Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 5 March 2005 (→March 5: Pttc). 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.

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 Wikipedia:Page history for details and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages for discussion. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

Alternatives

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

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.

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.

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.

Special cases

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.

Pokémon images

The discussion on Pokémon images has been moved to Template talk:Pokeimage.

Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav
This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial use images

As of June 30, 2004, images where permission is granted for non-commercial use only are not allowed. This is official Wikipedia policy pronounced by Jimbo Wales. [2]. As a result, all of these images now need to be removed from any associated articles and deleted. Before they are deleted, we should evaluate whether we can justify their use on other grounds, such as fair use. --Michael Snow 21:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are not yet to the point where wholesale deletions and actions against this type of image are warranted. We are still not to a satisfactory point in image tagging, and we want to finalize the new upload form (and get it active), so that we can better manage change in the future. It is advised not to upload any new non-commercial images now, and to seek replacements for non-commercial images that we have, but for today anyway, I recommend against people trying to hunt these down and extinguish them. We are going to try to have a smoother transition than that. Jimbo Wales 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the link to http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/index.html from Wikipedia:Public ___domain image resources due to the non-commercial restricton. Shame, I was just about to use his Edvard Munch "Scream" image as it was from an "approved" source. PhilHibbs 12:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The link above to Jimbo's explanation for the non-commercial prohibition is dead; it goes to an unrelated message. I'd like to understand why non-commercial licenses are frowned upon here in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 23:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I'd also like to know why, if this is official wikipedia policy, the "non-commercial use" image tags are still available. I started uploading photos to Wikipedia in October 2004 and have used the "non-commercial use" tag on all of them (as a professional artist and photographer, the reasons should be understandable), and am now annoyed to discover I will need to either change all the tags or have the images deleted. Grutness|hello?   03:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The link goes to the correct message for me, and makes perfect sense. Remember that we are trying to make Wikipedia redistributable. This includes allowing people to sell the content. The tags are still available because such images have not been completely purged and we'd like to be able to find them. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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.

  • River Valley Ranch. User claims on talk page to have copyright. Wyllium 06:57, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Image:Sinitic Languages.jpg This image seems to be copyrighted, and the uploader has not stated that he has permission to use it, although a request for it now is a month old. --Vikingstad 14:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dentsu from [3] (according to vfd discussion on talk page) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Dentsu, author claims to be copyright holder. However if this turns out to be the case the page would need to be re-listed on vfd for content. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Egale Canada from [4] and others - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Claims to be copyright holder on talk.Maximus Rex 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tsubasa from [5] , but the (possible) vio was uploaded by the (claimed) author of the website: does this indicate she gives permission for it to be used under the GFDL, or just that she doesn't understand the GFDL? Pyrop 23:56, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    No copyvio notice. E-mail given at extlink mentioned in article ends in "@dragonmount.com". www.dragonmount.com resolves to 66.221.104.33. No such IP ever edited the article. Somebody wants to follwo-up by e-mail? Lupo 11:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Carlos Martínez. Uploader is not the author but claims to have permission, see Talk:Carlos Martínez. Also, the site on which I found the text is apparently not the original either. I've reverted the copyvio, assuming good faith. Also I have contacted the email address informing that I've reverted and put the page here. If anybody feels the need for a follow-up, please do so. Sander123 11:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • article is now at Carlos Martínez (actor) and I don't see that allowing the text under GFDL has been resolved. If we can't confirm, should be relisted. -- Infrogmation 21:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Henry de Monfreid from [6]. 68.81.231.127 00:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Author claims permission on talk page, so I'm delisting and putting it up here. Could someone verify? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, the same author added material from the same website to Sadhu (from [7]), and claimed permission in a later edit summary. I've asked for more details on the user's talk page. Could someone verify this at the same time? 68.81.231.127 22:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Joseph Segel from [8] --Woohookitty 08:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was convinced this is not a copyvio. Please do not delete it. DanKeshet 19:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

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.

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

  • Pitts Special, smacks of copyvio though I can't tell where from. First sentance is used all over the internet though (Google it). -Lommer | talk 07:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kane x faucher is not only mistitled, it's a text dump. From where, I don't know. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Professor longhair -- pasted in one go by Contributions/68.107.251.155; article is suspiciously perfect in spelling, grammar and composition considering the poor formatting that would be caused, say, by copy-pasting HTML as plain text -- and of course the miscapitalization of the title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Mi-2.gif - typical profile as found in many aviation books and magazines. Unlikely to be PD --Rlandmann 07:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Buffalo Bisons (AAFC) - I can't locate an online source, but the article helpfully says: "By Joe Marren, The Coffin Corner Volume XIX, Reprinted from The Buffalo Bills Insider" -Allissonn 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Unstable-chest-pain-algorithm.gif. Copyright obviously belongs to University of Texas Medical Branch Correctional Managed Care, but after a quick search I couldn't find the image on their website ([12]). I hope this is the correct place to list the image. SamH|Talk 12:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Category:Unfree images
    • Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses. anthony (see warning) 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Category:Images with missing copyright information
    These should replaced and many should be listed for deletion. Those that are currently orphaned can be listed on images for deletion. Guanaco 00:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Images by Donar. Images from various web sites. --Amillar 22:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) and Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) - is the compilaton of this information copyrighted/ RickK 22:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well then. Should a copyvio notice be added to those articles? -- Infrogmation 07:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Early Childhood Autism - Comes from a private wiki where content is copyright contributors. Contains several images that are almost certainly copyvios. See link from original author's pages. It's unclear where the article came from (e.g. was generated on that wiki or not). This will require some research to sort out. --Improv 18:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Content is copyright contributors on this wiki too. I don't see anything wrong with it. The images are such low quality that they are almost certainly fair use.
      • Someone else who was looking into this on IRC has said that that wiki does not mandate GFDL. With regards to the images, it may be that the content (i.e. text that is used for medical purposes) is copyright. If so, regardless of image quality, it may be covered by copyright. We need to be careful (low-res pictures of an entire short story are not fair use) --Improv 14:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Cerrone has very similar text to artists own website [13]. --Harriv 22:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is Arun Gandhi too similar to [14], [15], and [16]? 68.81.231.127 10:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Copyvio from [17] and [18], but not [19] AFAICT. But the offending material is probably small and can be easily reexpressed in one's own words. I'm too lazy for it, though;) -- Paddu 19:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I just added History of Tulsa, but there are at least four images associated with the copyvio article that need to be checked as well. The images were uploaded by User:Pfox7, who is probably the same person as User:68.15.193.216, and User:68.124.59.63. In fact, their whole history really needs a going-over. 68.81.231.127 12:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Just checking upload logs and found a Ludacris image where the uploader says "courtesy of www.sixshot.com" without posting proof of permission. Can't find the exact as u need members access to the site to see the photos. --Sasquatch 20:08, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Entire sentences and chunks of text Instituto Oswaldo Cruz are copied from [20], and the associated Image:Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.gif is unflagged. The website is clearly copyrighted. While wikified and reorganized, this appears to be a fairly clear copyvio; but since the user has a long history of edits, I'm asking for a second opinion. 68.81.231.127 13:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Marked as copyvio/imagevio and asked the uploader to justify. I can't find anything in the Brazilian copyright law (Lei 9.610) that would state that general government publications were in the public ___domain. Looks copyrighted to me. Lupo 09:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Old

  • Image:Anne-real.jpg Historical picture of Anne Frank, but the Anne Frank House aggressively claims copyright on all such pictures, as can be seen at [21]. --Shibboleth 02:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Image is taken from a U.S. source [22] and used here under the fair use doctrine. I don't like to take proactive action—this should stay unless a lawyer really complains and the Wikimedia foundation then decides to remove the picture. As an alternative, consider using nl:Afbeelding:Dagboek anne frank.jpg, scan of a book cover showing Anne Frank, from [23]. Lupo 09:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Under the request by Rigel who reported many copyright violated edits in ja.wp. Rigel left a message on my User talk:Aphaia and warn that the edits by User:rantaro and anonymous user User:61.22.157.95(ja) in the below are similar to the Jehovah's Wittnesses publish matter (tr. in Japanese) according to their content:
  • Shwebomin from [30] -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Original poster removed the copyright violation notice! -- Infrogmation 04:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This whole group of articles and images is claimed on the talk pages to be used with authorization, but the authorization doesn't seem particularly official, so would require some follow-up. --Delirium 03:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • List of "Shit happens" jokes from [31]; new material has been added since, but the copyright on the jokes individually and the collection of jokes is probably valid against the page still Mozzerati 22:11, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
    • Tag removed. This page has no copyright for the jokes listed due to prior art.Mikkalai 23:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Prior art is for patents. What you need is a release from the copyright owner. The claim that it comes from an unknown usenet posting makes this even more unlikely. If it came from a known and linked to usenet posting then we could check directly who wrote it and what they said about copyright. I'm going to revert the removal of the tag (one time). Mozzerati
        • Mikkalai has removed some contested jokes and removed the tag. At the same time a discussion has started on the Village Pump. If this reaches the end of the copyvio process without completion of the discussion it should be put into the long term problems section. Mozzerati 20:36, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Pending deletions

The following is a list of copyvio articles that will be deleted but due to a software problem, they cannot be deleted at this time.

External URL doesn't load for me. DanKeshet 21:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Try [37]. --rbrwr± 16:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I only see one sentence copied. It looks like the rest is good content. DanKeshet 21:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

January 9

In response to the above and the page citations made above, all but the pre-existing stub and other material added by various editors was drawn from one source -- an employee of Augsburg College. Please send an e-mail to this user and you will receive in response an e-mail from a staff e-mail account at Augsburg College (not a student account, not an alumni account ... a staff account). --MacSigh 07:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
How do you know this? And what would this response indicate? Dbenbenn 08:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And even if this is true, does that staff member have the authority to release College property to GFDL? RickK 21:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with them being an employee and submitting the information is that the information still isn't in the public ___domain, and they may have not received official permission from the college to post that information elsewhere on-line. I live in Connecticut, but I can't take information from the state tourism website and post it at Connecticut, even though my tax money pays for that site. (Maybe a poor analogy, but I think my point is clear.) Rather than contacting that specific user, the college itself should be contacted about this. Just because they work there, that doesn't mean they can give free access to copyrighted material from the institution. Beginning 16:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK everyone ... the matter of the Augsburg College article has been brought to the attention of appropriate college officials. The question about releasing that material into GFDL has been raised with them as well. I expect some noodling around will occur for awhile. The question remains: Once the appropriate people make a decision, how does "the institution" make its wishes known?
The Center for Global Education is a program of Augsburg College. This whole thing is a bit of a mess but the reasons for raising the concerns are understood and it's fixable. --MacSigh 05:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
In the matter of the Grahm Jr. College article, a dialogue is now underway with the author of the material from which it is drawn. The solution there is going to be developing a new article on the "temp" page. It is hoped that the author of the source article will consider preparing the first entry. --MacSigh 05:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whig history either this has been lifted from [57] or the latter is in violation of the Wikipedia GNU (whatever) license
    • No copyvio notice on article, and the similarities between our article and the cited source seem to be fairly minor to me. Should probably be de-listed. --rbrwr± 21:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Controlling Drug Prices from [58] -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also Controlling Drug Prices in the United States from the same source, by the same author -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • User has left a message on my talk page claiming to be the copyright holder and may well be for all we know. Now just the minor isue that what they've posted is a colege paper and not an encyclopedic article.. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe we can absolutely accept that as a principle where anons are concerned (I traced parts of the content elsewhere too) (and there is the 'no original research' thing anyway) but the poster has now replaced the copyvio notice twice so I have reinstated it and locked the page temporarily. An acceptable wikified version - if such there can be - can be put on the indicated page in any event. --Vamp:Willow

January 10

  • Aishwarya Rai from [59] and [60]. - Vague | Rant 09:04, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • The first of those sources includes the tell-tale words, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." The second copyvio needs further investigation. --rbrwr± 23:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks like 2nd copyvio in history; someone care to rewrite to remove it? -- Infrogmation 12:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)



January 18

  • First Test Match from [61] citation given to cricinfo.com. It's a list of stats for the match. Is that copyrightable? (but this is not the historical first test but the first test in Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2004-05 between India and Australia) RJFJR 05:58, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • See also Second Test Match; I raised some questions about these pages at Talk:Cricket last month but never came to any firm conclusions. --rbrwr± 06:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they're technically copyrightable, although we don't really need a straight copy and paste from CricInfo (if people just want the scorecards they should go there first anyway). I'd say if nobody improves them, then treating them as copyvios is right. sjorford 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


January 21

  • Image:Rossello.jpg from [62]. Perhaps that site got it from a US government site but cannot be certain. RedWolf 22:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably a Puerto Rico government image; can the PR government hold copyrights? --rbrwr± 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know. At least they say on their website "todo derecho reservado" ("all rights reserved"). Lupo 08:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 22

  • Adventist Development and Relief Agency - from [63] - SimonP 21:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Instead of just reverting to the pre-copyvio version, they've cut-and-pasted a tidied-up versio of the orginal to /Temp, worked a bit more on it and cut-and-pasted it back. How do we maintain the proper history? We may have to just leave it all as it is, but delete, merge, (selectively) undelete is a possibility. --rbrwr± 13:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)



January 26

  • Fitz Hugh Ludlow from [64] Quickbeam 04:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agilefactor from [65]. The original version of the page, prior to cleanup and wikification, is an exact copy. Uncle G 15:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
    • Messages were posted to Talk:Agilefactor and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages from the same IP as the original contributor. These claimed to be "Damon Carr, CEO of agilefactor" and that "[a]ll current content regarding Agilefactor on Wikipedia is 100% OK". The mention of "no infringement [. . .] based on the notification I received" is a little odd, coming from the original poster, but the same IP is responsible for stubbornly trying to keep the VfD'ed Damon Carr article alive, so it seems legit. FYI. -- Wisq 23:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

January 28

January 31

  • South Africa Geography from [67] Flora and fauna from [68]. User:PZFUN reverted back removal without explanation. Also reported January 26 above on NYC subway stations.22:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

February 1

February 4

February 5

February 6

I think the author of the webpage and User:Socrtwo, who first made these pages before I split them, is the the same person. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am the author of the web page at http://www.planthormones.info, http://www.pruittfamily.com/paul/plants.htm. I can prove this if you require me to. Please E-mail with instructions. --Socrtwo 00:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WVIA-TV from [95]. I couldn't find an explicit copyright notice on the website, but there is no sign it is released under a compatible license either. 68.81.231.127 15:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Krikor Naregatsi from [96]. The original text in Armenian may be PD, but it doesn't look like the translation is. The associated Image:Nain.jpg looks old enough to be PD, but it's untagged and will be orphaned. 68.81.231.127 16:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I Threes from here (forgot to add here earlier, apologies) MartinBiely 20:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) This article has now been rewritten from scratch by Squiquifox 00:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 8

February 9

  • Cuadernos de Jazz, [113] - Fredrik | talk 01:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Numan Celebicihan from [114]. The text is under a non-commercial license [115], which unfortunately is not compatible with the GFDL.-- Chris 73 Talk 04:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • This page has been written by the copyright holder of the article at www.iccrimea.org/literature/celebicihan.html and posted to Wikipedia with his permission. Commercial use is allowed. 12.65.19.102 01:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Knuth reward check from [116]. Gazpacho 05:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    I reserve doubts about the subject's notability, but the copyright issues have been addressed on the temp page. Gazpacho 08:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Raven (comics) first section from [117].
section reverted to non-copied version in accordance with regulations explained in the introduction of this page. --BerserkerBen 19:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 10

February 11

February 12


February 15

February 16

SimonP 17:37, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

February 17

February 19

February 20

I think I've found them all. US Games, Inc. appears to still own the copyright on them despite what a cited web page says, but it looks easy enough to get permission to use them: see http://www.usgamesinc.com/newstore/layout/pages/US/info/TarotReproductionPolicies.pdf and http://www.usgamesinc.com/newstore/layout/pages/US/info/TarotReproductionAuthForm.pdf for more information. Someone in charge will need to fax or mail them a form. BenSamples 10:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 21

February 22

February 23

My primary argument is that the lyrics as posted are public ___domain; that the lyrics as posted on Wikipedia are contained in public law, and that the rights of the public to read and republish that law exceed the rights of any copyright holder over that specific material. My secondary argument is on fair use; that Wikipedia's interest is academic, and that the lyrics and music would be copyrighted together, rather than separately as Cburnett assumes. --Alexwcovington (talk) 03:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 24

  • Babylon ltd from the company's "about us" page at [239], and, as expected from such a source, vanity written in corporatespeak ("leveraged", etc.). -- Hoary 03:27, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)-- This article has been written by Babylon LTD - so there is no copyright violation. Babylon LTD will update and improve the article as soon the article made free to edit again. 192.114.174.66 09:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Enslavers (Warhammer 40,000) contains a large amount of text cited as copied from the White Dwarf magazine. Judging by the style it is quite possible that the rest of the text is copied from the main rulebook. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Surtsey satellite image.jpg from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16551 , the uploader claims that it's a NASA image however on the image page it says: This image was acquired on June 12, 2001, by Space Imaging’s IKONOS satellite. The data are archived by the NASA Scientific Data Purchase. , Image by Robert Simmon, SSAI/NASA GSFC, based on data copyright Space Imaging. It looks like this image is (C) Space Imageing, i've notified the uploader and contacted the NASA employee listed on that page. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:09, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
  • HMS Penn (G77), including the image, appears to have come from [240]--Jll 21:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Feedback (1972 album) from the same anon responsible for several other copyvios relating to the band Spirit. This one's from [241]. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Tent of Miracles from same anon as above. Credited on the article to the All Music Guide. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Harry Gregg from [242] -- A D Monroe III 22:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Jay Ferguson (1947) aside from the bizarre title is more fun from our Spirit anon. This time, he credits it to [243]. - Lucky 6.9 23:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Carl_bilt.jpg The image is obviously copyrighted, and is in fairly high resolution. /85.226.55.184 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Devon1.jpg No source is given, very unlikely to be public ___domain. /85.226.55.184 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Bio.jenna.jpg No source is given, very unlikely to be public ___domain. /85.226.55.184 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Zarqawi.jpg The image is from the Rewards for Justice fund, and the uploader claims the image to be a "work of the United States federal Government". This is not true according to the official website: "The Rewards for Justice Fund is a non-governmental, non-profit 501 (c) (3) charitable organization whose sole affiliation with the U.S. Department of State's Rewards for Justice Program is for the purpose of raising and providing private contributions for its use in the identification and apprehension of terrorists operating within the United States and abroad." /85.226.55.184 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a non-profit org administered by a branch of the Federal Government, and as such it is ineligible to claim copyright. "Rewards for Justice is administered by the U.S. Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service." [244]
  • Image:Siffredi04.jpg No source is given, very unlikely to be public ___domain. /85.226.55.184 23:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Moscone Center from [245]. Copyright belongs to the Moscone Center according to the site. There have been some additional contributions to the article. — Gwalla | Talk 00:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Power Devil from [246] -- utcursch 12:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Harvard Maritime/Harvard Giftware from [247] and [248] -- utcursch 12:21, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

February 25

February 26

February 27

February 28

March 1

March 2

March 3

March 4

IMHO, dogracing can be deleted immediately. It's not used in any article (only reference is on a talk page that calls its use into question) and the unverified notice has been on there for quite a while. Elf | Talk 19:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've tagged and bagged the rest of the "That's So Raven" copyvios from User:Bluedame, all from [483]. They are:

Add to this august list [[Image:Kyle.gif]] and [[Image:Orlando.gif]], both boosted from the Disney Channel's website. Whew! - Lucky 6.9 20:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 5

Wikipedia's current date is August 26, 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.

If you are a administrator, please take the time and help clean out some old entries! This page has a huge backlog! Ideally, there should be no listings older than seven days.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=10843972"