Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

27 September 2010[edit]

Suspected copyright violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2010-09-27 Edit

2010-09-27 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Deleted and recreated clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article blanked for evaluation and closure through WP:CP. Maybe G12 but I haven't taken the time to look up sources for everything yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Deleted and recreated clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. False positive. Close but no cigar. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Deleted and recreated clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Short quote. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. Single author. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marrubium vulgare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - copying report from WP:HELPDESK - I was reading your entry for "Marrubium vulgare" (White Horehound) and thought it sounded familiar. In checking, I realized it is mostly a "copy and paste" article taken from "A Modern Herbal" by Maude Grieve @ Botanical.com which is a copyrighted source. In checking the references and credits, I find no reference to this source, which originally dates back to 1931. I also find no indication that it is a copy and paste, which would lead the reader into believing it is an original work....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.208.161 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw the Helpdesk report. The copyvio source is here. The info was originally introduced into Wikipedia in this diff. It was later moved into the current article in this diff, when the previous article was turned into a redirect. Hope this helps. Karenjc 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? I agree that this is pretty eyebrow raising, but I can't prove that it's copied. I can't find a source for the content, and there's not a history of text issues here. Looking at some of his other contribs ([1]; [2]), it's possible we're just dealing with a very articulate contributor. I tried searching for talk page or project page contribs to see what his normal voice was like, but there aren't any. :/ (I can't find any sign that these were copied, either.) I've put the "Cv-unsure" tag on the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same official should comment on the following two cases in order to avoid diverging interpretations and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS bullshit:

  • High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (history · last edit) from [3]. Disagreement whether to link to a stolen master key for the HDMI encryption scheme (see talk). Here is the edit in question.Ronnotel (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assertion that the pastebin key is stolen is just speculation. Even Intel doesn't think the key was leaked, but rather that it was reverse engineered (see last 3 paragraphs [4]) A method for reverse engineering a HDCP master key from device keys is known for almost a decade. However, we have a far more obvious case below. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is tricky. Normally, a key (such as the AACS key) is too short to be copyrightable. However, the key in this particular case is several pages long. There is no doubt that if we copied several pages of a book or magazine into a Wikipedia article that it would be copyright infringement, and the case law for contributory infringement by linking is well-established. Leaving aside the DMCA reverse-engineering issues, I regret to say that in this case (but not in the AACS case), copyright infringement is plausible. However, whether it is a copyright infringement hinges on whether the key is the sort of original work that can attract copyright, or whether it is "mere facts." This has not, to my knowledge, been tested. There is certainly nothing "creative" about the presentation of the key, that I can see - it's literally just a grid of hexadecimal values. Currently I'm leaning towards considering this okay, but I'm on the fence. Dcoetzee 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AACS encryption key controversy. Ronnotel writes above that linking to the leaked or reverse engineered HDCP key is illegal due to the copyright on the key. Assuming that is true, listing the actual keys in the AACS article is a direct copyright infringement, so they should all be removed immediately. I, Ruud and several disagree with that interpretation. It may be illegal to post or link keys to it due to the paracopyright imposed by the DMCA for circumvention devices, but it's not a copyright matter. There are exceptions in the law to the circumvention provision. It's true that we have a precedent on DMCA takedown notices for circumvention: Talk:Texas Instruments signing key controversy#WP:OFFICE action (look above that section for the letter). Note that EFF has filed DMCA counter claims in that case on behalf of the original authors, and they have reposted the TI keys on their site. The Wikipedia editor that added it here did not do that so; effectively "Wikipedia bent over", when others didn't. Anyone commenting on this better be a lawyer, and have the officially assigned powers to decide the matter, like in that OFFICE action. The HDCP key is linked in several articles in the computer press. Intel has indicated (in several interviews) that they intend to sue anyone producing an unlicensed HDCP device, but didn't say anything about posting the keys, or a link to them. In contrast, the AACS consortium was in the habit of sending takedown notices for the key(s), as explained in that article. Just because they were overwhelemed and gave up eventually, doesn't make any legal difference on what they may do. However, no takedown notices were received by the WMF for any of the AACS keys posted or the HDCP key link. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. There is no copyright issue here, because the HDCP key is too short to be copyrightable. This isn't the right forum for this discussion. Sending an OCILLA takedown notice for such a key is a nonsensical scare tactic, although they may send a cease-and-desist. Dcoetzee 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. Steward Davis (history · last edit) from Maryland State Archives. Note: The article was created by User:Ecpclio who self-identifies as the Maryland State Archivist. I've waded through the archive website and have not found any statement which specifically states "public domain" use or permits commercial use per our copyright license. I need another pair of eyes to see if I'm missing something here. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Email and name match up with the head-honcho of the website, so I imagine it's just a matter of getting him to send in permission to OTRS. It looks like that may involve us emailing him though, given that he appears to be relatively inactive. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as G12 copyvio. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Already cleaned this one; forgot to remove the tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Deleted, recreated clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_September_27&oldid=1140524725"