Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

Ennui (sonnet)

The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) article seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian [1].

"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."

appears in both, for instance.

Copyright violations or legitimate quotations?

Hi. The article 99ers contains a large amount of content copied from news sources, correctly attributed and treated as quotations. Could an editor familiar with copyright law and policy check to make sure this is OK? Concerns have been raised that the amount of text is such that copyright may be violated, regardless of attribution. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have added a tag. I've also weighed in at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the issue has been resolved. ClovisPt (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Chlamydophila pneumoniae

The majority of the subsection Chlamydophila pneumoniae and lung cancer has been copied and pasted directly from the full text of the article "Bacteria and cancer: cause, coincidence or cure? A review." from J Transl Med. 2006 Mar 28;4:14.

The original article is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/, but the article hasn't been cited by the paster as seems to be required by the licence.

Not sure what to do - should the text be removed and an external link added to the article, should somebody rewrite and reference, or can the pasted text remain but with the addition of a citation? --130.88.0.206 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks so much for following up on this. :) Since the original article is licensed under CC-By, we can use it so long as attribution is supplied, even belatedly. Since the source is licensed under CC but not GFDL, it's a good idea to use Template:CCBYSASource. (I find it here). I can do that, but will give you an opportunity to address it first, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've added the CCBYSASource template to the section heading, and put a proper journal reference at the end of the last paragraph from the paper cos it made me feel better. Hope that's ok. --130.88.0.160 (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Africa_Progress_Panel

I'm concerned that this page is a copyright violation of the website linked under it's External Links section, in particular the About page - http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/en/about/

I initially tagged it as needing wikifying, but have also left a notice on the article's talk page and also the talk pafe of the recent IP Editor who was doing a lot of work on it. CaptRik (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add, it does look like something that may be worthy of a real article. I may look into it if I can find the time. CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for large tables of data

There are a couple large tables of data presumably copied directly out of the books from which they are sourced. These tables contain four measures synthesized by the authors for over 180 countries. The tables can be found at IQ and Global Inequality and IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It's not clear to me how copyright for tabular data is handled by wikipedia. Any guidance would be appreciated. If this is copyrighted material, I think the authors will likely be willing to give permission, but before writing them I would like some input on whether or not this qualifies as a violation. aprock (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Raw data cannot be copyrighted. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html Miradre (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The data is not raw data. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted you are allowed to extract the data from a telephone directory and produce your own. Same thing here. Wikipedia has many such tables.Miradre (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The last time I checked a phone book, synthesized IQ estimates were not included. aprock (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the way they are expressed can be copyrighted. If authors perform a calculation, the result is not copyrighted, only the way they expressed the result. Furthermore, if there is only one reasonable way to express the result (as in a phone book) then there is no copyright protection. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rajsamand Lake

The article Rajsamand Lake contains some text that looks suspiciously like it was copied. I just deleted a couple of spots where it said See and then an all caps word, which is not how we do links. There is also a part that says 'shown here'. Google found some very similar entries, but I can't tell for sure if they are copies of copied. RJFJR (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good spotting! You are correct -- it is a copyright violation of The Mewar Encyclopedia. The first copyvio appears to be in March 2007 with this edit which was copied from this page (this is the archived version from February 2007). The current article is copied from this page (as it appeared in 2007). I've templated the page for revision. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford

Until I edited it a couple of days ago the article Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford had no sources. I altered it slightly to fit a source that I had and to put in section heads. Some additional sources were added today 03:15, 17 October 2010 by user:Lady Meg

The trouble is that one of the sources: Anne Dormer Notes would appear to be very similar to our page down to whole sentences being the same. So it would appear that our page is a copyright violation of their page. I think that the copyright violation is that way because the very first version of our page is very similar to theirs eg ours:

In Aug 1571 the Duchess of Feria wrote to ask that the license be extended from six months to two years, partly to allow Lady Hungerford to keep a safe distance from her husband. Three years later Lady Hungerford was still abroad living with the Roman Catholics at Louvain, and enjoying a Spanish pension,

Theirs:

In Aug 1571 the Duchess of Feria wrote to ask that the license be extended from six months to two years, partly to allow Lady Hungerford to keep a safe distance from her husband. Anne took over her grandmother's household in Louvain after Lady Dormer's death and remained there. In 1573, she was granted a pension of 1,100 livres a year by the King of Spain and in 1583 he granted her a further pension of fifty escudos a month.

I would like someone else to take a look and action a removal of the contaminated text. Also I guess that if it is we will have to look at the other edits of Hilaryellis who created 4 other pages. -- PBS (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Internet archive dates the current version of the source to 2008, before our article was created. Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Both seem to have been copied from a book. It's blanked, with a link to the book in place. I've done a spotcheck of her other articles, but haven't recognized copying yet. I'll take a look again when it comes due at CP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Porphyra haitanensis

I suspect this article Porphyra haitanensis of being a copyright violation, or the version before I removed most comment. I am editing, sorting, categorizing, correcting, stub-catting, and verifying taxonomy on wikipedia algae articles which are a mess, and I don't have time for much else. Is it possible someone could do whatever is proper for copyviolation in the history of this article? Thanks for the help. --KMLP (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless we have a source or a known multiple-point infringer, I'm afraid removing the history is not possible without community discussion under our current policies. But I've hit the jackpot: "Porphyra is not only delicious but also rich in high levels of protein, vitamins and dietary" matches this 2006 article. (More text is duplicated.) "Seaweeds contain large amounts of cell wall structural polysaccharides and storage polysaccharides, rich mineral elements, macro-elements and trace elements." is copied from [2]. The sources were cited, but that doesn't make it okay to copy the text. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a student work. But given the vast number of inaccessible sources and the verification of copying from at least two of them, I will delete the history of the article and caution the contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Directing a person to a specific torrent site for specific shows

I think this is probably the best place to ask given the odd nature of the question. What do people think of [3] which is basically directing someone to a specific torrent site for downloading specific shows? It seems it may risk contributory infrigement because even though it's not a direct link (well there's no link at all), it's rather close. Any comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Piracy questions would be appreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with Verno, who has already weighed in there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Endocrine system

A large amount of text has just been added to Endocrine system, apparently copy/pasted from http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/body_basics/endocrine.html which is copyrighted, all rights reserved. I thought this should be reported rather than just reverted. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the site has a clear copyright notice and there was no indication of permission I have reverted it. It shouldn't be restored unless verifiable permission to use it under CC-BY-SA has been granted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you knew just what messages to use. --Hordaland (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Level of attribution

In the article Augusta Barter, there is a note at the bottom that states "Some excerpts from the book Surviving on the Headland by Donald Barter". There are no inline citations and no indication of which passages have been used. I assume that simply stating where the information was obtained is not sufficient to justify the non-annotated inclusion of the material? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct; I've blanked the article and notified the contributor so that the matter can be addressed. Thanks for following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the US copyright exclusion on legal documents extend to the EU?

Okay, here's one on which I need feedback. Please contribute it to the question at the Copyrights policy talk page. Directive 2001/116/EC is tagged as a copyright violation of [4]. The originating body claims copyright here. U.S. law doesn't recognize copyright in legal code: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."(206.01, "Edicts of Government") Does this apply to legislation of the European Union? I was thinking so, but I am seriously second-guessing myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the European Union meets the strict legal definition of a "foreign government" (for example, as defined here.) It usually means a sovereign state, which the EU is not. The EU is a form of intergovernmental organization, like the African Union, OAS or UN. So how does the US copyright law handle directives passed by those organizations? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I wish I'd seen this sooner! I just restored the article based on the feedback at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. This is the question that made me second-guess myself to begin with. :/ We have traditionally treated text of the United Nations distinctly from the "edicts of government", so now I'm back to not knowing if I should have restored it or not. Would you mind moseying over to the Copyrights policy talk page and joining the conversation there? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the U.S. Copyright Office policy is that it is using "government" in a general sense, not in any particular constitutional sense. Notice that it includes judicial opinions as "edicts of government", for example. As EU laws create rights and obligations for individuals within the EU, they seem to fit within the type of documents which cannot be protected by copyright in the U.S. by public policy (the need for individuals to have free access to the laws that govern them). Physchim62 (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. I'll respond at the other talk page to keep the conversation in one place. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Freda Jackson

Someone on the Freda Jackson article has put what looks like most of the obituary text of her husband, Henry Bird, that appeared in the Guardian. Her husband might well merit an article given the obituary and the fact his work has had a recent public exhibition, "The Exceptional Henry Bird' ".--LittleHow (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've removed all of the copyvio text and warned the IP who added it. The obit could of course be used as a source, but obviously not copied and pasted into an article like that. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Download of pdf of book

Just need advice. Someone has posted a link to a Romanian site which is a direct download of a pdf version of a book in copyright. The page is Bastet and the book is the Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses by George Hart. Should I delete this link? Thanks.Apepch7 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; it's a WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User is uploading photos and falsely asserting copyright claims

User Asadsindher been uploading photos that are obviously not his/hers. This photo [5] belongs to Life.com and the actual author is Ethan Miller [6]. This photo [[7]] is from a blog article that was published before Asadsindher's supposed taking of said photo [[8]]. User has two more photos that were obviously taken by professional photographers. The Brock Lesnar photo is more than likely UFC copyrighted. BrendanFrye (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've deleted the blatant copyvios and left a warning for the user. Let's hope that they start paying attention to the warnings. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

More copyvio work/automation?

First the background: This weekend at my request Rich Farmbrough broke Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections up into monthly subcategories. Now that they've all been placed in the correct month (as far as I can tell), it looks like for at least the last six months there has been about one new article a day tagged with {{Copypaste}}.

Now leading up to the automation part: One of DumbBOT's tasks which has been broken for a long while now that I haven't yet implemented in VWBot is listing all new entries in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided at the daily CP. I intend to automate this, since VWBot's already approved to back up all of DumbBOT's copyvio work and these should be no more difficult daily work than blanked pages since they'll have sources provided, but before I did that I was wondering about expanding the task.

What do the rest of you who work here think of listing every new copypaste tagging here instead of just those with url's provided? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, since many of these tags are actually put on articles that are blatant copyright violations. If there is no duplication detected, these can instead be converted to "suspected copyvio" tags on the article talk. Or maybe we can create a new template that says, "This article was tagged as a copypaste of another source, but no source was provided. Please provide a source or blahblah...." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed on the support of a single opinion. Feel free to comment there. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Twilight zone episodes

It seems to me that every single article in Category:The Twilight Zone episodes contains copyright violations. Each article includes opening and closing narrations as well as the "next episode" narrations. In articles such as It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) (noted as one of the three best Twilight Zone episodes), the narrations constitute more than a third of the article. In what way are these not violations? Pardon me if this issue has been discussed before (or should be discussed elsewhere.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's been discussed before, but in my opinion It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) (at least, the only one I've looked at yet) is a violation of WP:NFC. We're only permitted brief quotations, and not decoratively. I see in that article at least that the extensive quotations have been removed before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the extensive quotes from that article. The project's guidelines actually require these quotations; I have therefor left them a courtesy notice about this discussion. I see from their talk page that the issue has been noted to them before. I'll also leave a notice about this matter at WT:NFC. I believe that these lengthy quotes (almost 3000 bytes worth in the article I edited, 524 words) should probably all be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving this down. This really needs additional attention. These 524 words have been restored to the article several times. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We really need some additional conversation, though, on how to handle the fact that the Twilight Zone style guides actually promotes this behavior. Contributors who add this massive chunk of non-free text are trying to conform to the styleguide without realizing the disconnect with non-free content policy. The contributors of TZ were notified of this discussion, but have not chosen to participate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Twilight Zone style guide? I imagine if it's boldly edited to conform with policy they'll either join the conversation or eventually adjust their behavior. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The_Twilight Zone#Style guide. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I was having trouble finding that, thanks. Okay, boldly edited - now I expect some upset people to come knocking. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm half way through the category now. all done --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As the original creator of the not-quote-dead-in-the-water Wikipedia:WikiProject The Twilight Zone, I wasn't made aware of this discussion until I received a bot notification of the orphaning of File:Livingdollclosing.ogg. I won't disagree with what the community thinks the result should be, but WP:NFC says "[b]rief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." I was under the impression that the opening and closing narrations of each episode, which usually amount to much less than 1/20 of the entire episode, clearly established the context of the episode synopsis. The fact that in some cases, the quotations make up a large chunk of the article is a strong argument for expanding the article, not deleting the quotations.

In some cases (e.g., It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone)), it may be that the quotations are lengthy. In other cases (e.g., A Game of Pool (1961)), the quotations are succinct. Is a short set of quotations, like those for "Pool", really in violation of fair use? travisl (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Violation of fair use, maybe not. The catch is that our non-free content guidelines are explicitly more strict than fair use demands. As I understand it the "context" referred to in that part of the guideline would be so that some other action or fact in the article makes sense or is explained by the quote. In this case the quotes don't establish any real context that isn't explained in the plot summary itself. That's my take at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you weren't aware of this conversation. Notification was supplied over a month ago at the doing-a-very-good-impression-of-dead talkpage. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that these are copyvios - as VW says, WP:NFC is stricter on this point than US copyright law. Turning to NFC, for a quote to demonstrably explain the context of something, it really has to be incorporated into a passage of prose. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup - I see it now, Moonriddengirl. I must've overlooked it in my watchlist when it popped up last month. VernoWhitney, if this is indeed the case, was the granting of Good Article status to the September 4, 2007 version of "Time Enough at Last" a mistake, or has the policy changed in the last three years? (I'm merely asking so that I'll know in the future -- it seems clear to me that the community believes this is a WP:NFC violation.) travisl (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never done anything with GA's so I really couldn't say. Wikipedia:Good article criteria oddly (sadly?) doesn't mention anything about copyright or non-free content besides images, so maybe extensive quotations just haven't come up before. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not copyvio, but is this plagiarism acceptable?

The article Mariette DiChristina is a straight copy of the Scientific American "media kit" biog at http://www.scientificamerican.com/mediakit/editorial/bios.cfm . It's got an OTRS ticket, but didn't have a reference to this source until I added one just now. Should there be such a ref? Is plagiarism like this acceptable in WP even if it isn't copyvio? PamD (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the editor who created the article, and this is his/her only contribution, so it's not part of a pattern, so far at least! PamD (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sometimes it's not an issue (when the text contributor here is the same author as the external source), but generally we should attribute copies on article faces in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. One problem is that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal such things as when the author is the same author as the external source per WP:OUTING and our confidentiality agreements. :) (Sometimes, they reveal it themselves). Another problem is that the guidelines given to OTRS volunteers do not emphasize this aspect. In fact, the language we're given is pretty much completely outdated; it's been unchanged since January 2009 and still presumes GFDL as our license! I usually use {{CCBYSASource}} in such situations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As the one who handled the OTRS ticket, I should explain that I don't add attribution to the article itself since I view the OTRS tag on the talk page as equivalent to {{copied}} which is acceptable per WP:COPYWITHIN. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't really inadequate attribution per copyright policy (although if not noted on the article's face we should make sure the "edit history" notes the copying, and I say this as a general note, not in response to this article or in presumption that you aren't doing so). If the source is external, noting direct copying from it is required under Wikipedia:Plagiarism. It's not plagiarism, of course, if placed here by the original creator. And it's not plagiarism if copied from one Wikipedia article to another because we do not self-credit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven Kingdoms (band)

I am not certain about the copyright rules here so maybe an editor with more experience in these matters could have a look at this article. It contains youtube videos and copy and paste of reviews on the albums released by this band, I have removed them but I have been reverted. I am using WP:ELNEVER for my rational for the removal of the videos and as the text is just a copy and paste I'm sure that is also a breach of copyvio, am I right? ThanksMo ainm~Talk 13:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That's a problem, yes. :) The Youtube videos have actually been uploaded onto Wikipedia, so WP:ELNEVER is not exactly the right way to go. If the videos are copyright violations, we need to have them deleted. The contributor is in the process of trying to verify permission for those. I think that he may not have been aware that the permission he is working to acquire will not permit him to copy the massive quotations from reviews, since the band does not own the copyright to these reviews. I have removed them and explained the problem to the contributor. Hopefully that'll take care of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

T%hats great thanks for the feedback. Mo ainm~Talk 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

John A. Prior Health Sciences Library

On this article, DGG added the copypaste tag. I had a look and it appears to copied from http://hsl.osu.edu/2853.cfm according to one of my Google searches. The problem is, I can't access the source because this is a dead link. However, I can still view it using the Cached link. Also, there isn't a copyright tag on that source. So, the question is, should I still remove the copyrighted text? Minimac (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Material is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is published, it doesn't need a copyright notice. Unless it is verifiably in the public domain or released under a free license it needs to be removed as a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK then, via the Cache link I'll have a look. Minimac (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness! It worked out very well. This was how much I managed to remove. Minimac (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio from a blacklisted source

Hi, I've had a query on my talkpage as to whether when we blacklist a source to prevent it being linked to or cited does that mean we can't cope when someone copypastes from it? On the off chance that this might possibly have come up before I thought I'd raise it here. ϢereSpielChequers 13:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No. :) We just disguise the link. (Hmm. I don't know if there's any way to make specific exceptions in copyvio templates for blacklisted links.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the advice, but exempting the templates would be cool. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into blacklisting before so I really have no idea if it's doable, but if copyvio templates could be exempted the CorenSearchBot templates would also be good ones to do - now that I'm running a knock-off copy I've been finding one or two articles copied from blacklisted sites a month that I track down through checking my error logs. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I've been deleting text from articles on Jatt history etc. [9] on the grounds that is is copyright violation. Just about any text you paste into google from these articles seems to be taken verbatim from various books. I just did the subst:copyvio on the whole Jat history (1669–1858) article, and I would very much like people here to review this action. Thanks (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When checking out a suspected copyvio, I like to look at the edit history in particular and see how the text was developed, and if it appears as something with a few words and sentences at a time added or if it sprang forth as a completed literary work all at once. In this case the first edit of this particular article is huge (40k of text) and appears to be too polished to have been something built up and created by the supposed contributor. It is possible that it was created somewhere else and simply copied & pasted into there, but not likely.

One problem with the books that I am seeing, however, is the relatively new phenomena of Wikipedia content resellers that are flooding book resellers such as Amazon.com and yes, Barns & Noble. I can't tell you which is first with this chicken or egg syndrome, and for a three year old article it is at least possible that the text for these books that you are asserting is proof of a copyvio is in fact content derived from this article. A google search may not be the best tool here to prove a copyvio, while that test is much better suited for newly added content that hasn't been through such a meat grinder. Due to the age of the edits on this article, I'm not completely convinced that it is a copyvio unless you can point to a printed book that clearly was created without content from Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The book is copyright 1989, and the article was started 2 June 2007. It may have been copied from Jatland wiki. That article was started in May 2007 and the first version contained text from the same book. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the information I was looking for... thanks! --Robert Horning (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio tool proposal

...at Wikipedia:Proposed tools/Cvcheck. Please comment. Novickas (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Reef National Park

This is more concern about plagiarism than copyright violation, but here goes:

Much of the history section of Capitol Reef National Park was taken directly from oficial National Park Service websites (it may have been one page when the edits were made in 13 July 2005, but are two now). As NPS sites, the text is public domain, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the present setup. I had put the copied text in quotation marks a while back, but another editor disliked that option. I have put an appropriate template on the talk page, and I'm wondering what if anything further should be done. J. Spencer (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the dleay in response; things have been a little crazy around here.:) According to Wikipedia:Plagiarism,verbatim duplication of text requires specific attribution on the face of the article. I'll add the appropriate template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Attribution of intra-WP copying

Comments are vividly requested at the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute. The topic is somewhat esoteric, and probably not a serious practical issue, but it is proving quite difficult to resolve as good faith views come from quite opposed positions. Maybe YOUR contribution could be the click... Physchim62 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

So while reviewing SCV I see that Four Price was copied from http://www.conservapedia.com/Four_Price. Their Copyright notice states that "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution" which looks good so far, but it goes on to say "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site" (emphasis added). I can't seem to find the policy page at the moment (and I don't remember if it was here or at commons), but just to double-check, isn't any chance of revocation a problem? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I ask you: do we need this headache? Do we really? :) I'm going to go ahead and clear it for now, but I will follow up with our legal department. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to find out who I should ask, under the current flux of legal guidance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We've had previous analysis of Conservapedia, the result was that their license is incompatible. See WP:CCPS. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you remember that. :/ FWIW, I'm in contact with one of our Associate Counsels on the question, who may be able to give us an official word. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we have guidance. The revocable license is a no-go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dermatitis.jpg

This image is my work, uploaded and released under GFDL by myself in 2004. Some time between then and now, the attribution has been removed. No attribution = no license to use it. I'd not mind, but it's a picture of my own hand, and I was more than a little surprised to see it on a printed wall-chart in my local hospital the other day. Can someone kindly check and reinstate the original attribution please? - TB (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; that seems to have been a bit of oversight on the part of the deleting administrator. The bot that reviewed the duplicate correctly noted that you had not been given credit, but the image was deleted anyway. I don't myself do image transfers, so I'm not entirely sure how to repair this, but I'll talk to a commons admin about it. Meanwhile, I've restored your version on En:Wiki, since it should not have been deleted in the first place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Winston's Hiccup.

There appears to be serious copyright violations going on in either Wikipedia's article of Winston's hiccup or in the book, "A Rough Guide to Jordan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.73.194 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've blanked the section and listed the article at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)