Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 3

message: I came across the American actress Wikipedia article, Christina Ricci. It seems that is a direct copy assuming a volunteer IMDB user came up with propaganda paragraph mini-biography about her before the anonymous Wikipedia poster.  DraQue Star 21 Sep 2004
:Yes, IMDB content is copyright IMDB. There's even a little copyright notice at the bottom of each page.  — Gwalla | Talk 02:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch. Reverted to the last non-copyvio version. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is copy/pasting from a IMDB Biography consider a copyright violation?

message: Can we use images under NATO copyright such as :Image:B031007bc.jpg (from ? See NATO's copyright statement, especially at the bottom. Lupo 14:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since NATO explicitly retains copyright, Wikipedia may claim fair use, but it is entirely incorrect to claim that such pictures are public domain. ➥the Epopt 21:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO copyright 

message: I'm not sure how to deal with this example. Look at Bryzoa. It's cut-and-pasted from several different sources. The first paragraph might be original. The second paragraph is taken directly from here. The first part of the third paragraph is cut and paste from here. The next part comes from here. The next sentence is directly from here. The third paragraph is cut and paste from here again. 
This isn't kosher either, is it? Occasionally one or two words are changed to make the copied sentences flow together. Yeah, it's how I did some essays when I was in a rush in high school, but I certainly never thought I was doing anything other than cheating. --jpgordon 17:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I encountered a related problem in Winter Soldier Investigation, where the several paragraphs in one section are clearly from another source.  The editor claims they're copied under Fair Use, but it appears he's under the impression that a little plagiarism is called Fair Use.  The template which I put in that section has text that the entire article is a problem.  I added text to clarify for editors that the issue is just that one section, but apparently handling problematical segments of text is not yet routine. -- SEWilco 03:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple copyvio sources 

message: I've looked through the reading list and the deletion policy, and haven't really been able to find one on copyrights.
# If an article is obviously copyrighted, but has good history, what do you do then? Just revert, or somehow excise from history? (Based on what I've read, the latter is not needed until the copyright holder actually complains)
# When should a /Temp article replace the copyrighted article? 
# Am I to understand that {copyvio} is only to be used when the article does warrant a real article, but has a copyvio there instead, and the copyvio is the only history present?
## i.e., if it DOESN'T warrant an article, then delete it right away, and
## if it has a history, then simply revert?
Based on this, what I've been able to glean from the policy documents, it sounds like, well... not much needs to be done for a copyright violation? Just remove or revert it? When SHOULD something be given {copyvio}? It sounds, from the policy, like it's not designed for 100% of all copyright violations, unless WP:CP is simply a more elaborate version of Speedy Delete Candidates... delete if valid, change notice if not?
I'm just a bit confused, that's all. --Golbez 05:19, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Not sure if this is written down anywhere, but here's how I do it:
:#Article is a copyvio from the initial version on: gets the  tag, even if it has a history. If it has a history, though, I do an in-depth check to figure out who copied from whom: in such cases, it may well be that the external source found copied from us. I check the talk page first, and then try to determine whose version was first using www.archive.org, or try to figure out what version of our content was copied by the external site, and so on. Luckily, most copyvios do not have a long history, and in most cases it is clear that the text was copied into Wikipedia, not from Wikipedia.
:#Article had a copyvio added somewhere along the line: either revert/rollback (with an edit summary like "rv copyvio from <URL>"), if caught quickly, or excise the infringing parts manually.
:#/Temp replaces the copyvio article when somebody goes through WP:CP, sees the reported article, decides it is a copyvio, and deletes it. After deleting the originally infringing article, I move the /Temp there, and then, if the /Temp isn't linked otherwise, delete the /Temp (which then has no history: no need to leave such artefacts lying around).
:#If the /Temp replacement is also a copyvio, I usually delete it right away, unless it significantly differs from the original article, in which case I do move it and flag it again as a copyvio. (And list it again on WP:CP, too. But that case is rare.)
:#The tricky case occurs when an article is flagged as a copyvio, a /Temp is written, but then the article is found not to be a copyvio at all. Strictly speaking, a merge would be in order then. However, most of the time the /Temp contains a subset of the info of the original article, and so I think it can be deleted.
:#In no case do I speedy delete a copyvio, even if it is obvious. They're just not candidates for speedy deletion. I guess if a copyvio fell under the CSD cases, it might be speedied. However, that question doesn't come up for me: if I see a new article falling clearly under the CSD criteria, I speedy delete it without even thinking about copyvios. 
:#If somebody uploads an obvious copyvio and I catch it quickly, I also leave the uploader a message saying that uploading copyvios is not ok.
:Lupo 07:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion policy? 

message: Case in point: List of Charmed Good Beings/Temp. Article is currently listed as a copyvio, the temp article also seems to be a copyvio from a different source (). How do I treat such a case? Place a copyvio on the temp page, which will create a temp/temp page? Or just list it on speedy to keep the article's edit history clean form copyvio text in case the temp article is kept as the new main article? -- Ferkelparade π 12:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It indicates a problem user for one thing. User:198.63.171.23 needs to be told fairly and unambiguously that a) copying and pasting is not allowed and b) other users are not stupid, we spot copyvios. Pcb21| Pete 13:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've left a note on the user's talk page (judging from the other entries on his talk page, it seems that this is not the first problem with his contributions) - now how to proceed with the temp page? Mark it as a copyvio or delete right away? - Ferkelparade π 17:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with a copyvio on a /temp page 

message: We often get press releases and publicity blurbs such as F-Secure. These are, of course, distributed by companies with the hope of being disseminated. They are also copyrighted (or, at any rate, they show up on their companies' sites, which have copyright notices). My thought is that press releases and publicity blurbs should just get speedy deletes, but it doesn't seem to work that way; copyvio at least gets them out of our faces and destroys their advertising value. I imagine this has been discussed somewhere here; anyone have a pointer? --jpgordon {gab} 19:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press releases and publicity blurbs 

message: I'd like to suggest that the infringement notice cut-and-paste stuff be either moved or copied to the bottom of WP:CP, since that's where new notices will be pasted anyway. Easier just to jump to the end of the page than hunting around for the template. --jpgordon{gab} 21:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement notice 

message: If there were a category that we could add to pages, it would be simpler. We would only need to edit the offending page instead of the offending page and the list. The list generated by the category would then always be correct instead of error prone as it is now. What do others think? Bobblewik  (talk) 22:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we have that already? :Category:Possible copyright violations, which is part of the  template so that all marked up copyvios are in it. The advantage of the list as it stands is that it provides space for discussion (though that could go onto talk: pages) and that it's in chronological order, so it's easy to spot the week-old copyvios which should be considered for deletion. I have been trawling through the category adding unlisted copyvios to the list; it's correct as of a couple of hours ago. --rbrwr± 22:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes. Now I see that the category is included in the template, as you say. That makes the process even simpler than I thought. Thanks for pointing it out. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A copyright problem category for pages 

message: This section should just be removed entirely.  There is no basis under copyright law for amazon.com to claim copyrights over perfect scans of other works, and since they have conceded this by saying the permission is not theirs, they have effectively barred themselves from arguing otherwise.  Postdlf 02:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon copyrights 

message: I have found an article here which consists entirely of two sentences. I went to the associated site to try and get more info to add to it. I found that the two sentences were lifted entirely from the intro on this site. Is this a copyright violation worth worrying about? dpen2000 10:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Sentences from an Intro 

message: 12 Steps and 12 Traditions, English SLAA 12 Steps and Englisn SLAA 12 Traditions (note the mis-spelling on the last) were marked as copyvios some time ago. It seems to have been decided that they are not copyright violations, as the contibutor (Drgnu23) was also responsible for the website they were apparently taken from. They have now been removed from Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but they have not been reverted and still have the  template on them. They are now orphaned. I am not keen to revert them myself, as they are unwikified and have no information to establish their context. Does anyone have any ideas what to do with them? --rbrwr± 12:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[12 Steps and 12 Traditions]], etc. 

message: Is there a boilerplate message for new users' talk pages (or old ones, I guess) when they've submitted a probable copyvio? Joyous 17:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Not that I know of, and there's nothing on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for that purpose. You may have to write it yourself! --rbrwr± 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boilerplate? 

message: I have restored the "Turkish poets" section so that all the links are good. However, I suspect that it will get broken again the next time someone edits the whole page with a browser that doesn't cope with that character set properly. We had that problem with Vyšné Hágy, a link that was broken again after I fixed it. In that case, I added an external-style link to it with the URL encoded with percent signs, but this turned out not to be an ideal solution. I wonder if the Turkish poets, numerous as they are,  should be removed to a subpage and transcluded in WP:CP like a template? --rbrwr± 21:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, it didn't get broken again, so forget it. --rbrwr± 13:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish poets section 

message: Ga! Wretched spam filter! I'm trying to add a comment to one of the one of the entries for December 15th, but can't save the page because of the links. I started by trying to add an underscore to the .com part of the address, and leaving a little note, but soon realized that I would have to do this for nearly all of the websites. How are we supposed to edit these pages now? Maybe the copyvio page should be exempt from this new spam filter.  — Asbestos | Talk 13:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam filter 

message: Sysops are now able to undelete selected versions of a page (and therefore, by deleting a page and immediately undeleting most versions of it, to delete particular versions). This potentially gives us greater flexibility in dealing with copyvios, as we don't need to worry about copyvios lurking in the history of a page. Please see Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy#Undeleting selected revisions if you want to discuss the policy implications of this. --rbrwr± 13:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undelete selected revisions 

message: I've written a new Bear Mountain Bridge article on it's /temp page.  When does the copyright vio page go away and the /temp page become the real page?  Or are things just slow because of the holidays? Mwanner 14:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
:Done. Things are slow because of a shortage of admins working in this area - Infrogmation does pretty much all of the work. I should do more. I'll do some now. --rbrwr± 15:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add: if any non-admins want to help out by analysing and making comments on the hard cases (claims that material is fair use, public domain, or used with permission), that would be good. --rbrwr± 19:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear Mountain Bridge 

message: This one came and went pretty quickly on the page; I thought it was worth keeping:
*According to  and various other state.mn.us web pages, "State agency authored documents are in the public domain", so this page may not be a copyvio. -- Kaszeta 20:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota government PD? 

message: A certain number of the pages still listed are in 'Category:Pending deletions'.  Will these be automatically deleted?  Can we remove them from this page? -- Walt Pohl 04:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been isolating them at top for now, but I think we could safely remove them from this page.  Also, I'd like to create a new page for cases where permission is claimed where we can establish some standard operating procedures for obtaining and documenting permission. DanKeshet 01:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
That would be a very good idea. Those seem to languish, probably because there is little guidance, and I'm sure the standards aren't applied evenly. Wikipedia:Copyrights is pretty clear on the requirements: "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)."
While I haven't dealt with the cleanup side of things (obviously :), I have listed a fair number of potential problems on this page, and discussed solutions with various authors. I think the following outline might be a good start:
* Easily verifiable public domain/GFDL: Delist and revert, and document the source and the license. (For instance, a Library of Congress country study that wasn't correctly labeled).
* Permission is not claimed: Delete in 7 days.
* Permission is documented (prior): If the permission was correctly documented in the article before it was flagged as a problem, that's an obvious example of good faith, and the article should be delisted, reverted, and an explanation put on the talk page.
* Permission is claimed but not documented: While we should assume good faith, if someone just copies text from an external website without providing the required details, that's evidence of bad faith and needs to be investigated. In that case, I'd recommend asking the user to provided the necessary information. If they don't provide the contact, date, and whether they specifically released the material under the GFDL, the article should be deleted at the end of the standard 7 days. (In my experience, this the majority of cases. Most users who claim permission never back it up with the necessary details, and are often confused about copyrights. It might also be reasonable to allow for a slightly longer period of time, and to move it from the main page.) If they provided the necessary details, it moves to the next stage:
* Permission is documented (after): On the other hand, if the user does provide the point of contact, date, and specifically states the owner of the copyright agreed to license it under the GFDL or released it into the pubic domain, then there is both evidence of good and bad faith (since they failed to provide the information initially). In that case, I'd recommend delisting the article temporarily, and placing it in a separate "pending verification" page or section. Once on the page, have a third party contact the copyright holder, and verify permission. If the copyright holder verifies they released the material under the GFDL/into the PD, then add a note on the talk page, revert, and delist. If permission is denied, or after an appropriate (longer) period with no response, then delete it.
This obviously doesn't go into much detail (clarifying minimum and recommended standards for documentation would be good), and doesn't deal with other sticky issues like fair use claims and possible copyvios without sources, but it's a start. 68.81.231.127 18:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages in category 'Pending deletions'. 

message: I'm wondering: what's the proper procedure for dealing with an article reported at WP:CP that has slid off that page without being deleted or replaced?  For example, Second Chechen War was listed back on February 4 and still has the copyvio notice.  A temp non-copyvio article now exists at Second Chechen War/Temp.  What's the proper way to replace the copyvio with the temp article?  Is this an issue with any of the other articles that have disappeared from CP lately? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people who place copyvio notes on pages aren't aware that they need to edit this page too. Is there a way to automate this? Duk 05:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: On a similar note, I listed coping saw three weeks ago, and created a replacement stub at coping saw/Temp, no-one has objected to the copyvio status, but nothing has happened. Is there anything we can do to help admins here if you're getting snowed under? Securiger 08:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the radar? 

message: I wrote a little script to find pages listed on :Category:Possible copyright violations and missing  here. Its not a bot, it just makes and formats a list of pages to added manually.
Has this been done before? Is there a better way to make sure pages get listed here? Does anyone have any objections to me occasionally running this and adding the missing entries?
Just wanted to ask before spending much time finishing it. Duk 17:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I have spent a lot of time doing this manually in the past (I don't have the free time any more). You should probably exclude any that are marked as , as this tag is probably a result of them having been through the proces already. --rbrwr± 18:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the radar (script) 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Using JPL images — What is the status of Jet Propulsion Laboratory copyright?  The California Institute of Technology, a private entity, operates JPL, so as a contractor it has copyright on the materials which it produces for NASA.  So are JPL materials not PD?  And the JPL notice says it does not identify which materials belong to NASA and which to JPL, so we can't identify NASA PD materials in JPL sources.  (SEWilco 03:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JPL status? 

message: I've started a discussion about  at its talk page; please comment there with anything relevant. Thanks! —msh210 16:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|copyedit}} 

message: Hints for spotting possible copyvios.
If an article contains a long amount of text, isn't properly (often, not at all) wikified, and has an editorial writing style (like you'd expect from a newspaper), it "smells" to me as being written by someone else than the contributor. If this is the case, just type the first sentence (or part of it) into a Google search. If it's really a copyvio, Google should return the original source on the first page.  — JIP | Talk 13:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: No need to type it in, just copy-paste a sentence (or parts of it) into Google. Also, the first sentence is sometimes slightly changed. If a page looks like a copyvio, locating the source sometimes takes attempts with several text fragments. Rl 11:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to spot possible copyvios 

message: What is a copyright violation? Google caches everyday thousands of pages that are copyrighted, and noone complains about that. Why google caching is not considered a copyright violation, while posting a copyright page here in wikipedia is considered copyright violation? For example : a copyright page. the same page cached in google. and the same page here, considered as copyright violation. I mean, we can say we are simply caching the page, like google does, then it is not a copyright violation, isnt it? Agatharcides 08:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Google is or is not in the clear long-term is an interesting question (see the recent case against afp). However, WP doesn't just cache. We edit articles. We change them. You can't just take someone else's copyrighted work, change a bunch of things and publish it. It's very clearcut. Greek Cross is a copyvio, plain and simple, unless we have a license for the text. Rl 11:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats exactly the point! We have to respect the page and let all "wikicache" pages as they are, without editing them. So please remove your "copyvio" notice, put back my "wikicache" notice and protect the page, so that noone can edit it. Agatharcides 11:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not only republishing the page, we are also licensing it under the GFDL, giving other people the right to distribute and modify the text; look at the bottom of every page. That is not allowed without permission from the copyright holder. That is a major difference with the Google cache: Google does not claim that it is their text, and does not change the license. We do. Eugene van der Pijll 11:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I forgot it! You have to remove this damned GFDL licence at the bottom of every "wikicache" marked page, in order to be able to present the copyrighted texts. Please take care of it immediatly, and write a script to automatically remove GFDL licence notice for all "wikicache" marked articles. Thank you. I think wikipedians deserve to read copyrighted texts, like googlepedians or yahoopedians are doing.  Agatharcides 11:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is a free encyclopedia based on a wiki, not a web search engine and not an internet archive. Rl 11:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And User:Agatharcides is a troll. Feeding time is over. sjorford →•← 12:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Typical behavior of the trolls. When their arguments are over and they have nothing else to say, they start:"You are a troll", "Wikipedia is not ..." , and finnaly they call their troll-admins friends to ban your account and supress your  Free speech rights! how nice... Dear trolls, could you please wear this Blue ribbon? Agathias 15:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  In this case, though, I'm the troll, and a banned user and public account besides. Agathias 18:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cached pages and Copyright