Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahoerstemeier (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 19 June 2005 (Fresh frozen plasma). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates
WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

Notice to copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

On the other hand, if you see an article somewhere else which you believe was copied from the Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.


Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.

See also: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, Wikipedia:Fair use

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following: 

{{copyvio|url=place URL of allegedly copied material here}}
  
~~~~

Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example: 

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Finally, do not forget to add a note to the uploader's talk page to notify them that the image's copyright status is murky and it has been listed here.

In addition

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if they indeed are not available under a free license or a reasonable fairuse rationalle. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
These images are available for use on the Wikipedia web site, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale [1]. Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
From the mailing list:
As of today, all *new* images which are *non commercial only* and *with permission only* should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to liminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
See also this followup: [2]

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than a week old, but have not yet dealt with for specific reasons.

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Wikipedia:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • Image:Columbia debris falling in the sky.jpg. Claimed as fair use on the grounds that we can't get a non-copyrighted image of the event. I have my doubts on this. --Carnildo 06:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any difference between this image and the historical Hindenberg image discussed below. I think the rationale expressed on the image page indicates fair use based upon historical significance. 23skidoo 04:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Clim_map_kpngrp.jpg in article Australia. Doesn't look like fair use to me. --Robert Merkel 00:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This image is now being investigated by Image Slueths. It appears to be based on the far right photo (click on it) found here. This would appear to make it based on a Australian gov. source and therefore public ___domain, though once edited I don't know what its status would change to. Nrbelex (talk)  05:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Australian government works are crown copyright. But as copyright only covers the creative aspects of the image, not the underlying data this can be recreated. See WP:IRR
    • Thanks! Just found that out - dumb of me to assume Australia puts its stuff in the PD. Oh well... Nrbelex (talk)  02:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg. The copyright for this photo is being asserted by the New Zealand National Front, who claim to have purchased it from the photographer for the purposes of suppressing the image. Talk:New_Zealand_National_Front#"nazi salute" image. Some editors, including me, think that this qualifies under fair use. This version of the photograph has been edited down to a lower resolution, it is directly relevant to the article, and there is no way of recreating it. Any opinions? -Willmcw 03:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a reasonable fairuse rational. But when I run it through the Wikipedia:Fair use decision tree I get a delete result, because the image was never intended for wide distribution. The decision tree there is a recent addition, and something I've never seen before. It's also somewhat subjective. --Duk 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following was moved here from ifd:
    • Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the image posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2004 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) are 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 transferred 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. - Molloy
    • Molloy has provided no evidence that he is a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front (he's a teenager, so it's unlikely), and has offered no evidence that the New Zealand National Front is the copyright holder. This is an embarrassing photograph for them because it shows them making Nazi salutes, which is why Molloy, who is a member, would like to see it deleted. The photograph is widely available on the Web, a source has been provided on the image page, and we are claiming fair use under United States copyright law. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a legal notice from the New Zealand National Front [3] - Molloy
        • This image is being used under the U.S. "Fair Use" and New Zealand "Fair Dealings" exemptions. Further, this is the wrong page to deal with this matter because it is a copyright dispute. It should be handled on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. -Willmcw 04:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
SHould this be deleted, or is it fair user?--nixie 13:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to think that this is fair use under the "Unique historical or newsworthy images which we cannot reproduce by other means" category. Besides i would like to see something more than a web page aparently created by himself indicating that Molloy is in fact a legal rep of the NZNF. Also what is th source of their clim to hold the copyright on this image? from whom did they buy or acquire the copyright, and when? who took the original pictures? DES 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Image:Hindenburg.jpg is part of the Bettmann Collection and is copyright Bettmann/CORBIS[4] I'm sceptical about a fair use claim. How think you? Kbh3rd 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a duplicate of lower quality at Image:HindenburgSenorAnderson.jpg, which is tagged as a US gov work, though I think that's just because it was found on a .gov site. Regarding the fair use claim, I'd like to think we could use a low res version, because how else can you illustrate such an event? There is no other way to get the visual information other than through that photograph, and our usage would not impact whatever commercial value it has. I'm leaning towards fair use on this. Postdlf 06:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unique and unrecreatable images of newsworthy events such as this are broadly acknowledged to have fair use and fair dealing status for applications such as our own. Shouldn't be a problem. Fawcett5 16:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dispute: Its a mere system map, which I uploaded out of convenience. There is basically no creative effort in the map whatsoever, especially since its schematic, with no cartological precision. I could basically duplicate it on memory on a piece of paper or using gimp/mspaint/etc. and it would look just as good, except it would be tedious to duplicate all 50+ stations mentioned. Is a non creative work eligible for copyright? I hardly think its intellectual property. -- Natalinasmpf 20:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The LTA may well think otherwise! Transport for London charges quite handsomely for the rights to reproduce its system map... Physchim62 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information from Physchim62. I feel that fair use or fair dealing should apply here. The image is created for disseminating information. Fair use still protects the copyright holder, in case wikipedia go commercial in future, (hope not). Vsion 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. A schematic map does have creative effort put into it, more so than a more accurate map. As such, it is very definitely covered by copyright. --Carnildo 23:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a tourist map complete with illustrations, then yes. The LTA map is pretty simplistic, only tedious and repetitive - nothing creative. I could basically reproduce it manually myself, since its just the order of the stations, with my own colour scheme, except it would take say, 15-30 minutes to add every station. It becomes purely a mathematical thing, nothing creative. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carnildo that schematic maps have creative effort, but let's not forget that it only needs the slightest creative effort to trigger copyright. The system map in its present form could not just be created from a mathematical function of the positions of the stations. It's copyright, and if the LTA don't want to let us use it under GNU then there's nothing we can do. Physchim62 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until someone contacts the LTA and clarifies the matter, the image should not be used. If someone wants to reproduce it (tediously) by hand, they're certainly welcome to. Alex.tan 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Women's healthcare in 20th century China has that certain scent to it - it's the in-text citations and the slanted quotation marks around “China” that give it away for me... could be someone's paper for school. -- BDAbramson talk 04:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Italian exports and Islam in Italy all smell like copyvios but I can't tell where from. They were all put up by User:82.43.213.217, and share the same writing style. Dave6 05:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notices on these articles. -- Infrogmation 14:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that these are almost certainly copyright violations, although they might be school papers this guy wrote. I can't find the sources either. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listed by User:Denni on VfD: The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), Pleven (horse), and Russian Trotter were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. - Mike Rosoft 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Others

  • FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 - this compilation of opinion is the property of FHM-US. RickK 06:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is this different than any other similar list, many of which are also the basis for a Wikipedia article? MK2 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one. More opinions needed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • FHM had creative input into the list, both in ordering and selection. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service#Implications. —Korath (IANAL) 12:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • FHM actually had no input on the ordering or selection. Both are the result of a reader poll. FHM's editorial content would be the selection of the pictures and text which accompanied the poll results and neither is included in the Wikipedia article. MK2 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a fascinating dillemma. On the one hand, I can't see why this list couldn't be copyrighted. On the other hand, we list the Oscar winners and runner-ups, and the Nobel Prize winners and nominees, which are essentially the same thing. I can't imagine it would be a problem to say "She was listed as one of FHM's sexiest women of 2005" in each woman's article, so why would it be a problem to list them in one article? I'd tend to vote keep, but if a lawyer wants to chime in, we'd all be obliged. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Greatest Cartoons - from [6] - intellectual property of Channel 4. RickK 00:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I question that a straight list can be copyrighted Burgundavia 03:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • See above. —Korath (Talk) 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus here, I've raised this issue at the Village Pump. MK2 15:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath that the FHM list is copyright as the "creative input" of the author(s) is non-zero. The list would have sui generis protection in other jurisdictions even if it were not copyright in the US. Physchim62 18:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that a reader's poll (with just the result list, no pictures, writing, etc.) has "creative input" from the magazine. I don't understand how either of these lists are copyrightable, where is the creative work by FHM or Channel4? They are both just results of readers polls.--Duk 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine chose to use to poll however. Superm401 | Talk 01:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a list like this is not copyrightable. I ask you to consider the following analogy: Some organizers had a sort of a contest. The results were made known, along with a a lot of interesting detail concerning the contestants and the contest itself. Later, a second party posted the rankings of the contestants. Did the second party violate the first party's rights in any way?


ExampleOrganizersContestMethod2nd Party
1Major League BaseballBaseball team standingsPlayed a bunch of gamesNewspaper Sports page
2FHMSexiest women rankingsAsked a bunch of peopleWikipedia
Why is example 2 any different than example 1?
However, that the New York Times disagrees with me. They have pursued action against other publications that have re-published their best-seller list. For example, they went after www.amazon.com [7] for using the New York Times bestseller list as a basis for providing purchase incentives (books on the lsit were to be discounted). This was quickly settled [8] with Amazon agreeing to certain terms, including; listing the books alphabetically instead of in-order, and sharing sales information with the New York Times. Since this didn't make it to a legal ruling, it does not set a legal precedent. Maybe someone can find an example that did go to court? Johntex 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New listings

May 18

  • I have nominated Definitions of capitalism and Definitions of socialism for deletion; there doesn't seem to be consensus either way. It has been argued that the articles violate copyright (the definitions have been copied from commercial dictionaries and encyclopedias). Other users have disagreed and suggested the lists to be kept, merged, or moved to Wikiquote. Are they acceptable to be kept anywhere on Wikipedia? - Mike Rosoft 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting a definition from a dictionary or is not a copywrite violation. It's fair use. I don't know about "copyright" though.. RJII 20:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitions of socialism was listed here as a copyright violation of thirteen paper dictionaries on 2005-05-08 and deleted after the discussion period on 2005-05-16. This is the same copyrighted material re-posted, and is is a speedy deletion candidate. Definitions of capitalism contains exact copies of text from twenty-six (non-GFDL) copyrighted dictionaries and three encyclopaedias, and is a copyright violation on a massive scale. (This isn't "quoting a definition from a dictionary" as the author, and those who are for the inclusion of this text not because permission has been granted to use this copyrighted content but simply because they don't want their edit war with the author to start up again, would have us believe.) Like definitions of socialism, there is no non-infringing version to revert to. The article began with these violations. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
      • And it IS spelled "copyright" (right to copy), not "copywrite". If you can copy definitions of a word from a number of dictionaries, you can certainly look up another word in a single one. - Mike Rosoft 16:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If definitions of socialism was deleted for that reason, it was wrongly deleted. The number of dictionaries is irrelevant. If it's not a copyright violation to quote one dictionary then it's not a violation to qoute one thousand dictionaries. RJII 03:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt that either of these is a copyvio, they are just short quotes from many different sources. More context should be provided to be on the safe side, however, like adding a short comment/description/interpretation to each quote.--Fenice 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, how do we know if this is resolved so we can get the article back up? RJII 16:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will remove the notices unless some actually shows copyright problems. Ultramarine 22:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 19

  • UTVA 75 from [9] --Rlandmann 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue has not been resolved yet - the original contributor says he obtained permission for the photo to be used (by Wikipedia only). Last I heard, he was going to approach UTVA to ask if the material could be released under the GFDL. This was on May 19. --Rlandmann 02:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 20

  • The Imperial March includes a full length(3:03 min) version as an .ogg file. I strongly doubt that this is PD in any way. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this) Fornadan 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will contact uploader to ask them to upload a shorter version.--nixie 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


May 28


May 30

  • Wikipedia DVD from [12] --Rlandmann 02:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakash M Apte from [13]] (NOTE that this is a .doc file!). RickK 08:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like a self promotion article, too --anon
  • Air properties Unsure about this one, but better safe than sorry. Article copied more-or-less directly from a U.S. gov (NASA Glenn) website [14] which has no clear copyright notice that I can find, but OTOH there is a single author of the original listed. Apparently some .gov sites are public ___domain, others aren't. Expert opinion needed. Soundguy99 20:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrorism in Kashmir from [15] and [16]; a massive expansion of this article on May 20 was a copy-paste job cobbled together from BBC news; I reverted to the version prior to that edit, but was reverted myself and accused of "slaughtering" the article by the perpetrator himself; unfortunately, the article had been changed quite a bit before my revert and again after that; I don't think it should be my job to prove the pedigree of every single paragraph derived from the copyvio, and I don't agree that changing a few words makes a copyvio go away, as some editors seem to believe. There is no copyvio tag on this article, and I left the article as is, because I don't fancy getting into an edit war over this. Rl 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


June 2

Note: this article has been previously deleted, there has been editwaring over inclusions of copyright violations.--Duk 17:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Difficut to tell what is going on here.--nixie 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image: Bloc party.jpg From [18]... photo lacks proper image tag and is from an unverifable source suitable for Wikipedia. --Madchester 16:57, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • Asked uploader for source information--nixie 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Collier High School from [19] drini ☎ 17:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't really tell whats happened here.--nixie 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 3

  • House Ordos from several places. It isn't a complete copy but sopme sections are direct copies from places like this or this and here. Content minus copyvio should be moved to temp and the article deleted to remove the vio from the history. This link is Broken 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Technetium.jpg in article Technetium. The source cited is online, but the picture looks to me like the one in the "Life Science Library" series book Matter. Either way, it is not clear to me that the fair use claim is justified. -- Dominus 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)





June 8

This is clearly a 2D reproduction of 18th century art and thus, according to US law, not copyrightable. My question is: Is that enough? I don't think there's any such clause in Icelandic law and I've found out that the Arnamagnæan Institute actually seems to claim copyright for the reproductions. Their website states:
"Hægt er að panta myndir og filmur vegna rannsókna og til birtingar
í ritum, gegn greiðslu. Þær eru afgreiddar stafrænt á geisladiskum.
Stofnunin selur birtingarrétt á þeim myndum sem hér eru teknar og
farið er fram á að þess sé ævinlega getið hvaðan myndirnar eru komnar."
My translation of this:
"For a fee it is possible to order pictures and films for research
and publication. Those are delivered digitally on compact disks.
The Institution sells the right to publish pictures made here
and it is demanded that the source of the pictures is always mentioned."
Doesn't exactly sound like Public Domain, does it? My inquiries to them
have gone unanswered. Now, there are actually a number of images on
Wikipedia taken from the AM Institute. Do these have to be removed or
can we ignore (what I assume is) Icelandic law in favor of US law?
I apologize if this is the wrong place for this inquiry and if it is
I hope someone moves it. Haukurth 19:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They finally replied, here is a part of the answer
from the head of the Institution:
"Myndir okkar á netinu eru í frekar lágri upplausn
og við gerum ráð fyrir að þeir sem vilja fá að prenta
þær vilji fá myndir í hærri upplausn, og þurfa þeir
þá að borga fyrir myndina sem þeir fá. Við gerum ekki
athugasemdir við þótt menn prenti myndir upp eftir netinu,
ef þeir telja gæðin fullnægjandi, og rukkum ekki fyrir það."
My translation: "Our pictures on the Net have a relatively
low resolution and we assume that those who want to print
them will want pictures in a higher resolution and then
they need to pay for the picture they want. We do not object
to people printing out pictures from the Net if they think
the quality is good enough, and we don't charge for that."
This doesn't really answer my question. I'm writing him back
and asking him if those "low resolution" images can be considered
to be in the public ___domain since they don't seem to object to
their usage.
Haukurth 11:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Degrassi: The Next Generation Episode Guide from [75] Eliot 20:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've looked back into the history to try to figure out where this came from, and unfortunately, most of the info seems to be pasted in by an anonymous user. The confusion here comes from the fact that they pasted it into another page at the time:
    • I then cleaned up the text (along with help from others) and moved it to this dedicated "Episode Guide" page to declutter the main page without realizing it had been pasted in improperly. Unfortunately, I agree that it is a direct copy from TVTome. Anyone know TVTome's copyright policy on user submitted text? Glitch010101 12:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooof, I just looked it up, and all content submitted to TVTome (now c-net TV.com) is owned by them, so we're right to take down that page. Ah well, we'll start over with some fresh, uncopied text soon. Sorry for the mess, I just never imagined that text that poorly written could have come from another source, so I didn't suspect it Glitch010101 13:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Roosevelt University from [76] and elsewhere on the site. ErikNY 20:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the content of the wikipedia article and the content on the page www.coachpaterno.com page are taken from the press release provided by the Virginia Tech Athletic Department (see source link). No copyright violation there. Rtphokie

June 9

June 10

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 11

June 12

June 13

About these two images concerning Scatman John (which I put on the copyright problems page): It says on the main page, "(C) 2001- all respective owners. Unauthorised copying and/or use of material on this site is prohibited." HOWEVER, the website has been down for about 4 years (its last archive was on 22 Sep 2001), and after it went offline it turned into a gay porn site for a number of years after that (currently, it is nothing) and I was wondering because it has been down for 4 years would it be ok to copy the material? ---User:Hottentot
Copyrights take 75 years to expire. Gamaliel 03:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, lack of use by the copyright holder doesn't mean the copyright protection lapses. Postdlf 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then the article should be deleted. But what about the image? ---User:Hottentot
Waiting for follow up on talk page, ie, where to send email with proof of copyright ownership. Also submitted NPOV version on /temp page, but that page appears to be gone now. Indigoskye

June 14

June 15

Permission granted by band members for use of website material. Reinstate original page. Any problems, contact mickeytbone{#AT#}mumrah{#DOT#}com

Please see the temp page and the talk page/ If it is copy vio please delete, if not please remove the tag. The talk page use now the quotes, same as the canadian site does http://bestiary.ca/institutes/institutedetail2254.htm. The mentioned site as copyright holder has taken the text from the library page http://www.bml.firenze.sbn.it/, see the posted links. The text regarding the access is an anouncement, I dont thik that can be copyrighted. But if it is, please delete the page.CristianChirita 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 16

June 17

Along with most edits from the same anon[499]. Niteowlneils 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yelena_Davydova can be found at [500]; but, that's the only page listed, and it doesn't exist either except only on Google cache, and it is a post on a forum that did not identify the source. Looking at the lack of spacing, it's possible it had been typed from a written, non-online source. -- Znode 07:00, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Resolved. More research on the history indicates that the poster of that forum found the article Jan 12th on Wikipedia (09:30, 2005 Jan 12 83.71.1.18), then proceeded to edit it (03:50, 2005 Jan 19 83.71.7.126), and then posted on the forum (Posted by: woodsy isobelwoods@yahoo.com (83.71.7.126) at 06:48:34 1/19/2005).
I am the copyright owner and I am the original author of this entry. I give permission for this work as can be seen on the talk page. Please remove the copyright notice and resore the entry.

June 18

I was modifying the page when it was copyvioled. I've posted the cleanup at the alternate page. Bambaiah 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

June 19

Ok, that was foolish of me. It is copy-pasted completely and entirely but was written forever ago.-Splash 16:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Finswe2 b.gif, without source. This is a typical example of Material that we CANNOT include as fair use. It's a map which we can easily produce ourselves. By including this as fair use we steal the work's full value, thus invalidating the whole idea of copyright. I think we should replace this with a free image as soon as possible, removing the image if we can't do that fast enough. — Sverdrup 12:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SINGAPORE RECESSION most probably from [605], although I'm not entirely sure. The website requires registration, but this link was placed at the top of the original article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • St. George's FC from [606]. - ulayiti 14:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is taken from my own original site: http://www.geocities.com/cospicua2000/

This image is taken from my own original site: http://www.geocities.com/cospicua2000/

Alright, I'll withdraw this since, actually, the whole page is probably not copyvio.-Splash 16:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current date is October 22, 2025. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=15459161"