Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:19, 12 October 2012

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.

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

Advice?

At Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Let's try this out 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.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:LINKVIO, 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 this, 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. :) --Moonriddengirl 10:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for clarifying that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 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 Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a Wikisource issue, so I recommend bringing it up at s:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations instead. (Only a Wikisource administrator can delete the page you are asking about; Misplaced Pages admins can't.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Will doRed Rose 13 (talk) 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? AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. This seems to suggest the same: "...machine translation of a text creates derivative work under the Copyright Act and may be liable for copyright infringement if that translation is unauthorized." 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 - SudoGhost 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I had this concern with Cyprus Association of Librarians – Information Scientists (CALIS) which I listed back in August (see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#16 August 2012). Still, I'm not sure exactly what the approach should be to deal with it, can it for instance be deleted under CSD G12? France3470 (talk) 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 copyright still applies. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'm seeing all kind of things online that support this, and nothing that says otherwise. - SudoGhost 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The following image: File:Silences of Hammerstein pp 82 87 isbn 978-1906497224.pdf 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 Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord 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). --Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's two options, really. You could tag it with {{subst: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 WP:FFD. 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 WP:NFCR, but that's often a slow and ineffective process, since it's more of an "opinion" board than an administrative board. --Moonriddengirl 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 Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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 boldy F7'd the file. If it turns out I was mistaken about it's intended use I'll happily restore. Dpmuk (talk) 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) --Moonriddengirl 11:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I went to the article Glastonbury Town F.C. to try to add some citations, however I found the history section is almost word for word the same as the clubs web site, 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?— Rod 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section as copyvio. It was added with this edit on 3 March 2012. It is an exact copy from this page 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. Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Copyrighted content addition in articles

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:

Swarup Ranjan Mishra (talk · contribs)

is persistently adding copyrigted content to articles, even after being warned thrice (, , ). --SMS 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) This kind of thing can sometimes be reported to WP:AIV or, if the issue is more complex, WP:ANI. 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. --Moonriddengirl 11:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates in page not working due to include size

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

<!-- 
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
-->

The Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes is whats making the page not work. I've raised the issue on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#WP:Copyright_problems hitting Post-expand include size. One editor there has suggested either splitting the page or looking at the sub templates used like {{la}}.--Salix (talk): 17:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've weighed in there. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 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 Template:La/x (rather than {La} ) 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 Template:La, 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" Template:La 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 wp:BACKLOG lists, if contacted. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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.--Salix (talk): 11:14, 11 October 2012 (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. --Moonriddengirl 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 MediaWiki 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 kb), not because the page is actually that large. For example, when Template:La is condensed to contain the contents of Template:Lx, 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. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like VWBot is using CSB's old space in the hat boxes and an awful lot of those entries are redlinks, presumably speedy deletions. Verno, could you change the bot to remove redlink entries from it's sub-pages when it makes a daily pass? To keep it simple, maybe just scan back through the last 7 days worth of VWBot reports? Franamax (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, or it's DumbBot or MadmanBot or DPMUKBot, I'm all asea now, and it looks like there are bot reports in the manual tagging sections? So is there any bot that can remove redlink entries? Franamax (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)