Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 October 21
Appearance
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]- Lia Olguța Vasilescu (history · last edit · rewrite) was copied (with attribution) from http://doartest.blogspot.com.tr/2011/10/fgfg.html, though that website is an unattributed copyvio of the article which was formerly at Lia Olguța Vasilescu and deleted on 20 October 2014. (The blog post's date of 2011 is falsified, as the text contains material describing events from 2012.) If the current text is to be kept, then a history merge with the previous revisions is necessary. Psychonaut (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Wikipedia is copyright-violating. The external site is breaking copyright. However, Wikipedia is attributing to the blog post, so it is not a copyvio on Wikipedia's part. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- If an external site violates someone's copyright by reposting material without providing the legally required attribution, then any other site which copies the blog post and also leaves off the original attribution is also violating copyright. (However, note that a history merge was effected a few hours ago, restoring the attribution and thereby solving the problem.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the copyvio template be removed, then? The copyvio is resolved, because the original source came from the first Wikipedia article and the history has been restored. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed it should be. Sorry for having overlooked this; I had assumed that Nick had already removed the template when restoring the history. It's done now. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the copyvio template be removed, then? The copyvio is resolved, because the original source came from the first Wikipedia article and the history has been restored. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- If an external site violates someone's copyright by reposting material without providing the legally required attribution, then any other site which copies the blog post and also leaves off the original attribution is also violating copyright. (However, note that a history merge was effected a few hours ago, restoring the attribution and thereby solving the problem.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Wikipedia is copyright-violating. The external site is breaking copyright. However, Wikipedia is attributing to the blog post, so it is not a copyvio on Wikipedia's part. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)