Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:54, 10 February 2014

• WT:CP

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

Society for Scholarly Publishing

I had reported this article as problematic yesterday, since it had infringing content since creation yet had some non-infringing content added later. I felt that most of the non-infringing content was not worth keeping due to tone/sourcing in any case, but the article was maybe not a clear-cut G12 so I didn't delete it. I wanted to get a new article up for this subject, though, rather than the blanked page with the copyvio notice, so I went ahead and made a new draft and moved it over the old page. The old edits are deleted, as a result. I hope all of this is in order, and my short-circuiting of the process was ok in this case. Please take a look. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsure if copyvio

This edit copied complete paragraphs and part of the table from this site. There is no copyright notice or date on the site. I deleted it as unsourced, but is also a copyvio? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's no explicit license then implicitly copyright is reserved; we generally can't use it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some revisions, like this and that, copied this source. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RD1 wording

There is a discussion at WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording regarding WP:Revision deletion#1, Blatant copyright violations. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue should be resolved here - not that I think it a big one, for that matter, but I think the intended effect is to say that while using RD1 when cleaning up is best practice, not doing it isn't a sin either. What we can't have is an instruction set that suddenly. Until the WMF says otherwise, a bad edit buried in a page's history constitutes "removing from public view" and that should be enough. With the massive and mounting backlogs of potentially problematic contributions at WP:CCI, what we certainly don't need is to create a compulsion to RD1 every single bad edit identified since WP:CP became institutionalized. MLauba 10:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If RD1 is best practice, every editor that finds a copyvio would have to find an admin to do a revdel, a ridiculous increase in wikiworkload; overall, it's not like there's a surfeit of active admins. Simply reverting a copyvio is a longstanding practice. While list attribution is allowable, individual attribution is better. Best solution would be to simply remove RD1 -- how does it make Misplaced Pages better? NE Ent 10:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Best practice doesn't preclude "normal practice". In this specific case, "normal practice" is removing the copyvio, "best practice" is removing and revdel. What I don't want to see is if an admin goes the extra mile and revdels a copyvio he removed, he then gets dragged to ANI over it for no good reason. MLauba 11:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am more inclined to rev-delete when the copyright issue is extensive and/or seems likely to find its way back into the article, or when it is recent and removal harms nothing. I think it's important to balance the value of easily searched history with risk management. :) I don't revdelete every copyright issue I remove, but try to use common sense to determine when removal is (a) trivial or (b) worth it. --Moonriddengirl 01:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with common practice not precluding best practice, but in this case we have the luxury of doing both concurrently. No harm is going to come to anything by having a copyvio in the edit history; worse case scenario is WMF gets a DMCA takedown notice -- and even in those instances a simple revert suffices: e.g. . If there's a history of, or a significant likelihood of, an editor edit warring to restore copyvio material then revdel would be a reasonable per MRG. NE Ent 02:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No harm is done either way, but the point is, admins who add RD1 to a clean-up action shouldn't be dragged to ANI over it - we happen to have this present discussion for that exact reason. MLauba 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"No harm is going to come to anything by having a copyvio in the edit history" is unfortunately not true, NE Ent. :/ They come back, as I explained at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD1_wording. Your "worst case scenario" does raise the question, though, of what people think is the reason for removal of copyrighted content. The risk you speak of is an important one, of course - the protection of movement funds. But legally speaking, like YouTube or Facebook or Fickr, WMF is not required to remove copyrighted content at all unless they receive a DMCA takedown notice. The community does it anyway because doing so is responsible and ethical and serves our greater mission of creating educational content that can be used and modified by anyone anywhere. Copyright issues impact copyright holders and reusers, some of whom may not be able to simply edit it out with no (or trivial) expense. Legal protection of WMF and our editors is an important aspect, but other important risk management considerations here are damage to copyright holders (whose content may be widely disseminated in a way that is not easy to address) and to our reusers. This is what i believe needs to be balanced against transparency. I wouldn't want rev-deletion to become required for copyright cleanup. But I also wouldn't want to see any barriers put in its way. --Moonriddengirl 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MLauba's edit to WP:Copyright problems/Header#Suspected or complicated infringement. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we centralize discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD1_wording? NE Ent 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because nothing you said or posted there persuades me that the RD1 criterion's wording needs any changes, whereas here we have some room for improvement. If you want to centralize, this is the right place. MLauba 10:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Article copied from within Misplaced Pages

If an article completely comprises of content copied from another article without attribution, what to do in such a case. According to the Copying within Misplaced Pages guideline it violates Misplaced Pages's Copyrights policy, so can such an article be considered a CSD#G12 case? And if not how to proceed in such a case? I am talking about Shivani Financial article, I first reduced the content that I found copied from FXCM article but later realized the complete article was copied. -- SMS 19:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

CWW violations are rarely deleted as G12 because they can be fixed (WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Repairing insufficient attribution) without admin intervention. I have seen a few deleted by that criterion; the ones I remember involved substantial duplication, either of an existing article (CSD A10 or WP:Content forking) or of a user draft taken without permission. In the draft case, the original author decided to move his or her draft to article space, and the copy was deleted. Regarding Shivani Financial, I see notifications of the 2011 G11 of Shivani Financial Forex Trading Consultancy at User talk:Aftab222000. It seems like a straightforward delete at WP:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections

Just a reminder that as we don't have a working bot at the moment copy and paste taggings aren't being listed here so this category is slowly filling up. Presumably the close paraphrase category is as well. I will try to spend some time on it but as I've just started a new job I'm not sure how much time I'll have. Dpmuk (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking assistance

I am seeking assistance on House of Dlamini. I stepped in to try and moderate an edit war that stems from a claim of copyvio which seems to have been going on for years. See Talk:House_of_Dlamini#Edit_warring - it is a long thread and I have only just managed to get an answer about where the infringement stems from . Even then it is complicated, but basically much of the information up to the 1980's may trace back to Burke's Peerage, though the formatting and wording suggests it has been copypasted from the website. More recent information has been researched by the webmaster (User:Royalty2012).

The question really is where is the fine line between using information from a website and creating a copyright violation? Is it just the layout and wording, or in this case does the extent of the data (99%) used impact the situation. Does User:Royalty2012 have any better claim to the content of the information he has researched and published, or just the layout of it?

I really would appreciate broader assistance with this issue and a way forward. --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CBRE Philippines

Dear Copyright experts: Investigating an old Afc draft led me to this article of the same name which appears to have a large amount of copyvio from:

• http://www.cbre.com.ph/about-us/
• http://www.cbre.com.ph/mobile/history_and_milestones.php
• http://www.cbre.com.ph/mobile/our_chairman_and_founder.php

as well as smaller sections from many other pages on the company's web site. It appears that all of the text was copied from the site and then some parts were edited to be third person, more concise, etc. How much of a web site needs to be in violation of copyright before the whole thing is speedily deeleted? I deleted the Afc draft rather than historymerging it, because it was all copyvio. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I just G12'd it, every single bit from the first two revisions was copied from http://www.cbre.com.ph/about-us/ or other pages accessible from the menu in the left. Changes to the article since then were minor and didn't add any new material worth keeping (if any at all). The fact they were edited makes no difference in this instance (and indeed most instances) as it is still a derivative work. Dpmuk (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I was pretty sure that it wasn't worth keeping, but I am happy for the second opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Aegukka

A user requested to RevDelete the revisions of Aegukka containing the song's lyrics . I realized, however, that a very large number of revisions contain the lyrics, so it might be unfeasible to RevDelete them all. Posting here for review. decltype (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A previous editor noted in 2010 that in the article on Durkheim much content is copied from Britannica. After that, some one has edited the page to include a reference to the Britannica article and apparently rephrased some sentences. However, the article seems to contain many complete sentences and paragraphs from the Britannica article. Is this copyvio or not and what should be done?