this game for almost a week now; it's quite disruptive, arguably dangerous, and needs to stop. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is dangerous is that this artist's work is the lead image (thereby implying that it is anti-Semitic) on the new anti-Semitism article. Nowhere in the article is it specified who's saying what about the image other than some link references to newsource blogs. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and per "no original research" is not in the making statements business. (→Netscott) 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense; what is dangerous is that you keep posting the artist's name, and insisting that his image is anti-Semitic, when Wikipedia is doing its best to avoid exactly that. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually formulated a guide to illustrate this. (→Netscott) 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed you did. You insisted that this image was covered under the WP:NPOV policy (among others), but refused to quote the relevant sections. You then wrote a whole new policy to cover something you insisted was already covered by policy. These are simply more examples of your trolling regarding this. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just reviewed the removal. Since the author is attributed, I think Jayjg was correct in removing the listing from WP:CP. Whether it's a violation of BLP is irrelevant here, but since the image is not used in any biographies, I would say it's not a violation. But this should be debated on WP:BLP. Regardless, it's obviously not a copyvio. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism image

message: This article on Rodney Ansell seems to include some plagiarism, as some of the information is almost word-for-word identical to this article on the BBC website .--H-ko 23:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plagiarism 

message: I am not sure if this belongs here. If not, please move it appropriate location. I am still a novice on wikipedia.
While asking for permission to use some material for wikipedia under GFDL, I was replied a "No" and was also informed about possible legal action against Wikipedia for other (possible) copyright violations. I am not sure what I should do in this case. Somebody please take appropriate steps for this (or guide me).
Here is the email I sent (email addresses removed):
"
From: E Square
To: susuhanan
Date: Sep 2, 2006 6:19 PM
Subject: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state
Hi,
I am editing an entry of Bhavnagar on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavnagar).
I was doing research on Bhavnagar history, and came to know your wonderful site The Royal Ark at http://4dw.net/royalark/.
I wanted to use one of the images from your website (the image of coat of arms of Bhavnagar at http://www.4dw.net/royalark/India/bhavnaga.htm). Would it be possible to use it for Wikipedia website under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL)?
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.
- Square
"
Please note that I have not used any material so far from this website before or after this email exchange, and hence I think the person is referring to other possible violation.
And here is the response:
"
From: Christopher Buyers <susuhanan>
To: Square
Date: Sep 3, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: RE: Permission to use the image of coat of arms - Bhavnagar state
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Mr Square,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I regret that I have a general ban on the use of any materials from my Royal
Ark website on wikipedia and related websites.
We are consulting our legal advisers on taking our legal procedings against
that website for the unauthrised use of our materials.
With best wishes,
Christopher Buyers
The Royal Ark
"
-- Square 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if somebody wants to take legal procedings against Wikipedia 

message: I have come across an editor who uses phrases and sentences verbatim from sources, mixed in with paraphrasing and a bit of original wording. I asked them to watch out for copyright violations in a very civil manner (although we have a bit of an uncomfortable history), and they responded by claiming I didn't know what I was talking about and how their edits are perfectly fine. I would like a second opinion so I am posting here.
Take Carol Downer. This is the diff and this is the source. The following phrases are verbatim copied with no quotes or inline citation: 
*Abortion Task Force of NOW with Lana Phelan, author of The Abortion Handbook, who became her mentor,
* Downer and other women observed abortion procedures at an illegal abortion clinic.  They then called a meeting on April 7, 1971 to educate women about abortion and their bodies.
*meeting of the Self-Help Clinic was the development of the concept of menstrual extraction and the invention of the Del-Em kit by Lorraine Rothman.
*Later that year, Downer ... [was] arrested and charged with "practicing medicine without a license"
*yogurt to treat a woman's vaginal yeast infection.
*She was acquitted after a trial that was dubbed "The Great Yogurt Conspiracy Trial"
*Since then, she has practiced law, mostly in the area of disabilities rights.
And this isn't a freak occurance. The same sort of verbatim copying appears with Alice Wolfson and [], Barbara Seaman and , and probably more. So is this sort of verbatim copying allowed? Read the user's comments on my talk page and see whether a) the comments were civil and b) whether its an acceptable justification for this verbatim copying. Thanks for considering this topic. --Andrew c 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while we are at it, could I get a comment on National Women's Health Network and whether we need quotes around the verbatim mission statement (look at the last edit).--Andrew c 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to keep in mind is that copyright is concerned with creative effort.  "John Doe is six feet tall"  can be reproduced with out violating copyright.  Now I didn't read this whole article, but some of the above examples, like "yogurt to treat a woman's vaginal yeast infection," are equal to my John Doe example.  Others are a less clearcut, it depends on how much of the WP article contains this stuff.  You have to judge if the writing style of the original source is being copied as well as the information, which is really hard.  The simplest thing to do here is simply rewrite the section yourself.  Show the other editor what you did and explain you were concerned that some things bordered on copyright violations.  Be aware others may think you are being overly sensitive, but that is OK.  If it makes you feel better to rewrite it, do it. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statistical analysis may help, out of 159 words added by this user, 120 are verbatim from the source, roughly 75% of the material. I understand completely that facts and simply concepts can only be expressed in certain words, but I feel that the copying is too extensive to be excused. But like you said, I may be over sensitive with this matter, which is why I asked for review here. I'm not sure what to do. When I tried to rewrite a section and put quotes around a verbatim part, the editor reverted the addition of quotes. We sort of have a hostile history, and I am trying my hardest to avoid conflict, so I don't think I have the guts to mess with these articles, which is why I came here to receive confirmation or denial of my copyvio fears.--Andrew c 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really not so much the words (although word choice can certainly be creative) as the formatting and style.  Rather than put things in quotes, which I also find unappealing, try retelling the information in your words.  The best way to avoid an edit war is to use the talk page.  Post your proposed wording there aski for input first. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question concerning verbatim copying vs. copyvios 

message: Can images of the Atomium in Brussels be used under fair use in the English-language Wikipedia? --84.61.33.80 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who created these images? Who has the copyright to them? If you are the copyright holder, why not just release them under GFDL? -- Lost(talk) 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of the Atomium in Brussels under fair use? 

message: User:Zone46 has made page after page of That 70's Show episodes. The plot is a complete copy and paste job from what I can tell. Join Together (That '70s Show episode) is a recent example of what Zone did: copied the text from the That 70's Central website. Is this a copyright violation or no? I checked the website and didn't see anything that said you needed permission or not... but I somehow think it could be. Direct copy and paste is just wrong in itself, and shows laziness in my opinion. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be a copyvio. That is strictly not allowed on wikipedia. Please compare it to the 70's Central website and if the text is copied verbatim from there then explain the copyright issues to him or guide him here and mark the articles with  tag. -- Lost(talk) 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I marked several with the tag. Should I just report the user somewhere else? I really don't want to have to mark each and every page the user has done. RobJ1981 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass TV show copying?

message: I don't understand the rule that we can only attach speedy delete tags to blatant copy violations on pages created in the last 48 hours. What about blatant copy violations on older pages - they're even more damaging to wikipedia by sticking around a long time? Why the strange distinction? It seems illogical/counterproductive Bwithh 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure but the reason may be that with older articles, there is a chance that the other site copied wikipedia rather than us copying them. This would need to be ascertained before deleting content here -- Lost(talk) 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The 48-hour rule is to ensure the site did not in fact copy it from Wikipedia, and apparently also overwrites copyright infringements on mirrors when they update, where otherwise they would not update/delete the now-deleted article. It also helps in making sure the article is not in fact salvageable or that there was a non-infringing article in the page history, but that could be accomplished with a longer time period like a week. —Centrx→talk • 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the answers, but what about images which are clearly taken from a commercial photo database where it is explicitly stated that the free use of the copyrighted image is not allowed? Images aren't affected by what the mirror issue, are they? In my case, I'm talking about this image of Tyrus Thomas which was wrongly uploaded with a GFDL tag when its really the property of Getty Images. Is there an appropriate tag for speedy image deletion here? Bwithh 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just orphan it, tag it with  and let it be deleted normally. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that making sure they didn't copy US is a concern, but aside from that, are there any other reasons for the 48 hour loophole here? Copyright problems are a major issue, and knowingly allowing them to exist for even a second after they are exposed as such would seem to expose us to legal liability. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Apparently it overwrites the copyright infringement on some mirrors. And making sure they didn't copy from us is a real concern. —Centrx→talk • 05:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the question of our legal liability is a somewhat complicated one: Wikipedia is an 'Online Service Provider' under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which gives us certain protections. It seems to be the belief of the Foundation's lawyers that our current processes (WP:CV and the more immediate Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation via OTRS or our designated agent) are adequate. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Presumably the infringing page can be converted to a copyvio notice, without deleting it!--Jerzy•t 04:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 hr rule? 

message: The article Gasotransmitters has many of the hallmarks of copyright infringement.
* Long academic references for short article
* Almost no wikification - just 3 token links on the first line
* Edit page(i.e. clear text) looks far better than wiki rendered version
* Author is registered but this is his only edit ever.
However I cannot find a source on the internet for it.
I would appreciate feedback on wether this is likely to be copyright infringement or not.
It doesn't seem to talk much about Gasotransmitters themselves, only discoveries relating to them, and in my opinion should be expanded, moved or deleted, but I daresay that is what the cleanup tag is there for! JPilborough 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it looks like one, but I can't find it either. It's possible that the submitter copied his own work (e.g. a section of a paper he wrote in college), and that would explain the hallmarks above, but it's more likely it was copied from a medical dictionary on CD-ROM or something. I'd recommend you tag it with . – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gasotransmitters 

message: Channel 31 in San Francisco, a new CW affiliate, has copied and pasted Wikipedia's article on The CW into their site. While it would normally be a little flattering to see a professional company use Wikipedia's text, the site includes a copyright notice which strongly implies they consider all the content on their site to be copywritten. See this copyright notice, specifically  this phrase: "CBS has a long-standing company policy that does not allow CBS to accept or consider creative ideas, suggestions or materials other than those CBS has specifically requested." and this one: "The Site contains material which is derived in whole or in part from material supplied by CBS and other sources, and is protected by international copyright and trademark laws. No material (including but not limited to the text, images, audio and/or video) and no software (including but not limited to any images or files incorporated in or generated by the software or data accompanying such software) (individually and collectively the "Materials") may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way..." here is the page in question. Compare with our page on The CW, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we just send them the Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter or does wikimedia foundation have a policy to deal with such violations? I am asking because I guided another user to the letter earlier today. If there is a way to report to the foundation, please let me know. I will correct my response on the other page as well -- Lost(talk) 10:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written to the station with the standard violation letter. I'll let you know what their response is. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Someone on the article talk page sent an e-mail, but I'm not certain it was the standard letter. They said they didn't receive any response, and the page is still up. I appreciate your attention. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the letter worked. From what I can tell, the page has been removed. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I had a quick response from their webmaster promising to 'change the article to reflect this policy': as Firsfron notes, the page is currently inaccessible. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CBS affiliate used Wikipedia text on their site, with copyright notice

message: Because of some recent disputes over the Armia Krajowa article, and increasing number of citations requested templates and unformatted citations, I decided to add few references. As two of them looked relativly easy (numbers), I went to my favourite fack-checking source, Google Print - and promtly discovered one source which gave not only those numbers, but, virtually word for word, contained the entire section of the article. My first assumption was that we have a copyvio section, and we need to remove it or rewrite from our article. However I have been working on that article for years now, and I remembered that this section was there for some time - while the book has the copyright stamp (all rights reserved, btw) from 2006 (Google Print front cover with a date). The book, btw, is Sorcha Faal, The Partisans Handbook, Long Trail Acres Publishing, 2006,  (Google Books about page). The section from Armia Krajowa article is the 'Weapons and equipment' section - which dates to May 1, 2005 (see the original entry by User:Balcer). See the following pages for similarities (they are very obvious, the paras were virtually not changed at all: 35, 36, 37, ). Our entry from 2005, book copyrighted from 2006? Uh-oh. But wait, it gets even better (or worse). The page 33 which begins the description of AK has text taken straight from the old 'Origins' section of the article (now expanded into the History section), has text taken straight from the very first edit to our page on 2002. And for a final touch, it is not just Wikipedia that seems to be plagariazed in the book. Page 6 and several which follow has text lifted straight from World War II -- 60 Years After: Legacy Still Casts Shadow Across Belarus Radio Free Europe article by Jeffrey Donovan, dated to May 4th, 2005 (Google Cache link - sorry, page is offline and seems not to be in Internet Archieve). At that point I decided to stop searching for other hits and to bring this case to you, as I am not sure if we should write a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter to the publisher or somebody's else. Plus I expect it may become something big (book plagiarizes Wikipedia...), and make a good WP:POST story.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that both Wikipedia and Sorcha Faal copied text from a public domain source, in which case there would be no violation. We should check to make sure. (I can't find the text anywhere else, though.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Quadell's scenario is possible, I find it unlikely.  Several different things smell funny here.  I can't find anything on "Long Trail Acres Publishing".  Although "Long Trail Acres Farm" at the same address given for the "publisher" apparently does computer and other business equipment repair  Also the info page a Google print claims "by Sorcha Faal (English Translation)"  as if it was originally written in another language.  I think Google Print must have very low bar for what they accept.  We probaly should exclude books found at Google Print from being reliable sources unless the ISBN checks out with a major catalog.  I could not get any hits on the ISBN through any of the links I tried.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Found this: Sorcha Faal. I thought you should know everyone has found out that this person is actually the resurfaced David Booth of Planet X fame. This is verifiable: Details follow; this is from the bottom of --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I created this edit myself and did not take it from public domain.  The information was obtained from a book not in the public domain. To put my two cents in here, it seems the book is so obscure and marginal that trying to make a copyright case against it is a rather pointless exercise.  It is not even clear if this book exists in hardcopy.  Balcer 05:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a principle at stake here: we should issue the standard violation letter to both the publisher of the book and to Google Print. I am happy to do this, unless anyone more closely involved with our article would prefer to? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no experience in this, so if you do, please go right ahead. I don't think Google Print is at fault, but the publisher should certainly be held responsible (although comments from more legally minded people would be appreciated). Still, I think Balcer is right it is likely a self-published book (although I'd expect some copies were printed), so this is more of a matter of a principle - but an important one: we are watching others, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: When looking in Google Books, notice that above "About this book" are two page thumbnails.  The first is the front cover.  The second is the back cover, which contains a list of References.  Wikipedia is listed as the only source for Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.  I did not find a GFDL in the front, back, nor before nor after Chapter 2 (didn't look at Chapter 3).  (SEWilco 18:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A book violating Wikipedia and others copyrights

message: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Unlisted is a bot-generated list of articles that are tagged  but are not listed here. This bot was approved (for a trial run, at the moment), under the condition that the list of these articles is posted on a separate page rather than included with the others:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumbBOT. This list could however be linked from this page, as far as I can say. Any idea as to the best place for this link? (Liberatore, 2006). 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wasn't it fully approved? This is not a mass change, and it was done before by a manual script anyway. —Centrx→talk • 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering the same thing. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people in the bot approval group who considered this request believed that adding unlisted articles to this page would have increased the backlog of copyvios (apparently, unlisted copyvios are not considered part of the backlog). If there is sufficient consensus here for making the additions directly, I could ask them to reconsider. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was only xaosflux and that peculiar argument was thoroughly trounced? —Centrx→talk • 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two other members of the approvals group considered the issue afterwards, and believed that a separate list is more manageable (discussion was moved here), possible because more smaller lists might be easier to deal with than less larger list. The trial run was approved only under the condition of adding articles to a separate list, but I can ask to reconsider that decision if the people doing the deletion here agree that a separate list is actually harder to manage. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted copyvios 

message: The article Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. is virtuallly completely copied from their website at . History is copied from that page, then the Areas of Practices and Industries are copied from the menus. The only revision not a copyvio is the very first one - . However this is barely even a stub. Do you think I should flag the article for deletion or revert it to this version?
I started to wikify this article before I noticed...oops!
JPilborough 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it as a copyvio and listed it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 September 16/Articles. Some of the earlier revisions may be ok because they essentially present raw facts. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 15:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. 

message: I tagged this article with , as it was created on 17th with the original text all copied from the source given there. Since then, it underwent some modifications and came to its present condition, though except for the lead, the entire article still remains copied. My question is, have I used the right template? Or since the article underwent some modifications, I should be using a  tag instead? -- Lost(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blank it and list it in the normal way.--Peta 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm.. thanks. It got deleted before I could do that -- Lost(talk) 09:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Db copyvio question 

message: Prosopon's opening paragraph matches that of what is in Britannica according to . I do not have a copy of Britannica, could someone verify this isn't an exact copy (it isn't of their online concise edition . Computerjoe's talk 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the opening sentence does seem to be verbatim from EB. (I have access to EB online.) The rest of the article does not come from EB, I don't think. I checked the articles on Nestorius, Prosopon, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. So if the intro sentence could be rewritten, I think the whole thing could be fixed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially in light of the original version  I would have some concerns. There is a link to a book as well and there article is rather poorly formatted. Potentially this was from an essay the author wrote sourcing EB and the book but I would be fairly concerned about whether this essay didn't violate our copyvios. Perhaps someone should contact the editor and/or try and finmd someone with the book? Nil Einne 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prosopon]] 

message: I've run into a animated TV screenshot that was edited by a Wikipeida user (cropped to show a specific character.) That editor applied the tag template:PD-self, but its my understanding that this is not correct, since screenshots of the show would remain property of the show's owners. Would it be proper, than, to simply replace the tag with Template:tv-screenshot?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both copyrights exist, and both must be dealt with. The user's edits are PD-self, but the work is also a derivative work of an unlicensed image that we must claim fair use for. I think it would be best to use both tags. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited TV screenshot  

message: I came across :Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, which is scanned from a newspaper ad and alleges fair use.  It is used in the article about one of the attorneys in the ad, who is also a political candidate (Peter Roskam) to illustrate that he is a personal injury attorney. I have two questions:
#Is this use allowed under fair use?
#Is the copyright holder the newspaper or the entity (in this case the law firm) placing the ad?
Thanks --rogerd 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator usually holds the copyright, so this ad would be © Salvai-Roskam-and-Maher. At this resolution, 600 x 800, it doesn't fall within our criteria. We'll need the shrink it, and perhaps it would also be best to crop it to just the image and enough surrounding text that you can tell it's an ad. In that case, yes, I think it would be a valid fair use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (I did this, so it should be okay now.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image of a newspaper ad 

message: This edit pasted an entire journal article into Definition and it is still basically intact.  There is a URL at the end to the original pdf file, which has
a permissions statement at the bottom of the first page.
--Jtir 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The permissions statement at the bottom isn't sufficient for us to include any material from the paper verbatim, as it limits use to non-commerical purposes only. (Clarifying: we could use a short extract as a quotation, but an entire section copied verbatim from a GFDL-incompatible source will be trouble.)--ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible copyvio in [[Definition]] 

message: I am not sure where this should be, but User:Bobabobabo has a mass of copyrighted images. I have removed them twice, only to be reverted by some anon. Can I please have someone with a better footing with this explain to the anon that the use of copyrighted images in user pages expressely isn't allowed? Interrobamf 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the page so that IPs cannot edit it. It is likely that very user, in which case they should get the message and it will tie their actions to their username. I will continue to watch it. —Centrx→talk • 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like bring User:Bobabobabo/works to your attention. The user has clearly copied and pasted the copyrighted images to this page to get around the restriction. Interrobamf 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images in user pages

message: After tagging an image with , do I need to list it anywhere? Secondly, is there a readymade template to inform the uploader that I tagged the image as above? -- Lost(talk) 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the template adds the page to :Category:Disputed fair use images which is sufficient: if no suitable rationale is provided in the next few days you can list the image for deletion. There's no notification template that I'm aware of. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- Lost(talk) 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image question 

message: I am attempting to look into a copyvio template posting at Peter Medawar from a couple of weeks ago. The result is evidently that the copyvio was found to have been over billed, but... There are a few references to archives of the copyright problem page, but I've looked around the backstage machinery and have had no sightings. Can some kind guide point out the hidden pot at the end of the copyvio rainbow? Where, oh where, is a stage hand when one needs one?! Thanks. ww 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd help if I had any clue what you were actually asking. Can you be a bit clearer? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lost in the gears

message: I've put this on the list as all but the very first uplaod are copyvio of the url I linked to, but I've reverted to the original upload rather than delete it and replace it with the copyvio tag, but I'm not sure if that's what I should have done.  To be honest I probably hadn't got the patience to check I did everything right because I'd just spent ages putting in a few changes to make it a better article and only found out the problem when I was sorting out the links at the bottom. Terri G 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We need to make sure that copyright violations are removed from the article history, too, so reverting isn't sufficient. I've tagged the article as a copyvio (incidentally, I've also moved it to Dixmont State Hospital so it has the proper capitalisation) and begun a new stub at Talk:Dixmont State Hospital/Temp. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sorting it out, I should have realised the history needed to be removed as well. Terri G 16:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we always need to do that with a copyvio? According to this page (not the talk), reverting is good enough and only the infringing text needs to be removed from the history if the copyright holder asks for it. It would be more work if every time you need to contact an admin instead of just rewriting or reverting. Garion96 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the long run it's almost always easier to get them out of the history so there's no chance of people reintegrating any text from it into the article. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering the amount of copyvio's posted. I think it's easier just to revert or rewrite. See also Kjkolb message on the section below. Garion96 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This doesn't always follow. A non-trivial proportion of reported copyvios turn out to be text we can use: perhaps we contact the copyright holder and they're happy for their text to be GFDL licensed. There's a chance of this happening if the copyvio is reported through WP:CP, but none at all if the change is just reverted. Getting permission for content we wouldn't otherwise have done is one of the purposes of WP:CP, not just getting rid of them. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 17:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The chance is still there if you message the editor who uploaded the text with  or your own words. Then if it turns out to be free content the text can always be reinstated. Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How often does this happen if editors 'just revert', though? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With 'just reverting' I meant doing a revert and giving the editor that message. The point was (originally) that it doesn't seem necessary to remove the copyvio from the history (unless asked by the copyright holder) and that a report on WP:CP is not always necessary either. Garion96 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's probably wiser to make sure the revisions are deleted in almost all cases. While I agree that we don't need to particularly worry about penalties under copyright law unless we wilfully fail to remove a copyright violation after the copyright holder has notified us, it is worth noting that, if nothing else, it compromises our licensing model if non-GFDL text remains in page histories. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's the way to go, than the instructions on the project page should be changed. It also would mean a whole lot of extra work for the admins involved on this page. It happens so often that you see a copyvio and revert it back to a non-copyvio version. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be worth having a discussion about that. Our protection as a service provider under OCILLA applies only if we do 'not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing' (DMCA §512(c)(1)(A)(1)) and are 'not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent' (DMCA §512(c)(1)(A)(2)) and it might be argued that leaving copyright infringements in the page history but not removing them breaches these conditions, so we'd need the input of the Foundation's lawyers (although they do seem to be happy with our current arrangements, so presumably they've looked at this question already). My concern is more that leaving copyrighted material in the page history makes a mockery of our licensing. We say prominently on every Wikipedia page that all text is available under the GFDL, and it should be. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dixmont state hospital

message: Got a bit of a problem at the article Friends of Real Lancashire.  The initial article was a copy--and-paste of a webpage (see Talk:Friends of Real Lancashire).  The article has since been incrementally edited so that it no longer contains any prose from that website, but this was done gradually so that purging the copyvio from the history will be tricky.  Would anyone like to suggest what could be done about this?  Morwen - Talk 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up before and it was decided that it is unnecessary to remove copyright violations from the history of an article unless the copyright holder complains. Usually, it is a complete start over or the article was rewritten in someone's own words over one or two edits. I am concerned about the editing of the article to non-copyvio status by incremental edits, as some things may have been missed. I think that the article should be carefully checked and anything that is copied be rewritten or removed. If information from the copyvio source is still in the article in rewritten form, the source should be listed as a reference. -- Kjkolb 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio in history: nasty tangle

message: What do we do with imagevios that are non-commercial use only but have been tagged as fair use promotional material rationale? Do we imagevio them and add them here without non-commercial categorying them? Do we imagevio them and add them here and also non-commercial categorise them? Do we remove the fair use rationale (since it doesn't apply) and just add them to the non-commercial category them? Do we not remove the fair use rationale but do add them to the non-commercial category? The last one sounds a bit risky since when someone may later get confused and think the fair use rationale is justified without properly checking and therefore remove them from the non-commercial category and they may not be deleted (since we appear to be very slow at deleting images in the non-commercial category even those that were added after 2005) Nil Einne 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a particular example in mind? It's fine for images under a non-free license to be used if an appropiate fair use rationale can be given. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagevio that are non-commercial only with 'promotional' fair use rationale 

message: User:Legaleagle86 and I are reverting and discussing back and forth about the applicability of fair use to certain material in Research and Analysis Wing. This diff includes the material under consideration. It is taken from , which may quote another source at length. Please weigh in on the talk page. NatusRoma | Talk 06:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research and Analysis Wing 

message: I came across Wealthiest Americans (1957).  I believe that it is normally a copyvio to put a list on Wikipedia from a magazine, for example, I've seen Lists of Top 100 Albums from Rolling Stone Magazine and similar things get removed.  I also know that some copyrights expire after 70 years or something like that.  I do not know if any of this applies in this case.  I guess someone could argue that this list is factual and therefore not proprietary of the magazine, but I think that since the methodology for producing lists of "richest individuals" are often debated, that would mean that Fortune Magazine's list is unique thought.  I figured that I could post a  on the talk page, but I don't really know the proper procedure to follow in a case like this, so I would appreciate some feedback before I take any action. --After Midnight 0001 13:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it fails under the Wikipedia:Fair use provisions for using text and either needs to be removed or the information incorporated into the article as something other than a list. The article should definitely not begin with "This list"; I've made (or am in the process of making) some changes to the article that I believe will avoid any copyvio. Stay tuned.—Chidom talk  16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My edits are done. I believe the changes are substantial enough that it's a different list. Also, the business names on the list could be deleted and "(business)" substituted, which would make it even more generic. The article still needs references for the source of the list and the quotes; I tagged it with .—Chidom talk  18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested 

message: International HapMap Project contains a large section of information that was apparently copied and pasted from a government website. This section takes up approximately 80% of the article. Although this is not a copyright violation, does this violate WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror)? Thanks! -AED 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a notable topic and the text is a Work of the United States Government then there's no problem. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you mean we're not committing a copyright violation. However, by republishing a work that is in the public domain and claiming it was licensed under the terms of the GFDL, we actually are committing copyfraud: claiming copyright over something that isn't copyrighted. At least include a note at the bottom stating from which public domain resource the text originally came from. Lupo 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply. Why would this not be a violation of WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror)? -AED 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-and-paste of NON-copyrighted material

message: I've asked what I think is an important question over at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure, and I'd appreciate anyone's input. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use where the source is intentionally obscure 

message: I've just found that an image (which I didn't add) on a page I recently edited has the wrong copyright attribution tag. The tag says, "This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less." 
The problem is that according to a reliable secondary source, Eaton and Haas's "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy", the image was taken just under 100 years ago, in 1910. Therefore "life of the author plus 100 years" can't be the case. The photo was taken in the United States before 1923 so it should be in the public domain in the US. Can I be bold and change the public domain notice, and if I do which template should I use? Does it matter that Guggenheim lived mainly in France and not in the US?
The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BGuggenheim.jpg
Thanks! --Charlene.fic 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong public domain reason

message: There's a new tag in town: . Details and discussion are here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable fair use 

message: The article has been pointed out for copyright infringement. The material that has been stated to be copyright violation comes from the official website of the organization, the article is being used to illustrate. Doesn't that come in the scope of fair use. The material is only being used for the description of the organization.Voldemortuet 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word no.Geni 11:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We can almost never use textual material under fair use (except short direct quotations, marked out as such) because it will inevitably fail WP:FUC #1. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Legally? Maybe, maybe not. But we have to follow our fair use policy, and not just the law. That's why we can't. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission