Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 8 December 2006

Archives: Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Copyright issues archive | Archive 6 | Archive 7
Related Discussions: Copyright Violations on Page Histories

See also: Misplaced Pages:Public domain, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:copyright, m:fair use, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop.

Can press releases be used on Misplaced Pages?

I was under the perhaps errant assumption that press releases were ok to use on Misplaced Pages? Though if an article has text copied and pasted from a press release it likely should be rewritten anyway as it will undoubtedly read like an advertisement. zen apprentice T 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless it explicitly says that the text can be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, or something to that effect, then no. I mean think about it, would anyone be likely to issue a press release under a license that would allow anyone to edit the text as they saw fit and use it for theyr own purposes? You are free to use it as a source or point of reference, but verbatim copying would be a no-no except maybe a few brief fair use quotations. --Sherool (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim copying of a press release is also a no-no because the article will undoubtedly end up reading like an advertisement which is very bad. Though I've heard the intentionally public nature of a press release generally makes "fair use" more applicable but whatever. zen apprentice T 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a paragraph or two are probably ok if it's highly relevant, but most press releases are available online so probably better to just link to them (though I realise they might not be permanently available). I though you meant copying the whole thing as a "seed" for a new article or something. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can short quotes from press releases be used (if shown as quotes and if attributed) to illustrate an article? If I'm writing an article on the Empress of Ireland disaster, could I (and this is just a wild example off the top of my head) use a quote from a Canadian Pacific Corporation press release sent out on the 75th birthday, as long as I attributed it and made clear that it was a quote from the company? --Charlene.fic 01:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If the press release is noteworthy in itself, then maybe you can quote it (if it's not too long). The RMS Titanic article quotes a memorandum and brief telegram, and that's appropriate, since those are important historic documents involved with the subject of the article. But if the iPod article were to quote an entire press release about a new kind of iPod, that would be too much. It depends largely on how long the quote is. A sentence isn't a problem, but more than a paragraph is probably too much -- at least, that's my opinion. – Quadell 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's a short paragraph and I'll likely just add a few words from it into the article that's already there when I find my book again. It does have some historic interest, though. The Titanic things are different because the memos and telegrams are likely in the public domain as well. Charlene.fic 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Most copyvios now speediable

Yesterday Jimbo modified WP:CSD so that A8 (now G12) now allows speeding most of copyright violations:

1. unquestionably copied -> appears to be copied
2. the 48 hours restriction has been lifted
3. have a copyright notice -> does not have a license compatible with Misplaced Pages

I am cross-posting this in case it has been missed. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great, although it would have been helpful a year or two ago. ;-) My concern is that some admins, especially newbies, cannot seem to tell a Misplaced Pages mirror apart from an original source. Also, there are quite a few cases when other websites have copied from us. If the article was created pretty recently, it's probably a copyvio, but in other cases you need to do some detective work to figure it out. I'm worried that people are not going to do that. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The point Jimbo is making (there and on the mailing list) is that deletion is reversible. In facts, it can only be done by administrators, so non-admins cannot help in such reversions. Probably, the best choice is to enforce the addition of urls in deletion summaries, and especially checking deletion of articles with many revisions. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

possible reverse copyright violation

compare the wikipedia article La Rouche (July 2005) with the (English Edition, November 2005).

It seems as if Yong Tang just copied the introduction verbatim.

possible alternative explanation: The article was not written in November, but in June and was updated in November. In this case the wikipedia user is guilty of copyvio.

The url has "200511/22" in it, which means that it was probably written on 11/22/2005 and was updated on the same day (some places have year, month, day rather than month, day, year). -- Kjkolb 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, so s/1 stole from us. What do we do ? Place a "This article was featured in the Peoples Daily"-Tag on the Talk page ??-- ExpImp 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential legal issue with UK Radio station schedules within articles

I also asked on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Radio Stations because of a number of situations where editors are adding schedules to TV and radio articles, but I shall ask here as well:

Under section 176 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, TV schedules and programme information require royalties to be paid to the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 (which is collected by Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS)). Publishing a schedule without paying a royality is a criminal offence. I believe this could also apply to BBC Radio services and maybe commercial network services too.

• Broadcasting Dataservices (BDS) network radio page
• Broadcasting Act 1990 - section 176

I have two questions:

1. Does it affect BBC Network radio stations, and commericial network radio stations?
2. What does this mean for editors who put schedules for UK radio stations in Misplaced Pages, regardless of its unencyclopedic status (section 1.7.3. of WP:WWIN). Would the fact that the servers are based in the United States make a difference if someone posted a schedule?

One further question I didn't ask if it does affect question one and two:

1. If this is a copyvio and it would only affect one section of a notable article, should I use the {{copyvio}} template on the whole article or just the section or is there another template that could be used?

I ask because an edit was made a few days ago I reverted at BBC Radio 2 and someone else has added a schedule to the GMTV article (which would be illegal to use under UK law because no royalty payment has been paid to ITV for use), but I am unsure whether this law would apply to Misplaced Pages as its servers are based in the United States. I have tagged the schedule as unencyclopedic regardless, but I could do with a defintive answer on the legal status of schedules for UK TV/radio stations in Misplaced Pages. --tgheretford (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these are not a copyright violations, since the problem is the information that is published, not the form in which this information is expressed. So certainly, {{copyvio}} is not appropriate. As for the legal issue, the second link you provided say:

A person providing a programme service must make available information relating to the programmes to be included in the service to any person wishing to publish in the United Kingdom any such information.

Doesn't that mean that anyone can publish these schedule? Also, point (5) says: "The duty imposed by subsection (1) is not satisfied by providing the information on terms, other than terms as to copyright, prohibiting or restricting publication in the United Kingdom by the publisher." Am I missing something? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this seems like a tricky point of UK intellectual property law. It's not at all obvious to a layman how to deal with this. We really need a British lawyer/law student to help us out. – Quadell 22:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Found something relevant of interest, Bleb.org was asked by Broadcasting Dataservices to remove schedules for the BBC and ITV (which would include GMTV, as I highlighted above) BBC schedules are available royality free from BBC Anytime, but ITV schedules are not (so the schedule on the GMTV article could be copyvio). Its interestring to note that Bleb.org was told to remove the schedules under Schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

• Broadcasting Act 1990 - Schedule 17

Schedules can be a grey area generally because I have known of examples where people could either copy and paste a schedule from an online website (definite copyvio) or write their own schedule using data from a magazine/online schedules.

Simple question I would like to ask that could determine the above, does UK Law apply to contributions made to Misplaced Pages? If the answer is yes, I should be tagging the section on the GMTV article a.s.a.p. --tgheretford (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Added suspected copyvio tag to Talk:GMTV with explaination. --tgheretford (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Broadcasting Dataservices website schedules say regarding copyright of schedules (I had to register with them to confirm this), and I quote:

The programme summaries are the subject matter of copyright. The information may only be reproduced pursuant to a licence issued by the copyright owner or pursuant to the statutory licence set out in Schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. This ruling affects BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4 terrestrial channels only. Broadcasting Dataservices is the agent of BBC Worldwide, the ITVA companies and Channel 4 in the matter of issuing copyright licences and collecting copyright fees.

--tgheretford (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This clarified everything. The program summaries are copyrighted, not the information about the scheduled time of each program. It is not a matter of UK law; they have to be deleted. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No rights reserved template

Hi, I don't where I should aks this question. I'd like to ask about this template: Template:No rights reserved. It is a contradictionary, IMO, as it says copyrighted but no rights reserved, and thus anything can be done to the image, including exploited in any way. This term is prone to abuse the image. Is the template officially recognized from WP? Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 16:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with this tag: it's perfectly possible for a copyright holder to license their works however they like, including releasing all rights in the manner described by this template. Why is it 'prone to abuse'? --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The wording is a bit aggressive. I think it is only enough to say that no rights being reserved by the copyright holder. Adding these 2 words: "irrevocably" and also "exploitations in any way by anyone by anypurpose", I think, is too much and it seems that Misplaced Pages is advocating anybody to do whatever it takes from the image. IMO. — Indon (reply) — 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume the language is that strong to make people using the template aware of the possible implications of their actions. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 08:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... do you mean by the people is the copyright holder, who most of the time they do not aware that their files are being uploaded to WP, or the uploader? For the latter, I think they know already what the implications of their actions, as WP is advocating to do so (you can exploit it in anyway). — Indon (reply) — 09:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both. If the uploader isn't the copyright holder, then (s)he doesn't have any right to put this template on the file without the copyright holder's knowledge anyway, and some kind of source should be provided as verification. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. This template can only be used for the copyright holder. Thanks for your explanation. — Indon (reply) — 09:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not really what I meant (although my phrasing was somewhat questionable: sorry for the ambiguity). For the sake of clarity, then: only the copyright holder can originally declare that he releases all rights to his work, that declaration can't be made by someone else. However, once that licensing declaration has been made anyone can do pretty much anything with the work, including uploading it to Misplaced Pages and (correctly) marking it with this template.

My point was that if the image isn't uploaded by the copyright holder himself, then the uploader should be providing a source or some other details to verify his assertion of its copyright status. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 10:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So if the uploader is not the copyright holder, then the source of the file should have written statement of no rights reserved, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, or the copyright holder should have made his intentions clear in some other verifiable way (perhaps via email correspondence with permissions@wikimedia.org, as in some cases). --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To revert or not to revert...

When people were working on the copyvio list. See . I noticed some editors/admins were simply reverting or stubbing and some were deleting all the copyright violations from the history. Currently the instructions on the project page are that reverting is good enough, unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it from the history. Should that perhaps be changed? I don't mind either way, although it's of course much easier to revert. See also this old page and the discussion here. Garion96 (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As previously expressed in the previous discussion that you link to, my personal opinion is that copyright violations should be removed from history, because otherwise our claim that all Misplaced Pages text is available under the GFDL is false. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 07:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Passports

There is currently a dispute about whether passports of various countries are in the public domain or not. If you have any clue, please weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images#October 7. – Quadell 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly plagiarism, but I can't find the source

Since Feburary, User:RJNeb2 has been adding bios for movie actors, directors, etc, all in roughly the same style. There are a number of copyvio notices on the user's talk page, so s/he has had at least a handful of those articles deleted as copyvio already. I've been working my way backwards through the user's edit history (see my notes so far.) Of the articles the user has contributed that still exist, about 1/3 so far are word-for-word matches of bios on Allmovie. Do I assume that the rest are copyvio as well, even though I can't find a source? I suspect that s/he's working his/her way through a volume of bios on early film figures - possibly the articles that are on allmovie are copied from the same book? -- Vary | Talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The best bet is to try and get the editor to tell you the source of their information. If they will not comunicate with you, you can do some research on your own. However if you cannot identify the source, you will have to assume these are copyvios.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Birgitte, and thanks for leaving that message on the user's talk page. -- Vary | Talk 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For pages copied from a public domain or GFDL source

I have been adding a notice like this to the talk page. The information needs to be recorded. —Centrx→talk • 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful (if the page doesn't get deleted -- right now only admins can look at what Centrx is pointing at). It's unfortunate that we cannot properly record authorship information in the article history, however. Jkelly 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You could make a null edit, but that would not be very helpful for inevitable future situations where it is tagged as a copyvio again and someone has to look at it. —Centrx→talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted anyway. I'm an admin, and the link doesn't work, since the page is gone. – Quadell 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

As of this revision, portions of this article are copied from the website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. According to a notice on that website, this text is "public record" and may be used "for any purpose". Therefore, it is in the public domain and may be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License as with any other text on Misplaced Pages.

—Centrx→talk • 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Numerous copyvios stolen from Samurai Archives, Samurai Wiki, and Samurai Sourcebook

It's been discovered that there are an incredible number (500-1000+) of articles on individual historical samurai and related subjects that could be construed as copyright violations. Some are direct copy-and-paste, some are simply rewordings of precisely what is said in one single source. Many of these are poorly written to the point of being nearly useless (meaningless). Many are cited poorly (e.g. writing simply "Samurai Sourcebook" is not a citation), and many are not cited at all. Much of this is the work of a single editor, who writes that he never meant to be disruptive and wants to do things properly, but who has been given more than enough chances on this and other issues.

I am going to start labeling these as copyvios, but it's going to be a lot of work, and a long process. For that reason, I'm mentioning it here rather than simply starting to address these articles one-by-one. I'm using AWB, so it's not quite as difficult as it would be otherwise, but still if there's any way to mass delete or mass tag these articles, I'd love to know about it.

Please see my talk page for the background of this situation, and the resulting discussion. Again, any help or suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you. LordAmeth 17:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Altman

On the Hippy article we have had several images by Robert Altman (photographer). He originally gave permssion for the images to be used on wikipedia, but now realising the extent of the right he is giving away has now withdrawn that right and has asked for the images to be deleted.

Altman is generally supportive of wikipedia and, in an email to me, seems happy to have the images on wikipedia if greater protection could be provided. I'm wondering what the strongest licencing protection we could grant him and still have the images on wikipedia. Also might it be possible to use the images under fairuse on the page about him? --Salix alba (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The most convenient 'restrictive' license commonly in use for image content on Misplaced Pages is probably the Creative Commons attribution license (template {{Cc-by}}) which allows copying, distribution and display of the work, both commercially and non-commercially, and the creation of derivative works, provided that the copyright holder is attributed. (The attribution sharealike license {{cc-by-sa}} is also appropriate, and requires the creators of derivative works to make their work available under the same license. We don't allow any of the other tags, such as -nc or -nd, because having content that is non-commercial only or does not allow the creation of derivative works is considered contrary to Misplaced Pages's purpose.

A photo taken by Altman is probably justifiable under fair use in the Altman article as an illustration of his work, provided that some kind of critical commentary is made. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 14:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

However the most outright restrictive license allowed would be the GFDL. At least for pictures.Geni 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL is not a great license for pictures, though. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to delete anything until the full problem is shown here. Stop this vague "he allowed" and "he doesn't allow". What is it that he originally thought he allowed, and what is it now that he feels uncomfortable with? And where did he express that he has only now realized what he granted? As far as I can tell, he allowed cc-by-sa license to his images, / Fred-Chess 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Heres the copy of the email he sent me:

Dear Richard:

Thank you for taking the time to check with me about this; one of the very good sides to the Misplaced Pages community.

Yes, I did specifically ask the user you've mentioned to kindly take the time and remove my photos on the "Hippy" page. He is a great supporter and contributor of Misplaced Pages and has become a staunch friend of mine.

As I wrote to another wiki 'sheriff" (who took first took it upon himself to have all my other contributions (see robertmark ultimately removed. --> See Licencing problem"

"I experience the current guidelines far too easy for Misplaced Pages to conduct its business while at the same time far too oppressive and intrusive in the protection of my work. I really don't get it. imho- sadly I foresee a dearth of quality supportive graphic material on Misplaced Pages until a fairer equation is created.

As much as I would love to continue to contribute to and also be recognized by the incredible phenomena that Misplaced Pages has become I can see no other solution for myself then to allow you, Halvor, to delete all my contributions."

Sincerely,

-Robert Altman

There was perviuos discussion on this when they we uploaded and . I've listed the full set of images on Talk:Robert Altman (photographer), although which ones could be use as fairuse on the page about him has not been decided upon.

The original licencing of images was

1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to Robert Altman, photographer, with a link to http://www.altmanphoto.com. 2/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. 3./ Permission to use this copyrighted work in Misplaced Pages articles granted by Robert Altman, the creator and owner, on September 3, 2006. E-mail robert@altmanphoto.com

BTW the photo you list is of Altman not by Altman. --Salix alba (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two images on Commons that were tagged for speedy deletion. I changed them into regular deletion... just wanted to inform you... / Fred-Chess 14:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof of copyvio image

Hi, I just tagged this image Image:Rodin_Portrait.jpg for possible copyvio. The uploader has given a proof by copy-pasting his correspondence email with the photographer agency. Could somebody please take a look at the image page? Is it enough by giving such a proof? The source still says (c) All rights reserved. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We should assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary: i.e. trust the uploader unless they are obviously lying (which isn't the case here) or the copyright holder gets in touch with us. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 09:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to remove the copyvio notice. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 09:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MBA Rankings copyvio in edit history

Is it a problem for copyvio to be retained in the edit history of an article?

After a lengthy discussion in Talk:Master of Business Administration about the inclusion of published rankings of MBA schools in a related article MBA Rankings (with a capital R; there are variants of the title with different capitalization), we agreed that the including MBA rankings from the Financial Times web site constituted a copyright violation, because their Terms and Conditions page explicitly prohibit republishing their content: ("You may not copy, reproduce, publish, broadcast, transmit, modify, adapt, create derivative works of, store, archive, publicly display or in any way commercially exploit any of the FT Content.")

So, we agreed that the MBA Rankings article should be removed and redirected back to Master of Business Administration (from which it originally derived). This has been done, but the copyvio still exists in the edit history of the MBA Rankings article. Does this matter? -Amatulic 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone asks we delete those revisions, and if an administrator is in the process of dealing with a copyright problem they should do so, but there must be thousands of copyright infringements in page histories that were simply reverted and forgotten and it is not standard practice to delete them. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually an administrator told me that copyvio in edit history should be deleted when found. For this particular instance he suggested posting about it here because he wasn't sure that republishing rankings are copyvio. The Financial Times site claims they are, and I must admit they constitute a creative work in that they are created as a result of interviews, data gathering, and developing ranking methodology. It doesn't matter to me whether the edit history contains them, but it might matter to Misplaced Pages, so I thought I'd ask. -Amatulic 05:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

External link to YouTube

A recent edit to When Johnny Comes Marching Home includes an external link to a clip of the movie Stalag 17 on YouTube. Is this permissible? JQ 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a copyright violation for us to link to it. I don't know of any Misplaced Pages-specific policy that forbids it. – Quadell 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do with users ignoring copyright ?

Please have a look at User:Amine2 image uploads, not a single upload is correctly tagged with a source and license and almost every second is clearly stolen from other websites. His talk page is filled with Orphanbot messages but this user ignores them. Any advice ? --Denniss 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Typically users can be blocked for disruption under those circumstances. I would recommend trying to talk to them first (not just automated warning messages) and make sure they understand what they are doing wrong. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned him on his talk page together with several images listed as imagevios. He still ignores the rules and continues to upload stolen images for example from http://www.airliners.net. Please block this user as soon as possible an delete all his images. An admin should have a look at User:200.122.86.50, this IP seems somehow related to this user, maybe there's a need for a checkuser request on these two. --Denniss 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave him a sternly-worded warning. We'll see. – Quadell 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help and deleting his images but ..... it seems he wants to be blocked. He uploaded several stolen images again. --Denniss 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours. It looks like he is trying to be productive and there may be language difficulties. This will at least get him to take the time to learn about it. —Centrx→talk • 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again thanks for helping. Someone should have a closer look on User:200.122.86.50, it looks like it's the same user as it keeps installing the images back to articles where they were removed. It'll be also nice to have someone delete the reuploaded images. --Denniss 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another sad update: User continues to upload images without source or license, several are clearly watermarked as stolen from other sites. --Denniss 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

. . .and cleaned up after. Again. This ol' mop is getting a good workout! – Quadell 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tillie K. Fowler

Please see the discussion page of this article. The article is completely unsourced and uncited, and while I was assessing it for WikiBiography Project I found a paragraph that had been lifted verbatim from her obituary. That looks like plagiarism to me. I reported it to the Biography Project, and someone suggested I discuss it with someone here. Thanks Jeffpw 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can wikipedia use information but find the source unreliable?

Under Turkish Air Forces wikipedia uses updated inventory numbers taken from http://warriorsoul.4t.com/index.html.(Warrior soul updates his page when a plane is lost etc.) In the sources section no source has such information. But when we add warriorsoul's website to the sources we are warned for making advertisement and the source is removed.I asked admins then where did the data came from, they just said as warriorsoul's site is fanmade they cannot add it to the sources.(funny thing is there are 2 fanmade sites in the sources section)

My question is can wikipedia get relevant data but don't credit the website? 19.21 8.11.2006

Since raw data cannot be copyrighted, there is no requirement to list the source. Although it's best to, according to WP:CITE, but not in the "external links" section. – Quadell 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fast response,then we can add it under references, right?If not, where? 22.11 8.11.2006

Check out WP:CITE. You can reference using any of the standard methods there. – Quadell 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek planet classifications

Hi. Please see Talk:Star Trek planet classifications. The list there has been taken, pretty much blow-for-blow (although paraphrased) from a book named the Star Trek Starcharts. I've posted some examples on talk of the entries in the book, and what they have been translated to for our version: the transformation is so minimal that it seems to me to be a copyvio (even if we can get away with that we should cite the source anyway). Can anyone proffer advice as to whether my reading of the situation is correct. Morwen - Talk 07:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To Blank or Not to Blank??

Under the "Instructions" section of the talk project page, there seem to be two different paths to follow under the same circumstances, and it's leaving me a bit confused. In the first box, criteria for speedy deletion of copyvios are listed, followed by directions to use the {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} template and not to blank the page. Directly under that box, the same criteria are listed, and the instructions say to blank the page and use the {{copyvio | url=insert URL here}} template.

Have I missed some important distinction?

Thanks!Kathy A. 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on the nature of the article. Something that is clearly copied, and which does not have any non-copied revisions in the history, and which no-one is asserting that they have permission to post, should be {{db-copyvio}} tagged; if any of the above conditions are not met, it should be {{copyvio}} tagged. The exact criteria for speedying copyvios can be found at WP:CSD#G12. (That criterion has been expanded relatively recently, and many people have not adjusted to the change yet, so much of what is listed on this page could actually be speedied under the new rules.) --Robth 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Kathy A. 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of Misplaced Pages

Hello. Please can someone show me where to go to report commercial websites that publish Misplaced Pages content without acknowledgement, in apparent violation of the GFDL? I mean localcricket.org and onlinecricket.org. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR and pages linked from there. --Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cristian Adrian

The following post has been moved from Suspected Copyright Violations. I believe here it will get more feedback than the administrator's noticeboard. Please move if another place is even a better than this one. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 19:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not wherebot, but...

... I couldn't see where to put issues about patterns suggesting possible copyright violations. If this is not the place, can someone please move this appropriately?

Someone with experience should look into the images uploaded by User:Cristian Adrian. He's had a tendency after being warned by Orphanbot to simply tag things as GFDL, but it's really hard for me to believe that is accurate.

It is possible that some of his images are his own and are OK, but quite a few look very professional and not recent. Either he is a professional quality photographer, whose work includes a picture of Unirii Square in Bucharest almost certainly taken no later than 10 years ago (User:Dahn and I both think it is that old), aerial photography of Bucharest, and a very good but (look to the lower right) doctored night shot of Bucharest or he is uploading other people's images. The relatively low resolutions of these photos is also atypical of people uploading their own digital or scanned photography. I asked a question on the talk page of the Unirii Square question, which is the one that initially got my attention (I also added a caption to it), then I noticed that the issue might be more general. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No policy for torrents?

Someone posted a link to a very recently released commercial CD in its article. I removed it, but there seems to be neither a template nor a policy to warn a user for piracy/a blatant copyvio of this nature. MSJapan 02:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is specified in our external links guideline. See Links normally to be avoided, point 4 (as of now). If we know it is a copyright violation, leaving the torrent there makes us as contributors to the infringement as the one who added the torrent link. Maybe {{cv}} is appropriate in such case? -- ReyBrujo 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced GFDL

Hello.

A user uploaded an image, Image:39 Ottl Andreas.jpg, whose copyright is owned by Bayern Munich. He claims the image was released under GFDL by the copyright owner. I asked him to put the email exchange on the image talkpage, but he answered he will provide the emails to everyone who requests them, and put his email address in the image page. Is this sufficient to accept the image under GFDL?

Best regards, Panarjedde 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask him to forward the mail exchange to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org" as described on WP:COPYREQ. The people handeling the permissions que will archive it securely and add a OTRS ticket number to the image page. That's the "proper" way to do it, that way we can verify the status even if he leave the project or "loose" his inbox at some point in the future. I think we can generaly trust such statements in good faith if they seem fairly cluefull though. It doesn't seem like he's acting out of ignorance at least (not like the usual "taken from somewebsite.com no copywrite" type statements we often see), and if he is deliberately and knowingly falsifying the copyright info to trick us it's his neck if Bayern Munich comes knocking after all... --Sherool (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

• I asked this question at the Technical Pump today:

This article Badrinath temple has a recently uploaded image Image:Badrinath.jpg claiming

{{PD-art}}

However, the same image is found here where you can order a custom print of it. I do not know how to check out if it is in the public domain. I also don't know where to report it as I would do if it were a copyvio of text. Can you advise me how to handle this? Thanks!

• The answer was this:

The tag is surely incorrect; what's depicted is not bidimensional. I seem to recall that, in such cases, the photo can be copyrighted even if the object itself is not. Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems is the best place to ask.

So I am asking here what to do. I have noted the problem on the Discussion page of the article. Thanks! Mattisse(talk)

It's incorrectly tagged. It's listed as a copyright violation, which is correct. – Quadell 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TV screen captures

I presume an editor has no basis for calling a screen capture he made from a television program he did not produce and doesn't hold the copyright to a User-created public domain image? Shoot on sight? --Rrburke 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Creating a screenshot has no artistic claim, as the screenshot represents a frame of a copyrighted work, much like a scan of a book or an album cover. Either tag it with a fair use tag, or delete it. -- ReyBrujo 03:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

GFDL license?

Lawrence Reed is (substantially) the bio from his website, which the talk page claims is released under the following license:

This Site and all of the information it contains (including, but not limited to, studies, viewpoints, reports, brochures, and videos) is the property of the Center. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Center and the author are properly cited.

The bolded clause at least restricts editing, and it would seem to reuire that our mirrors copy more than the text of the article. Is this acceptable? (The question of whether it meets WP:SPAM is completely separate.) Septentrionalis 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that the copyright-holder be properly cited. The webpage's requirement is in line with the GFDL. (This is why cc-by text is also acceptable.) – Quadell 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raithu

Can a list be copyrighted? Archbishop of Mount Sinai and Raithu states at the end that (It reports: "© 1995-2005 B. Schemmel. Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited. All rights are reserved for profit-seeking purposes.") If such data can be copyrighted, the article should be deleted. I have queried in the talk page, but have not received reply since June. -- ReyBrujo 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some lists can be copyrighted but not that one. Copyright needs to involve something with original creative effort. A list of the most influential people of 2006 would bee copyrighted but not a list of monarchs of France.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agre with Birgitte: this list does not seem to have any sort of original input in the sense of Feist v. Rural (U.S. law), and, for the similar reasons, is probably not protectable in other Berne Convention countries. I have removed the copyright notice (not that this has any effect on copyright protection, except in Laos and Turkmenistan), the person concerned can argued his case with the designated agent if necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

two upload collections, should something be done?

– uses creative fair use licenses, such as {{bookcover}} for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg. For two images that had the source given – websites – I changed the tags to {{promophoto}}s, but we still don't know the source for Image:Maharaj-ji.jpg and Image:Neemkarolibaba.jpg. Further, Image:Sribhagavandas.jpg is cut from an album cover... does that still qualify as {{albumcover}}?

– uses the following "Terms of Use":

1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and the url: " http://www.nambassa.com " is to acompany all use.

2/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

3/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

Statement by Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry

The images are also tagged with {{cc-by-2.5}}. Are the two compatible? Are the terms appropriate for wikipedia?

Also, the images all have the "nambassa.com" watermark on them. Is this not allowed or discouraged?

Sorry for the multitude of questions and links... I kind of get lost in licensing terms once I venture outside my trusted {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} :) --user:Qviri 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A fair use claim depends on USE not on source. One cannot claim fair use for an image cropped from an album cover, on the grounds it is from an album cover. The fair use claim is ONLY for the article on that particular album. /1 is attribution. Unless the owner says they are under a CC license you cannot say that they are. We cannot license people's work for them! Secretlondon 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution licenses are compatible with the GFDL: you should copy the exact license terms to the Image description file. Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to be careful with images from pdimages.com

http://pdimages.com do not give any source information for the images on their website. Thus we cannot verify their copyright status. According to Misplaced Pages's criterias, that is not acceptable. While http://pdimages.com may feel that their images are free to use in the US, I can not see how it could work for a reputable encyclopedia such as Misplaced Pages. I expressed discomfort with image Image:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg that was recently kept, as said on Image_talk:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg. If you feel this is not a copyright issue, I can probably bring the question at a no source department on Misplaced Pages....

Fred-Chess 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course if they gave you the source you wouldn't pay them for it... Secretlondon 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't know when an image was taken, where it was first published, or who took it, and you think that's ok? Just clarifying... / Fred-Chess 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. Secretlondon 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla's uploads

Caligvla (talk · contribs · block log) uploaded three photographs of pages of a book (the National Geographic Atlas) and has claimed that they are released into the public domain by himself, the "author" . I don't feel comfortable about this though, could someone please confirm that these are not copyright infringements. Thanks.--Euthymios 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright authorship claim

See User talk:Daniel.Bryant#boulder opal. I vaguely remember reading a page which will outline the procedure for this kind of situation, but I can't find it. Any ideas? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posting on TV.com

I just found out that the reason the summaries in the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes are often the same as the ones at TV.com - the same person is writing them for both sites. What are the policies about what can and cannot be done about identical text appearing on diffferent websites when submitted by the same person? CovenantD 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the licensing rules of the other site. If the other site has terms of service demanding transfer of exclusive rights to contributed material to the site owner, then a violation is taking place if the contributor puts the same material on Misplaced Pages; on the other hand, if the other site only asserts nonexclusive rights, then it would be proper for the contributor to release it on multiple sites of this sort, and/or under a free license such as GFDL, at once. If a conflict exists, then it would probably be legally relevant which site the user contributed it to first; if it was placed on Misplaced Pages first, it would be under the GFDL and the user's later contribution to another site with an unfree, exclusive license would be invalid (but any legal problems would end up being between the user and the other site); on the other hand, if it were contributed first to another site with an incompatible and exclusive license, then the GFDL contribution would be invalid because the contributor would no longer have the rights he was purportedly making available under the GFDL license. *Dan T.* 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request assistance

I found that a particular section of the article Zakir Naik was a copied from . I could not locate the original non-copyright-violating version in the article history. I therefore blanked the particular section and listed the page on WP:CP as the instructions on the main page indicated. Can someone with experience in such matters, please look over my actions and see if I followed the correct process ? Thanks. Abecedare 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Some of you may have seen this before, but I do think it is important and I am getting no informed replies at all. If there is somewhere else to raise this, please say so.

It seems to me that Wikimapia, full as it is of Google Earth images, but be a copyright violation. (Yes, I've asked on Talk:Wikimapia, but I couldn't say there was a definitive reply.) The reason this is relevant is that there are thousands of pages linking to wikimapia.org, all of which are against the guidelines in WP:EL if the site is a copyvio. I removed one link before realising the scale of the problem. My own license for Google Earth gives me rights only in "home, personal or recreational use", and I think Wikimapia can't really be described as any of those. Anyway, I think this is an important point. If it was already discussed, a pointer on Talk:Wikimapia may save wasted energy in the future. Notinasnaid 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

??Remember to avoid copyright paranoia??

This sentence is at the end of the first paragraph and links to http://meta.wikimedia.org/Avoid_copyright_paranoia the page on Meta.wikimedia has no references and seems to be rant on personal opinions of why copyrights do or do not mater. I strongly question the correctness of inlcuding a link to that page from this one. Jeepday 13:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. – Quadell 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something along these lines does need to be said, though I agree that the current meta page is far from the best way of saying it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\ 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page on Misplaced Pages that address the issue? Jeepday 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam image

(Also posted on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam) I've noticed a few folks use Image:SpamInACan.jpg in relation to the Spam WikiProject and other efforts related to the usage of "spam" as it refers to unsolicited commercial messages. It seems that it might be a copyright or trademark violation to do so. The actual image is purported to be a US Air Force photo so it's likely in the public domain. However, it's an image of a trademark and is often used in relation to (mis)uses of that trademark. In addition to any legal issues, there is also the issue of plain "niceness" as Hormel as been extraordinarily reasonable with the use of their trademarked term to refer to unsolicited commercial messages but they do "object to the use of...our product image in association with that term." I am not suggesting that their objection carries legal weight but certainly it should carry some weight in maintaing our own public image. I also am not suggesting that the image needs to be deleted as it clearly may have some legal uses.

As you can tell, this appears at first glance to an non-expert to be a good mix of copyright, trademark, and non-legal issues. I'm certainly no expert in copyright or trademark so I wanted to post this message so that others more knowledgable in those areas can offer some insight and advice. --ElKevbo 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not a lawyer, I have a very good layman's understanding of copyright issues. The logo for SPAM and the front of the can is probably not copyrighted (though it might be). It's certainly trademarked, but that's a different area of law from copyright. Whether the design on the front of the can is copyrighted or not, the image in question is certainly not copyrighted, since it was produced by the USAF. The USAF might have been violating Hormel's copyright by publishing a derivative work of their copyright, and was almost certainly violating Hormel's trademark, but Hormel hasn't seemed to mind. At any rate, Misplaced Pages isn't violating Hormel's copyright (if it's even copyrighted, which it probably isn't) by displaying the public-domain image. – Quadell 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we upload text licensed under CC Share Alike to Misplaced Pages?

Wherebot found that Akiyama Nana was an exact copy from http://wiki.theppn.org/Akiyama_Nana, and we are still not sure how to act. ThePPN releases text under Creative Commons Share Alike. Personally, I believe the licenses are not compatible, as text in Misplaced Pages is released under GFDL, and CCSA asks you to release derivative work under the same CCSA license. However, we would like to hear a second opinion about this matter. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While this is being worked on, see Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-11-21/CC compatibility, I don't think these licenses are compatible at the moment, so incorporating that text would be a violation of the CC license. jaco♫plane 08:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are images obtained from a newspaper's website "scans"?

User:Srkris has uploaded some images lifted from a newspaper (The Hindu) website:

• Image:Youngcvb.jpg
• Image:Cvbyoung.jpg
• Image:Dkp.jpg
• Image:Chembai2.jpg

When I and User:Venu62 tagged them with copyright violation tags, the user reverted the edits calling them "bad faith". Although The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message, the user argues that thse images are "low-res newspaper scans". I pointed out that the images are not scanned by him, but directly lifted from The Hindu website. The user accepted that the images are from the website, but argued that it doesn't matter who scanned the images. He claims that since "all images from non-digital era are through scans", The Hindu must have scanned them. So, it is a low-res newspaper scan and therefore fair use.

Also, some images copied from chembai.com, and tagged with {{PD}} and {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:

• Image:Chembaisang.jpg
• Image:Chembai.jpg

Chembai.com doesn't have an explicit copyright message, but in my knowledge, that doesn't mean that they are not copyrighted. And tagging the images as PD and GFDL is certainly not justified.

The Hindu website has an explicit copyright message. I wonder whether the user's argument is valid? utcursch | talk 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

These are clearly copyright violation. Thanks for pointing this out. – Quadell 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy - Copyrights and Fair Use of Images of Celebrities

The following language is from the locked policy page on Misplaced Pages copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement

Celebrity photographs

This is based on the image guidelines at IMDB, so it especially applies to celebrity photographs, but also can apply to other pictures. Legitimate photographs generally come from three different places with permission.:The studios, producers, magazine publisher, or media outlet that originally shot the photograph.

Agencies that represent the photographers who shot the photos or the photographer themself (the latter especially for amateur photographs)

Submissions from the celebrity himself or herself or a legal representative of the celebrity.

This written copyright policy on Misplaced Pages clearly indicates usage of said photographs does not violate copyright, is legitimate, and is permissble on Misplaced Pages. The above statement does not mandate the above entities license said images under a GFDL, and it's inherent from the outset that the above entities do not generally license their work under GFDL in nearly all cases, rather Fair Use. They are in these businesses, and as businesses, generally distribute work for either paid or promotional purposes only under Fair Use.

However, the admins now enforcing Fair Use images are deleting nearly any image of a living person, regardless of whether it comes from a source such as that indicated above, as long as the image is of a living person, claiming the image could be at some point be replaced by a GFDL or CC image. It does not matter whether such a GFDL image in fact exists, how difficult it might be to obtain, or whether the celebrity provided a Fair Use image themselves. Following the rationale now being enforced, it would seem impossible for a living celebrity to ever have an image on Misplaced Pages, as their celebrity alone would make them available for the potential creation of a GFDL image in essentially any case. I have recently had 32 images deleted, nearly all of which fell into these categories. The above policy has no meaning whatsover to the enforcing admins, who see the primary goal as a "totally free" encyclopedia. Some also view deleting otherwise permissible fair use images as advancing the goal of encouraging persons to find or create or take GFDL images. A variety of other claims, including that of "freedom to the downstream user", are also advanced. Most celebrities want exactly the opposite, as they do not want their images used for endorsement or other purposes without permission, which a GFDL license allows in perpetuity.

A number of users who have had legitimate Fair Use images deleted and replaced by amateur photographs have begun to raise the issue of United States state laws, some of which do not allow distribution of images of celebrities without the expressed consent of said celebrity, including amateur images. Those arguments have so far been ignored, and it would follow that Misplaced Pages would in fact be exposed to more, not less, potential liability than it would by distributing Fair Use images released by the copyright holder or celebrity for just such a purpose, for which liability is essentially zero. Not to mention that the professional images are often of a far higher quality than the amateur images now being substitutued, and advance the goal of a quality encyclopedia better.

Another aspect of this issue is that Fair Use images of deceased persons are used at will under the premise that no Fair Use image can possibly be created. This would seem to fly in the face of the entire "totally free" argument from the outset, and there are thousands of other fair use images that remain on Wikiepdia regardless, such as for album, CD and DVD covers, which have and will likely remain untouched. I also believe it's possible, in fact likely, that licensing rights of images of deceased celebrities would transfer to the estate, and that Misplaced Pages is under no more, or less, potential liabilty than they for the living, marking the distinction of dead vs. living as a potential red herring.

The enforcing admins and supporting users in this area have been described by some as "jihadists" in their deletion of all fair use images of living persons including celebrities. My experience would indicate that is an appropriate view, as 32 of 35 disputed images were removed, including numerous images gained from celebrities themselves for use on Misplaced Pages, despite lengthy fair use rationales. Every image I've loaded was immediately examined and challeged in some respect, beginning immediately after I posted critical comments on the enforcement of Fair Use at the Chowbok Rfc page, the largest hub of several similar Rfc pages which have had the net effect of zero on the above policy's interpretation and enforcement by the admins in question.

All of this has led to many angry Wikipedians, some of whom have left in complete disgust. I myself have stopped loading images of any kind to the project, including many original images I had considered licensing as Creative Commons, because of how these fair use images of celebrities are being treated at present. I am now advising celebrities I know and contact of how said policy is being enforced, and also advising them not to license images under GFDL without being fully aware of the potential downstream use of said images, over which they will have no control whatsoever.

I post this as a commentary, and invite others, epecially admins who view the above policy implementation as heavy handed or incorrect, to comment. Thank you. Tvccs 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)