Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems: Difference between revisions

For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

See also: m:copyright, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop, and m:non-free content

Ennui (sonnet)

The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian [1].

"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."

appears in both, for instance.

Picture copyright violation

File:901011e0fe64acbc152851ecc04ec1f5.jpg is taken from [2]. If you download the files to your hard drive, you can see that WSU neglected to put their copyright info on the file they posted on the public website but it is on the file that was improperly posted here. James470 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons were it resides. Thanks for reporting the problem but this talk page isn't the place to report specific violations. In the future, please tag such violations for speedy deletion on Wikipedia or Commons or list them for discussion on Wikipedia or at the file deletion process on Commons.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

We have a somewhat concerning situation here. Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License contains the following boilerplate:

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Of course, that we have changed it, namely by massaging the formatting to match the prevailing MediaWiki / Wikipedia layout contention (Wikimarkup for header lines, for instance). It is not at all clear that the license allows this, but even if it did, the text is quite definitely not compatible with our content license and I'd argue that we can't use a Wikipedia page to host the licence. Instead, a text file with the original formatting should be moved to the file: namespace (and appropriately tagged as non-free) and the page in question redirected there.

If there's a better place to flag this then I'd appreciate if people pointed potentially interested parties at this discussion.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should mail the question to legal@wikimedia.org? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed overhaul for {{copyviocore}}

Hi. There's a proposal to update {{copyviocore}} at Template talk:Copyviocore#Propose replacement. Please weigh in, if you have interest. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Palacio de Cristal

Palacio de Cristal seems to be a Google translation of this site, which has a 2004 copyright notice on it. Is translating into a different language considered to be enough of a change to avoid copyright problems? WP:COPYVIO does not say. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Translating a copyrighted source creates a derivative work. In this case, it is obvious because the sentence structure and the ordering is the same. Nice catch. The article has been blanked and listed. MER-C 10:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Will Allen (urban farmer)

Would someone be able to take a look at the Will Allen (urban farmer) article? I strongly suspect that parts of it are copied (or closely paraphrased) from this book. The possible copyright infringements were introduced in August 2010 [3] by User:Phaeton23, who's been warned about this stuff before. The quality of his prose in this article varies dramatically, which makes me think that some parts were simply copied. Some of the content he added is jarringly amateurish ("When he played for the middle school team, he was a huge and powerful kid and proved to be unstoppable."), but most of it looks like it could have come from a professionally written publication.

If anyone could help, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 06:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Antibody Labeling

I apologize for not knowing how to address this properly, but this page on antibody labeling is almost entirely lifted from the Innova Biosciences Guide to Antibody Labeling (pdf). Maybe another user more familiar with the nuts and bolts of how to handle this can check it out and figure out what to do. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chparadise (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is a match [4]. Tagged for speedy deletion. Thank you for reporting the problem. Yoenit (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested RD1 redaction

If someone could perform a RD1 redaction on Haseena Khan, it would be appreciated. Mssohag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting my changes to the artice, including the Revdel template, and each time the copyright violation is readded. Thanks --BelovedFreak 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ramirez

• Richard Ramirez (history · last edit) from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ramirez/justice_7.html. 69.126.181.83 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but it's supposed to go on the front page. :) I'm putting it in the right place for you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of copyright allegations for section in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Not sure where to address this so starting here. On 19 June a section of the article was tagged as a copyvio and that section was blanked. The article was listed on the WP:CP dated 18 or 19 June, seven or eight days ago. (It was tagged around midnight so not sure which day it was actually filed under.) For several days the article remained listed on the WP:CP page while a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington#Copyright allegations, indicated several editors felt it was not a copyvio and possibly a frivolous report or false positive.

I expected a resolution this weekend and that the huge banner plastered across the article would be removed but it appears that the article is no longer listed at WP:CP and a review of the page history does not show me how or when it was removed from the WP:CP listings.

I am concerned that if the article is not listed then it will not be reviewed and the huge tag will remain on the article. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate forum or process to address administrative concerns for this project or if there is a portion of the process that is working correctly that I am not aware of. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This concern appears to have been resolved. Thank you very much. Veriss (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

removal of cv notices by editor

Hi. Not sure how to handle this. I tagged an article for being a cv violation. An editor de-tagged it, not at all addressing the cv issue -- just maintaining notability. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And here, he removed a cv notice at a different article, on the basis that it was "not a BLP".--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the history they could well be backwards copyvios. I would suggest listing them at WP:Copyright problems for further evaluation. January (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that permissible, even after the cv notices were removed? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact the editor addressed the alleged copyvio [5][6], User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has since reinstated one on the basis that it was a backwards copy [7]. January (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From blacklisted site

Just had an issue using the copyvio template because the edit won't save because the url was a blacklisted site. Kinda sub optimal as they say!. I have got around the issue by shortening the url, here in the article Shri Jyotiba (Kolhapur). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You can always try www DOT whatever DOT com as well--NortyNort (Holla) 02:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Burlinson

Tom Burlinson was tagged as copyvio on June 20, yet I cannot find where it has been discussed. (Actually, I cannot find evidence it was even listed at CP.) How do I find out if it was handled and what the result was, before listing it (back?) on the main CP page? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We appear to be having some bot problems. Will start a new section below as this is quite important. Will point various people at it as well. Dpmuk (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot problems

We appear to be having some quite severe bot problems at the moment. It would appear that the bots currently aren't listing {{copyvio}} tags that haven't already been added to WP:CP meaning some have been missed entirely, e.g. the one mentioned in the section above and Alpha Industries. It would also appear that we are no longer having copypaste tags listed leading to a backlog, an example not listed is 2011 Texas Rangers season. Dpmuk (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Same with close paraphrase. MER-C 11:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

VWBot has been down for awhile and VernoWhitney hasn't edited in three weeks.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's just VWbot that's the problem - I seem to recall another bot used to add copyvio's that hadn't been added manually. Have offered to help VernoWhitney with his bot but obviously that depends on him seeing the message at the very least. For the moment we probably just need to check the categories manually. Dpmuk (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

DumbBOT and Zorglbot usually create the CP day and add the CSBot listings but this has been done manually as of late. I will leave a note at those bot talks.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Zorglbot has been blocked since March, VWBot was the back-up.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Zorglbot has not been reliable for a long time, and it seems that Shutz could care less. He was asked in April when he planned to have the bot unblocked, but though he has edited since, he doesn't seem to have been bothered to answer. We had issues previously that prompted me to follow him to his home wiki in France, multiple times, and he evidently didn't consider that worth responding to, either (see my 2009 note). I'd much rather replace it with a new bot, ideally one that can be maintained whether its creator loses interest or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the listing the stuff you're doing manually but rather when someone adds the copyvio tag to a page but doesn't list it at WP:CP. This used to be done by a bot but now isn't being done at all. I've dropped VernoWhitney a message saying I'd be happy to help with his bot. I don't have enough time at the moment to start a bot from scratch but I may be able to get an already existing bot back up and running if I can get hold of the source code. Dpmuk (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America

There's an accusation of plagiarism and copyright violation against User:Peter G Werner, made by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, at Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America#Plagiarism.

The suggestion is that material introduced to Socialist Party of America by Peter, some years ago, plagiarises this Socialist Party USA document.

A duplication detector comparison of the two (using an old version of the Wikipedia article) does indicate quite a few phrases in common. However, the more problematic of these phrases were not added by Peter.

The material that was introduced by Peter, which Kiefer believes constitutes plagiarism, is as noted on the talk page by Kiefer (Talk:Socialist_Party_of_America#Plagiarism).

My thoughts on this are that, while there may be some lack of detailed attribution of the sort that we would expect in 2011 (but not five years ago), the element of actual plagiarism and copyright violation here is little to none. For example, the closest exactly matching phrase is "Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington" which seems more coincidental or common wording than anything else. The real underlying concern here seems to be that Peter had, according to Kiefer, written a section that largely conveys the ideas of the Socialist Party USA document, but while citing some of that section to a book written by Peter Drucker. While this may be problematic in other respects, it doesn't constitute copyvio as far as I can see.

This issue is now the subject of some argument at WQA and various talk pages, so it would be useful if someone uninvolved and with a clear understanding of the relevant policy, could comment on the validity of the plagiarism (and copyvio) accusations against Peter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)