Misplaced Pages

talk:Copyright problems: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:49, 12 October 2012 editWikid77 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,096 edits →Templates in page not working due to include size: +note "New-listing days need 350,000 bytes"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:37, 30 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,593 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive 23) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{For|image or media copyright questions|Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions}} {{For|image or media copyright questions|Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions}}
{{talk header|WT:CP|search=yes|wp=yes}}

{{info|This is '''not''' the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. '''To do so, list the article on today's entry ] after following the appropriate instructions.'''}} {{info|This is '''not''' the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. '''To do so, list the article on today's entry ] after following the appropriate instructions.'''}}
{{talk header|search=yes|wp=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages copyright}} {{Misplaced Pages copyright}}
{{See also2|]|]|]|]|]}} {{User:MiszaBot/config {{See also2|]|]|]|]|]}} {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 16 |counter = 23
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
__TOC__
{{clear}}


== Advice? == == ] ==

At ] we're wondering if we should create a link to a paywall article that is being hosted for free on a website other than the publisher's. The publisher's, website says "Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article." The version of the article behind the paywall says "© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007" and the paywall site says "Buy & download fulltext article: Price: $35.00 plus tax." The free version on the other site doesn't mention copyright. I would welcome your guidance. (Moved from Moonriddengirl's talk page.) --] (]) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:In accordance with ], we should only link to content that is being hosted for free on a website other than the publisher's if we have reason to believe that they are an authorized agent (because otherwise we may reasonably suspect copyvio) ''or'' if it is a small part of a larger work where the smaller part has a credible assertion of fair use. If the other site is using the pdf in a fair use context, deep linking to it may remove that context. Given , I think it's plausible that author Caitlin E. Barrett submitted it to coroplasticstudies herself as an example of recent work, as she is a member of their organization.

:Reading the discussion at the refdesk, that seems even more plausible, if Barrett links to the coroplastic pdf on her profile page at Cornell. We're each responsible, legally, for our own actions on Misplaced Pages, but in this case I would comfortable linking to the coroplasticstudies pdf, as I believe that I would be able to make a good case that I had reasonable expectation that the use was authorized. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 10:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

::That's great. Thanks for clarifying that. --] (]) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

== Autobiography of a Yogi - Chapter_49 ==

I noticed that an editor upload Chapter 49 from the ''1951 version'' of the book ''Autobiography of a Yogi''.
* According to Project Gutenberg, the first edition of ''Autobiography of a Yogi'' is in the public domain in the USA Scroll down to Editions.
*The 1st edition of the Autobiography only has 48 chapters. See book posted on Gutenberg and scroll down to the chapter listings.
*In the 1951 version more revisions were added including a whole new chapter - chapter 49
Clearly, because of this, to post this chapter is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages copyright rules and a copyright infringement.
Requesting deletion of this file ] (]) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
*This is a Wikisource issue, so I recommend bringing it up at ] instead. (Only a Wikisource administrator can delete the page you are asking about; Misplaced Pages admins can't.) --] ] 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
:*Thanks for letting me know. Will do] (]) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

== Google translations ==

Does anyone know copyright status of quotations etc obtained from Google Translate? I've just seen an example of this being done, and regardless of the questionable reliability of the translation, it occurred to me that it might possibly be a copyright infringement? Or does the fact that it is machine generated rule this out? ] (]) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
:There's no creative input in a machine translation, so I would be willing to bet that the copyright would still belong to the copyright holder of the non-translated work. : "...machine translation of a text creates derivative work under the Copyright Act and may be liable for copyright infringement if that translation is unauthorized." <small>Of course IANAL so I could just be full of crap, but my understanding is that even translated texts belong to the copyright holder of the original work unless otherwise specified</small> - ]] 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
::I had this concern with ] which I listed back in August (see ]). Still, I'm not sure exactly what the approach should be to deal with it, can it for instance be deleted under CSD G12? ] ] 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't see how that ''wouldn't'' be a copyright violation of some sort, it's a word-for-word copy of a website, even though it's fed through a machine translation service, that doesn't remove the copyright status from the work, because it's still a machine-aided derivative work of the original, and . <small>Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'm seeing all kind of things online that support this, and nothing that says otherwise.</small> - ]] 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, a translation of copyrighted text is a clear derivative work of the original, and thus a copyright violation if unauthorized. If it's a word-for-word machine translation I'd go for G12; if it's been legitimately translated by a human then creativity was almost assuredly involved giving the translator some copyright, but it would still be a copyvio of the original source unless they gave permission. I seem to recall a conversation hereabout recently which concluded that machine translation didn't invest any additional copyright with Google or whoever, but I'm not going to look it up right now because for our purposes it's really the copyright holder of the original source that's the sticking point. ] (]) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

== How to tag copyright violation in image consisting of scanned printed matter? ==

The following image: ] consists of 6 scanned pages of a non-free 2009 book. Somehow two previous attempts at speedy deletion were called off. The use of this image in the article ] is redundant, since the pertinent quotation is already included in the article body and the book is in the list of references. I couldn't find an appropriate template to tag this kind of violation, so I'm posting here (and also posting on the copyright problems page). --] (]) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:There's two options, really. You could tag it with {{tls|Dfu}} and put a note of explanation on the talk page of why you don't think we can justify scanning six pages of a non-free book to support a single quotation. (!!) Or you could nominate it for deletion at ]. The former requires an administrator to review and agree with you (and not the uploader, if he disputes). The latter, of course, relies on consensus. You could also take it to ], but that's often a slow and ineffective process, since it's more of an "opinion" board than an administrative board. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks. Most of the "copyvio" tags warn that they're not for images/files. After further searching, I ended up using the instructions at ].--] (]) 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}Having looked into this it would appear to me that the real problem here may be a misunderstanding of how we reference material and an assumption that's what referenced needs to be online (at least based on what's in the article and the fair use rationale). I've now removed the file from the article page as it was serving no real purpose. I've somewhat ] F7'd the file. If it turns out I was mistaken about it's intended use I'll happily restore. ] (]) 18:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Sounds like a sound call to me. I can't fathom any way that we could justify using six scanned pages of a non-free book to support a single quotation. (Did I mention (!!)? :D) --] <sup>]</sup> 11:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

== How to tell if Glastonbury Town F.C. copied from wp or the other way around ==


I'm looking into an RD1 request on this article, and the oldest archive I can find , which is 8 years after this article was created with the copied content. I'm therefore uncertain whether Misplaced Pages contains content copied from this site, or if this site copied content from Misplaced Pages. What's the best way to go about resolving this situation? Do we assume Misplaced Pages copied the content, or do we leave it alone until more evidence is obtained? --Chris &#124; <small>] (])</small> 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I went to the article ] to try to add some citations, however I found the history section is almost word for word the same as the , however I have no idea whether wp copied from them or the club copied from wp (there is no attribution on their page). Can anyone take a look?&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:<small></small> The smoking gun is how the initials of his name are rendered. On the church website and the original version of this article, the initials are rendered as {{tq|C M}} (no periods, spaces between initials). By the end of 2007, the article on Misplaced Pages had swapped in {{tq|C.M.}} (periods, no spaces). This suggests that, barring strong evidence to the contrary, the church website came first. ~ ] (]) 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I've removed the entire section as copyvio. It was added with on 3 March 2012. It is an exact copy from dated 4 January 2012. While these cases should be checked just to make sure, generally speaking the addition of large chunks of completely unformatted text written in a professional style almost invariably indicates that it was pasted from a prior source. ] (]) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::Indeed, that is quite compelling. Thanks. --Chris &#124; <small>] (])</small> 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:This is going to be a bizarre request, but if we do confirm the copyvio, would you mind holding off revdelling it for a day or so? Modern day/ post removal version was mostly written by an editor called Werldwayd. (As in ]). I'll have a go at trying to clean their additions tomorrow, but it'll be much easier if I have access to the previous revisions. ] (]) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, no problem. Feel free to ping me on the article's talk page or drop a note on my user talk page when you're ready for me to RD. --Chris &#124; <small>] (])</small> 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|GreenLipstickLesbian|Crazycomputers}} Thanks to you both for volunteering to take up your respective rolls in improving that article! ~ ] (]) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


== CP header changes ==
== Persistent Copyrighted content addition in articles ==


Hi everyone. I'm hoping to replace the instructions up to the actual cleanup instructions for this board with something a bit more concise since this isn't really a good place for general CV cleanup. A draft is at ] and I'd welcome a sanity check or two. I'm not sure on what to do with the first section that is just a TLDR duplication of ]. ] (]) 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure where to make this report, so making it here for people dealing with similar users to have a look into this. This newbie:
:I think this is a huge improvement. Just a small comment, "The source cannot be determined if it is a mirror or not." is not very clear to me. Would something like "You cannot determine if the source copied pre-existing Misplaced Pages text" or "You cannot determine whether the text originated with the source or Misplaced Pages" get at what you're going for here? ] (]) 02:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yep, both are. I think the second one is better. Will bring it over. Nice to have you back, by the way! ] (]) 05:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, absolutely amazed at the work you all have done to clear this backlog. ] (]) 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] complex copyvio case ==
{{User|Swarup Ranjan Mishra}}


I looked at the redaction request for ] and realized there were a number of different copyright violations from books and web sites. Could someone with more expertise than I look over this page? Thanks. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
is persistently adding copyrigted content to articles, even after being warned thrice (, , ). --] <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


:@]; from a copyright standpoint, there is no remaining copyvio present in the article. <s>For redacting, typically I see admins like Nthep just pick a random source that had copyvio or point people to the history</s>. I would go ahead and complete the revdel as requested. This article is part of a ] where there is typically a lot of sources copied from. Granted, I'm not an admin, but I have made worse requests before; like ] . Hope this helps, and thanks for jumping in with helping out! It's very appreciated. ] (]) 01:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you very much. :) This kind of thing can sometimes be reported to ] or, if the issue is more complex, ]. This one isn't complex at all - he has actually done it again since you left this note. I've temporarily blocked him. I'll try to keep an eye out for ongoing issues, but if you happen to notice that he resumes please feel free to drop a note at my talk page. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the Copyvio findings were correct. I generally do not proceed without confirmation. But as this was formally investigated, I’ll go ahead and redact. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::All taken care of. Next time, could the person making the copyvio revdel request put a link to the investigation in the comment for the edit? That way, I can tell that the request is reliable and that I don't have to track down and verify everything myself. When an admin does the revdel, we don't have to identify the source of the copied material, so what's more important to me is that an official investigation was done rather than that a specific source was the one that was copied. Thanks. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The case in question is ], if that helps. That Ghazarian source is one of the ones that is confirmed to have copyright violations. ] 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@] fwiw you can trust that @]'s gross RD1s are CCI-related and reliable. -- ] (]) 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. That tip'll help speed things up. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the compliment! ] (]) 23:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's @]'s. -- ] (]) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@]; We don't normally link CCIs in our revdel requests; if you see a crapload of URLs in the history you can pretty safely assume that it's for a CCI, even if we don't mention it. Furthermore, the CCI regulars tend to be very conservative with revdels; out of my actual CV removals I maybe take 1 of 6 to revdel, and we never revdel for ], only sourced copyvios. If you want a list of current copyright regulars, I can name some as well. ] (]) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::A list of names would be great. I'd store that list. Thanks. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::We're also at the #wpcci channel at ] if you have any questions for us. ] (]) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::]: Well, this isn't a 'trust us unilaterally' list, but a list where they are more likely to be doing CCI, CP, or copypatrol investigations and usually more experienced in copyright than the average editor requesting revdels. This list isn't exhaustive, but ], MrLinkinPark, ], ], ], ], and a good amount of the permissions VRT agents and Commons sysops I trust too. There's some others I'm missing I'm sure. You can also check out the clerks page for a list of admins experienced in copyright if you have any more sysop-specific questions, or scrape through ] for some more people; the latter is not a guarantee that they are actually active in copyright or active at all. If you're on Discord, we do have a channel as mentioned and are always happy to help. Thank ''you'' though, for stepping up and assisting with revdels. ] (]) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the most active at CCI by any means but I know the basics and am happy to answer questions. ] (]) 22:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks. Will keep your name
::::::::on speed dial —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 23:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm always down to help out with copyright questions, but I can't promise that I fully know what the admin side looks like myself. Feel free to drop by my talk page. :) ] (]) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You know, you could fix that. -- ] (]) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::@], can we lose the word random, please. That suggests we don't take these seriously. What goes in the log tends to be what was put in the revdel template, that's the way the script works. So, if the request doesn't contain all or any of the offending urls, they don't appear in the log. ] (]) 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Struck. ] (]) 20:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you. ] (]) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


== Is this statue copyrighted? ==
== Templates in page not working due to include size ==


I am currently writing an article on the ''Lord Botetourt'' statues (]) that stand on the ]. The original is from 1772 and obviously public domain. However, the 1993 replica (]) may not be. While William & Mary calls it a "replica" , they call it an elsewhere. The artist behind the 1993 work understandably that it was not a replica despite relying extensively on the 1772 work and other public domain works to reconstruct it. I ''heavily'' lean towards this being a replica: that was the intended purpose of the design and it effectively mirrors the original in all ways but the medium it is made from. However, at least one other editor was concerned enough about potential issues that they uploaded a ] of the statue on the Commons. Any input or guidance here is deeply appreciated. ~ ] (]) 23:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
People may have noticed that the page does not render correctly, rather than all the sub pages being transcluded a software limit is reached and you just see a link to the subpage. You can see this by a browser to view-source which shows the software limits
<source e lang="html4strict">
<!--
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor visited node count: 46773/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 45603/1500000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 239240/2048000 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 20/40
Expensive parser function count: 3/500
-->
</source>
The <code>Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes</code> is whats making the page not work. I've raised the issue on ]. One editor there has suggested either splitting the page or looking at the sub templates used like {{t1|la}}.--] (]): 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:I've weighed in there. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''Fixes for short-term and long-term page size:''' I have fixed the include-size problem to handle all days for the next few weeks by using new ] (rather than {La}&nbsp;) in dozens of the WP:Suspected_copyright* sub-pages. That new template {La/x} runs 3x shorter (omits watch/logs), more-condensed than {La}, to stay within the template post-expand include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes. Long-term, I have also recommended to improve the older ], now with a pending {editprotected} request to install the /sandbox2 version as 40% smaller; however, there are so many other protected templates, in the queue to update, where the admins might take days, weeks or months to get the simple improvement installed, and not "uninstalled" days later. Everywhere, there is a huge backlog of everything in Misplaced Pages, because the numerous new users are unaware of how to help us. Meanwhile, if template {La} is not upgraded by November, then consider switching all future pages of WP:Suspected_copyright* to use {La/x} rather than {La} to provide the condensed article-link menus for each article in a Suspected list. I apologize that I did not fix this problem last month (or so) when people asked for help then, as I had strongly suspected "little" ] was actually overly huge, like many other templates during the past 3 years. Now, all the prior days will display, so the whole page can be searched, top-to-bottom, for any older articles. Much of the extra data, to exceed the include-size limit, has come from the August pages, which is the typical ''return-from-vacation'' month when WP users create many more articles, more copyvios. Hence, as those August days are closed and unlinked, then the total page will shrink, and the chance of so many more large days is unlikely. Remember, we have 9,500 active editors each month, so there are many people who could help reduce the various ] lists, if contacted. -] (]) 08:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
::Great, but still not quite there. Its failing just before the new listings. One possibility would be to move the new listings up before the older ones, that would mean people would be easily able to see where a new listing should go.--] (]): 11:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
:::But new listings aren't added like that. :/ The process for adding a new listing is to put the template on the article page, which generates a link to precisely where the listing should go. I think all listings ''should'' be visible, but like Verno, I'm curious as to what sent you looking for a specific day. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''New-listing days need 350,000 bytes:''' The prior copyright-problem days (8 days prior) have displayed in 1,800,000 bytes of the post-expand include size of 2,048,000 bytes. I have not found an easy way to shave the extra 150,000 bytes from the page. Of course, if the ] settings for the NewPP preprocessor could be raised just 20%, from 2,048,000 to 2,548,000 bytes, then the entire page would fit to hold 90 days of copyright-issue subpages. However, despite many logical explanations of the need for higher limits, the WP developers have strongly rejected requests to raise the limits to more sensible levels. So, the trick has been to keep templates nested only 1 level deep, because templates nested inside other templates seem to inflate the bytes of the post-expand include size, which seems like a logic bug in the accounting of the template-processing data. That is why, other large pages, not overly huge, are hitting the artificially small limit of 2,048,000 bytes (2,000&nbsp;kb), not because the page is actually that large. For example, when ] is condensed to contain the contents of ], then the one-level template will shrink to 850 bytes, or only 62% of the 1,341 post-expand bytes used by {Lx}. Similar reductions occur when other 2-level templates are combined to be just 1-level templates. I will keep looking for other templates which could use fewer bytes to process the same data. -] (]) 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:37, 30 November 2024

For image or media copyright questions, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.
This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions.
Misplaced Pages copyright
Policy
Guidelines
Advice
Processes
Resources
See also: m:copyright, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop, and m:non-free content

Baselios Thomas I

I'm looking into an RD1 request on this article, and the oldest archive I can find is from 2014, which is 8 years after this article was created with the copied content. I'm therefore uncertain whether Misplaced Pages contains content copied from this site, or if this site copied content from Misplaced Pages. What's the best way to go about resolving this situation? Do we assume Misplaced Pages copied the content, or do we leave it alone until more evidence is obtained? --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The smoking gun is how the initials of his name are rendered. On the church website and the original version of this article, the initials are rendered as C M (no periods, spaces between initials). By the end of 2007, the article on Misplaced Pages had swapped in C.M. (periods, no spaces). This suggests that, barring strong evidence to the contrary, the church website came first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, that is quite compelling. Thanks. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
This is going to be a bizarre request, but if we do confirm the copyvio, would you mind holding off revdelling it for a day or so? Modern day/ post removal version was mostly written by an editor called Werldwayd. (As in Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd). I'll have a go at trying to clean their additions tomorrow, but it'll be much easier if I have access to the previous revisions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Feel free to ping me on the article's talk page or drop a note on my user talk page when you're ready for me to RD. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian and Crazycomputers: Thanks to you both for volunteering to take up your respective rolls in improving that article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

CP header changes

Hi everyone. I'm hoping to replace the instructions up to the actual cleanup instructions for this board with something a bit more concise since this isn't really a good place for general CV cleanup. A draft is at my sandbox and I'd welcome a sanity check or two. I'm not sure on what to do with the first section that is just a TLDR duplication of WP:Copypaste. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a huge improvement. Just a small comment, "The source cannot be determined if it is a mirror or not." is not very clear to me. Would something like "You cannot determine if the source copied pre-existing Misplaced Pages text" or "You cannot determine whether the text originated with the source or Misplaced Pages" get at what you're going for here? Ajpolino (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Yep, both are. I think the second one is better. Will bring it over. Nice to have you back, by the way! Sennecaster (Chat) 05:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, absolutely amazed at the work you all have done to clear this backlog. Ajpolino (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ruben I complex copyvio case

I looked at the redaction request for Ruben I and realized there were a number of different copyright violations from books and web sites. Could someone with more expertise than I look over this page? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe; from a copyright standpoint, there is no remaining copyvio present in the article. For redacting, typically I see admins like Nthep just pick a random source that had copyvio or point people to the history. I would go ahead and complete the revdel as requested. This article is part of a CCI where there is typically a lot of sources copied from. Granted, I'm not an admin, but I have made worse requests before; like this mess from another CCI. Hope this helps, and thanks for jumping in with helping out! It's very appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the Copyvio findings were correct. I generally do not proceed without confirmation. But as this was formally investigated, I’ll go ahead and redact. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
All taken care of. Next time, could the person making the copyvio revdel request put a link to the investigation in the comment for the edit? That way, I can tell that the request is reliable and that I don't have to track down and verify everything myself. When an admin does the revdel, we don't have to identify the source of the copied material, so what's more important to me is that an official investigation was done rather than that a specific source was the one that was copied. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The case in question is Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka, if that helps. That Ghazarian source is one of the ones that is confirmed to have copyright violations. Wizardman 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe fwiw you can trust that @MrLinkinPark333's gross RD1s are CCI-related and reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That tip'll help speed things up. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
It's @Sennecaster's. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe; We don't normally link CCIs in our revdel requests; if you see a crapload of URLs in the history you can pretty safely assume that it's for a CCI, even if we don't mention it. Furthermore, the CCI regulars tend to be very conservative with revdels; out of my actual CV removals I maybe take 1 of 6 to revdel, and we never revdel for WP:PDEL, only sourced copyvios. If you want a list of current copyright regulars, I can name some as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
A list of names would be great. I'd store that list. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
We're also at the #wpcci channel at Misplaced Pages:Discord if you have any questions for us. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Rsjaffe: Well, this isn't a 'trust us unilaterally' list, but a list where they are more likely to be doing CCI, CP, or copypatrol investigations and usually more experienced in copyright than the average editor requesting revdels. This list isn't exhaustive, but the clerks, MrLinkinPark, GreenLipstickLesbian, L3X1, 1AmNobody24, Trainsandotherthings, and a good amount of the permissions VRT agents and Commons sysops I trust too. There's some others I'm missing I'm sure. You can also check out the clerks page for a list of admins experienced in copyright if you have any more sysop-specific questions, or scrape through Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup participants for some more people; the latter is not a guarantee that they are actually active in copyright or active at all. If you're on Discord, we do have a channel as mentioned and are always happy to help. Thank you though, for stepping up and assisting with revdels. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not the most active at CCI by any means but I know the basics and am happy to answer questions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Will keep your name
on speed dial — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm always down to help out with copyright questions, but I can't promise that I fully know what the admin side looks like myself. Feel free to drop by my talk page. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
You know, you could fix that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sennecaster, can we lose the word random, please. That suggests we don't take these seriously. What goes in the log tends to be what was put in the revdel template, that's the way the script works. So, if the request doesn't contain all or any of the offending urls, they don't appear in the log. Nthep (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Struck. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Nthep (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this statue copyrighted?

I am currently writing an article on the Lord Botetourt statues (my userspace draft) that stand on the campus of the College of William & Mary. The original is from 1772 and obviously public domain. However, the 1993 replica (pictured here) may not be. While William & Mary calls it a "replica" in some places, they call it an "artist's interpretation" elsewhere. The artist behind the 1993 work understandably contended that it was not a replica despite relying extensively on the 1772 work and other public domain works to reconstruct it. I heavily lean towards this being a replica: that was the intended purpose of the design and it effectively mirrors the original in all ways but the medium it is made from. However, at least one other editor was concerned enough about potential issues that they uploaded a blurred image of the statue on the Commons. Any input or guidance here is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 29 § Template:Cv-unsure

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 29 § Template:Cv-unsure. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)