Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 1

message: How about this from http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/about/disclaimer.asp ?
"Copyright
"This WWW site and its contents are copyright to Landcare Research New Zealand Limited and may be copied for personal, non-profit or educational purposes provided that the source is acknowledged. The information must not be used for commercial purposes without prior written consent from Landcare Research."
We are "non-profit" and (we hope) "educational purposes"; we can acknowledge the source. Can we therefore copy?
Robin Patterson 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notices that say one CAN use the material

message: "You may freely use these maps for non-profit use, if you like. Please link to this page in the case you use them." http://dobeln0.tripod.com/maps.html
:User:Jimbo Wales has stated that such "non-commercial only" images are not acceptable on Wikipedia (see his statement). Hairy Dude 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MAPS

message: A question: if I develop an online textbook on an upcoming Wiki textbook site is it copyright infringement to use the chapter order and structure of an established textbook in the area if I develop all of the content below that level ? Should I change the order arbitrarily to some degree ? Would it be enough to have several possible views of the order, one of which is the overall structure of the reference textbook ? User:Karlwick
:IANAL, but I would think that only the content of a work would be significant for copyright purposes. In some cases a particular structure is the obviously correct one and claiming copyright on the structure in such cases would strike me as absurd. Hairy Dude 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Textbook structure copyright

message: I want to upload a screenshot of a particular 1980s computer's startup splashscreen. This would come under fair use (or better) wouldn't it? Does the same apply for in-game screenshots?
:A court would generally rule in favor of fair use of in-game screenshots on the basis they are used for educational means, and don't capture the heart of the content, that is they typically do not qualify as individual portraits per se, but an interactive movie.  See 
:The computer startup splashscreen should be fair use as well. See :Category:Fair use screenshots -- Dtgm 03:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Screenshots

message: Can I include song lyrics as part of an album article? I've collected the lyrics over time and I don't know from where anymore, but since you could get them by listening to the songs, I would imagine that there wouldn't be a problem. Dori Jul 8 2003
:You can quote a line or two without any problems, but putting up a whole set of lyrics is generally in violation of copyright; by default you don't have the right to reproduce the article, which for CDs covers the lyrics, sheet music, tablature etc in addition to the actual audio. Plus, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a repository for primary sources. -- Jim Regan 02:53 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Seeing as the official sites do not include lyrics, would it then be OK to link to sites containing the lyrics, even though *they* would be violating copyrights? Dori 03:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::I don't see why not. -- Jim Regan 03:18 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::I do see why not.  from WP:EL, "Occasionally acceptable links" number 5
::::External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
:::--Jon513 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Song Lyrics

message: If you are in the US and this is for an educational institution for a course and not a book or for fee publication, and you don't repetitively use the same work for many years, it appears that this would be fair use and you can completely ignore the provisions of the Wikipedia license. As a courtesy you should credit and link to the project and make the work from Wikipedia open - and there's nothing you can do which can make that portion anything but open. Caution: This response applies specifically to the situation I have described and is not a complete statement of law in that area. Others should not attempt to use this statement for anything other than the specific case I have described - other situations would not be able to exploit a specific exemption which is in the law.JamesDay 09:56, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational Institutions

message: I have some pictures that I scanned from a book. These are pretty old so I don't think they are in copyright, but even if they were, I don't think the book has copyrights to them as they are not the original authors. Also, these have been scanned and had their size modified (relatively small, not that great a quality), so I don't think they could be under copyright, but I want to make sure. Two of them are painting of portraits of historical figures, and two are faxes of historical documents. thanks --Dori 21:22, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are at least simple pictures, the question is from when and by whom the original pictures are. - Andre Engels 12:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: They would certainly be copyrighted - a copyright notice has not been necessary since ca. 1978 in the US, and since ages in Europe. I'm not making any statement about fair use. - Andre Engels 12:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scanned Pictures

message: I own a book that I think has passed into public domain, and might be a good source for the (currently somewhat light) engineering section of Wikipedia. It's Mechanics of Materials by Laurson and Cox, 2nd edition (the Wiley & Sons edition, not the Chapman & Hall Amazon is selling). I went here and looked through the renewals for 74, 75, 76 and 63, 64, 65 (since the copyright dates listed are 1938 and 1947), and couldn't find it under the title or either of the authors' names. Is this enough effort to consider it expired, or should I do more?  Thanks in advance, Joel 03:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The good folks at Wikipedia:Reference Desk sugggested I direct this question here, due to your specialized interest.  So, uh...what do you guys think?--Joel 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no response, I'm going to go ahead and post the same question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright.  Feel free to answer either location.--Joel 02:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright expiration

message: Hello. I have a question about text copied from a source which I believe is in the public domain. The source in question is the Oxford Book of English Verse. Here is the bibliography data from :
 AUTHOR: Quiller-Couch, Arthur Thomas, Sir, 1863?1944.
 TITLE: The Oxford book of English verse, 1250?1900, chosen & edited by A. T. Quiller-Couch.
 PUBLISHED: Oxford: Clarendon, 1919, [c1901].
 PHYSICAL DETAILS: xix, 1084 p.; 17 cm.
 ISBN: 1-58734-040-2.
 CITATION: Quiller-Couch, Arthur Thomas, Sir. The Oxford Book of English Verse. Oxford: Clarendon, 1919, [c1901]; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/101/. [Date of Printout].
 ON-LINE ED.: Published January 1999 by Bartleby.com; © Copyright 1999 Bartleby.com, Inc. (Terms of Use).
It appears that the original edition was copyrighted in 1919 or 1901. Bartleby.com is also claiming a copyright. What, exactly, is the status of Bartleby's copyright? What, if anything, does their copyright apply to? -- In asking this question, I'm assuming that this text has entered the public domain (if not otherwise covered by Bartleby's copyright). Is that correct? Thanks for any insights you may have. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright would be on anything the Bartleby version differs from the original. In particular, it would be on the lay-out. - Andre Engels 12:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright claimed on Oxford Book of English Verse 

message: In the es.wikipedia we are planning to set up a bot to collect news, in order to help us with our Recent Events section. We plan to use Google News as a source. They told us they do not allow anybody to take their news (even if they took these same news themselves form other online publications). We need some advice. Are we getting into trouble if we use their news? What happens if we select them and/or mix them with other news sources, the result not being a verbatim copy of their news collection? -- 4lex 15:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you don't automatically include everything from Google, but use a real selection mechanism after it, I don't think they have any leg to stand on to forbid you. - Andre Engels 12:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Google news

message: At least in my part of the world (Romania), there have been (almost) no copyright regulations until 1994 (there were few exceptions regarding records, pictures, books made for export by state companies). Are they "fair use" or "public domain"? And if such how do we treat them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthar (talk • contribs) 22:59, 7 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Communist Countries and Copyright

message: As I understand it, anyone can register a domain name with the word "wiki" in it.  Is that correct?  I have a client who has an idea out of which they would like to create a wiki - but not in competition with any project now being undertaken (at least with public knowledge) by the Wiki Foundation.---JVian 23:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.  Feel free to use it. There will be no legal ramifications for appropriating the word, which did not originate at Wikipedia anyway.  Superm401 | Talk 03:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using "Wiki" in a domain name

message: I went to tag Michelle Paver as a copyvio - but found that the text is being reproduced by folk like amazon as blurb - does that mean that Wikipedia is free to use it? I run across this sort of thing before, and I don't want to give extra work by tagging these things if it is unneccessary. Please advise. --Doc (?) 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Publishers' Blurb

message: The Canadian contingent is running into a serious problem at the moment. The issue is that Canadian federal and provincial government images are released under a non-commercial Crown copyright license, so under the current policy, many images within :Category:Canada copyright images are being deleted.
The problem, however, is that includes images of flags, maps, government agency logos, official publicity portraits of political figures and Supreme Court judges, military decorations and badges, and other images where the subject's article requires some kind of image.
Wikipedia has to have a photograph of Adrienne Clarkson on her article. Wikipedia has to have a photograph of Bernard Lord on his article. Canadian Forces ranks and insignia has to have images of the insignia on it. And on and so forth. The informational value of the articles is severely compromised otherwise; the insignia article has no informational value whatsoever without images. But for the most part, GFDL or PD alternatives are simply not available.
Thus, two questions:
# Can such images be cited under fair use? 
# If this simply isn't possible, then what the hell is Wikipedia's Canadian contingent supposed to do if we can never illustrate any Canadian government-related article? Bearcat 07:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Images for deletion; see comments about image of Bernard Lord. Superm401 | Talk 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This has gone nine days without any response at all. Superm's comment at IFD just disputes my process in that individual case, and does nothing to actually answer my larger question. I have consequently initiated an RFC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Crown copyright. Bearcat 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian government copyright

message: I placed a question here, but it occurs to me that it was not the right place. If someone could take a look, I'd be grateful. Trollderella 18:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright question

message: One of the features of sound editing program Audacity is to give a visual representation of the audio, apparently based on volume. I uploaded a couple of these as visual aids for song articles (:Image:Layla audacity.PNG, :Image:ADITL in audacity.JPG). Currently, they are tagged as fair use. However, this poses the question: Does copyright extend to a visual representation of a song's volume? Deltabeignet 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Song-related opyright question

message: I recently found this website and was wondering about what permissions I would need to use such images. Do they already count for fair use as corporate logos? Do I need the website admin, who created the images using Adobe Paint (or something like that) based on photographs and decal scans? I was mainly going to use his images of minor/indoor football team helmets. Thanks in advance for any help provided. Youngamerican 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair use claim would be difficult, because the article is about the team, not the helmet.  However, it might be possible. See Wikipedia:fair use. Superm401 - Talk 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American football team helmet images

message: If a Wikipedia User created some material on SparkNotes and then cuts and pastes it verbatim from that site, is there a copyvio?  IANAL, and I don't understand SparkNotes' legalese here:
:All Content is copyrighted as a collective work under the U.S. copyright laws, and SparkNotes owns a copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement and enhancement of such Content. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the Content, in whole or in part.  
To me the implication is that SparkNotes gains ownership of anything not already owned, but someone else's expertise would be welcome. Thanks.  Deborah-jl Talk 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying text originally written by SparkNotes is definitely a violation, so tag them using .  Copying only public domain text from that site is legal unless SparkNotes has made significant creative changes to the text (which they usually haven't). If you have more questions, feel free to ask (providing an example might help). Superm401 - Talk 23:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SparkNotes

message: Can you comment on the following issue, transferred from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?
* Disputing GFDL on his work and making legal threats. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdraw of the GFDL-self license

message: i've not understood well the GFDL so here are my questions
*What are the requirement for importing GFDL content inside wikipedia
*What are the requirement for exporting GFDL content from wikipedia
*is there anything special about mooving content from a  wiki to another(such as copy the whole historic of the page)
*what if i want to print content from wikipedia in small quantity (less than 100)
do i only need to provide a link to tha wikipedia article(telling that the article was done with some wikipedia content) and licence the whole page as GFLD? or is there any others spedial requirement such as disposing the explanations or the link in a special place such as on the top of the page with a very big notice...do i need to provide the text of the gfdl licence on the page if this is the only page with gfdl content(for example wiki made without any notice of copyright...=>problematic for editing...lol)
i also think that adding 3 images from a commic (Lucky_Luke) in order to "illustrate a particular aspect" of the commic is fair use...i want to use that in uncyclopedia in order to tell that he is a criminal...tell me if i'm wrong...
00 tux 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GFDL import/export question

message: What are portals logged under when it comes to fair use? Portal:Pokémon recently had all it's images removed while FEATURED portals are sitting with Olympic logos on them, such as Portal:London.. I'd just like to know what to do because this has gone through a Featured Candidacy and no one even noted it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portals 

message: I listed  on TFD as it's a license tag that says "This media file is copyrighted to an Indian domain and all rights reserved by that domain" -- basically, that our use of the image is a copyright violation.  It was closed as a 2-2 no-consensus "keep". --Carnildo 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Wikipedia:Voting is evil. I believe Copyright violation takes priority over "democracy", given that the Wikimedia Foundation could get sued - or if becomes a serious problem, perhaps censored by the Indian govt. Perhaps alert an administrator to the situation? Bwithh 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a group of Wikipedians vote to violate copyright? 

message: *I believe something like 14 out of 18 images on this page are in violation of copyright.
*Question - How do I proceed with cleaning up these copyright violations? Just delete them en masse? The copyright template I found in the Wikipedia template list seems to be only for text, not images. Thanks for any guidance people can give me. 
*There was a hot dispute (raised voices and name-calling) in the discussion page of the article some time ago about even more copyright violations and the compromise solution see to be - cut the number of copyright violating images used in half, and retain the rest (yes, there used to be even more images on the page). I don't think this is an acceptable solution, though I understand why people (including myself) got tired of arguing about it. I've brought up the problem again recently on the discussion page but noone seems interested. Should I take unilateral action? Please see below for the situation details.
*I believe that many or even most of the images used on the page Hwang Woo-Suk violate copyright and also have misleading copyright "fair use" labels on the image files.
*The user who seems to have placed most of these images in the article apparently erroneously believes that the term fair use as based on "press release" status applies to all content and images available in the general news media, when actually the term only only applied to specific press releases and images from publicity and press relations offices. For instance, he thinks that this image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steam-cells-technique.PNG - taken from a  New Scientist magazine article is a press release image! Its clearly an image created by the New Scientist graphics department!
*There are multiple images in the article which are said to be "fair use" and sourced from "press release" materials from AP and Yahoo! and other commercial news agencies. In fact, these images are commercial news images by commercial news agencies - or if not by them, than by the commercial photojournalists who sold the photos to the agencies. So copyright is being violated since these as are not press release images as defined by Wikipedia:Publicity_photos
*A lot of the fair use rationale used to justify the images makes no sense or is very vague e.g. in the case of the image "Dr hwang athis office.jpg" - a photo which simply depicts Hwang walking through a doorway - this statement is made: "Adding the image on the article, adds substantial information to the article, on this case showing Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, while working at SNU, before his resignation in late 2005. Thus adding the image to the article clears the panorama and make the article better understood to the general public.". The image only gives us "substantial information" about the fact "panorama" concerning Hwang's ability to walk through doorways. There are other examples of weak or strange fair use rationale for images in the article e.g. for an image taken from a Norwegian TV website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hwang_Woo-suk-cloning.jpg , the reason "The original image it seems to come from a press kit, of Associated Press" is used. Press kits arent produced by news agencies, they come from corporate or governmental press offices. And "seems to come from" is too vague.
*Full list of images I think are in violation for the reasons above:
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dr-hwang-athis-office.jpg Violation of copyright of AP/Yahoo? (this is claimed to be a "press release" image from a outdated Yahoo or AP source - i doubt that a press office would release such a pointless or dismal publicity photo. The shot looks like its been taken by paparazzi.) 
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DrHwang-and-president.jpg Violation of Korea Times copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commemorative-stamp-stem-cell.jpg Violation of Reuters copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dr-hwang-and-team.jpg Violation of AP/Yahoo copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hwang_conference.jpg Violation of AP copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steam-cells-technique.PNG Violation of New Scientist copyright
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hwang_Woo-suk-cloning.jpg Violation of a Norwegian TV channel's copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Doctor-hwang-reporters.PNG Violation of AP Photo copyright
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Doctor-hwang-and-doctor-ianwilmut.jpg Violation of Korea Times copyright
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Doctor-hwang-quits.jpg Violation of Reuters / Yahoo copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg Violation of Yahoo/ AP/ Le Monde copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dr-hwang-2005-panel-snu.jpg Violation of Yahoo and AP copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dr-hwang-korean-flag.PNG Violation of Yahoo and Reuters copyright?
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Korean-support-hwang.jpg Violation of Yahoo / Reuters copyright?
Bwithh 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Image Copyright violations in [[Hwang Woo-Suk]] article

message: Can :Image:The-end.jpg be claimed as a PD image? The copyright on Winnie the Pooh has not expired. ~MDD4696 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winnie the Pooh 

message: I want to print (more than 100) copies of a collection of selected Wikipeedia articles - in fact, a book. It will be distributed under the GFDL. However, I am baffled by the practicalities of proper display of History and authors. Any help would be appreciated.
As I read the GFDL I need to document the history of any article, but can do so in a separate chapter at the back of the book. What part of the revision history is required?
Do I have to print the contents of the entire revision history for a given article?
Who do I credit as authors when 1000 people have contributed to a given article?
I realize that just printing a URL is not satisfactory. 
Is there a special page that can list the authors of a given page in a practical format?
It is sufficent to credit Wikipedia usernames or nicknames?
best regards Schade chr 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Printing a collection of Wikipedia articles under the GFDL

message: The article Geocacher's Creed is a direct cut-and-paste of www.geocreed.info. The licence at the bottom of the article (and the website) says, "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. You may freely use and share it long as you credit www.geocreed.info and do not alter, transform or build upon the work!" From that statement, I do not believe it is a copyright violation to cut-and-paste the text from the original website to the wikipedia article, which is why I have not reported it as a copyright violation.
However, my concern is that the licence expressly forbids altering the work. Therefore, any editor who revises the wiki article is breaching the licence. This defeats the purpose of wikipedia (and the agreement made by contributors to abide by wikipedia's rules). 
I have tried to find wikipedia's policies that govern this situation and haven't found it yet, or a means other than this talk page to "report" the problem. Agent 86 20:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's licensed under the CC-BY-ND license, which is not a free license, and is very much not the GFDL.  Report it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Carnildo 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creative Commons Licence and [[Geocacher's Creed]]

message: Can fair use images be used in templates? --83.135.96.132 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Carnildo 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use 

message: A user has taken this photograph of a movie poster:  :Image:Return of the King (Tokyo).jpg and licenced it with . I find this inappropriate, however I'd like to get others' opinions on what to do. __meco 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded that photo.  I'm fine having it removed if people deem it inappropriate for a free project.  Cheers.  A-giau 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a photograph of a movie poster from some (small) distance enough to circumvent copyright?