Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 11

message: This post needs the help/attention of an administrator with copyright knowledge: Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content/Archive 1#Raids Magazine. --noclador (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAIDS  Magazine 

message: This is the image in question.  Clearly taken from a copyrighted work.  Also, Robin Olds was in the US Air Force, and there are already photos of him when he was younger on his article page.  If photos of him when he was older are desired, non-fair use ones should be sought out for use.  --BrokenSphereMsg me 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would I list a screenshot here? 

message: Our article at Marlon Brando, Sr. is pretty much a copy of his entry at imdb, but I can't tell which came first.  What's our procedure in a case like this?  Corvus cornixtalk 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already listed here, that's good. For the rest, check out the internet archive to check which version was there first. Look at the history of the article, was the (supposed) copyvio all done in one edit or did it slowly evolved to the current state. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marlon Brando, Sr.]] 

message: The first sentence under Instructions says:
:Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright (ie. the material is not Public Domain, licensed under the GFDL or specifically licensed to Wikipedia on suitable terms) should, as a general rule, be removed.
This should be reworded; material which is licensed for Wikipedia-only use is not allowed. The issue is complicated a little bit because images are allowed to be licensed under a variety of free licenses, while text (as far as I know) must be licensed under the GFDL. In either case, though, the material must be usable by anyone outside of Wikipedia as well. —Bkell (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Instructions" section 

message: Could someone take a look at the article Paradise Hotel 2? The text in the article is copied from various press releases and pre-season information on the show's official site. Now that the show has premiered the official site no longer lists the copyright text. This article has been tagged since January 23, 2008 for copyright problems. On the suggested subpage as per the instructions of the "Possible Copyright Problems" template I have re-written a suitable article for Wikipedia. Would an administrator look at this for me please? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paradise Hotel 2]] 

message: My objections to Doug's improper "closing" of a talk page discussion that allows for no such close have been noted. However, this is on his claim that Wikicommons information does not necessarily need to follow Wikipedia rules. However, all content viewable via Wikipedia code and from a Wikipedia address must still follow the terms of use, as all other websites have such requirement. I believe that Doug was speaking without a proper understanding on said subject, and his lack of providing actual, hard evidence or a blatant release from Wikimedia that suggests otherwise only reinforces this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For an above example, if someone were to host an illegal picture on Wikimedia and someone else sourced it to their user profile, Wikicommons isn't the sole one responsible. Which is why the ruling would necessitate not allowing content not acceptable on Wikipedia to be linked from other such websites. It would go against the spirit of the Wikipedia Copyright policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the closed templates from the above discussion per your objection based on what I take to be WP:COI, I may comment further on your talk page, but not here, this is far beyond the scope of maintaining this page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that such a place is inappropriate, since the project page clearly states: "This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be copyright violations." Thus, a discussion on this matter is important as it pertains to possible violations listed on the project page. This is not about a policy change. This is about potential issues surrounding copyright problems and only potential issues surrounding copyright problems so that such issues can have a variety of view points posted in order to form a basis on said issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Items on Wikipedia Still Must Follow Rules 

message: I'd be grateful if any editors with a good understanding of copyright issues could have a look at this discussion on WP:RSN – Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links – to create some clarity and help bring about a consensus on the copyright implications, if any, of linking to such sites. Thanks, Jayen466 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RSN]] copyright discussion (online press clipping collection) 

message: According to this Indonesian law (Article 14, (b)), any Indonesian government publication is not copyrighted unless otherwise specifically noted on the publication itself. My questions:
*Is "no infringement of copyright" equivalent to "public domain" in this case?
*Are Indonesian government publications allowed in WP, similar to other countries that release their government publications to the public domain (e.g. U.S.)?
*Is this information about WP policy toward Indonesian government publications posted somewhere?
*Is there a better place to ask such questions?
Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about Indonesian government publications 

message: :Crossposted to Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_Google_Print.2FBooks.
Recently I have encountered a user who is removing links to Google Print aka Google Books (ex. ). I am unaware of any community consensus for removal of those widely used and very useful external links. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any serious criticism of the copyright status of things in Google books? If not, we should keep these useful links. (If there is, I'll modify my opinion after learning of it.) Aleta Sing 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All (bar one set of removals) were reinstated , after someone kindly pointed ourt what the status
of items on Google Books was. I am agreeing with Aleta, unless there's an obvious issue, it
should be OK to link to Google Books.
Also removed, but reinstated by another editor was a deep-link to a PDF, the work contained (in scan form) was copyright expired, however the terms attached to PDF's on Google Books seem to contain an NC
clause, meaning that providing a direct link might not nessacrily be reasonable. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Google Print/Books 

message: Can the text from one Wikipedia article be copied verbatim onto another Wikipedia article? Is this explicitly not allowed, or can it be done with attributions? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•  @ 05:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are using it within Wikipedia, it is generally sufficient for attribution/GFDL purposes to leave an edit summary that states the name of the article copied - similar to what you would use on the target page if you were merging articles.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use 1 article's content on another article 

message: I want to review a copyvio reported a year ago and cannot (easily). Please categorize pages like Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 16; we could use a lost of articles divided by months and so on (WP:RD does it well).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know the date the go to the page using the established naming convention Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 9 if you know the article go the article and use the Special:WhatLinksHere function which will (should) still list the specific report the article was reported on. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a proper archive and categories 

message: The Lost Cause (song) page used to include a non-free image. The image's page stated (before I removed the image and the message ()) that this was a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria because it was being used on a page other than the one described in the image description. I noticed that the Cellphone's Dead page has simmilar image use, but there is nothing mentioning a violation on that image's page. Is the way that the image on Cellphone's Dead is used okay, or has no one spotted this violation? If it is okay, would the Lost Cause image be okay too? And how would I go about clarifying this on the image's page? Thanks! You're dreaming eh? 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free image use 

message: I've spent half an hour looking for somewhere where I can report copying of a wiki article by an outside site. I found a dozen ways to report Wiki material copying outside content but no way to report license abuse outside of wiki. Anyway -
www.squidoo.com/the-history-of-drum-and-bass
is blatant plagiarism of 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_drum_and_bass
--Dustek (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MIRROR and WP:GFDLC. Sancho 04:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism of a wiki article 

message: Many infobox templates contain an entry for an image, and frequently when a legal image isn't available, a placeholder image is used.   I have noticed a pattern that when that placeholder image has been replaced by a violating image, that the violating image is just deleted from the infobox, rather than the placeholder being restored.    This is a bad practice and there should be a policy in place to prevent it.   In my opinion the policy should be as follows:
#  In the even that an infobox template contains a blank entry for an image, any administrator viewing the article should add the appropriate image from : Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders
#  In the even that a violating image is placed in the infobox, it should be replaced with the appropriate image from : Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders, and not simply deleted
#  If an editor or administrator does just delete the image, they should be notified of the this policy on their user  talk page.
#  If after being notified, they repeatedly continue to just delete images, their account should be suspended for an appropriate number of days, or until they contact the suspending administrator and agree to comply with this policy.  
- MistyWillows (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could have the infobox templates supply the placeholder by default when an image isn't provided. As for creating policy, see Wikipedia:how to create policy. I don't think anything extreme needs to be done other than reminders/requests to editors that forget to replace the placeholder, and even this wouldn't be necessary if the templates default to providing the place holder. Sancho 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing images from infoboxes 

message: Hello,
I'm having trouble with
http://www.ub.unibe.ch/content/bibliotheken_sammlungen/sondersammlungen/sammlung_ryhiner/bestellformular/index_ger.html
Thing is, there are images of maps and such which would be in the public domain because of their age; but in order to view them you are required to click an "accept copyright" button, which states that the images can only be used with their permission. The images are watermarked, even. Is it safe to upload them to wikipedia with a public-domain-old tag?
Thanks in advance, --5wh1t5 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old works still copyrighteable? 

message: When all versions of an article contain some text with copyright problems, is it OK to delete the plagiarized text and leave the rest (categories, infoboxes etcetera) and rewrite in our own words in place?
Or is it always required to move the unencumbered material to a temporary page and place the  tag for administrative deletion of the original article?
An example is this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmond_Shawe-Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=214185703
Is that kind of thing ok? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good to know.  I am not a copyright vigilante, but I do like to resolve potential problems when I see them, and your guidance makes that easier.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative to {{tl|copyvio}}? 

message: Hi. I started an RFC on a plagiarism issue here: . I'm not sure if it is a copyright matter also, but I thought editors interested in these topics might contribute to the RFC. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism RFC 

message: Are permissions grated at the above inactive page still valid? In particular this one for Aaron Harber which was deleted in June and recreated as Aaron harber later in June and yesterday. The user that recreated it yesterday pointed it out to me here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer is no, for the current procedure see WP:IOWN.  If you have questions let me know. Jeepday (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission]] 

message: Why is the "nothanks" tag listed as "maintenance only" on  instead of at the top where the tagger might be asked to place it? If no one knows the answer to that one, is there any reason that it should not be listed at the top and the tagger asked to place it? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else weighs in with an alternate view, I suppose I'll implement it in a day or two, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a great plan.  Jeepday (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is done. Let the WP:BRD cycle begin. :) (I can't think of any good reason why it should be problematic, but I'm sure that if I'm missing it, somebody will point it out. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template question 

message: I have copied lines from EMCDDA webb pages,  about the drug law. One user states that this a not allowed. Comments?? Dala11a (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: EMCDDA is an agency of the European Union, so the copyright status would be based on the law governing that government body.  I looked at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/ and the copyright status was not immediately visible.  When in doubt wikipolicy on copyright is to error on the side of caution and remove or significantly reword the text.  In general unless you can find a GFDL compatible release or show that it is in the public domain, the text can not be used in Wikipedia. In the case where the text can be used the source must be clearly cited (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial). Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that you are correct that reproduction of the material is permitted and lawful when cited, the problem is that that is not GFDL compatible. So while it may be ok, if you want to post it on your personal web page and cite it, it is not ok for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia GFDL specifically allows the text to be modified, while the EU copyright does not specifically allow this.  If you post to Wikipedia then it must be specifically GFDL compatible which EU is not.  In soem cases brief quotes are allowed from non GFDL sources.  I beleive the article you are discussing is Drug policy of the Netherlands and you are in a dispute with another user about adding the content, if that is correct please let me know and we can take the discussion to that talk page for specifics of the question.  Jeepday (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is GFDL compatible--it permits any use, and requires only the attribution. That's exactly compatible. If it does not reserve  the right to be reproduced unchanged, it does not reserve that right. DGG (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DGG here. What is the supposed incompatibility? There is nothing there stating that reproduction must be of the work in its entirety. There is nothing limiting the contexts in which it can be reproduced. It's terse, but seems to give rights equivalent to GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy right for EMCCDA ? 

message: I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason for a plagiarism guideline. All the problems with plagiarism are either Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:Cite your sources problems. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism guideline 

message: Do I understand correctly from the instructions given here for articles that before starting a discussion here about a possible copyright problem one is supposed either to revert the article to a version one is certain lacks problems, or blank the page? That seems very drastic if one sees only a possible problem, and the article may be OK as it stands. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this seems drastic, but the alternative is to allow material that we know may be an infringement to stand, which would be legally problematic. For the purposes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Wikimedia Foundation claims to be a service provider (last I saw, Jimbo was the registered agent under the DMCA). To be clear of liability, the DMCA requires that service providers remove infringement on notification. DMCA is fairly lax in this regard, as only the copyright holder or the copyright holder's agents can provide this notification. Wikipedia goes above and beyond the requirements of that Act, but that may be a good idea, not only because copyright violation & plagiarism are held in particular horror in academic communities, but because there have been questions raised as to whether or not Wikipedia should qualify as a service provider at all. These are the same questions that ultimately smacked Napster. (Not that I'm suggesting that Wikipedia compares to Napster. My point there is just that protection as a "service provider" can be overturned.) If it should ever come down that we don't qualify, we need to be able to demonstrate that we have handled copyright concerns responsibly, without malfeasance or nonfeasance, by watching for it and duly investigating it when it comes up. (This is quite probably why Jimbo publicly stated in 2006 that "we take a very strong anti-plagiarism stance” and indicated that whenever an author is found to have plagiarized, we review all of his or her contributions for further offenses. (source:SignonSanDiego.com, by the Union Tribute.) The only defense against a charge of facilitating copyright violation is to vigilantly monitor for and address copyright violations. We have :Template:Copypaste for less certain situations and even :Template:Cv-unsure for extremely iffy ones, but :Template:Copyvio is meant to identify pretty clear cut cases, and it's probably best to blank those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no difference if Wikipedia is a service provider in cases where no third party has alleged a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow your point here. If no third party has alleged a copyright infringement, then a copyright infringement is not listed here and a page not blanked, right? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: * Copyright and WP:BLP are the two areas where Wikipedia tends to error on the side of caution.  Keeping in mind that no work is ever lost (even if it is deleted), it is safer from both a legal perspective and a moral perspective to remove or hide questionable material as soon as it is noticed.  The burden is on the contributing editor to support inclusion per wikipolicy.  For the most part this is a satisfactory solution in that validate content can and usually is quickly validated while content that is questionable and can not be supported or supplied by an editor who is not aware of policy, does no harm while waiting for the final decision to be made.  Jeepday (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * "Material that we know may be an infringement" seems to me a very odd phrase. We know that almost anything may be an infringement: certainly any photo could have been taken by someone else than the person who claims to have taken it, and any time someone writes an article it could have been plagiarizded from an offline source. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Every potential copyright infringement that is reported regardless if it is speedy,  or a new posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for investigation should be posted with the suspected source of the copyvio. So, "Material that we know may be an infringement" is material that appears to be copy and paste from another location where the location is provided in the posting about the potential copyvio.  An admin will review the potential copyvio, to see if there is a problem or not then take the appropriate action.  Material that may be plagiarized from an offline source would be subject to WP:V and WP:OR, Which combine to say we don't except Original research, so please list the source(s), which is followed up by  or  as required.  Images without proper sourcing or licensing are covered at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.  There are no gaps in the policy.  Jeepday (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ** The case I'm looking at here is Gas Works Park. There is no lack of citation, so WP:V and WP:OR don't enter the picture. There is no online source, so "cut and paste" is not an issue. But, as I explain at Talk:Gas Works Park, I strongly suspect (from looking at the article history) that the major portion of the article constitutes a copyright violation of an offline source I haven't seen. Maybe the discussion is best continued on that talk page; I don't see any sanctioned way to raise my suspicions on this project page without first blanking or stubbing the article. If someone thinks that's what should happen, go for it. And, by the way, I am an admin. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it seems like :Template:Cv-unsure would be the place to start in that situation (I'm referring to this in the theoretical, so I'm not checking into the below). So far as I know, there's no mandate to remove material that you suspect to be a copyright violation if you do not have a source to compare it to. WP:C says "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation on Wikipedia's part. If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed." The instructions at this page for removal are for material that "infringes copyright". Without a source to compare, there may not be compelling evidence that material infringes copyright, so (in that case) there should be be no mandate to blank. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Second everything that Moonriddengirl, has said. Also I agree that Talk:Gas Works Park would be a better forum for this specific article discussion. I would disagree with you on the quality and quantity of citation in the article, there is lots of room for improvement in the article Gas Works Park.  If you have any doubt about the source, accuracy or neutrality of the content, place one or several .  Depending on the severity, it may more appropriate to remove the content from the main space to the talk space while requesting validation of copyright status or other verification. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *In such a case, I would regard that as "compelling evidence that material infringes copyright" even in the lack of text to compare. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process question 

message: Extensive issues. I'm out of time for today (I'm actually well over time for today), but there's a big potential problem with the contributions of User:Edelmand. Investigating June 8th listings, I came upon his (<--assuming) article Hunt Armory, which contained significant copyright infringement, though by his note on the talk page he didn't seem to understand why. When I headed over to his talk page to explain more about the necessary use of quotations (and the fair use limits of same), I discovered that he had also been tagged for duplicating text from other Wikipedia articles. I left him a note about both types of copyright concerns, here. But having just been reminded a few sections above that we need to check other contributions, I've been going through his list of created articles on his user page. I have identified one other GFDL concern, handled, but more seriously have found sentences or significant phrases copied in 5 of the other 9 articles I've looked at so far (starting from the bottom of the list): :Seattle Pop Festival, :Montreux Casino, The Drake Hotel, New York, Pirate's World, and Bill Curbishley. I have applied at least band-aids where possible, putting quotations marks around material I find copied verbatim from other sources, but there are quite a few articles still to examine in that list. (I'm maintaining a list or problematic articles as I go at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox to be sure I follow up.) I've been finding it helpful to look at the foundational edit, as some of these issues have been softened by subsequent contributors. Compare this, for instance, with this, where the connection remains quite clear. 
I don't have any reason to believe that there is any intentional violation, mind you, and depending on how the editor responds to my note don't necessarily expect any problems as he moves forward, but clean up of previous material could be significant. Anyone available to google a few idiomatic phrases? I'm done for today, but will resume tomorrow. Let me know what you've done, if you go at them, and I won't duplicate efforts. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request help investigating contribs 

message: I've found the following text:
:The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.
Is it a correct rule?  In Japanese Wikipedia, they always delete copyvio versions even when the latest version is clean.  Is it okay to have a copyvio version in English Wikipedia if it is not the latest?  If yes, why? - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is my interpretation, anyway. :) Yes, it's okay, unless the copyright holder requests its removal, when US law mandates that we comply. Material in history is not technically published, as it is not visible, so it is not infringing on copyright. It can be very difficult to remove a copyright violation that has been added in part to an article. Say on January 20 2008 User:BadStuff adds one paragraph of text to a three paragraph article that he or she has copied from another website. For the following four months, editors contribute to that article as normal, turning the four paragraph brief article into a 12 paragraph amazing article, but not eradicating the copyright violation. On June 2nd, somebody edits the article in such a way that the copyright violation is eradicated from the article. We discover the situation on June 15th. If we removed the copyright violations from history, we would have to erase every edit subsequent to January 20th, including the most recent, which does not contain copyright violations. We'd have to do that to comply with GFDL, since we could not use the material contributed by editors during those four months without acknowledging their authorship in history and we would have eliminated that acknowledgment. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater (as the idiom goes), we remove the copyrighted text and leave a note cautioning against its restoration. Obviously, there are cases where removal of the copyvio from history is not that complex, and in those cases deletion from history is a simple matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'm rather surprised to know that. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Japanese Wikipedian told me that under the Japanese law, copyright violation continues if it can be accessed from the history page. (:ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:著作権侵害への対処#過去の版の著作権侵害)  That's why Japanese Wikipedia deletes all versions with copyright violation. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that. :) Different countries, different laws. Someday the US law may go that way, but at the moment Wikipedia seems to be more vigilant than US law requires, as we address copyright concerns from anyone, not just the copyright holder.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  older versions with copyright violation 

message: I just found out that the copyvio template over at Wikisource (wikisource:Template:Copyvio) automatically hides everything else on the articles page, see example s:Split Cherry Tree.  Any thoughts about using the same magic over here? Jeepday (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good idea to me! I've encountered tons of articles that haven't properly been blanked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the skills to include command in the template? Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no. Technologically, I have the skills of a hamster. (Well, a hamster that could once code a little in Apple Basic...and was darned proud of it, too.) :/ It might be a good idea to bring this up at WP:VP/PR, where not only will others see and have a chance to respond, but some of them might be templaters. :)  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The magic in the template is to put unclosed  at the end of the template so that rest of the article becomes invisible. --Kusunose 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Some article talk pages transclude , adding this feature to the template would hide rest of discussion in those pages. --Kusunose 06:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That would be a problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took a look at the talk pages with the template, in each case the template is only placed on the talk page.  This brings up that occasionally the template is used on only a section rather then the whole article, we should be able to address both concerns of only hidding part (or none) or the text be putting directions at the bottom of the template "To limit blanking of text place </div> at the end of the suspected copyvio area".  It becomes a question of is it more appropriate to set up a template to have built in function to error on the side of blanking or not blanking when there is a serious question as to copyright violations. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's a simple work-around, then I suppose it wouldn't be problematic. I've encountered a number of copyvios today that have been up and forward in spite of the copyvio tag. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like it is getting close to time to be WP:BOLD, would you like the honors? Jeepday (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like this one should be yours, since it was your idea. :D I wouldn't mind, but I'm nervous enough about that wacky coding stuff to be scared it would go wrong. :) (I guess we could test it...?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will post a message at both of the templates and direct editors to this talk, if things still look like a go and no "Tempalte experts" step forward to do the work, then as you have been doing most of the work here recently, the fun of trying it should fall to you (Moonriddengirl). I am here if you need support, and if we make a mess I will help clean it up.  redirects to , I invite you to go to  and practice away.  I built a page at User:Jeepday/Testing Copyvio Template that you can practice using the template as you build it.  Doing the speedy delete first will probably be easier because it does not have to be substited so you can test with show preview but if you want to go with the , you are welcome to. You can practice with the templates in test while we are waiting a couple days for feedback from the templates talk watchers. Jeepday (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, no. I'll work on the copyvio template, but I will not attempt to change  unless you get consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I've already been involved in a big revision project for the db templates, and I know what a tricky process that can be. Since I'm also already involved in several discussions there, I won't propose it myself. If you want that one altered, that's up to you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. I've implemented the change to . Needed only a little tweaking in my test subpage before it worked all right. Here's hoping that unforeseen breakage/problems don't occur. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm all for adding some auto-hide to .  I've always kinda' wondered why the regular copyvio template asked users to blank but the speedy template didn't (well, I'd assume to make it easier to check, and they're gonna' get deleted fast anyway), and as long as the text is still at least in the edit box it shouldn't be that difficult for admins to look at it.  No comment for , since I'm not active over there.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay. It worked all right at copyviocore, although I first I thought I'd messed it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since speedies are (obviously) speedy deleted anyway, I am not sure if auto hide is a benefit there. It only makes more work for the deleting admin. With wp:cp it's different since those are kept at least for another 14 days before deleting (or not). Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The speed of delete is a good point Garion96 and very much worth considering.  I am not sure about the extra work though, as the admin should be looking through history for a good version before deleting "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving". Jeepday (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding looking at the history, all true. I do think auto hide makes it all a bit less easy. If only for the fact that I always check if it is a copyvio or not before I do anything else. (like looking at the history, deciding to delete etc). Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frequently you find that copyvios have been replaced by the speedy template. How would this proposal be different in added workload for the admin?  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The argument for more work for the admin is moot as seen in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins reviewing the history of the article is a requirement before deleting it (one could argue that blanking it would encourage the admin to follow the procedure). Presumably the argument about 48 hour limit for deleting copyvio's relates only to speedy delete, which has been changed to "introduced at once by a single person", with multiple editors requiring  for more intense review at "Copyright problems".  Passage of time measured in less then decades does not impact copyright law.  Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been preoccupied and kind of forgot about this. Sorry! I'm sort of with you that as reviewing the history is required anyway, it doesn't seem much of an additional burden to hide the copyvio. Perhaps it would be worth revisiting in the future regardless. I may bring up the matter again when I have more onWiki time and am not already involved in evidently contentious matters at CSD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto hide text on post of template 

message: I built the test template  and installed it as a test on User:Jeepday/Testing Copyvio Template, I will post a conversation about it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in a couple hours as real life is calling right now. Jeepday (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. It worked all right at copyviocore, although I first I thought I'd messed it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since speedies are (obviously) speedy deleted anyway, I am not sure if auto hide is a benefit there. It only makes more work for the deleting admin. With wp:cp it's different since those are kept at least for another 14 days before deleting (or not). Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The speed of delete is a good point Garion96 and very much worth considering.  I am not sure about the extra work though, as the admin should be looking through history for a good version before deleting "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving". Jeepday (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding looking at the history, all true. I do think auto hide makes it all a bit less easy. If only for the fact that I always check if it is a copyvio or not before I do anything else. (like looking at the history, deciding to delete etc). Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frequently you find that copyvios have been replaced by the speedy template. How would this proposal be different in added workload for the admin?  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The argument for more work for the admin is moot as seen in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins reviewing the history of the article is a requirement before deleting it (one could argue that blanking it would encourage the admin to follow the procedure). Presumably the argument about 48 hour limit for deleting copyvio's relates only to speedy delete, which has been changed to "introduced at once by a single person", with multiple editors requiring  for more intense review at "Copyright problems".  Passage of time measured in less then decades does not impact copyright law.  Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've been preoccupied and kind of forgot about this. Sorry! I'm sort of with you that as reviewing the history is required anyway, it doesn't seem much of an additional burden to hide the copyvio. Perhaps it would be worth revisiting in the future regardless. I may bring up the matter again when I have more onWiki time and am not already involved in evidently contentious matters at CSD. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Db-g12/test hide copyvio

message: I've been seeking out and tagging articles that copy and paste protected material from other websites, and I was wondering if there is a list of sites (or at least the major sites) that mirror Wikipedia's content.  Does anyone know of such a list?  Bms4880 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  patrolling for copypastes &mdash; list of mirror sites 

message: Someone at the talk page of our Facebook is wondering if we are allowed to use that trademark. It's propably a stupid question, but are we violating anything? Cheers, Face 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Facebook would say so, I think. :) According to their website, FACEBOOK is a registered trademark and "Company's trademarks and trade dress may not be used, including as part of trademarks and/or as part of domain names, in connection with any product or service in any manner that is likely to cause confusion and may not be copied, imitated, or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the Company." (Their right to the use of the name has been recently challenged, but it either hasn't resolved yet or was settled favorably to Facebook, I guess, given that they still display the notice.) Facebook is registered and well-known. It would come down to a question of (1) similarity of trademark and (2) similarity of product/service. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read that section, after which I concluded that we're not violating it. We do not use the trademark as (part of) our own trademarks or domains, the page itself is not a "product or service", and it will unlikely "cause confusion" over anything, so no problem. That dispute is interesting, as it correctly states that "facebook" is a term that was already used before the start of Facebook to refer to a page with faces of colleagues/students/friends and such. It was also the name that Raul used when he first set up the page on April 21, 2004, when Facebook was barely started. As for Greenspan's legal effort, according to this article published 5 days ago, it has not been settled, and propably won't get settled any time soon. A call for cancellation of a trademark seems a rather difficult procedure. Cheers, Face 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just saw that this isn't the first time that the name of this page is disputed, see here and here. Consensus was never reached though. Cheers, Face 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trademark is not my area. :) I tried to figure out how litigious Facebook is, but all I keep finding is reference to their being sued. Which, in a way, could be an answer. (That's an active MfD!) I'd say if somebody feels renaming is necessary, they probably ought to treat it like any other controversial move. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should discuss this at WP:C, which may get a wider range of responders than this page. It's always possible, of course, that somebody familiar with trademark can pop in, but there are only a few people who seem to respond with any regularity here. (Of course, for all I know, User:Jeepday is a trademark attorney. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to spoil your image, but I am not a trademark attorney, I can't offer anything definitive but it seems to me there is ethical violation at the very least. http://www.facebook.com/ is "Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you." and Wikipedia:Facebook appears to be using a distinct similarity with a commercial site to mimic the function of that site in a smaller and more local usage. I think Kingturtle's suggestion of a change to Wikipedia:Faces would eliminate any question, and not detract from the page in the slightest. Jeepday (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark 

message: In the Wikipedia article Polygamy in the United States I found some text I had contributed to a different Wikipedia article. However my userid does not appear in the edit history of the new article; a different user copied it over to this article. I always thought that under GFDL, all contributors are entitled to attribution. We have discussed this on the talk page, but the user takes the position that “imitation is the best form of flattery”. I wonder if someone could help sort out this situation. If I am wrong then I owe the other user an apology, but if I am right then I would like to ensure that the other user does not do this again. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not wrong. I'll come help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved from one Wikipedia article to another without preserving edit history 

message: The user who uploaded :Image:CANDYMAN.jpg‎ doesnt seem to understand that what public domain is, and that photobucket is a hosting website.  Can someone please take over?  I've lost my patience.  Qb | your 2 cents 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing Patience 

message: This is an engraving or drawing published in Harpers Weekly in 1875. Obviously something published in 1875 is now PD but the site hosting the pic is a State website: . I think I'm ok here to use it but would rather have a second opinion. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I think you're fine, too, as "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain", but I'd answer that a whole lot more assertively if I could see the picture on the site and verify that there isn't some special factor to take into consideration here. The session on your link timed out, so I couldn't take a look at the image. If you want to be particularly careful, you may wish to post this at :Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is the suggested forum for image questions. Somebody else may answer it here, but that's where I go when I have image questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I will post over there soon. --Brad (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on PD pic. 

message: I'm a longtime reader/user of Wikipedia; this is my first post. I recently purchased an ebook in which two appendices have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, one of them from a section on memory, another on mindmaps. The material wasn't similar in tone to the rest of the book, so I put it into a search engine and turned up the Wikipedia source. When I contacted the author, the author said it was an oversight and will now cite Wikipedia as the source, though presumably he will continue to sell the material and put his own copyright on it. 
I have posted on the discussion pages for both topics. This section looks relevant as well, though you're used to dealing with copyright problems coming into Wikipedia, not going out. What action do you recommend? Is anyone interested in taking this up as well? You would probably want to verify my claim; I'm happy to provide evidence.  
I might also mention why I care: because I admire Wikipedia and believe in building the cultural commons, I find this sort of piracy repugnant. 
OrangeBlueRed (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Welcome. :) Sorry that your first post is on such an unpleasant issue. I find it repugnant as well. :/ Reusers: rights and obligations sets out what that author needs to do to use that material. He is within his legal right to sell it; he is not within his legal right to publish it under his own copyright as if it is his. Since it's an e-book, I would assume that you don't have any recourse to a publisher or somebody with editorial control to make sure that future editions comply. I have read more about this somewhere on Wikipedia; I wish I could remember where. (Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content doesn't say anything more than the first link.) I'll look around and see if I can dig up something more specific. Meanwhile, maybe somebody will pop by here who knows. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some more information on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Garion96 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ended up confronting the author, who wanted me to remove a negative review I had posted on my own website. After a back and forth via email, he agreed to remove the Wikipedia material from what he was selling. I need to check his stuff but otherwise I consider the matter solved. OrangeBlueRed (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia use policy violation 

message: I have received a response from Madam Stiegler and am discussing the situation with her, and I hope that we will be receiving permission to use the material soon. If we do, the question of the usability of the material by copyright concerns will be resolved, although content concerns may still remain. 
I contacted the Stieglers on this matter with the knowledge, as I indicated here, that “Most of the people that I've approached have been agreeable.” It doesn’t surprise me that the Stieglers may prove to be as well. But even “the world’s great philosophers” appreciate the importance of intellectual property laws, which exist (after all) to protect them. By ensuring we comply with those laws, we not only protect ourselves, we also demonstrate our respect for their work. Patience in such cases hurts nothing.
Mtevfrog, I would urge you to read over WP:OWN, as the behavior you have demonstrated here, including your ongoing failure to assume good faith with contributors who disagree with you and your removal of appropriate maintenance tags (not only the copyvio tag, which clearly indicates it should not be removed, but the Primary Sources tag which blatantly applies), does lend itself to the interpretation that you are not open to community input. Our behavioral conduct expectations are ingrained in our five pillars. A confrontational style of discourse is inappropriate and unhelpful.
I’ll update again as the conversation continues. I hope that now lines of communication are open (and we are communicating through personal e-mail address, as opposed to the general website address), it will resolve quickly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mme Stiegler has now granted permission and indicates as much at the Stiegler's website, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are Multiple issues beyond copyright which I brought up at Talk:Technics and Time, 1#Multiple issues beyond copyright. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I see you have tagged the article. Perhaps those concerns will be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: * User:Mtevfrog is the only editor on Wikipedia who has argued for maintaining the article in full version.  Editors who question or or supporting a condensed version of the article are 
# User:ViperSnake151 diff, 
# User:EALacey who besides bring the issue here posted a  on the article diff, which was removed by User:Mtevfrog in one of the many reversals the user has made to other editors work, I do not find a single edit by an editor other then User:Mtevfrog, that has been unchallenged, all edits are reverted or other wise modified, a clear violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
# User:DGG diff
# User:Moonriddengirl who has been exceedingly patient in her multiple dealings on this subject here.
# User:Jeepday who suggested  diff that Mtevfrog recognize that consensus and make the required changes to the article. 
*User:Mtevfrog is invited to bring this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, if he continues to question the consensus of the multiple editors here.
I checked and did not find a suitable condensed version to revert to, I will be preforming the condensing in the next few minutes.
Signed Jeepday (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary. I have argued that the summary constitutes an abridgment, which is a violation of copyright (and I have quoted relevant case law to support that). User:EALacey has also argued that the article violates copyright. If at some point in the future, the author should choose to respond to the request for permission, then that concern would be alleviated, although content concerns might still remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Close and condense

message: Obviously, I'm missing something somewhere and I don't know enough about the backend of Wikipedia to find it.
I loaded 2 images and thought I had all of the tags filled in correctly... evidently not, as I received a "we're going to remove it" message the next day.  I searched around for the appropriate copyright tag and I thought I had it filled in correctly... again, evidently not, as 1 of them has been removed.
Page - Norwegian Lundehund
Image - Vaeroy.jpg
Someone help me figure out why the copyright tags are wrong so I can fix them and not do it wrong in the future.  Please!  :)
Peter Rousseau - Webmaster, NLAA (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Questions about images are best posted to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you will receive responses from editors more specifically focused on copyright and media. However, a quick glance at this particular image tells me that you assert that Anneli Rosenberg is the copyright holder. As you are not the copyright holder, we need verification from her that it is released. If Rosenberg granted permission to Ski's owners, that doesn't tell us that she has also granted permission for its placement on Wikipedia under the tagged license. Similarly, :Image:Vaeroy.jpg says permission was granted for NLAA use, which doesn't verify that it is granted to use by everyone. You may wish to visit WP:Permissions to get information on how to verify the permission of the photographer under a license that Wikipedia can use. But, again, a more detailed response may be available at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about asking this in the wrong area... didn't see a specific media section.
I am Ski's owner, along with Annelli, so I can assure you it's okay to use. :)  In this case, Anneli was the photographer & we were both co-owners of the dog, so I believe this grants us both control of the photo.  
With the Vaeroy photo... I'm the webmaster for NLAA and I can assure you that Pederson allowed the unlimited use to NLAA, provided it was used to promote the Lundehund.
So, you're saying I used the *wrong* copyright tag, not that I put it in the wrong place and/or formatted it wrong... is that correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NLAAwebmaster (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I may not be able to give you much more information than I already have. I do very little with images, unless they are blatant copyright violations. I suggest Wikipedia:Media copyright questions not just because it's the recommended forum, but because I believe you'll get a more informed response there. :) That said, the copyright of a photograph is owned by the photographer, which may not give you right to release it even if you and Anneli co-owned the dog. You should seek further information about that at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As far as Pederson's permission, no such restrictions can be put on photos that are placed on Wikipedia. The license granted by Pederson must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. (See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) We cannot guarantee that this image would be used only to promote the Lundehund. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed due to copyright violation 

message: Just a quick note to invite comment here on a proposal to create a new criterion for speedy deletion. The proposed criterion is that where an uploader has supplied a copyright tag but has specified a third party as the content owner, without any evidence that their permission was ever given, the media will be speedied seven days after the uploader is notified if no such permission is forthcoming. This is equivalent to the NPD process used at Commons, and parallel to our NSD and NLD. Please weigh in! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New copyright-related CSD criterion proposal 

message: One thing this template () doesn't address is the concern for GFDL violation. Our licensing being what it is, Wikipedia's contributors don't release their material into public domain. They retain the right to authorship credit. When contributors rewrite a page to remove copyright infringement, they must be careful not to utilize text that has been contributed by other Wikipedians. If they do, and we delete the original while replacing it with the temporary, then we are infringing the copyright of those contributors. The current text says
I propose revising this to read
I'm inclined to think, though, that this is a tad bit long. Feedback? Assistance? I think this is an important concern to address, as I'm not sure that many contributors are aware that Wikipedia does not own the copyright of material it hosts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of feedback, I've added the following: "For GFDL compliance, the new article cannot incorporate phrases and sentences that were placed in the original article by other contributors. You may, however, duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself" Still open to feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hrm, this is difficult for many people to understand which means we need to try to keep it simple.  The problem is that to re-write the article you probably will need to use many of the same facts, which is fine, it's the presentation of them that is protected, often you can incorporate phrases and telling editors they need to "re-write" often results in nothing more than a change in the sequence which doesn't get past a violation if there is one.  I think we need to think on this more.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another concern about copyviocore 

message: Could someone aid Leoboudv with his concerns about :Image:Seuserenra Khian.JPG? He believes that it is a copyright violation, but is unclear about how to handle it. (He has left 2 successive requests for help, then deleted each before I saw them.) I would help him myself, but despite my long tenure at Wikipedia, I don't know much more about the process than he does. (Which consists of, when in doubt, look up the relevant pages & follow the current version of the instructions.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for help 

message: Copyright problems' handling of images is redundant to WP:CSD#I9 and WP:PUI. I propose it should be removed to help simplify the image deletion process. Blatant copyright violations (with links, normally) should be tagged with  and those that require discussion should go to WP:PUI. BJTalk 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree. Do we need to village pump this or bring it up elsewhere in order to gain consensus for implementation? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it I think. It needs some work though, template:imagevio needs to be addressed. People have to choose whether the image needs a speedy tag or a PUI tag. The listing here at CP is still a leftover from when copyvio's were not speedy deleted. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay. That's a bit bolder than I usually go (WP:Bold notwithstanding), but I'll follow along. :) I've done some revision of the CP instructions with that in mind. But, note, Dumbbot currently lists items at :Category:Possible copyright violations on WP:CP. This includes image vios as well as text vios. Thoughts on handling that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone told the bot's owner yet?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. I've been thinking about it and how it works. It seems to me that what we need to do is mark Template:Imagevio as historical or something, to keep it from being used, and instead direct people to PUI or CSD. I'm not really sure the protocol of marking a template historical. :) At this point, I'm planning to move images from copyvio to whichever board seems more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified User:Tizio of the change.  Pretty radical application of WP:Bold, but probably a good thing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) Do you know of any deprecated templates? How does one go about doing that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Template added. BJTalk 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: As a test, I have created tomorrow's page in advance, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 16 (it isn't linked from anywhere yet, though). Let me know if there is anything to change. Schutz (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me! Thank you very much! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so the new bot will run tonight at 0:00UTC, as usual — I'll keep an eye on it, but let me know if anything goes wrong. Schutz (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Found a problem! The copyvio template directs to the subpage. I've attempted to fix it (doesn't look that hard), but will be watching carefully when the wikiday turns around to be sure that I have! (When towards the end of the day we only had one listing, I had a feeling something had gone wonky. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have messed up Zorglbot for today. :/ Not sure what I did to it, but the 17th isn't showing up. Maybe it'll pop up later? I'll keep an eye on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot will not do anything if the page already exists (even if it has been blanked) — someone may already have created it manually, so it is better not to mess with it. My log file indeed shows that the page was already there and that the bot skipped it; however, it was correctly added to the list of copyright problems. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. I had created it. :) I was so anxious to see if I had fixed the copyvio template that I tested it probably precisely at 0:00. (I did not want to find out that copyvios weren't logged because I messed up the template!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove images from copyright problems 

message: I posted "Bruce Crane" last week and indicated on its talk page, and on my talk page, that copyright permission had already been given. The text for the article comes from the website of the Florence Griswold Museum, which has agreed (under the terms of GFDL) to allow publication of its text on another website. Copyright permission was emailed from the museum to Wikimedia on September 5, 2008. What more do I have to do to keep the article up? Art History 1 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for the Wikimedia Foundation to receive your clearance and duly record it at the article, at which point the article's contents will be restored. Very occasionally, it is necessary to resend the clearance letter, but I personally don't suggest doing this until at least seven days after you've first sent it. These matters are usually cleared within that period. On the very remote chance that the article is deleted prior to that clearance being recorded, it will be restored if and when that clearance is received. This happens occasionally, but, really, not often. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add one note (since I see it has now been exactly 7 days): you should be sure that the letter that you sent follows the steps at WP:Permission, including a link to the article in question on Wikipedia and using the language specified in the boilerplate template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Your permissions letter may conform to that perfectly, but I wanted to make note of it in case it did not. :) If you do wind up resending it, you want to be sure that it covers all necessary ground just to prevent additional delays. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously Given Copyright Permission 

message: I've come across a couple of articles - Imani Coppola and Little Jackie (band)  - in which much of the content appears to have been put together by stitching together long quotes takes from copyright articles. Most of the quotes are well sourced, so comparison with the original articles is not that difficult.
I'd like a second opinion from a seasoned copyvio fighter. Is there a problem, can it be fixed by severe pruning or should the articles be deleted and restarted? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes. That's some serious stringing together of quotes! I would go for severe pruning with a note at the article's talk page pointing out WP:NFC and the guidelines set out there on "brief quotations", including the relevant bit: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've left a note, which I'll expand, on the IC article; and contacted the single author of the LJ article. Can you confirm that if the articles are not severely pruned, they should be deleted? (I'm afraid I'm not up for doing the pruning - there's other stuff I'd prefer to be doing - but I want to make sure the advice I give to the author(s) of the articles is correct.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say they should be deleted as a first resort; I'd say they should be stubbed. This is particularly true of Imani Coppola, which was not always in that condition and could be reverted to an earlier version. But investigating points out another problem. Little Jackie (band) was split without attribution, which is itself problematic by GFDL. I'll attend to that one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've left a note to the editor who split the articles. But this makes clear that he or she (unless a name change) didn't actually create this pastiche of quotes. This was started here by User:Reservoirhill. That's probably the editor to address in the NFC matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll talk to User:Reservoirhill now & let User:ChillaxNOW know that I might have been beating him/her up for something that someone else did. I greatly appreciate your input; many thanks to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. Just to note, this patchwork style seems to be the  modus operandi; there are several other articles which have exactly the same issues. I've left a note for the user, but have a heavy feeling that we may have to revert a not insubstantial number of articles if the user will not do the extensive editing necessary to correct the problems. It's quote ruined my evening: I was all set to write another article about very obscure (but notable) minor nineteenth century poets :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised my opinion. After examining the parent article quite closely, I believe these should blanked pending resolution one way or another. I have blanked the parent article. It takes enough content from the source I've identified to seriously infringe on copyright there, attribution and quotation marks notwithstanding. I'm out of time now, but if the other articles you see are similarly extensively drawing from single sources, you may wish to follow suit. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (And if you've run your Wikiclock down, too, I'll take a look when I get back. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm teetering, but if I don't do it now, I too shall return.) I've done the LJ article, but not examined in enough detail other inserts by . --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles composed of multiple copyvios?