Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9

message: Some user pages raise an interesting issue that I can't find an appropriate policy or guideline on. This user has added a copyright notice to his user page. There is no doubt that he is the writer of and copyright holder of this content. However I am not sure whether the copyright notice is appropriate. Does anyone have an opinion about this? It seems to me that the copyright notice might implicitly or explicitly be incompatible with the GFDL status of the page, but others disagree (see current discussion on WP:AIV). 
I think its a problem because the copyright notice doesn't acknowledge the GFDL status of the text and at the least would mislead people into believing the page was not under GFDL. At worst it might be directly contradictory with the GFDL license?
I can see several possible outcomes:
#There is no problem with copyright notices on GFDL text, no action necessary
#The user should be asked to remove the copyright notices if they are incompatible with the GFDL
#The user should be asked to remove the text since it is copyrighted in a manner incompatible with the GFDL
Can anyone with more knowledge of the GFDL provide some guidance? Thanks, Gwernol 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that there is no problem. In so far as Wikipedia edits can be copyrighted (spelling corrections, for example, probably can't be), the copyright belongs to the editor. It is covered by the global GFDL license which each editor accepts when submitting content, and so the editor in question has licensed his or her copyright. Ownership is tracked by the page histories, which are open to public viewing. In short, copyright notices are pointless on WP, but harmless in userspace. Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If an editor wishes to overtly assert copyright of his or her page, IMHO they should also overtly state that it is released under the GFDL, by using one of the licensing templates, such ,  or . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalbury (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As stated on WP:Copyright, ...you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.. So, that means that everything you write, you retain copyright of, but once material is released under the GFDL license, that cannot be rescinded. In short, GFDL does not mean no copyright.--Jeff 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the GFDL recommends you put a copyright notice on GFDL material, and mandates that such notices be preserved by redistributors. Wikipedia doesn't strictly comply with this, which is okay because work is copyrighted automatically. However, there's nothing wrong with a copyright notice on a user page. Superm401 - Talk 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia pages containing a copyright notice 

message: Ok, just noticed the link on contributory infringement (see the external links section) is actually pointing to a disambiguation page. This probably deserves a SOFIXIT, but since the page is protected for now, I'm unable to make that change, and I'd like to get some other opinions first (oddly enough, the template on the page is only sprotected). I'd suggest changing the link to go to Copyright infringement, but the problem is, this article doesn't even mention contributory infringement. I suppose that's the easy one to fix, though—it's just a matter of adding a new section and starting (with as a bare minimum), the information establishing precedent for it. What would be the best approach, though? I'm not trying to revive the debate from November, but rather correct an internal link to a disambiguation page. (Also, would someone mind changing the protected template to the proper template--it caught me off guard for a second, until I saw the history...) dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 08:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which template you're referring too, but they're all high use anyway so I added cascading protection.  Now, I don't want to change the contributory infringement link unless you have somewhere better for it to point to.  Create the section (well-sourced) first, then come back. Superm401 - Talk 08:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributory Infringement 

message: I spotted a typo on this page. Where it says "replace it work the words" it should say "replace it with the words"  -- Harry Wood 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Superm401 - Talk 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 'replace it work the words' 

message: WP:COPY is fully protected, however the template used to display the lock is , however, it should be . Someone fix this.
:Fixed.  Jkelly 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Template 

message: If someone creates an image that contains copyrighted images (specifically logos), I assume they have the rights to the image itself (the collection), but they still don't have the rights to the contents. So, doesn't that mean the image cannot be released as free use? For example, :Image:Star Alliance.png. DB (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a derivative work, and cannot be freely licensed.  Jkelly 19:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. Thanks. DB (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about collections of copyrighted images

message: A question has come up at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan concerning the seal of the city, found at :Image:Ann-Arbor-City-Seal.png. One user has requested that a GFDL replacement be found or created. I was under the impression that this would be impossible as the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan would own the seal and any derivatives of it. Could some one help clairfy the issue at the FAR? Jay32183 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seals cannot be replaced by GFDL versions.  Since they're defined by their exact appearance (unlike coats of arms, which are defined by a text description), any copy would be a derivative work. --Carnildo 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about seals 

message: Template:CopyrightedCharacter - I'm pretty sure, at least in the one application that this template currently has, that this template is bogus. Also, I think its redundant to other fair use tags we have. I don't know enough copyright law to take this to TFD, though. Any thoughts? --Iamunknown 08:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:CopyrightedCharacter 

message: Hi everyone, Iwant to copy some articles at Wikipedia and use them on my site but I don't know what should I do in order to be allowed (Example : Put a link-back, submit something "From Wikipedia" along with those articles,...). Please answer me here, don't link me to any other of Wikipedia Copyright article (I am just a kid and can't understand what they mean). Thank you very much.
:Dude, it's very easy. All you got to do is to include in your essay the web address that links directly to the article that you used. Say for example, you used a large part of the Wikipedia article about Abraham Lincoln. Then, to acknowledge that you obtained information from Wikipedia, simply just type somewhere at the bottom of your essay or something the following --> "Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia). Abraham Lincoln. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln. Accessed 20 February 2007." (or whichever date you accessed the article). Good luck! AppleJuggler 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, not sure what you mean by 'submit' them. Can you explain more clearly? AppleJuggler 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that should be fine. Go ahead. AppleJuggler 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have two questions and a request 

message: Can you please add the Bulgarian interwiki to this article,  :bg:Уикипедия:Авторско право. Thanks, --Vanka5 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Jkelly 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Bulgarian interwiki 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?. --NE2 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?

message: The current boldface warning not to copy below the edit box currently warns about not copying from Web pages. However, a GPL'd Web page would be acceptable to copy from. And copyrighted (no permission) books would be unacceptable. The warning is inaccurate and doesn't correspond to the reality of copyright. I suggest the following or something similar: 
:Do not copy from copyrighted material without permission. If detected, the copied material will be removed.
ww 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: problem with warning on edit page; suggested improvement

message: In section 1.4.3, where it says:
:"Agencies that represent the photographers who shot the photos or the photographer themself (the latter especially for amateur photographs)"
It shoud be (photographer->photographers)
:"Agencies that represent the photographers who shot the photos or the photographers themself (the latter especially for amateur photographs)"
(Rjgodoy 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit request 

message: I just came across this report, whose descriptions of weapons are copied directly, with light editing, from the wikipedia articles on each gun, but makes no acknowledgment of the source of the material, let alone GFDL compliance.  It's not a verbatim mirror, but they need to be told to comply, and I'm not experienced in how to do this myself. Someone else want to send a notice? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  violating derivative work 

message: I wonder if I could have an admin talk to user User:Malangthon about repeated posting of multiple newpaper articles on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan) (see very bottom of page). I replaced the articles with links, but the user continues to repost the articles "for the record". I have explained to the user several times now that posting complete articles to talk pages is not acceptable for reasons of copyright infringement and also because Wikipedia is not a source. The user has been abusive when challenged. Thank you. Sparkzilla 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need the intervention of an admin, you might try making your request to one of the Administrators' noticeboards, perhaps WP:ANI. —RP88 02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a warning, but for the future, post to WP:AN/I. Tyrenius 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. I will use WP:ANI in future. Sparkzilla 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User continues to post copyrighted newspaper article

message: I have created entries in Wikipedia for two important public health officials; Dr. Jonathan Fielding and Dr. Ciro de Quadros. Dr. Fielding's article was deleted due to copyright infringment by Garion96 (despite my best efforts to explain the following).  What I did for Dr. Fielding's article was to;
1. Cut and paste from his standard resume, bios, bragsheet, photo, that was provided to me by Dr. Fielding;
2. I reogranized the materials into an appropriate format for Wikipedia;
3. I had his permission to use these materials (and he reviewed the article);
4. He provides these same materials in numerous other places on the web, as he is on many prestigious public health comittees and organizations (e.g. you can find Dr. Fieldings bio on his UCLA web page).
I bascially "cut and pasted" and re-organized this information into a Wikipedia article, and assumed that I had not violated any copyright laws "...if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)."  
The Administrator (Garion96) who removed the Dr. Fielding article insists that I rewrite the entry.  I find this is unnecessary and would like to have my original article resotred.  
Can someone provide me with the correct copyright Tag that would allow the article to be included in Wikipedia and prevent this from being removed?  A similar problem is occurring for my other article I wrote for Dr. Ciro de Quadros.  I have also opened a CASE requesting Adovcates assistance on this (Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/mstrassburg).  
As a professor at UCLA, I also have my bio posted in various places on the web, for which I just cut and paste out of my own original materials. For example the description of myself under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mstrassburg is a cut and paste directly off of my UCLA bio website I believe.  I would imagine that with regards to biographical/resume information (generated by the authors themselves) this is not an unusual or unexpected practice.  
Thank you for your assistance.
Dr. Strassburg
Mstrassburg 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Assistance - Deleted Article 

message: The odd formatting of the two articles seems rather suspicious.  I googled the "Introduction" part of Phenyltropane and it appears to have come straight out of another article.  As for the rest, the formatting prevents googling and there are a hefty number of sources that the articles reference.  I don't know if this is enough to warrant action, but I just wanted to bring it to attention just in case.
-70.176.93.225 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio on [[Ohmefentanyl]] and [[Phenyltropane]]? 

message: I often find wikipedia articles which require citation for definitions of various terms that are used in the article.  These can be necessary since articles dealing closely with such terms or phrases must explicitly define the terms by way of introduction to the topic.  In nearly every case all sources that can be located for such information explicitly state that their content is copyrighted.  Since definitions are very sensitive to the wording used how can we be sure that we are not in violation of copyright when using those definitions and citing the source?  My understanding is that even rewording copyrighted material will not prevent copyright infringment unless the rewording is substantial.  However, with definitions it often seems quite difficult to use wording that is at once unambiguously faithful to the meaning of the original definition and yet which is also substantially different from it's wording.
Am I understanding this issue incorrectly?  What is the best way to source definitions where they are required for a properly sourced article?Zebulin 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing definitions from copyrighted web content 

message: I would like to request the change of the ar interwiki link to:
ar:ويكيبيديا:حقوق التأليف والنشر
Please note that the Arabic language is written from right to left. Thank you. --Meno25 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, Garion96 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link 

message: I have followed the below general guidelines from Wikipedia regarding using copyrighted material.  What happens after the copyright owner has granted permission to use the material in on Wikipedia?  Do I have to send the form letter to someone at Wikipedia?  Can we just post the material with a link to the source?  How does this work?
Using copyrighted work from others
All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.
Thank you,
Oshburg 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. If the source site (if it is a site) mentions that the material is released under a free license, then a mention with a link, like done on Splitting the Sky should be good enough. If not, then an e-mail should be sent to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Following that, the OTSR people will add a template to the talk page of the article, like was done in Talk:Jaime Bravo or Talk:J._A._Panitz. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question Regarding Use of Copyrighted Material

message: Hi.
What would you think of this idea? If someone directly and blatantly violates a copyright, they should be given one and only one warning. If they do it a second time, they should be banned. Permanently. No excuses, no copouts. Copyright is a very serious thing. Similar rules shoul dapply for libel/slander as well -- which are also very serious and could potentially cause legal repercussions to Wikipedia itself. mike4ty4 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal needs to be to keep plagiarism and copyright infringement to a minimum.  Sometimes the most effective way of doing that is to indefinitely block an account and treat the user as a banned user immediately after the first warning.  In other times, it might not be.  Improving detection software, increased community participation in copyright issues, more robust processes for identifying and removing infringement and other tools may help more than liberal use of the block button.  Jkelly 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how come in some cases the "one warning then BAM" rule does not work, anyway? mike4ty4 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One warning rule? 

message: Could I get a few opinions regarding the situation surrounding :Image:Sartzetakhs2.jpg at ?  Thank you kindly, Iamunknown 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: image copyright issue 

message: I wanted to add GFDL / Wikipedia links in my MediaWiki installation, which hosts a Wikipedia fork.  I added this code to the end of MonoBook.php (just after the echo $this->data['tagline'] line):

          <li>This article is licensed under the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>.</li><li>It uses material from the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<?php $this->text('title') ?>"><?php $this->text('title') ?></a>.</li>

--Cloudie 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding copyright link to MediaWiki template 

message: Those people who from previous discussions says we should not link to sites for illegal downloads should take a look at Abandonware articles such as Home of the Underdogs and Abandonia. There were complaints on other web sites that these articles confused people into thinking that such downloads were legal, and there are a number of links provided to pirate software (in fact there used to be instructions on how to do so on the Talk:Home of the Underdogs page. Attempts to point out in the articles that abandonware, despite the fancy name and rationalizations, is illegal have been removed as alleged POV-pushing while lots of POV pushing for the pro-software piracy side stays and continues to be added. DreamGuy 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Doesn't our article on abandonware explain that the term has no legal bearing?"
Actually, it did.... and it got removed by someone, and then when I restored it I was accused of POV-pushing for putting it there and even blocked over it by an admin who on his user page says he was a main contributor to that and related articles. I fear he thinks he WP:OWNs the article and believes anything he disagrees with is POV-pushing. It may have gotten put back in later edits, I don't know, as I am trying to avoid going back there myself and risk yet another accusation of POV pushing for simply pointing out that it's not a legal concept and downloading copyright software without permission is illegal. I thought people interested in the topic of copyright should go in and contribute their viewpoints. DreamGuy 23:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Abandonware"

message: * The advice about looking for copyvio warns about cases where the external site copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way round. But an example (The Essex Autistic Society) has arisen of a third sort of copyright query, when the same user may have put the same text in a Wikipedia page and in an external site. The page about the Essex Autistic Society http://www.essexautistic.org.uk/ was created by User:Cliveessex, whose name contains "essex". It is likely that the Essex Autistic Society set up both The Essex Autistic Society and http://www.essexautistic.org.uk/ . In which case some may argue that there is no copyvio. But http://www.essexautistic.org.uk/ is marked "© The Essex Autistic Society", and Wikipedia pages have the GFDL copyright, and thus some say that there is a copyvio. But, what happens in the outside world if (say) someone sells the same book on two countries which have different copyright laws? Anthony Appleyard 06:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is perfectly acceptable, assuming that User:Cliveessex really is the copyright holder or has permission from the copyright holder.  I'd suggest in this case sending an e-mail to the society asking for confirmation that they want to license their text for us to use, perhaps blanking the page in the meantime until we're sure. JulesH 10:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the same user puts the same text in Wikipedia and in an external site 

message: Hi everybody. I'd like to ask you a question: I've found a website  that published photos received from common users. This site notably claims to accept only copyright-free photos, as the header says "if there is copyright for any of the photos, contact us and we will remove them". What I wanted to know is: once the guys from this website publish these photos, can they claim any kind of copyright on them? In case they cannot, am I therefore authorized to submit these photos on Wikipedia with a copyleft license? Thanks. --Angelo 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Italian but from the looks on that site I think they simply mean that "if your copyrighted photo is on this site, contact us and we will remove it". Basically someone uploads a picture saying they made it themselves, but they obviously didn't. I don't think you can say that the pictures on this site fall in the PD or any copyleft license. The website or the submitters of the photographs still hold copyright over those photo's. Garion96 (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question 

message: I've found someone on a particular forum who copies entire sections of text from wiki articles without any attempt to identify the text as not his own work and certainly not attributing it back to the relevant wiki. My understanding is this breaches wikipedia's copyright (which only requires that such text be appropriately attributed). I've raised it with the forum moderators but they're not interested.
Is this is a breach of copyright? 10:38, 30 April 2007 User:210.84.63.227
:Yes it is. See WP:FORK for examples of complaint emails and letters. Note that the GFDL requires a little more than just attribution. DES (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I couldn't find anything in wiki's docs that pointed out where to report violations. The forum moderator labors under the illusion that if it doesn't contain an opinion it's a fact and therefore unprotected by copyright (even with verbatim copying of whole sections of text) and nothing will make him budge from there. I'll try going over his head and see if someone above him isn't so clueless. Failing that I'll follow your suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.63.227 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question - unattributed wiki text on forums 

message: handy summary of UK copyright law at
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
In particular pictures go off copyright 70y after death of last creator, or 70y after pulication if creators anonymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldboltonian (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Copyright

message: I took some photos of the Dentsu Building, could you tell me what the copyrights involved with it are? Can I use them in the article? What about in other things? 203.116.91.80 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you took the photo, you own the copyright to it. There is not generally considered to be a copyright on the design of a building, such that any photo of it is a derivitive work. You amy relase it under any appropriate free license, and use it in wikipedia, if you choose to (and if the other editors of the article think the phot is useful there. You may use it anywhere else that you please. DES (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of Buildings 

message: There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Jake Dinwiddie about an article that stared as a copy&paste version of a filmography from the IMDB. While the discussion seems to be turning on the question of how the edits to the initial version changed it, my position is that under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service such a list is not protected by copyright in the first place, and so should not be subject to deletion as a copyvio even if unedited from the original paste/duump (although cleanup would bee needed, of course). People with copyright experience might want to commetn in that discussion. Or might want to comment here on whether my general premise is corect for Wikipedia or not. DES (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography as list of facts 

message: I have taken a photograph of the Lewis Jones' public monument at Trelew. May I release this photograph under public domain? Rjgodoy 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends.  When was the monument created?  Who was the sculptor, and when did he die?  How does Argentina's copyright law treat copyright on monuments; does it have a freedom of panorama clause? --Carnildo 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of a sculpture in a public place 

message: There is an open Rfc page on image use policy & copyright which can be found here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image. --Palffy 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright question 

message: I wish to note that the editor in this diff  has linked to a page that was delinked by an administrator. The linking to this web page is a clear violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. Prompt attention is needed.--Drboisclair 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This text is not in public domain. It has been tentatively resolved through OTRS action. It may not be infringement on the part of Wikipedia, but it is contrary to the section on linking to web pages which do infringe copyright WP:COPYRIGHT. The offending link has been removed for now.--Drboisclair 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Link to a Web Page that Infringes Copyright