Wikipedia talk:Copyright review

message: There are several pages regarding copyright and fair use review that could easily be consolidated into one simple system similar to the articles for deletion discussions. Examples of these pages include:
* Wikipedia:Copyright problems
* Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images
* The use of 
In instances of clear copyright violation, as currently done, the  template can be used to get the items deleted quickly. However, this system would - like with articles for deletion - deal with cases where the copyright violation is not clear or disputed. Those articles and images would be tagged with either a (modified)  tag or a (new)  template. The copyright review could be for any of the following things:
* An image's fair use rationale may be invalid
* An image may be tagged under an incorrect license
* An article is a copyright violation (i.e. copied from a copyrighted source)
This would not be for:
* Requests for the deletion of articles or images, unless for the reasons stated above (WP:AfD and WP:IfD should be instead)
* Clear violations of copyright ( should be used instead)
* Images without sources, licenses, or fair-use rationales
* Questions regarding whether content that hasn't been added to Wikipedia can be added to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations)
During the seven-day review period, Wikipedians are given the opportunity to comment on the copyright information in question. They are also given the opportunity to contact the copyright holder to clarify or alter the license of the released work, if applicable. At the conclusion of the debate, the image or article is deleted, re-licensed, or left untouched accordingly. If an article is not deleted, the copyright review is referenced on the talk page of the article or image using .
I have merged both the article copyright review and the image copyright review into one page for this proposal. However, it may be easier if the articles and images were done on separate pages. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: == Kicking Things Off ==
For those who have seen Wikipedia:Copyright problems, you will see that this is essentially a redesign of that page with some of the other elements regarding copyright issues merged in and the process made a bit different. So, to be honest, this is not really a proposal for a brand-new system, but rather a proposal to merge several systems together. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sample review page is located here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to point out that I have come across many cases of clear copyright violations which do not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria.  Generally it is because they are older than 48 hours; as I do not participate in RC patrol, I guess I don't find the new ones.  However most of the violations I have found would also fail the "commercial" requirement even if they were new enough.  With that in mind I find the advice to use speedy clear copyright violations misleading.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part is already current policy; see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess the instructions are curently misleading then :) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: For those who have seen Wikipedia:Copyright problems, you will see that this is essentially a redesign of that page with some of the other elements regarding copyright issues merged in and the process made a bit different. So, to be honest, this is not really a proposal for a brand-new system, but rather a proposal to merge several systems together. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sample review page is located here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to point out that I have come across many cases of clear copyright violations which do not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria.  Generally it is because they are older than 48 hours; as I do not participate in RC patrol, I guess I don't find the new ones.  However most of the violations I have found would also fail the "commercial" requirement even if they were new enough.  With that in mind I find the advice to use speedy clear copyright violations misleading.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part is already current policy; see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess the instructions are curently misleading then :) --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicking Things Off