Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 5 July 2005

• ]

If you are the owner of content that is being used on Misplaced Pages without your permission, then you may request that the offending page (or page version) be immediately removed from Misplaced Pages.

To expedite this process you will need to provide some type of proof that you are the copyright holder. We certainly will not immediately remove anything without being reasonably sure that it is in fact a copyright violation.

All suspected copyright violations should be listed at Misplaced Pages:Possible copyright infringements. Our policy page dealing with copyrights is at Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.

Alternatively, you may choose to contact Misplaced Pages's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Page histories

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Misplaced Pages's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Post a message

Current requests

Issues which appear to have been resolved have been moved to Archive 1.

Pictures on Bun Festival page

For details see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bun_Festival

Historic list of members of the Privy Council

(Also daughter pages and possibly other pages?)

Transferred from User_talk:Andrew Yong:

Please explain to me and all other members of the Misplaced Pages community the reasons why you have flagrantly breached my copyright in the listings of Privy Counsellors since 1679. It is patently obvious to me (and anyone else who cares to look) that you have merely copied these listings from my web-page at Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page. You have not provided as far as I can see any attribution or credit for MY work and have attempted to pass these listings off as your own research. Please remove these pages immediately. Sea Lion]

Transferred from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Peerage:

Members of the Misplaced Pages community (and especially those who contribute to this page) will be aware of my page at http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/. A number of people have been kind enough to say to me that they consider my page to be valuable to their work in this area. Although each of my pages has a copyright notice at the foot of the page, I am happy for the contents of my pages to be used,quoted or published by other people, PROVIDED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES PROPER ATTRIBUTION/CREDIT IS GIVEN TO ME FOR MY WORK. I am however not prepared to accept wholesale breaches of my copyright - I stumbled across such a case yesterday and I am more than a little p*ssed off that this has occurred. I have added a post to the individual's talk page demanding that the offending pages be removed immediately. If this person had asked my permission to use my research prior to posting the offending pages, it would have been freely given, subject to proper attribution.

Some of you may be familiar with a practice long used by certain industries (especially by publishers of maps and street directories) of including, for example, a non-existent geographical feature on a map or a non-existent street in a street directory so as to be able to tell whether another company in a similar industry is merely stealing their work and passing it off as their own. Be aware that my pages follow a similar practice - somewhere in each page there is a hidden pointer which enables me to tell at a glance whether someone has stolen my work. In the case in point, the tell-tale deliberate error appears on the offending pages, something that would not happen if the owner of that page had done their own research instead of simply stealing mine.

Comment from me: I'm not sure why Mr. Yong has been singled out here. Most of the work on this was done by me. As such, I'd defend by saying that, as far as I have been able to tell by cross-checking, Mr. Rayment's work is based on publicly available reference works such as Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage, and so forth (which are not, however, acknowledged), and takes the form of lists of officeholders. As such, I question the validity of the copyright claim. My understanding is that factual information cannot be copyrighted. At any rate, I would be happy to add credit to Mr. Rayment (although I'd be more comfortable with such a position if he himself gave credit to his own sources for the information he uses.) john k 03:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What you have and what we have are both lists of factual information presented in chronological order. Both are thus not protectable under copyright law (see Feist v. Rural). Our list is also formatted in a different way than yours so how in the world can you claim that we even used you as a reference, let alone the allegation that we copied your work? You therefore have no right to demand anything from us. John - if you did not use this guy's work as a reference, then please don't list him as one. List the references you actually used. --mav 05:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, didn't mean to be unclear - I did use his page as a reference. (and you can probably find on talk pages various mentions by me, Lord Emsworth, and others that we have used the page as a reference). When I have checked against other sources, though, such as Complete Peerage, it's clear that his work is based on those sources. john k 05:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Facts are not covered by copyright. The only thing that may be copyrighted here is the list in the format it appears. The list of Privy Counsellors differs substantially from Mr Rayment's list in terms of format, and to a degree in terms of content (note, for instance, that only years, and not exact dates are listed, that there is no "age" column, that the peers' ordinal numbers are provided, and so forth). Neither has information been unlawfully taken, nor has the format been reproduced; therefore, I don't believe that there is a copyright issue here. Now, that said, I would definitely agree that a reference to Mr Rayment's site is in order, as Misplaced Pages Policy requires one to cite one's sources. -- 10:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

In short: it would be best practice to list Mr Rayment's page (and others that have been counter-checked, such as Burke's &c.) as a reference source on any and all pages for which it has been used, but this it by no means a legal requirement, it being an ordering of factual information.
Next?
James F. (talk) 11:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since it's claimed there are tell-tale errors in the list, it would be valuable for someone familiar with the subject to go through the list, comparing it to a second external source -- that way, not only would the information be correct, but the claims of copyright infringment would be made moot. -- Seth Ilys 15:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notes on copyright and fact listings

Lists of facts cannot be copyrighted. Their organisation *may* be. The law requires some *creative* element in the organisation of such material. This is a low requirement - but an essential one. Some methods of listing eg alphabetical order are now regarded scene a faire - material one would reasonably expect to be present. Listing of personages by date is also one such method.

The alleged(?) author above claims that the presence of deliberate mistakes in his work makes it copyrightable. The inclusion of *minimal* erronous material in such data does not protect the copyrights of the original author(s). This is a common and false assumption. The law only protects copyright infringment where there is *substantial* copying. If the listing contains (say) 1000 names of whom 999 are correct and one is an error even copying the entire listing is highly unlikely to be considered a violation of copyright.

The reasoning here is that the names and titles of the persons in such a list are *facts* and hence cannot be protected by copyright. A listing in historial order is *not* protectable because this falls under the scene a faire doctrine. 1/1000 entries is extremely unlikely to satisfy the de minimis criterion of the law and it might well be judged as falling under the "fair use doctrine".

The *correct* treament of such material is for the author to request that the infringing copyrightable materal *and only that material* be removed. This has the side effect in the instant case of improving the accuracy of the remaining material. It is the requestor's obligation to show that s/he holds the relevent copyrights to the data and explcitly identifies the violating material - excluding any uncopyrightable data. The requestor is exceeding his/her rights if s/he asks for a single line of unprotected material to be removed. To falsely claim copyrights is a federal offense in the United States and carries a jail sentence.

Underlying these 'alleged' copyright infringments there is frequently an underlying assmption that is false. Copyright law was not designed to reward anyone for work carried out by the 'sweat of the brow'. Copyright exists exclusively to protect the creative and novel element(s) in works whether or not they have any economic value of not. Attribution is *not* necessary if the material is not copyrightable. Nonetheless it is good manners to do so.

1 pound notes

I have uploaded an image of the front and of the back of what I think is a Series C Bank of England £1 note, but have now discovered I need prior permission, I am currently applying for permission to use these images in wikipedia, but my existing versions don't meet the requirements, so I request that they be removed in the meantime. They are Image:1pound note-back.jpg and Image:1pound note-front.jpg.

I don't know whether these would be allowed under "fair use" or similar, but if someone else wants to claim fair use, they could reupload them, so I see no reason not to allow the uploader to remove their mistake in uploading these. Angela. 18:15, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

• The Bank of England has very strict rules on the reproduction of their notes, we've been asked to take similar scans downin the past, one must ger prior permission to reproduce BoE notes. Boffy b 16:07, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

• Regardless of their rules i dont think they have a valid claim here, pictures of money are most defenetly fair use whatever the BOE thinks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:41, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

• Images of paper notes are problematic because of the potential for forgery. If the image is of paper money currently in use it would be best to avoid posting it. The image itself is copyrighted by the Bank of England. Whether or not it can be enforced is another story. The laws of a country are copyrighted but the copyright cannot be enforced. This would certainly be an interesting case just to see the logic applied here: exactly who does own the money?
• Surely they can't object so long as the scan is of low enough a resolution as to be useless for printing?

I believe that any kind of reproduction of any English banknotes without prior permission is illegal under English criminal law. Obviously this law is not directly binding on Misplaced Pages, but it's still a factor. ] 22:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Point of interest- The Clash wanted to use images of pound notes on the cover of their "Cost of Living" EP back in 1978, but were prevented from doing so by the BoE, even though the reptroductions could clearly not be used for counterfieting purposes... Or maybe CBS' legal dept was just playing safe??? I clearly remember the minor furore that went on in the music press at the time... 217.42.244.92 00:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) Appologies, that was me quercus robur, I forgot I was signed out (using someone elses PC)

• Considering £1 bank notes are not legal tender, does this really matter? The only place they could be redeemed, if at all, is the Bank of England itself. It's not like an image of a $1. GreenReaper 19:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Not all £1 notes are not legal tender; I've got a load of Bank of Scotland ones. I'm also reasonably sure currency is exempted from the usual copyright legislation due to fraud and forgery concerns. Md25 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Scottish banknotes are not legal tender, and the only bank that has been printing £1 notes recently has been the Royal Bank of Scotland, rather than the Bank of Scotland. The British banknotes page describes the difference. This doesn't really change the fact that the poster needed "permission", though. zootm

There used to be a good site at www.rulesforuse.org covering copying of currency, but now it's gone. There might be useful information in the wayback machine at . silsor 20:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

To whom may concern:

Recently we were informed about a copyright violation committed against Welcome to Puerto Rico!

Content found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Bayamon

Original content found at: http://welcome.topuertorico.org/city/bayamon.shtml

Welcome to Puerto Rico! never received a request for permission of use from your part. Please remove such materials as soon as possible.

This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter.

Magaly Rivera

The article itself is not a copyright violation. However, one recently added paragraph, , is clearly taken from a paragraph of (priority established by .) It should either be removed or quoted with attribution. - Mustafaa 19:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the text that seems to be copied from your site and one other site as well. silsor 20:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

No permission granted to lift work off www.european-defence.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

While browsing the internet, I came across the use of material off my website European Defence (www.european-defence.co.uk). In particular, there is material lifted from http://www.european-defence.co.uk/directory/armedforces/turkey.html for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Military_of_Turkey

While the sources have been acknowledged, I have at no time ever been asked permission for use of this material, which I would be willing to allow you to use for a fee. While European Defence is free to view at the present, IN NO TERMS is material allowed to be lifted without permission. I request that you immediately remove the above information. I hope that this request is honoured without me having to seek legal advice.

Michael Fishpool European Defence www.european-defence.co.uk

As far as I can tell, you edited this article yourself to remove the information. Is there anything else that you would like done? silsor 00:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Silsor.

In reference to your comment regarding my rant over the use of material from the European Defence website. I wrote the piece before I worked out that it is possible to remove the material myself... for that I apologise. I then added a piece to the discussion forum on that page. It appears that "CeeGee" has now updated the Turkish military piece, having used listings taken from a German forum. There is no further action now that I want Misplaced Pages to take.

(copied from my talk page - silsor 19:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC))

Removal of personal name

I recently received the following message on my talk page from User:65.48.148.152. I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I thought I'd copy it here:

Hey, Can you contact me "m y s p a m a i l"@yahoo.com please ? There is my personal name on one of your pages and I need it removed, thank you.

 – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So did you email him? silsor 20:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

removal of private picture

this picture is a private unreleased picture and should be deleted at once. http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:JaysonSaffer1.jpg 69.143.39.204

Okay, I noticed that you also removed this picture from Jason Saffer and removed the pd-release tag from the image. Could you demonstrate that you are the copyright holder? I will also ask User:Pacian, the contributor of the image and the person who linked it in Jason Saffer, to comment here. silsor 18:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've received personal email from the copyright holder, so I've deleted the image. silsor 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I found the picture in an advertisement placed by the person in question on craigslist.org under the "Men Seeking Men" section of the Washington, D.C. listings. Per craigslist's policies, photos that are posted there are released into the public domain, so the subject of the photo released that photo to the public. That being said, I couldn't care less if it is included here or not. Pacian 23:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Copyright image

Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the images posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2006 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) is the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transfered from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing.

To prove authenticity, here is a notice posted on the New Zealand National Front website: - Molloy

Arantis

Hi, have put a page together, but didn't think about copyright. Please remove "Arantis" immediately, thanks!

Copyrighted Materials

Recently we were informed about a copyright violation committed against Welcome to Puerto Rico! There is a considerable amount of copyrighted material placed on:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Guayama

  http://www.answers.com/topic/guayama-puerto-rico

  Original content:
  http://welcome.topuertorico.org/city/guayama.shtml

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Quebradillas%2C_Puerto_Rico

  Original content:
  http://welcome.topuertorico.org/city/quebra.shtml

Welcome to Puerto Rico! never received a request for permission of use from your part. We have computer-based data to support our claim.

In addition, images are been posted as public domain, when no copyright release was issue for such images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Image%3ABayamonmap.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/Image%3AToabajamap.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/Image%3AQueb.gif

Please remove such materials as soon as possible.

This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter.

Magaly Rivera Welcome to Puerto Rico! http://welcome.topuertorico.org

Guayama, Puerto Rico was reverted to the state it had before the text in question was inserted. Quebradillas, Puerto Rico was deleted, since the initial version already had the text in question and what had been added later was not enough for even a small article. The three images have been flagged for deletion and were removed from the articles where they were being used. --cesarb 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reproductions of baseball logos

The owner and publisher of the Negro League Baseball Dot Com website has sent us a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that several graphic images (emblems relating to Negro League Baseball teams) of which he is the creator and copyright owner have been posted to articles related to Negro League baseball teams on Misplaced Pages without permission.

The specific image URLs were

Michael Snow wrote that he did not have any reason to doubt the claim to ownership and recommended that we remove these as requested. He doesn't think they're important enough to us to warrant claiming fair use, and if they're not exactly the original logos, thinks a claim of fair use is much less likely to prevail.

I've now deleted these. Angela. July 2, 2005 01:27 (UTC)

Second Notice on Copyright Violation!

To Whom It May Concern:

The article Moses Kalankaytuk has been pasted from http://vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/kagankatvatsi.html. I am an owner of the above page that is being used on Misplaced Pages without my permission. On June 24, 2005 I have requested that the above page be immediately removed from Misplaced Pages. To expedite this process I provided the proof that I am indeed the owner of this Web Site by publishing this same request at http://vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/copyright_violation.html , at the same server, where the original article was published.

Since then the article Moses Kalankaytuk has been marked with the Copyright Violation tag, but its content is not deleted as it still can be viewed from the history pages. One week has passed already, but the article has not been deleted.

Please, remove this article now!

© 2001 - 2005, Библиотека «Вехи»,

Web Site Owner

Breach of copyright

Misplaced Pages is hosting an image of Kyle Chapman former leader of The New Zealand National Front. http://en.wikipedia.org/New_Zealand_National_Front I have removed this image several times, and replaced. This Image is my property and has been used without permission. This image has not been released into the public domain. As the copyright holder, and profesional photographer, I am requesting that this image be permantly removed immediatly.

If you have any further questions please contact me photocam@gmail.com

Regards

Cameron Burnell

The image is claimed under fair use, it has been used on other websites such as Scoop, uploaded I presume by Cameron. It has also been posted in various other location around the net. - Molloy

While I wish we could find a reason to keep it, I do not see how, under the fair use doctrine, that we can keep this image. It is a portrait, it does not depict an unreprodable event, we are not using it for critical comment, and it is reproducced full size. The copyright owner is apparently a young photographer who depends on his copyrights for income. For these reasons it seems a proper candidate for immediate removal. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 10:06 (UTC)

Ok, I spoke to the copyright holder on the phone, he has seeked legal advice and confirms he may be subject to profit loss. Contrary to my previous comment, I advise speedy deletion. Molloy