Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does this sentence even mean?[edit]

“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”

Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that isn't clear, I've rephrased it now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom of panorama (US only)" and the Berne convention[edit]

Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think its not exactly clear that a photo taken in France but first published in America is necessarily considered to be a French work. I believe its open to interpretation. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright templates[edit]

There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving instructions not directly related to Copyright problems[edit]

What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.

  1. Split the instructions into its own page, titled something like "Copyright cleanup instructions".
  2. Rewrite it to be less wordy in all areas.
  3. A lot of the cleanup instructions are essentially mirrored over at WP:CV101, so we could condense everything that isn't specific to copyright problems over to that and link it.
  4. Rewrite other policies, guides, and guidelines to contain the guidance at CP (some of it is already thereand remove it entirely.

TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I see is with WP:BACKWARDSCOPY... it could go into WP:CV101 but if we are to move out stuff from here that page should be completely restructured really. – Isochrone (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if content is moved out, then WP:Copyrights#Copyright violations needs to be amended as appropriate, as it links here. – Isochrone (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the header a bit-- I'm considering moving the backwardscopy instructions to CV101 if there aren't any objections? I know it isn't great but it seems to be the most relevant page.
The other solution is making a new page altogether for most of this stuff, but I doubt adding another explanatory essay is going to make anyone happy. – Isochrone (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IOWN and should be merged into WP:CV#Information for copyright holders. Most of rewriting can be merged into WP:CV with a bit of relevant stuff about rewriting on CP pages specifically kept. Obtaining/verifying permissions section is duplicated in WP:Requesting copyright permission and WP:CV#Contributor is copyright holder. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly merged WP:BACKWARDSCOPY into WP:Mirrors and forks, and have significantly changed the wording of it to make it more understandable to non-copyright versed editors. Hopefully it's fine. – Isochrone (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated CPC template. I have removed deletedcup, because I do not think it is used in our current workflow with how VRT and CP interact. I've changed the VRT parameter to read more about that permission is pending; this can happen with or without temporary deletion of the content. Unverified as a parameter was kind of a "pending, will need deletion", so I just changed it into a verification fail parameter for when VRT cannot accept a licensing request. more rationale at CPC talk. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on a talk page[edit]

Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of it. If you come across something like this in the future, you can remove the copyrighted content, and then tag the page for revision deletion using {{copyvio-revdel}} and filling in the appropriate parameters. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solidifying the request review timeframe[edit]

It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".

Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]