Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 5

message: I've archived the previous discussions after 3 days of inactivity. Please feel free to reinstate any threads if necessary. --HappyCamper 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent archival 

message: I found this item while looking around on Google. I think it might be useful re: copyvio stuff. Here is an excerpt:
What's the "Usage Rights" advanced search feature?
Our "Usage Rights" feature helps you find published content -- including
music, photos, movies, books, and educational materials -- that you can share
or modify above and beyond fair use.
Sct72 02:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google it! 

message: I have a suspicion that the last two sections of this article are from some sort of copyrighted material for the following reasons:
*use of "we"
*rhetorical questions
*text for nonexistence, copyrighted images (removed in later edits)
*paranthetical documentation for unreferenced texts
*reads like a textbook ("[...] its shrine stands serenely beneath the silent trees.")
I'm certain that the first two paragraphs, as well as the image, are fine, which is why I didn't place a copyvio tag on the article.  That, and I don't have solid proof that it is indeed a copyright violation, only a strong suspicion.
-Nameneko 07:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've confirmed that this is the case for the last section - it was copied from http://izumo-province.com.iqnaut.net, removing the infringing text, and will try to check the other section now. Rob Church Talk | FAD 08:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was indeed the case. Removed. Rob Church Talk | FAD 08:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: iqnaut is a mirror of Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi#iqnaut.net & Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance#High. --Zigger «º» 14:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Izumo Province]] and possible copyvio 

message: This has been discussed here, but there was no conclusion or consensus. "Commercial content provider" is being interpreted in two very different ways. Some are including commercial sites of any kind and others think that it is only for sites that are selling the content itself. I'd prefer the former (plus non-commercial sites when permission is not asserted), but I think the latter is what people agreed to. -- Kjkolb 08:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion for blatant copyright violations 

message: I'm planning to start a Counter Copyvio Unit as I'm involved in keeping copyrighted materials away from Wikipedia. Any thoughts or suggestions on this. I may or maynot be a member myself (I hate memberships) but I think someone like me who finds that blatant copyvios are emanating from one anon user or in an article for a time period would make use of the unit to do the job. Many might find the violations but might not have time immediately to curb/report it and in the meanwhile other editors might edit it making it a waste of energy for the genuine contributors. Thus the idea. I've posted a similar message on the Counter Vandalism Unit talk page. Tx Idleguy 11:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this idea interesting as I myself have contributed later and wasted my time and efforts in creating articles that have been copyvios right from the start. I endorse the idea. --Gurubrahma 13:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an Association of Copyright Violation Hunting Wikipedians; perhaps you were looking for that. --Idont Havaname 03:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter Copyvio Unit 

message: The instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for using the  tag are inappropriate, as they presuppose that all copyright violations are taken from Internet resources.  That is, the instructions "Blank the page and replace the text with  ~~~~" are impossible to follow if the copying has been done from a book, print magazine, or other offline source.  Could someone familiar with the copyvio process please amend these instructions to cover such cases? Psychonaut 06:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just use what it's from where the url would go. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes this comes up quite often. I have added a small sentence about this case. Justinc 10:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with instructions: not all copyvios have a corresponding URL 

message: Hi all - I'm interested in helping out with the backlog here.  I've run across the same thing twice now, and I'm not sure what to do about it.  In some cases, people will simply remove the copyvio tag and write a new (non-copyvio) version of the article.  This leaves the copyvio in the history.  I know that in the instructions you suggest deleting new versions of the article that are copyvio when restoring it to the old version.  But this is a sightly different case.  Should we delete the old versions of the article when the current one is not copyvio too?  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I delete the earlier copyvio revisions, too. In fact, the instructions are backwards. The instructions on the front page are the ones that are commonly followed: if it is possible to revert to a non-copyvio revision, do so. If that isn't possible, delete the copyvio revisions, however many of them there are. This catches both those articles that are copyvios from the start, and those that are rewritten in place. If the copyvio is in the middle of the history, it's usually hard to delete those revisions without mangling the attribution for later, derivative edits. It is often necessary to do a big revert to before the infringing material appeared in the first place. I'll fix the instructions later. -Splashtalk 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History deletions 

message: Could someone explain the process that goes on here more clearly? I've marked a lot of copyvios, but I still don't quite understand what happens next. I guess the first step after listing would be to determine if it is really a copyright violation. If it is, is it just left on the page until seven days have passed, unless someone bothers to provide evidence that it isn't or gets permission? If that's the case, then why is there a backlog? Does the deleting administrator try to get permission if nobody else has tried or is that left to the uploader and other users? Do you try to get permission for bad articles?
Also, if a copyvio is identified after a terrible article has been put on Articles for Deletion, should the voting stop, especially in those cases where there's a good chance the author will give permission for it to be used? Thanks -- Kjkolb 10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. Nothing much at all happens for 7 days, unless someone wants to challenge the copyvio status, in which case they usually either post a message here or on the article's talk page. Once 7 days are up, it's a matter mainly of checking that the article is in fact a copypaste, that the site isn't a Wikimirror, that it doesn't release into the PD or under the GFDL, and deleting. We (I) do not try to get permission if none has been asserted somewhere. There's not much point continuning and AfD debate on a copyvio since it'll be deleted regardless (without proof of permission). If the article is rewritten on the /Temp subpage, then clearly the debate can continue. The reason there's a backlog is just because not many admins give this page much attention. . I personally will only work here when the Wiki is quick, because it means opening several pages (article, history, talk, revision before copyvio tag) and that can take ages if things are slow, and that's before you wait for the deletion confirm screen and the actualy deletion. -Splashtalk 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to respectfully disagree with Splash about the AfD thing.  Here's why.  There are several pages I've dealt with in the last few days that are terrible; they will almost certainly be deleted on AfD.  They were discovered as copyvio and listed here, but now the author claims permission.  Now, I have to go track down permission (send emails, etc.) in order to get permission for an article that, I expect, will get deleted on an AfD as soon as it comes back to life.  Not only is this a hassle for me, but I think its a bit embarrassing.  We send them an email, indicating that we would like to use their content and would they please give us permission and then as soon as they do we delete the page.  I would recommend that in cases where there seems any chance that the author will give permission, the AfD process continue.  I know its a hassle for AfD folks, but it saves us some trouble in the long run.  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Always look at the article before when there's a claim of permission before sending an email for confirmation.  If it's something that wouldn't survive afd (or it was already listed there), either start a new afd discussion (or continue the old one). —Cryptic (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I could  if I was an admin. Thanks everybody. -- Kjkolb 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process 

message: Could regulars please comment on Royal Gibraltar Police? There is a dispute - and general antipathy - between two editors ( and ) there over an alleged copyright violation. It would best be resolved quickly to prevent the dispute escalating. It appears to me to be copy-vio, and the article was once speedily deleted as such, but I would like others more knowledgeable in copyright laws to comment. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Gibraltar Police

message: The article Michael Bell appears to be a straight cut-and-paste, of an IMDB page, complete with its headers:
* 1 Date of birth
* 2 Sometimes Credited As:
* 3 Actor - filmography
* 4 Miscellaneous Crew - filmography
* 5 Himself - filmography
* 6 Notable TV Guest Appearances
* 7 External links
Is this considered a copyright violation, or just extreme laziness? --Calton | Talk 05:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to both. DreamGuy 07:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, since the wikifying seems to be mostly minor edits it would probably even qualify for speedy deletion under the new WP:CSD#A8. --Sherool 07:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, it's older than 48 hours, I listed it as a "regular" copyvio instead. --Sherool 07:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB cut and paste

message: OK.  Having thought about this for a while, and having read up a bit on fair use, I propose to re-add the offending sentence, ammended as follows:
: Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable, unless it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source. Under Wikipedia:Fair use policy, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.
I realize that this is a considerably stricter standard than one finds in university course pack guidelines.  This is because Wikipedia is published to a much wider audience, and our material must be useable by commercial mirror sites. See Wikipedia:Fair use and .
I would welcome any comments.  Please bear in mind, though, that the purpose of this statement is to express the heart of the matter in a few words so that people might actually read them.  A major failing of Wikipedia policy statements is that it's hard to get through them without the eyes glazing over.  Most people who turn to policy statements are trying to get something else done, not become experts in tort law.
-- Mwanner | Talk 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'd be reluctant to make the above statement any longer, though.  Perhaps a more explicit statement banning cut 'n' paste articles should be crafted for the Wikipedia:Fair use page?  Actually, it may be that a rearrangement of the Wikipedia:Fair use page would be better than adding more text.  The Fair Use for Text section is buried under a large section of Policy, much of which applies only to images.  I'll see what I can do, offline of course. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a substantially revised WP:Fair Use page at User:Mwanner/Sandbox that attempts to make the Fair Use policy clearer, especially with regard to textual Fair Use. (I joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, but I would welcome feedback from readers of this page as well. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Mwanner. thanks for taking the ball and running with it.Travb 02:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposed change

message: Hi all - I have now several times confronted this circumstance.  An article is copyvio, the author claims permission, but I cannot contact the author via the other identical page.  In several cases I could not find contact information (not even via whois).  In two other cases, my email bounced.  What do we do?  Delete the text because we can't confirm?  Assume good faith and remove copyvio? --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF doesn't apply in these cases, although m:Avoid copyright paranoia is worth reading. We do not knowingly retain copyright violating material, and we can't very well tell a judge "oh, but the editor seemed like such a nice person". I personally will only add something to the "claims permission" section if it is straightforward to verify the claim e.g. a name that is obviously linked to the material or the provision of an email address. Bear in mind that we do not want to claim usage of everything that comes here, and we are not under obligation to seek it. So in the case you describe, as long as it's been listed for 7 days and you have tried and failed to elicit confirmation, it should be deleted. It can always be restored, remember, if permission is later forthcoming. -Splashtalk 22:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One procedural question 

message: The articles that need to be wikified category is filled with copyvios (more than usual), if anyone here wants to help out. Veteran users have been adding the wikify tag even to the most obvious copyvios. Some of them even have a copyright notice at the top of the article and even more say that it was copied from a website at the bottom. Usually, half of the new articles are copyvios, more if you exclude stubs, but there's been an influx of new articles that are almost all copyrighted. That's for new articles, the category is probably less now because I have already removed hundreds of them. I found forty in one day recently while trying to wikify, so I didn't get a chance to work on wikifying. Almost every article I clicked on was a copyvio (clicking on articles I hadn't visited already). I've been working on A through C, so you probably shouldn't go looking for them there. Thanks, -- Kjkolb 22:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified]] 

message: At Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Coats_of_arms, as they relate to a specific case (anon claiming copyright of some images). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments appreciated 

message: Zatch Bell! characters (result of a copy and paste move from Zatch Bell! Character List) has over 200 images, mostly marked as fair use, or screen shots. Surely this goes way beyond what could be thought of as Fair Use? I tagged the page for cleanup, in October, before the C&P move. What's the best way to deal with this? --GraemeL (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stretching Fair Use beyond the limits 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive N#Copyright_on_Lists for why I think 20+ lists stolen from other sources need to be deleted.  Dragons flight 06:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on Lists 

message: While I appreciate speedying obvious copyvios, criterion A8 strikes me as major instruction creep due to its excessive verbosity. Wouldn't it be feasible to remove one or two of the criterion lines to make the criterion simpler? Radiant_>|< 17:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CSD#A8

message: Hi! From rummaging around I get the impression that song lyrics are clear copyright violations, but I can't find a policy or deletion page that says that explicitly. Could somebody point me in the right direction? The pages I'm looking at are
* 'Thomas We Love You' Song
* 'Every Cloud has a Silver Lining'
* 'Surprises' Song
* 'Busy' Song
* 'Try to do things Better' Song
I notified one user who was actively working, but I wanted to point the authors at the clear policy statement before I put these up for AfD. Thanks, --William Pietri 09:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics are clear copyvio, right? 

message: All image contributions of  are listed here (under September's author claims permission section).  This user claims to be uploading the files with permission to redistribute under the GFDL from the original company JBC Productions.  These are all bondage photos, and I cannot find contact information on the first page.  I realy don't want to go hunting around the site for contact information, but on the first page (don't worry this one is clean) I found this notice:
:Oh yeah, one more thing folks. These pictures are for your own personal use!!! What does that mean? It means that these pictures remain the property of me, and any UN-AUTHORISED use of them, such as putting them on your own web site, or downloading them all and popping them on a news site just isn't the done thing. Above all else, it just ain't plain nice!!! So come on, be a pal, do the right thing!
Beyond the excessive use of punctuation, this looks incompatible with the GFDL and so warrent deleting the images right?  I would just go and do it, but image deletion is sketchy business.  So I thought I'd get at least a little support here. --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also left a note on the Jbc01's talk page. --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A portion of the whois record follows.  You should send an email to this address, probably cc to webmaster@. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooohhh look at you and your fancy "whois" :)  I had forgotten about that, thanks for reminding me.  The author also provided me with a plausible email address, I will email the one he provided and cc admin and webmaster.  Thanks! --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 22:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image contributions of [[User:Jbc01]] 

message: Calling all people knowledgeable about copyright legislation: I would like input and help on User:Lupo/Public domain. Correct me if I'm wrong, point out missing things, help improve it, tear it apart... This grew out of concerns about :Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg (see also there). Basically I think we need some clarifications put into place, especially regarding all those country-specific PD-tags: such images are not automatically also PD-US! And , with its "worldwide" claim, needs to be used carefully, and we should explicitly say under what circumstances it may be used, if at all.  Lupo 13:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public domain 

message: If I have listed an image here as fair use, and explained why, how does the appropriate admin go about confiriming or rejecting this claim, and removing the copyvio notice?  I don't see anything about fair use in the advice for admins page. Thanks, Dsol 23:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about procedure 

message: Hello - I received permission from the website discussed above, and I thought it would be worth having a version of  for images.  I have created  for image description pages.  I will start going through the users images later tonight. --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image confirmation template 

message: This was posted by the artist.  I was told that Artists are allowed to post their own article on Wikipedia.  The other sites that may have my bios are either my own site or part of the artist organization that I am with.  I am willing to rewrite it for Wiki, if needed.
:Thank you for posting this information to wikipedia.  If you own the copyright of the information provided, it is accpetable for you to post it here.  Pending review of the article for notability, someone will likely contact you by email to verify this claim.  --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Miki Fujiwara]]

message: I know company logos are generally OK for use in WP, but, if I have understood things correctly, product "logos" such as the one used in the Athlon 64 microprocessor article generally aren't OK. As regards said logo, AMD's copyright notice states that
:Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") hereby grants you permission to use, copy and distribute documents, related graphics and software delivered from this AMD Web Server ("Materials") provided that you  (1) include both the above copyright notice and this permission notice in all copies; (2) do not modify the Materials; (3) use the Materials for non-commercial purposes within your organization only [...]
This means that the logo should be speedily deleted as per :Template:NoncommercialProvided, because of the above "non-commercial purposes [...] only" clause, right? I just want to be 100% sure, so I won't risk deleting stuff which should/could be kept. --Wernher 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use can supersede such a restriction: it's the purpose of fair-use so to do. We appear to think that we can claim fair use on logos, so it would appear that we do not feel ourselves restricted in the manner you describe. That decision is one to be taken by the uploader, or the applier of the tag. If you are unsure, ask IFD. -Splashtalk 03:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Company logos vs. product logos

message: What is the best procedure if the original contributor removes the copyvio tag and replaces the copyvio content? Kappa 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it needs to be reblanked. WP:AGF doesn't really apply since we have no corroboration that the original contributor is the copyright owner, even if they make that claim. Having a convincing username doesn't help either, since it doens't really take a genius to think of that. Generally, a message on the article's talk page, or their talk page if they have one, saying that they need to send an email to permissions at wikimedia dot org tells them what to do. Or, if they leave an email address, you can send them the boilerplate text and forward that to the above address and then unblank the article. If they are resolutely persistent in reinstating the content without taking any other course of affirmative action, it should be treated without a great deal of sympathy, since copyright law is not for debate (by mere Wikipedians, anyway). -Splashtalk 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the tag is removed? 

message: The instructions say to add  ~~~~  to the page being considered as copyvio.  Is the ~~~~ correct?  Do we really want to sign the article? RJFJR 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  instruction correct? 

message: I'm unsure how to tag this image.  It was originally posted with a copyright notice in Italian, for which I've located an English translation and added to the page. This, unfortunately, is the only evidence there is of a copyvio and indeed the only source information: I can't seem to locate the original on the Vatican website. Should I tag it with  anyway even though I can't provide the original as expected?  Or is there a different way this should be handled? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See .  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't see how that helps. We have a notice saying, "The photos shown here are protected by copyright and their use is reserved to the editions of 'L'Osservatore Romano'." That's pretty clear, and if it's really applicable there's no weaseling around it.  The problem as I see it is that there's nothing to definitively associate that notice with the image. Suppose they don't really belong together.  In that case we have no source information and the image ought to be tagged accordingly. Suppose it does, which we ought to do if we assume good faith.  Then we plainly have a blatant copyvio (and the uploader really should have known better).  I don't see the middle ground that  seems to allow for. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  basicly says that the allowed use of the image based upon its source information alone is insufficient.  You should either make a fair use claim or delete it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Papa Giovanni Paulo II.jpg]] 

message: The article Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose appears to infringe on the copyright of http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=1642 but I can’t put a link in when I try to put a violation notice on it. Susvolans ⇔ 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Template parameters don't parse correctly if they have an = sign in them, unless you include the parameter name, ie  or . —Cryptic (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equals signs in URLs 

message: The instructions for dealing with copyright violations say: If all revisions have copyright problems: Blank the page and replace the text with  ~~~~ .
What I don't understand is why it is considered desirable to have the signature of the person who found the copyright violation on the main article page right below the copyvio template. If someone wants to know who it was who said the article was a copyvio, they can look at the page history as with any other edit (or for that matter, look at WP:CP, where signing copyvio nominations looks more appropriate). --Metropolitan90 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it easier for someone who wants to claim permission to find a contact. Most copyvios are uploaded by inexperienced users, who may not have understood that they can also find the info in the page history. Lupo 08:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fills the cross-namespace links report, and slows down anyone checking for new users signing articles. Also, surely someone claiming permission should be coming here, shouldn’t they? Susvolans ⇔ 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It realy makes cross-namespace links hard to maintain. I was working on these pages for some time and most of them are copyvio... I think we should change manual so users were not encouraged to put signatures. --ManiacK 02:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why sign the template? 

message: Is there a friendlier (and perhaps longer) version of template >?  Something suitable for new contributors who don't know better yet. RJFJR 17:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: is the friendlier and longer version (of ).  User:Angela/useful stuff#Copyright might be worth converting into a template, though. —Cryptic (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  friendlier version of template:nothanks? 

message: Hi all. This article copied the text from this forum post. I was wondering if this violates copyright policy. Thanks. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 13:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Any material from the web, even just a couple sentences, is probably a copyvio unless that page contains explicit notice of releasing the material under the GFDL or a more liberal license like free use. However, if we properly quote it and attribute it to its original source, it may qualify as fair use. Deco 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying from a forum post 

message: There is a question on Image talk:MoriaSmall.JPG about applicable copyright law/policy in regards to derivative works. It primarily focuses on whether a user created computer-graphic image derived from a line drawing infringes the copyright of the original work, but also draws into question whether maps of fictional locations, similarly derived from a published original, are allowed. See the linked talk page. Any guidance on legal/Wiki precedent would be appreciated. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends. If there is sufficient creative difference, it may be judged an independent work based on the original rather than a derivative work. In this case, although there are some added creative elements, the general appearance is very close to the original. In more practical terms, anyone who's read the books would immediately recognise it. If someone creates a map with the same location layout as an existing map but a substantially different style of art, I probably wouldn't call this a derivative work. IANAL. Deco 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, after reading up on the relevant copyright issues I came to the same conclusion. The image was meant to evoke the original because it was intended for use as a portal link, but in doing so it had to stay close enough that it'd probably fall on the 'derivative' side of the line. The maps in Middle-earth and similar articles are probably only 'based on' rather than 'derivative' due to the different presentation of geographic features. I marked the original image for speedy. --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question 

message: Apologies if this is the wrong place, but I can't find a better one.   I've added one music track (and intend if possible to add more) which was released in Russia before 1973, and which I therefore take not to be protected by copyright (the one I've added is :Image:1947_-_Piano_Trio_No._2.ogg (this particular one was actually recorded in Prague, but I could find ones which were definitely recorded in Russia if necessary).  However, the CD I took it from claims "the copyright in these sound recordings is owned by and exclusively licenced from" Ostankino.  Are they bluffing? Mark1 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian music pre-1973 

message: Someone asked me for an opinion on Audio artist (and related articles submitted by Special:Contributions/128.237.11.72).  They've been worked on, I'm not sure if they are now CopyViolations.  Could someone give me a second opinion? RJFJR 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly CV for review 

message: Hi. I just noticed on the George W. Bush page that Image:Lincoln18.jpg (sorry, I don't know how to link to it without making the entire image appear on this page) is listed as a candidate for speedy deletion on January 6th. However, I have searched and searched and cannot find where this was at all discussed or even nominated for deletion. I looked where I thought the nomination would have been listed, but it's not there. Can someone tell me where the original complaint was posted, and where I would post an objection if I were to be able to establish that the image was usable? (I don't intend to start an argument about this particular matter; I'm just trying to learn where things are for future reference.) Thanks... --Aaron 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't find discussion on image up for deletion 

message: I have a followup question to the "Why sign the template?" discussion above: Why do the instructions tell editors to sign the first template (the one posted to the article itself or the image description page) and the second template (the one posted on the "Today's Section" page) but not the third template (the one posted to the article creator/image uploader's talk page)? I just had someone freak out and launch a pissy personal attack on me on both his and my talk pages, because I didn't sign the templates I put on his page (he uploaded two copyvio images at the same time, so I posted two copies of the template, one for each image).
There is definitely confusion on this issue, as any random check of a few copyvio reports will show that at least half of copyvio editors do not sign the templates they post to user talk pages. And when I brought up this issue on #Wikipedia, the consensus was pretty much unanimous that editors should sign these templates even though the instructions do not explicitly say to do so.
So we have what I hope we can all agree is a confusing set of instructions, and I personally think that any change which will greatly reduce the chances of future arguments between editors is a good thing. Given that, I ask if there would there be any objection to me editing the instructions to include the ~~~~ on the user talk page templates (and making a few minor formatting changes so that the user talk template instructions match the other template instructions design-wise), so that the table will appear as follows:
Article?	Image?
*Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can
*:The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.
*If all revisions have copyright problems:
**Blank the page and replace the text with
**: ~~~~ 
***If you prefer not to use parameters, replace the text with
***:insert URL here ~~~~ 
*Go to [ today's section] and add
*:*  from [insert URL here] ~~~~  
:to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source.
*Add the following to the image uploader's talk page:
:: ~~~~ 
*You're done!	
*Add the following to the image description page:
*: ~~~~ 
*Go to [ today's section] and add:
::*  from [insert URL here] ~~~~ 
:to the bottom of the list. Put the image's name in place of "ImageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source.
*Add the following to the image uploader's talk page:
:: ~~~~ 
*You're done!
The only differences here from the version currently on the page are:
*The addition of the ~~~~ to the instructions regarding the addition of the nothanks or idw-cp templates to the user talk pages.
*Boldfacing of the text that needs to be added on the user talk pages for those two templates. 
*Dewikification of the same two template names (currently they're the only two template names that are wikified in the entire table).
*Minor edits to the wording and punctuation to maintain consistency throughout the table and to make it easier to read.
*Removed typo in one template instruction that does not seem to affect how images are reported on the daily pages, but is a potential problem waiting to happen nevertheless. Just for safety's sake, I'm going to detail the proposed change here. Notice that I'm removing the extraneous colon from before the first instance of the word "Image":
:*  from [insert URL here] ~~~~
:is being changed to:
:*  from [insert URL here] ~~~~
Any objections? Aaron 03:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why sign two templates but not the third? (table cleanup proposal) 

message: http://www.tvave.com/CartoonNetwork-O/Oh_My_Goddess.php
Is my analysis incorrect? This is for a much earlier version of Oh My Goddess! (something like this) --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website violating wikipedias copyright

message: This page appears to be trying to serve two purposes.
# Discuss copyright in general
# Discuss specific instances of Copyvio.
I suggest we'd do better with two separate pages?  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a mess 

message: It has ocured to me that there is some "redundancy" in places one can list a image with a problematic license. WP:IFD, WP:PUI and WP:CP all accept images with unclear/missing/false/disputed copyright status to be listed for deletion/clearification and while the processes have somewhat different focus the same results are usualy achieved, and it often seems to be down to personal preference wich process you choose to deal with a questionable image. Do we need some clearifications in this area or is it working well enough to not be worth tampering with? Just curious, personaly I work mostly with the completely untagged images wich are speedy deletion candidates, but once in a while I come across images with blatantly wrong license info (such as game consept art labeled as PD or GFDL and what not) and become unsure just where to list them, or wether or not I should just slap the "no license" tag on them and let them be speedied if the uploader does not react after being notified. --Sherool (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images tagged with an obviously fake license should come here. Images that you suspect of being tagged with a false license should go to WP:PUI. Images without any license at all should be tagged with  and left for speedying. --Nick Boalch ?!? 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "right" place to list images? 

message: The following posts belong here, not in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, which discusses future wikipedia fair use policy.Travb 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FU reads "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia".  I would think one could argue that an exception could be made under this provision but I'd welcome other comments.  JYolkowski // talk 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like they can only be used on websites? Or has that also been fixed? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, on the theory that an AP photo of Starlet Starbright is not fair use, but the one on her official website, made as a work for hire, is legit. I suspect some will require considerable research, especially for actors that predate the web - you'd have to trace back to someone who can certify that a digital image was scanned from the physical press kit. Stan 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I uploaded :Image:Svyaschennaya Voyna vocal.ogg and the song, in full, is in the public domain due to it's age. Your welcome to see me on my talk page about any files I have uploaded. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't follow the link, and know nothing about the card game, but suggest that small quotes from the rulebook should be fine, as long as one makes sure that the amount of material on Wikipedia as a whole doesn't mean that our readers cannot avoid buying the rulebook to play the game and that we don't have enough material to impact the manufacturers' sales of trivia books and the like.  Jkelly 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What it looks like he is doing is putting up a low-res (not print quality) scan of the card itself and putting the card information on the Wikibook page (what each card allows you to do in the game, etc.). I'd be suspicious that it was too much use, personally. The only caveate might be that one could make the argument that since the value of the copyrighted material is only invested in the fact of its being an official card (that is, knowing what the card says does not devalue the material, since owning an actual card is the source of their value) the Wikibooks version of it wouldn't be a problem. But I don't know -- that seems like a stretch to me. If it were a published "book" using that much unlicensed material, I imagine it would definitely not be fair use, which is perhaps the standard we should hold ourselves to in these instances. --Fastfission 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of the article is about the movies so it is probably ok although the shear number may be cause for concern.Geni 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that this is a fictional character, no paparazzi-style shots possible, the screenshot is pretty much your only option. If you wanted to rationalize, you could say that a fictional character is an integral part of the movie, so a screenshot of the character is no different than a screenshot illustrating a dramatic scene. For an important recurring character like Yoda, I would guess a half-dozen is reasonable - different appearances in different films, aspects of character, etc. For real-person actors, it's not so clearcut; personally I'm inclined to allow the screenshots anyway, captioned "X appearing as Y in Z". Stan 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Posts moved from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use]]

message: Someone want to have a look at :Image talk:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg? I can't for the life of me see what to do to tag it more appropriately, and the fair use justification seems solid, but it seems to be marked for deletion
By the way, is there some different place than here that I should raise a question like this? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image talk:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg 

message: We discussed this before, and it was pretty agreed that the use of the SEPTA logo in  is OK. Zzyzx11 recently removed it, citing the fair use policy. Can we get a policy change on this? Something like "the logo of an organization is allowed on a navigational template for articles closely related to that organization"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FU reads "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia".  I would think one could argue that an exception could be made under this provision but I'd welcome other comments.  JYolkowski // talk 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos in navboxes again

message: I have created , which is based on the Commons template by the same name. I also pasted a link to the terms of service agreement that the Vector-Images.com people told us that we can use their images under, so we might have a possibility of having less fair use images to deal with due to this. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they can only be used on websites? Or has that also been fixed? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image tag 

message: There are various FU violations to be seen at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Football--Doc ask? 02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football club logos 

message: Should the promo tags explicitly ask the uploader to add a source? As far as fair use goes the source - in so far as it could help establish the ownership of an image - should probably be provided.--nixie 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, on the theory that an AP photo of Starlet Starbright is not fair use, but the one on her official website, made as a work for hire, is legit. I suspect some will require considerable research, especially for actors that predate the web - you'd have to trace back to someone who can certify that a digital image was scanned from the physical press kit. Stan 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promo tags etc

message: I've got a list of unusual .ogg files at User:Carnildo/Unusual Files.  The unusually large ones may contain a number of full album tracks or excessively large samples, while the small ones probably include many non-ogg files that have been renamed.  There's about 750 files in total; could someone help me in checking them out? --Carnildo 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded :Image:Svyaschennaya Voyna vocal.ogg and the song, in full, is in the public domain due to it's age. Your welcome to see me on my talk page about any files I have uploaded. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unusual ogg files

message: When uploading an image from source deemed to be an Original Video Animation, should we use the tv-screenshot templete or the film-screenshot templete, or does it matter? TomStar81 23:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: How much of what is on b:Pokémon Trading Card Game/Fossil can be used. I want to list every Pokémon Card and its text, so how much can be used? Gerard Foley 16:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't follow the link, and know nothing about the card game, but suggest that small quotes from the rulebook should be fine, as long as one makes sure that the amount of material on Wikipedia as a whole doesn't mean that our readers cannot avoid buying the rulebook to play the game and that we don't have enough material to impact the manufacturers' sales of trivia books and the like.  Jkelly 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What it looks like he is doing is putting up a low-res (not print quality) scan of the card itself and putting the card information on the Wikibook page (what each card allows you to do in the game, etc.). I'd be suspicious that it was too much use, personally. The only caveate might be that one could make the argument that since the value of the copyrighted material is only invested in the fact of its being an official card (that is, knowing what the card says does not devalue the material, since owning an actual card is the source of their value) the Wikibooks version of it wouldn't be a problem. But I don't know -- that seems like a stretch to me. If it were a published "book" using that much unlicensed material, I imagine it would definitely not be fair use, which is perhaps the standard we should hold ourselves to in these instances. --Fastfission 23:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon Card Game - Copyright 

message: I've listed a bunch of Canadian Crown Copyright tags on tfd, since they are badly written and not being used as intended, more input on the discussion would be appreciated at  and others.--nixie 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More templates on tfd

message: Hi.  :Image:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg has turned into a contentious matter.  It was recently deleted for lacking copyright information, and has been re-uploaded by .  Since I have been involved in the whole thing, I would appreciate it if some other admin would review the conversation at  and either find some way to justify this screen-capture of a bootleg video as fair use after coaxing the authorship info out of the user, or, failing that, delete the image again and caution the user about image use.  Thanks.  Jkelly 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help from admin needed 

message: Consider Yoda. It has several screenshots of Yoda from the various Star Wars movies. I'm new to this game, but from what I'm reading here (and elsewhere), it seems that the claim of fair use on the screenshots would only apply to their usage in articles about the movies themselves, rather than articles about the characters. 
Is this true? If so, then lots and lots of movie character pages need revision, I think. Would it be enough to indicate the name (and version, in the case of Starwars grr) of the film in a caption to each image? Some captions on Yoda do that, but not all (3 out of 8).
Or am I being too restrictive? Staecker 00:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the article is about the movies so it is probably ok although the shear number may be cause for concern.Geni 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that this is a fictional character, no paparazzi-style shots possible, the screenshot is pretty much your only option. If you wanted to rationalize, you could say that a fictional character is an integral part of the movie, so a screenshot of the character is no different than a screenshot illustrating a dramatic scene. For an important recurring character like Yoda, I would guess a half-dozen is reasonable - different appearances in different films, aspects of character, etc. For real-person actors, it's not so clearcut; personally I'm inclined to allow the screenshots anyway, captioned "X appearing as Y in Z". Stan 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie characters 

message: I've spotted a couple pages (namely Auditorium Building, Chicago and Gage Building) that make extensive use of imagery from Mary Ann Sullivan's Digital Imaging Project. At the bottom of her image galleries she notes "Please feel free to use them for personal or educational purposes." and "They are not available for commercial purposes without my explicit permission." Am I correct in thinking these fall under the same umbrella as Creative Commons NonCommercial images and need to be deleted? - EurekaLott 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They are speedies per WP:CSD#I3. -Splashtalk 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're tagged now. Thanks for the pointer. - EurekaLott 04:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational purposes?

message: On article IMac, user:Schwarzm claimed the promophoto of an IMac :Image:IMacIntel.jpg to be fair use, after I had removed it once . Commonts? / Fred-Chess 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMac 

message: I am not quite sure what to do with the page 满汉全席. The Chinese text on the page appears clearly copyrighted (it says "中国中央电视台版权所有", which means "Chinese Central Television, all rights reserved" on the source page) but the submitter since translated it and claims his actions to be fair use, see User talk:Shaoquan. As I don't really know copyright law very well, I wanted to ask for advice here before I put the ugly  notice on the page, in order to avoid to bite this newcomer. Help would be greatly appreciated, either here, at User talk:Shaoquan or on my talk page. Kusma (討論) 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The translated quote following "According to CCTV" is perfectly fine and fair use. The later translation "What does the name mean?" would be fine if marked up correctly. The Chinese text should be removed or better integrated. If the entire article were a translation, it would be a strong derivative work that cannot be released under GFDL, and fair use would not apply. Deco 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the text is a translation, except for the "What does the name mean?" section. Kusma (討論) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations and copyright 

message: Case in point Cal Schenkel, the source it was copied from is actualy the Cal Schenkel] article at another Wiki wich also use the GFDL license. So no problem right? However then I started thinking; GFDL require the original editors to be atributed, so how do I do that for an external source? Is it enough to point to the external source where people can just click the "history" link themselves, or do I have to list the editors of the original article, or even copy the entire edit history (like when you move a image to commons), and how to do that for an article without making it "ugly". --Sherool (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when we transwiki articles, my understanding is that we do a copy-paste of the history page onto Talk, and provide a link as well. So I suppose that will do in other cases, too. There is also a little-used template that I guess can go on articles to yell "GFDL" at a potential copyvio tagger: . -Splashtalk 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atribution of external GFDL sources. 

message: This article appears to be a copyvio of various parts of dances.mayukhi.com. Either that, or the website is using WP's material and claiming copyright over it. Can an expert please take a look? Kappa 12:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian folk dances]] 

message: A number of images have been added from the online edition of Gray's anatomy.  (E.g.  Gray347.png)  (In fact, they've been added to Wikimedia commons, but I don't know where to register my concern there.)  The images have been marked as "public domain".  However, while the books themselves from which the images are take are no doubt public domain, the images are almost certainly taken from the online edition at http://www.bartleby.com/107/ 
Are these images really public domain?  If a contributor took the time to scan the images themselves, then I can see that the images would be fine.  However, since it's bartleby.com who have done the scanning, are we really allowed to nick their images?  (Worse than that, the Talk:Gray's Anatomy suggests that we've also taken some text from the website, which is no doubt from their OCR software.
I've no experience about US copyright law, but in the UK there's something called "mechanical copyright", which refers to the copyright in the representation of the images.  (Ie even if the images themselves are out of copyright, specific scans of the images might still be copyrighted.  I'd appreciate it if one of the more experienced people check over the situation. Bluap 13:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're fine. It doesn't matter who scanned them. Scanning or otherwise reproducing a two-dimensional original does not give rise to a new copyright on that scan under U.S. copyiright law. Since the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy (the one at Bartleby's) is in the public domain, so are the scans. See WP:PD, "Uncreative works". The relevant U.S. case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly rejected difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability in Feist v. Rural. Lupo 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quick response. Bluap 16:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gray's Anatomy]] 

message: (I also posted this under the technical section at village pump.) The instructions at WP:CP currently state that  should be used to list images on that page. However, if one follows this, the entire image is displayed because it isn't prefixed with a colon ( : ). Is there another template that should be used for images?  There is no . -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no seperate template. However if you marked the image using the  template it will generate the text you need to insert into the lising, complete with the leading colon, so simply copy that. --Sherool (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that method does generate the text, including the colon, for the image in question. The WP:CP page doesn't mention that the colon is required (I know that it is, but for some reason thought it was automatically generated for images). The instruction reads thusly: "Go to today's section and add: *  from [insert URL here] ~~~~" (I have gone back and added a colon.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather belatedly, I've created  with the obvious auto-colon. This is minor instruction creep -vs- reduction of confusion, and {article-cv} will still work with the colon. I've amended  accordingly. -Splashtalk 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem: Display of entire images 

message: This category is just brimming with "copyvios". I've been spending the last few days just going over the most "suspicoius" looking images there and I've retagged like a 1000 obvius fair use images that where hiding in there. I'm talking albumcovers, tv and movie screenshots, logos and such and a huge number of promo pictures. Not to mention the tonnes of images that have no source, just a tag that says the the copyright holder allow anyone to use it for anyting or some such, not a word on why. Now a few of those are "legit" uploaded by the photogapher without as much as a "I made this" in the summary, but many, if not most are lifted from somewhere else. It seems people are reading the tag selectively and because there is "copyrighted" in the tag name people just dump copyrighted stuff in there without reading the actual text of the license. I've seen things like "This image is owned by so and so, allowed for non-commercial purposes only all rights reserved", followed by the "The copyright holder have released all rights to this work and allow it to be used for any purpose bla bla bla" license tag. It's kinda depressing. That's on top of the regular "well there is no copyright notice on the site so it's public domain" kind of misunderstandings. Anyway I've come to the conclution that I'm not even scratching the surface of this one on my own so a few more eyeballs on this category would be nice. It's long overdue for some serious "spring cleaning" IMHO.  --Sherool (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should say just "free use", not "copyrighted free use". And it shouldn't have a giant copyright symbol on it either. This is emphasizing its differences from public domain rather than its differences from every other license for no particular reason. Deco 03:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Free use images]] 

message: Recently, a good article was incorrectly flagged as a copyvio, and subsequently deleted. After some time and a series of misunderstandings, it was reinstated. However, it could have easily been avoided by simply contacting the article's creator so that the copyvio notice was actually noticed! In this article's case, the original text of the article contained the alleged copyvio, and the creator of the article was still an active contributor. However, the copyvio notice wasn't noticed, so went unchallenged. May I propose that when a copyvio notice is placed on a page, the original creator of the article is contacted as well, as a matter of course. Then there is no possibility of the process going unnoticed. (It's all too easy to miss something with several thousand articles on a watchlist).
In addition, for a non-admin, it was impossible to correctly recreate the "crumb trail" of activity that led to the article's deletion, since the article history was also deleted, and the deletion log only contained the barest summary. It is this that led to some unnecessary misunderstanding. I'm not sure what should be done about this, but a way to have a more complete picture of the deletion process after the event could be very useful in avoiding a repeat of this. Graham 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the latter problem, I'd suggest perhaps a copyvio deletion script that includes information like the nominator and nomination date. Deco 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to avoid deletion of possibly good articles 

message: I have a question as a new admin trying to make some headway on this page.  If I move a /Temp page to replace a copyvio, is it considered acceptable (if not totally in strict compliance with WP:CSD#R) to delete the redirect?  I can't see why not (no one would ever stumble on those pages), but if anyone objects at all, I won't do it. Superm401 - Talk 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done this a number of times in the past. If it isn't what is supposed to be done, then I'm going to have to check quite a number of my edits! Usually, I delete the main article page, then move the temp page over, and then delete the redirect. I only move the page if the entire temp page history does not have any copyrighted material in it. Maybe we should add a little note to the CSD page that these redirects can be speedied too? --HappyCamper 18:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been deleting those redirects too. I think it would be better to make it part of the copyvio cleanup process rater than further cluttering up CSD with these things. --Sherool (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we keep redirects after moves is just so that the once-evidently-useful article title is retained. That's clearly not the case in /Temp pages, and I for one delete them. After all, the moving admin becomes the sole editor of the /Temp page after the move and it's only content ever is the redirect, so nothing at all is lost in the deletion, not even breakage of out-of-Wiki links. I see someone has added this to the CSD. Good move. -Splashtalk 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /Temp Redirects 

message: Folks, what is the policy or guideline on articles that have been copied from a website by the author of that website??  In particular, check out Laguna Catemaco and this site.  The editor, DonGringo,  has copied quite a few of his webpages into Wikipedia (they are not quite written in encyclopedic style, but that's another question).  Madman 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article copied from website by its author 

message: Hi.  Is there any compelling reason for me to not simply delete the offending edits at Hannah Teter?  Given that a number of editors are removing the copyvio notice from a high-profile article in order to create a real article, it would be less of a pain to simply let people go ahead and work rather than having to monitor the thing to ensure that the copyvio tag remains.  Thoughts?  Jkelly 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just gone ahead and done it.  Jkelly 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deleting of copyvio edits at [[Hannah Teter]]? 

message: Is there a reason why Feb 16 is excluded from this combined page? The JPS 02:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 16]]

message: I'm uncertain whether List of NP-complete problems is a copyright violation or not. Most of the problems are listed in exactly the same categories and in the same order as in the famous book Computers and Intractability; I have personally verified this. Since copyright has been shown to protect the organization of a collection of facts, even if the facts themselves cannot be protected, would it stand to reason that this is copyright violation?
If so, what's the appropriate way to clean it up? Turn it into a "naked" list of problems in random order and wait for it to be recategorised in some other way? Thanks for any input. Deco 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please answer this? Deco 19:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that there should be more than one name for each of these problems. It would not be a copyright violation if someone were to use alternate names for some, removed some of the ones with borderline notability, and added a few. It would help if they were organized in a different way as well: folding "Iso- and other morphisms" into "Misc", or dividing "Compression and representation" into two groups. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of NP-complete problems]] copyvio? 

message: I have an idea for dealing with these. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Without online source, and let me know what you think. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has objected, and since we all want to cut down on the backlog, I'm going to go ahead and implement this. Similarly, I've posted an open question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Fair use claims. Let me know what you think. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for "Copyright problems without online sources" 

message: It looks like we have a situation now that's not addressed by Wikipedia's current copyright problems policy.
On 12 February, the Robert Hoyzer article was listed as a copyvio because it matched an article in The Peninsula, a newspaper in Qatar, on 26 December 2005.
Only one problem... The Peninsula violated Wikipedia's copyright, not the other way around. The Peninsula story virtually matches Wikipedia's version of the Hoyzer article as it existed on 26 December. The Hoyzer article has existed as a non-stub since 27 January 2005. Matter of fact, I recognized several of my own edits to the Wikipedia article in the Peninsula piece.
The problem this scenario brings up: Why is there not a speedy process for resolving a false copyvio when it's clear that Wikipedia's copyright was violated? — Dale Arnett 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. Remove the tag with an appropriate edit summary, and make a note on the talk page about why, for future reference. It may also be worth noting this somewhere...like WP:AN or somesuch, just for community notice. This isn't a new problem, there were articles a while back in a newspaper that appeared to take Wikipedia content pretty shamelessly.-Splashtalk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new problem in Wikipedia copyvio policy 

message: Hello. I saw this article - Luton Riots. The entire article is a copy from here. But I did not tag it for sppedy deletion because it says that the site from which the copy is done should have intention of making profit. This url has a .org suffix, which means that it must not be making profit from it, nor is it a commercial site. So what would be the appropriate way to tag it? Or is it not a copyright problem at all? - Aksi great 13:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text does seem to be copied verbatim, which makes it a copyright violation. It doesn't matter what the URL suffix is. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to tag it for speedy-deletion or not, but it would certainly be appropriate to list the image here on WP:CP as a copyvio. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not speediable. It's still a copyvio. Deco 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I just wonder why there are still very old cases that have not been cleared.--Jusjih 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no admin yet got around to it. For the offline cases, we need someone who a) has the offline source to b)come to this page and c)be an admin if necessary and delete it. It's just human delay and lack of appropriate resources. -Splashtalk 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlogs 

message: copyright/fair use or not: 
#user takes a low-res dvd cover from a web page and uploads it to wikipeida to use (bad?)
#user takes a low-res dvd cover from a web page, auto-corrects colors (filter), resizes the image, changes format from .jpg to .png, uploads it to wikipeida to use (ok?)
:I guess my question is whether taking an image that you could acquire yourself is ok... and if not, if editing the picture (cleaning up colors, resizing, changing format, etc.) and then using it is ok?
--geekyßroad. meow? 06:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either of those might be fair use or not, depending on how they're used. If used in an article about the DVD, then either would work. If the DVD cover shows a picture of the Eiffel Tower, and it's used in the Eiffel Tower article, that probably would not be fair. But yes, altering an image is still fair use, so long as the use is fair to begin with. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: changing the photo in this way is called making a derivative work.  The copyright of the original applies to the derivative.   If the derivative is unique enough, you may have an addtional copyright claim of your own to the new modifications, but the underlying copyright on the original work still applies. Thatcher131 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  case-specific questions: image copyright/fair use with editing? 

message: Is public domain text copied wholesale from other sources like Bion 8 acceptable for wikipedia? It seems a bit wrong to me, as we then license the text under a more restrictive license withpout having put any creative effort in to it. --Martyman-(talk) 09:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from NASA so I think it's ok...? There is a link back to the original page hidden away in there too. I am hoping it will be built upon, by the way. Pengo 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally, it's acceptable. It's best if the text is wikified and improved upon, however. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I remember seeing some instructions somewhere on including text from the 1911B. I wonder if it is appropriate. But with wikipedia running as slow as it is I am not going to even bother looking for it at the moment. --Martyman-(talk) 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain Text 

message: I tagged the biography section of Beverley Knight because it admitted it was cut and paste from her official web site. Later the same day an anon IP with only 1 edit removed the copyvio tag and left it blank.  Curiously, all the content on the page came from a series of other anon IPs who only edit Beverley Knight and her music.  So this may be the original author, or it may be something else.  Should I restore the tag as vandalism? Thatcher131 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the appropriate action. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking by anon IP