Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 11

RAIDS Magazine

This post needs the help/attention of an administrator with copyright knowledge: Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content/Archive 1#Raids Magazine. --noclador (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Would I list a screenshot here?

This is the image in question. Clearly taken from a copyrighted work. Also, Robin Olds was in the US Air Force, and there are already photos of him when he was younger on his article page. If photos of him when he was older are desired, non-fair use ones should be sought out for use. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Marlon Brando, Sr.

Our article at Marlon Brando, Sr. is pretty much a copy of his entry at imdb, but I can't tell which came first. What's our procedure in a case like this? Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed here, that's good. For the rest, check out the internet archive to check which version was there first. Look at the history of the article, was the (supposed) copyvio all done in one edit or did it slowly evolved to the current state. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Instructions" section

The first sentence under Instructions says:

Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright (ie. the material is not Public Domain, licensed under the GFDL or specifically licensed to Wikipedia on suitable terms) should, as a general rule, be removed.

This should be reworded; material which is licensed for Wikipedia-only use is not allowed. The issue is complicated a little bit because images are allowed to be licensed under a variety of free licenses, while text (as far as I know) must be licensed under the GFDL. In either case, though, the material must be usable by anyone outside of Wikipedia as well. —Bkell (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Paradise Hotel 2

Could someone take a look at the article Paradise Hotel 2? The text in the article is copied from various press releases and pre-season information on the show's official site. Now that the show has premiered the official site no longer lists the copyright text. This article has been tagged since January 23, 2008 for copyright problems. On the suggested subpage as per the instructions of the "Possible Copyright Problems" template I have re-written a suitable article for Wikipedia. Would an administrator look at this for me please? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Failure of nominators to blank the pages and note the urls

I've noticed that few editors are blanking the page when they tag with {{copyvio}} and a lot are not tagging with a url for the violated website. I've fixed a few as I've come across them, but going through them all is a big project even with AWB and finding the urls is cumbersome (When a Google search finds the offended page it's often blatant enough to be speedied - and a lot of these are in that category). Any thoughts on how to best resolve this or any interest in dividing up the lists and collaborating on it?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The lack of a URL would be easy enough. As I mentioned in the previous section, code can be added that is conditional of the inputs of the template. If a URL is to be required, and it makes sense to me that it should be (as a mostly outsider to Copyvio stuff), then the template could be coded to place an obnoxious red banner at it's top when it is used without a URL, saying that the URL is required, but missing.

The other thing, blanking the page, would likely not be handleable in this way, as it would be based on conditions external to the template, and I'm not sure that a template can trigger off of things outside of itself. Anso, From my occasional viewing of the template in use, I beleive that it is possible to tag a section of an article, instead of an entire article, so it would be a valid thing from a technical standpoint to not blank the page. So even if we could have the template detect whether the page is blanked, we really could not have it make warnings about the lack of blanking, given that this lack is valid in some situations. So blanking requires a less automated solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the solution to the url (which can also be a paper reference, but url is the norm). As for the blanking, the instructions here at least do not contemplate a section by section differentiation. Either an article has a possible copyright violation or it doesn't. If it does, it is supposed to be blanked and replaced with {{copyvio}} (unless the violation is blatant, in which case speedy deletion is in order and the page is not blanked - but then a different template is used). The problem with section by section, is that if the article has a copyright violation and no clean version in history, the entire article must be deleted (you aren't supposed to just fix the problem, if it's real, you're supposed to write a new clean article at a /Temp page). So if some editors are applying {{copyvio}} to sections, they are misapplying the tag, at least according to the instructions here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I re-use text licensed under Creative Commons?

I'd like to know whether I can re-use text published under the various Creative Commons licenses in Wikipedia articles with little or no modification, and if so whether I just need to cite the source, or also include a link to the licence, or place a CC licence template at the top or bottom or the article itself or my User page, or just mention it in the edit summary, or what. I'm sure this must be a common enough question but I've searched and browsed around WP for close to an hour without getting near to finding an answer (I draw a line at trawling through talk page archives) or even being sure of the best place to ask the question (so apologies if this isn't it). WP:Creative Commons redirects to WP:Image copyright tags. I want to know about text, not images.

To be more specific, my current concerns are over whether I can reuse text licensed under the following and if so what I need to do to ensure I've complied with the licence terms:

1. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States
2. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States]

I'd be most grateful for any answers or to anyone who can point me to where on Wikipedia this is explained (I'm still sure it must be, somewhere...)

PS Just in case it makes any difference I'm currently in the UK, not the US. Qwfp (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The same principles would apply as for images. A CC-NC license is absolutely incompatible with the GFDL b/c of the non-commercial restriction. See, GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Commercial_redistribution. A CC-SA license is also incompatible (see Share-alike, I believe this is b/c of the share alike restriction, since you aren't "sharing alike" if you attempt to put it under GFDL - in other words, you don't have a license that allows you to restrict the content to GFDL). The CC-BY and the GFDL are very similar in practice but there is an incompatibility with respect to transparency (see generally GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Transparent_formats and Creative_Commons#History) - that should be able to be overcome - at least in one direction, but I can't find that in writing either - working on it. Of course, if the text is dual licensed, you're fine. As for attribution, yes you have to say where it came from (ex. that in the United States you don't have to attribute if it's in the Public Domain). Maybe best to link to it. Can you post a link here so we can see particulars? Hope this helps. Also hope someone else will chime in with thoughts.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Doug, that's an enormous help. If I understand correctly, (1) is fine as long as I cite the source, whereas (2) is out of the question whatever I do (though of course I can still use it as a reference). I don't know what CC-BY stands for (how many CC licences are there? I'd thought CC was supposed to be simpler than GDFL but it would seem I got the wrong end of the stick entirely), but I can't see how copying text displayed in a browser, or the html code, can possibly be affected by the transparency issues as if html isn't a transparent format I don't know what is.. Sorry I'd rather keep this in the abstract and not post links here just at the moment but both sources are single-licensed under CC licences and give no other terms of re-use and I'm quite sure neither are public-domain.

I can't believe I'm the only one who found all this thoroughly confusing. The articles you refer to don't explicitly discuss this in the context of Wikipedia, GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Commercial_redistribution doesn't explicitly mention CC, and I wouldn't have thougt of looking for the sort of info I'm after in the "History" section of any article. Could I suggest that you consider putting this info at WP:Creative Commons to replace the current redirect to help other users and save your valuable advice from the obscurity of the talk page archives? If that could define the abbreviations you used above (CC-BY, CC-NC etc) too it would be good as they're not defined in the Creative Commons article.

In my mind at least, text is quite a bit different from media files — for one thing any time a media file is altered and re-uploaded, the author needs to explicitly state the licence or that it's public-domain or out of copyright, or why they consider it fair use, else the bots will delete it within a few days. This isn't and couldn't be true for text — imagine having to give these sort of details every time you made an edit. Text is in some ways more complex as it's so much easier to modify, but in one way simpler as surely it's always "transparent".

Thanks again for responding so quickly and informatively, Qwfp (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, CC means creative commons, VERY GENERALLY BY = Attribution (as in whom is this "by"), which basically means you have to give credit to the author; SA = "Share Alike" which means basically that if you republish it, you can't reduce the license (since you can never expand the license you can only give precisely what you got); NC = Non-commercial use only; ND = Non-derivative, i.e. derivative works aren't allowed. The problem with share alike is that if you got it under CC you have to give a CC-SA license when you republish. GFDL does not equal CC-SA, so republishing under GFDL violates the license.

Transparency is not really something I know much about. I am not confident that it could never be applied to text though. You need a real answer before you republish or you could be violating a copyright. I'm looking into the issue, but hopefully someone else can help sooner.

There are several versions of the CC license, however, there are various combinations of the BY-SA-NC-ND parameters (only BY & SA, can be used in any Wikimedia projects).

Yes, I have noticed that information is hard to find and I have thought about doing something about it.

To avoid a possible copyright violation, the very best solution is to go back to the author and ask him or her to dual-license it under the GFDL.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Explicit Permission

In order for an image to be uploaded to Wikipedia, it has to be under fair use, have a copyright that is no longer applicable, or be uploaded by a user with expressed permission. However, on images like this, we lack the expressed permission: [1]

We do not know if the "flickr" user is the actual creator, nor do we know if he has the legal authority to license it. We do not have him submitting him itself with the potential waiver of liability for the Wikimedia Foundation (in case it was copyrighted). We do not have any knowledge of who "ROFLBOT" is, or why he signed the photo.

Flickr does not screen pictures to make sure you do not upload other people's works, and there are many people who put up images of anime and the like which fall under the same "labeling" by flickr, which would clearly be derivative work from a copyrighted source and not acceptable under such labeling. There are also many people who re-upload work found on other websites, and we do not know if the license is different (and a conflict of licenses would not allow someone to use the image until the conflict has been settled).

This would all be settled appropriately if the original user was questioned and then asked to upload the work himself, however, I believe the quote by the Wikipedia user could potentially read as "we now have your work regardless of what you say", and being from a foreign country (if the profile is correct), he may not know if that is allowable or not.

In any case, if the user did have it on his flickr, the most the copyright information could say is that Wikipedia is using it under fair use, not free use, as the original licensing still exists on a verifiable page, which means that Wikipedia is not in control over the page. That would make it impossible for said image to be used without an explicit educational reason.

We have to go through a rigorous process in uploading files for a reason. This relaxed standard seems extremely problematic. As wikimedia states: "Most Creative Commons licenses are not free content licenses and will not be found as the sole allowable licence on Wikimedia Commons. The following are allowed and will be found here:" [2] Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the image in question isn't on enwiki, it's considered to be on Wikimedia Commons. It appears to be licensed under CC-BY 2.0, not CC-SA (as you mentioned on my talk page), and appears that a trusted user verified that fact. This is not a problem. The issue is somewhat convoluted, but you are correct that you can't upload this image to Wikipedia because the license is not GFDL compatible. You will notice when you are on the image's "page" the image and discussion tabs are both red. That's because they aren't really here - they aren't copied here. There is simply a call to Commons for them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And as such, they cannot be used in user pages, if the above is true. It doesn't matter where the image is hosted, all "CC" deem that there is a copyright of some kind, and Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted images of any kind to be used on a user page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• You don't understand, they ARE NOT HERE, you can make a call for them in any space, but they are not in any space. The example you gave is not in Userspace, it's only on Commons, so it's fine. You are correct, you cannot upload it to userspace, but nobody has that I'm aware of.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that you understand - linking and having images appear on a Wikipedia page from another source is not allowed. Otherwise, people could put all sorts of content from other sources up. Wikipedia has such rules to keep people from putting copyrighted material up. You cannot have an image supported in such a way to actually be visible on a Wikipedia page when it cannot be hosted by Wikipedia itself for failing standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at this image it does seem likely that the person who uploaded it to flickr holds the copyright and decided to release the image on a creative commons license. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted images, everything I write here is copyrighted (and licensed under a the GFDL). Since this picture is released under a free content license wikipedia accepts it can be used anywhere, including user pages. It could also have been uploaded to en.wikipedia instead of Commons, but since Commons is the wikimedia image repository it makes more sense to have the image uploaded there. Garion96 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - This is about user space, not on the Encyclopedia, and user space has tighter restrictions on what can and cannot be used. And there is no explicit permission, which, according to the WikiCommons rules, would require such. It has a note by a picture, but it does not have it on the picture of who has access to the copyright, nor is there explicit note that the person took the picture themselves. You cannot go off of what "looks" to be a case, because things can look proper, but still be completely improper. I have pictures of architecture on my flickr account, but according to Wikipedia's own copyright statements, they are derivatives of other works, even if flickr may state that its my work to license out. I hope you can understand that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, with respect I don't think you understand how free licencing works. When the author or creator of a work licences that work under a free licence (such as the GFDL), they retain the copyright in the work. Indeed, the rights that they retain under copyright are the very method by which the terms of the free licence can be enforced. The effect of the free licence is to grant certain contractual rights to others to do certain things with the work. So yes, as you say, all content under Creative Commons licences is copyrighted, but this is precisely how it's supposed to work.

What matters for Wikimedia's purposes are which rights have been granted by the licence used? The original source for the image you mention is under the CC-BY-2.0 licence, which is acceptable on Commons. As you say, some Creative Commons licences are not free licences (eg, the non-commercial variants) but that's not the case here. I recommend that you read Commons:Licensing to get a better understanding of how this works. --bainer (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, and remember, this is just a discussion on the topic, and not an actual entry into the removal of said material. I just wanted to bring up the topic.

Now, there is something you overlooked - There is no proof that the original source was the original source, nor proof that they took the photograph or own the rights to the photograph. That is why Wikipedia has people sign an electronic release for said material so that the legal burden is on them and not Wikipedia if it was found out that the material was nor originally owned by them. Hence the problem with the material.

The second problem was not the use on Wikipedia, but the use on User Pages, which has stricter guidelines for what images can be used and which cannot. I am suggestion that only GFDL images can be used, based on GFDL having no copyright, and CC having specifically a copyright. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple problems with this. First, GFDL does have a copyright just like CC images, see GFDL for more details. Second, while on Wikipedia we are very careful about what constitutes an acceptably tagged image, if commons has decided an image is correctly tagged, and the image is uploaded there, then there's no issue with us piping (I don't think that's the techincal term. Someone remind me) it in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, GFDL explicitly waves copyright claims in accepting such. So no, there is no more copyright once you file it under GFDL, because there is no more rights of the original user. Now, it doesn't matter if you say they are "very careful" because images are deleted all the time at Wiki Commons for violations, so that proves that yes, Wiki Commons is not infallible, and Wiki Commons is capable of letting in material that may be improper. There is no explicit release nor explicit ownership that would allow it to be traced back to an originator. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it the original individual still keeps a copyright on the work. That's why someone can release say one copy of a work on GFDL and also release the exact same thing on a creative commons liscence. Anyways, even if commons isn't infailible I fail to see its relevance. We need to be careful about copyright issues. That doesn't mean we need copyright paranoia. The people on commons spend all their time checking these sorts of things. We can generally trust them not to screw up (and if they do, no court would ever find us liable. Indeed we go well beyond what we need to worry abut liability). Again, care, not paranoia is the operative concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Er, I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it the original individual still keeps a copyright on the work. That's why someone can release say one copy of a work on GFDL and also release the exact same thing on a creative commons liscence." I don't know if thats very legal, because once an item is GFDL on Wikipedia, they require any use of a work from Wikipedia to be allowed under GFDL, which would cause a very strange conflict between the two. I don't know if you can legally put (for example) two signs saying "all people are allowed the use of my property no matter what" along side of another sign that states "all people can use my property but...". Now, we can trust someone not to screw up, but isn't that why we require explicit permission when uploading a file to Wikipedia when licensing under GFDL and the rest? Or is our standard "plausible deniability", whereas, we can say "well, we were under the impression this guy owned it, so it is okay until someone else proves that its really theirs". I remember that was the original laize faire interpretation to things, but the policy has changed since 2004. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly say "I release this work under the GFDL and also under CC whatever." See Wikipedia:Multi-licensing. And again, you are correct that we take a strict attitude but that's mainly because the images are on this project. If the image is on commons, that's not an issue. These images are on commons, if someone tried to move one over here we'd make noise, but simply displaying them isn't an issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since WikiCommons is addressed by Wikipedia, that users are directed to it, and the files are cross linked, I think it would be important for Wikipedia to rule on the matter, especially as how the images are forever linked with the coding of individual Wikipedia pages, which would make them indirectly liable for the content. Remember, someone not hosting but linking to (lets say, to be extreme) underaged pictures would still be held responsible, so why not the same for Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)1. So no, there is no more copyright once you file it under GFDL - Absolutely incorrect. It is a license, that's what the L stands for. If it were "waiving copyright" that would be called Releasing it into the Public Domain. The copyright is most certainly enforceable.
• 2. As to electronically signed releases, please show me where we require this.
• 3. The technical side of this is definitely not my gig, but as I generally understand it, when you load the page on your browser, your browser brings in an image from Commons and sticks it in the page, it is not in userspace because it is not on enwiki, anywhere. This is acceptable because it is known not to be a copyright violation because it's licensed under a CC license, not because of anything to do with the GFDL.
• If it were otherwise, nothing licensed on Commons under the CC could be used on any part of Wikipedia because the licenses are incompatible. I don't see any userspace restrictions that affect this, the restrictions there are on non-free content and nothing on Commons is non-free.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[3] If you notice, it states "This is my own work". You click there and it takes you to: [4]

Now, it says: "All user-created images must be released under a free license. For purposes of Wikipedia, "free" does not merely mean that you don't charge for it, but it means that you allow everyone to use, alter, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This release is not revocable." Flicker, for example, does not have such information, and thus, the person can withdraw the photo and terminate the release (because there is no more primary source for it to attribute the creator to). Also, 2.0 does allow conditions for the release to be terminated. Thus, the permission between what Wikipedia states and the actual CC statement is in conflict, and there is an electronic signature accepting the terms to uploading the files.

"If it were otherwise, nothing licensed on Commons under the CC could be used on any part of Wikipedia because the licenses are incompatible. " On user pages. The main Wikipedia pages allow for content, especially for educational purposes. However, user pages do not, which is the concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Neither the GFDL nor any of the CC licenses says all people are allowed the use of my property no matter what. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Doug, that is incorrect. Wikipedia notes: "This release is not revocable." However, CC allows for terms in which the licensing is revocable. Thus, there is a huge difference. Hence, one is "copyleft" and the other is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I don't know how to put this politely but I don't think you understand how this works. If I release something under GFDL and under CC I can revoke the CC part under certain circumstances, but it would still be GFDL. User:Mindspillage recently made me realize how little I actually know about the GFDL and other lisences so I've been trying to spend time getting more aquainted with the license details, but this isn't even a complictaed issue. Please read the link I gave above to multilicensing above. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, if you read the above, you will see that what you said is exactly my whole point. Without explicit permission, you cannot justify having it lisenced under GFDL. Hence the problem with allowing such usages. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And where exactly do you see a revocable clause in a creative commons license? Garion96 (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[5] 7. "Termination" Wikipedia Licensing strictly forbides any termination language. Thus, the two are in direct conflict. Hence why on the page describing use mentions the dispute between "copyleftists" and the creative commons licensers. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a part of us-copyright law and does not work for deravitive works. See here. Garion96 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we got to the point of derivative works yet, and I think its still on the nature of the "original grab" which permission. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The original grab with permission is ok. The picture is released on flickt as cc-by 2.0. We grab the image and move it to commons under the license with attribution to the original flickr uploader. No problems there. The termination clause is basically irrelevant. You have the same under the GFDL since it is part of US copyright law, it is not specifically for Creative Commons. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two basic questions here; As I understand it, Commons material is required to have a free license, and, if it is thought not to, can be challenged in at Commons. If it passes there it can be used at Wikipedia--and in fact is the preferred source.

Second, cc 2.0 is a free license. The complete list of free licenses is at [6]. the ones listed there are considered GFDL compatible. As I read the termination clause referred to above it say it is terminable only upon breach of the license, i.e. failure to attribute. But that applies to all licensing, including GFDL. So I do not see any problem here. DGG (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But not the Wikipedia uploading signing statement, which does not allow a termination clause and you basically have to sign that away. The terms "this release is not revocable" removes it from any previous licensing. Thus, without permission from the original owner, i.e., someone at flickr, their photo goes from a license that is revocable to one that isn't. Hence, the concern over "explicit permission". I hope that makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Revocable is not the same as termination in this context. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's the list of other free licenses, the list of allowable CC tags is at Creative Commons copyright tags, none of them are actually compatible with GFDL, which is why you can't upload from Commmons to enwiki, but that's because of issues not directly related to this discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no problem at all uploading from Commons to en.wiki. It is pointless, but there are no legal issues or free content issues at stake. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Doug, they kinda are, which goes to the above point of the fact that they are going around Wikipedia's rules by hosting them on another network that is linked with Wikipedia. It seems rather strange that you can have a lesser standard on another grouping. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava, I think this matter is as resolved as it will be, your original post here and on my talk page was about fair use/non-free images. Everything on Commons is free, even if it's not GFDL compliant. This is indisputable. The technical relationship between CC licenses and GFDL are just that, very technical. Many lawyers don't understand them. If you want to continue this discussion you need to cite specific provisions of policy with page and section references, not just broad concepts. It sounds like you want to change practice and maybe even policy. This should be discussed on a policy page. This is not a policy page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was to bring up that there is a problem in situations lacking "explicit permission". :) Transfering over things from another webpage that is licensed differently without any explicit mention by the originator about re-licensing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What re-licensing? The copy from flickr to commons? The explicit mention is kind of obvious there. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree based on the conditions of a) we have no proof the original flickr user had the right to upload the item under said licensing and b) Wikipedia uses GFDL, but also states that there can be no revocation regardless of what U.S. law may or may not state, so, since the person licensed the original item off of Wikipedia, the Wikipedia statement of no revocation is in conflict with the potential statement of revocation, and the original item could not be uploaded onto Wikipedia until that conflict is addressed, or the statement of no revocation removed to create such a conflict between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a: A flickr person can lie, but usually it is quite obvious. With an electronic statement a person can also lie so no difference there. We assume he/she is the copyright holder unlesss it is blatantly false or really suspicious. That is always the case regarding copyrights, wikipedia or non-wikipedia related.

b: Again, there is no revocation with the GFDL and no revocation with creative commons. Termination is something different. You really are looking for problems here where none exist. Garion96 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

a) We assume because we force them to electronically submit said release so that any legal proceedings cannot involve Wikipedia. However, this was uploaded by an individual who did not submit said release, so there is no legal protection from copyright problems. Hence why the tightening of the uploading rules a while back. b) That is patently untrue. CC has terms that allow for termination of its licensing. This has been stated in the above by others besides myself. However, Wikipedia uploading states blatantly that there can be no termination of terms no matter what. That is a conflict between two licenses that would require the originator to approve of such a dramatic change. That is the only way to protect Wikipedia and Wikipedia's interests from potential copyright litigation. Hence why they have such statements on uploading photos. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When do we electronically submit a release? An OTRS ticket? Otherwise an upload to flickr is the same as an upoad to Commons/wikipedia. No difference there. The only thing important is the text of the GFDL license and the text of the Creative Commons license (and basic US contract law). Regarding point b. Please read the creative commons clause carefully and the link I provided somewhere above. For the rest, I give up, as said before you are looking for problems were none exist. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As I linked above, the electronic release is when you click on the button for upload. I suggest you click on upload file and read what is actually stated there. You may be surprised. And the problems are quite existent, as others have conceeded that there is a conflict between the two licenses. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I tried to explain before, there's no problem with duel-lisencing or many other forms of incompatible licensing. See Wikipedia:Multi-licensing. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I stated before, none of these images are on wikipedia! This is a talk page for discussing how to deal with the management of this project page, not for discussing theoretical copyright issues that would affect long standing practices and policies. (BTW JoshuaZ, this isn't dual licensed, it's pure CC, which affects nothing in this discussion however)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside Items on Wikipedia Still Must Follow Rules

My objections to Doug's improper "closing" of a talk page discussion that allows for no such close have been noted. However, this is on his claim that Wikicommons information does not necessarily need to follow Wikipedia rules. However, all content viewable via Wikipedia code and from a Wikipedia address must still follow the terms of use, as all other websites have such requirement. I believe that Doug was speaking without a proper understanding on said subject, and his lack of providing actual, hard evidence or a blatant release from Wikimedia that suggests otherwise only reinforces this point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For an above example, if someone were to host an illegal picture on Wikimedia and someone else sourced it to their user profile, Wikicommons isn't the sole one responsible. Which is why the ruling would necessitate not allowing content not acceptable on Wikipedia to be linked from other such websites. It would go against the spirit of the Wikipedia Copyright policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the closed templates from the above discussion per your objection based on what I take to be WP:COI, I may comment further on your talk page, but not here, this is far beyond the scope of maintaining this page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that such a place is inappropriate, since the project page clearly states: "This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be copyright violations." Thus, a discussion on this matter is important as it pertains to possible violations listed on the project page. This is not about a policy change. This is about potential issues surrounding copyright problems and only potential issues surrounding copyright problems so that such issues can have a variety of view points posted in order to form a basis on said issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Template changes

Currently, replacing the page with the {{copyvio}} text (as per instructions at WP:CV) makes the page generally less than 100 bytes, and as such are being listed on Special:Shortpages (not certain what the size threshold is for articles listed here). A method of avoiding this that I've seen employed on pages tagged with the copyvio template involve a comment consisting of a series of dud characters, similar to the shortened version in the source of this page. Perhaps a template could be created at {{blankcomment}} or somewhere similar with around 500 bytes of comment text, and the text {{subst:blankcomment}} added to the procedure for tagging articles. This would then have it read:

{{copyvio | url=insert URL here}} {{subst:blankcomment}}

Whilst the page would not be visually affected, this would prevent copyvio articles from being listed at Special:Shortpages, which would speed up the process of cleanup/repair of the articles on the list, and also prevent them from being tagged as stubs by automated bots. haz (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I raised this same issue at Template talk:Copyvio but got no response. I just noticed your comment. I think this would make sense. It seems to me that the long comment template should be incorporated into the copyvio.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a robot come around and fixing this on pages I've marked with copyvio. I think that's a reasonable solution to the problem. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the bot doing this. User:DumbBOT goes around finding pages that haven't been posted here and posts them, but I've checked several nominations and found the long comment is not in place. I have seen an editor, presumably one who was working through Special:Shortpages adding the comment, which is what I want to avoid. Seems like a good job for a bot, but fixing or adding to the template seems a better solution. Fix the problem up front rather than on the back end.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And the template exists at {{Longcomment}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be referring to User:TexasAndroid, which is a person, not a Bot.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bot. Just a user with a vaguly bot-like name, and the WikiGnome-ish tendency to do mass rapid-fire edits of technical nature via tabbed browsing.

Responding generally here to comments from both discussions....

I'm a regular Short Pages patroller. I actually patrol this page over on the Tools Server (TS), which is run every 15 minutes or so. There is no set number of characters that puts a page on or off either this report or the more traditional Short Pages report. Both report the X shortest pages, however many characters that works out to be. 1000 pages for the traditional report, 2000 for the TS report. This creates a moving target of exactly how many characters will put a page on the report. Currently on the TS report this ends up at around 142-143 characters being the threshold for appearing on the report. Since the report is based on the quantity of pages not directly on the size, for every page that can get bumped down off of the report, we get another page onto the report that could possibly benefit from human attention. Certain pages are ones that do not and will not benefit from the attention of the Short Pages patrollers. Copyvios are one of these types. They are your area of expertese, not ours. You have your own ways of tracking them that has nothing to do with the Short Pages reports, so it's nice to drop them down off the report so that we can get some other pages onto the report that we can work on.

As far as adding a parameter to the {{Copyvio}} template, as someone suggested, I really don't see that as being of any use. If the {{Copyvio}} template is not substed, then nothing you stick in the parameters will make much difference in the counted length. For transcluded (non-subst-ed) templates, the length counts are allways of the pre-transclusion length.

So I see two possible solutions. Subst the {{Copyvio}} template itself, or add a substed {{longcomment}} template after the {{Copyvio}}.

The first is by far the simplest, and would be totally effective. The substed version of {{Copyvio}} is far larger than is needed to keep pages off of the Short Pages reports. The question is whether the {{Copyvio}} template has any key reasons that it should not be substed. I know that other templates have had such reasons in the past. ({{deletedpage}}, now out of use, comes to mind as one). If there are such reasons, then it obviously cannot be substed. But if it can, then IMHO changing the procedures to require substing would be the simplest way to handle this. There is even code in some other normally substed templates that could be copied to add a glaring red warning banner to the {{Copyvio}} template that would only show up when the template is not substed, warning that it needs to be substed.

If {{Copyvio}} cannot be substed for whatever reason, then that leaves us with adding a substed {{longcomment}} after each {{Copyvio}}. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Substitution#Templates_that_should_not_be_substituted says the following:

• {{copyvio}} — far too much wikicode, and a bot relies upon it to populate WP:CP with unlisted articles.

I am notifying the bot owner about this, I'm curious why it couldn't be done via categories rather than simply having the template transcluded. Alternatively, it might be possible to create a new template that incorporates the transcluded copyvio and the subst long comment. I think they can be nested that way, I'm just not sure how to do it (and I may be all wet on that idea).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, either {{Copyvio}} is substed or it is not. There's really no fancy way to create a middle ground. Placing {{longcomment}} inside {{Copyvio}} is really meaningless if {{Copyvio}} is not substed. You would still end up with a length count of only the pre-transclusion {{Copyvio}} call. That's simply how the length counts work. Nothing within a transcluded template is counted. Transclusion happens at the time of page display, while counts are based upon what the page really contains, without processing any of the transclusions.

Actually, I just thought of one possible middle ground route. The problem with substing {{Copyvio}} appears to be it's size once substed. And I agree that it's a large beast once that is done. The possibility would be to create a subst-able shell around the current transcluded {{Copyvio}} code. To avoid making people learn a new name for the template, this would involve moving the existing template to a brand new name, then writing a new template at the existing name. The new template would transclude the renamed old code, have code to do the obnoxios "Need to subst" banner, and any other filler to bring it up to long enough to be well beyond short pages length of concern. 200-300 characters should take it well beyond where short pages is likely to be any time soon. Then the procedure is changed to require that the new {{Copyvio}} allways be substed. Substing {{Copyvio}} would then only bring out the new code. The large old-code would stay transcluded behind the new tamplate name. This all works because substing is not a recursive action. When you subst a template, you only substitute once. Any templates from within the substed template remain transcluded.

Sounds like a possibility to me. Implementing this would break {{Copyvio}} for a short period of time, but if the new shell is developed at a different name, initially, then the current {{Copyvio}} could be renamed and the new shell moved into it's place within a minute or two, limiting the disruption. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sort of what I meant by nesting, you can tell I'm not particularly template savvy. :-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As written today, the copyvio template gets seriously broken if substed. I've had to clean up after a few of those. Creating a new template ("copysub" or something) that does the copyvio + long comment would certainly be feasible. (BTW TexasAndroid: thanks for your patient work on those!) --Alvestrand (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So the general idea is to create a wrapper that can be substed, which then leaves behind a un-substed call to the currently coded template. The wrapper would also have the code to do the warning banner in it, and, if needed, extra padding. I suspect that the padding may not be actually needed. Once the warning banner code is added in, it may very well be long enough as it is. The wrapper will also need to collect each of the parameters currently in use for {{Copyvio}} and set them up for the new call to the old template.

There are two separate ways to go about doing this. First is the way I described above. Move the old code to a new name, and build the wrapper in the {{Copyvio}} template itself. Second is Alvestrand's idea of a totally new name for the wrapper. For the first, it's a more complex job of coding/coordinating, by a small amount, but it has the advantage of being mostly transparent for the users of the template, beyond suddently needing to subst the template. The second is a bit simpler to code, having to do no shuffling of templates, but requires users to learn to use a new template instead of the one that they are used to using. Not sure which is the better plan.

There's also the question of the bot, mentioned by Doug a couple of posts back. We want to make sure that, whatever we do, we do not break the bot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot's owner (User:Tizio) acknowledged the issue here and will look into it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in looking this. Currently the bot works this way: it collects the articles by looking at the category Category:Possible copyright violations; it then extract the URL of the unlisted articles by loading them and checking for the presence of a copyvio template: Template:Imagevio Template:Copyright Template:Copy-vio Template:Copyvio Template:Cvio Template:Csb-pageincludes Template:Csb-pageincluded Template:Copypaste.

Template substitution would only affect the second part, so that the bot would continue listing unlisted pages, but would be currently unable to find the URLs. I don't think it would be difficult to modify the bot in such a way it extract the URL from a substituted template, though, if the template is changed in such a way the URL is clearly identifiable. For example, it could just be embedded in the template in a line like:

{{copyviourl|url=http://www....}}

where copyviourl is a template that results in its only argument. So it's not difficult to adapt the bot. Just let me know of changes with some days in advance. Tizio 16:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A small addition: an example of a template that is subst'ed but leaves another template in place is Template:Afd; could be useful as a model, if the change in this direction is agreed. Tizio 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To get this moving again, I'll start developing the wrapper template at {{copyvio/temp}}. It can be developed and tested there, and for it's development there the issue of eventual naming is irrelevant. We can decide later which template ends up at {{copyvio}}, and which one gets a new name. But for now, unless we actually get a version of the new wrapper working, it's all a bit moot. - TexasAndroid (talk)

Great! I was wanting to get this moving again myself, but I don't have the technical template know-how. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I don't either. But I am a programmer, and with a good template to start with that already does what we want, I think we'll be OK. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial template created

Okay. I have an initial sample of the wrapper template set up at {{copyvio/temp}}. I originally canibalized {{afd1}}, but was having some trouble getting a couple of bits to work right, so I swtiched to being based off of {{prod}}, and that appears to work better. The wrapper is around 900 characters long, so there's no need for any extra "long comment" code in it, it handles that quite well with just the processing code. I also have the wrapper building date and time parameters to feed to the transcluded template, just like {{prod}} did. These may not currently be used, but they open up the doors for the original template to be coded to use these date/time parameters to automatically set up categories and other time-dependant aspects if that is desired in the future, just like {{prod}} does. To see what things look like when the wrapper is not substituted, check out Template:Copyvio/sandbox, where I included three template calls. One un-substed to {{prod}}, one un-substed to {{copyvio/temp}}, and finally a properly substed call to {{copyvio/temp}}. If it is not substed, you do not get the nice template box at all, but instead see template code including a nice, large, red warning message that the template needed to be substed.

If people like this, we are then left with the unresolved issue of which template will be named which. Which template, new or old, gets the {{copyvio}} name, and which gets a new name? I prefer that the old template move to a new name, and the new one get the {{copyvio}} name. This will involve breaking the template for a few minutes, as they are shuffled from name to name. And it will require a pass through all the existing {{copyvio}} uses to substitute them all. But on the plus side, once the installation work is done, nobody who wants to use it has to learn a new template. They just continue to use the name that they are familiar with, and begin to get the warning message as they learn to substitute the thing. So a bit of installation work for us, to make the transition smoother for the more general user. IMHO this is the better path overall, but I'm open to arguments for going the other direction (old stays at {{copyvio}}, and new one gets a new name). - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. I hear crickets chirping all around. :)

I've expressed which route I prefer. If I continue to get no response at all, I see only two paths forward. Abandon the effort, or be WP:BOLD and just go with my idea. I'm leaning towards the latter, as I think that this is a worthwhile improvement to the templates. But I wanted to give one last chance for anyone to object before I move forward.

To summarize, the steps forward that I see are:

1. Determine new name for old template.
2. Update new template to transclude from the new name.
3. Move {{copyvio}} to the new name.
4. Move the new template into place at {{copyvio}}. (Template will be simply broken between these two steps, but that should be a matter of seconds. A minute or two at worst.)
5. Start substing all the existing uses of {{copyvio}}. (After the two moves, all will display the red warning instead of the normal copyvio banner until each is substed.)

The last step might be bot-work, if we can find a bot to have ready to launch right after the moves are performed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The time is fast approaching, and noone is objecting to the template changeover. Baring any last minute objections, I'll do it within the next couple of days. I'm currently looking at {{copyviocore}} for the new name of the existing template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Silence is golden consent, unless someone decides later they don't like the change:). I don't see any problem with moving forward with your plan. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Here we go. I need to do a couple of edits to the new template to point it to the new name for the existing template, then we'll be off. It'll be fully broken for a minute or two after I do the first move and before I do the second, and even after the second all the existing uses of {{copyvio}} will need to be substed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The shuffle has been done, the templates are in their new homes, and I have substed all the existing references that I can find. I *think* that we are good to go. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no great problem with this shuffle - but will you also update the Copyright problems page so that the instructions say to subst the copyvio template rather than using it directly? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Great Work! Thanks, sorry I didn't comment further above but really I had nothing to say as I don't understand the mechanics and obviously supported the change. I notice you removed the listing from the what not to subst list at Wikipedia:Template_substitution, do we want to add it to the must subst or the should subst list on the same page?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After trying it out transcluded in a sandbox I have answered my own question. It is now listed under must subst.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSN copyright discussion (online press clipping collection)

I'd be grateful if any editors with a good understanding of copyright issues could have a look at this discussion on WP:RSN – Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links – to create some clarity and help bring about a consensus on the copyright implications, if any, of linking to such sites. Thanks, Jayen466 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Query about Indonesian government publications

According to this Indonesian law (Article 14, (b)), any Indonesian government publication is not copyrighted unless otherwise specifically noted on the publication itself. My questions:

• Is "no infringement of copyright" equivalent to "public domain" in this case?
• Are Indonesian government publications allowed in WP, similar to other countries that release their government publications to the public domain (e.g. U.S.)?
• Is this information about WP policy toward Indonesian government publications posted somewhere?
• Is there a better place to ask such questions?

Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to Google Print/Books

Crossposted to Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_Google_Print.2FBooks.

Recently I have encountered a user who is removing links to Google Print aka Google Books (ex. [7]). I am unaware of any community consensus for removal of those widely used and very useful external links. Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any serious criticism of the copyright status of things in Google books? If not, we should keep these useful links. (If there is, I'll modify my opinion after learning of it.) Aleta ^Sing 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All (bar one set of removals) were reinstated , after someone kindly pointed ourt what the status

of items on Google Books was. I am agreeing with Aleta, unless there's an obvious issue, it should be OK to link to Google Books.

Also removed, but reinstated by another editor was a deep-link to a PDF, the work contained (in scan form) was copyright expired, however the terms attached to PDF's on Google Books seem to contain an NC clause, meaning that providing a direct link might not nessacrily be reasonable. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Use 1 article's content on another article

Can the text from one Wikipedia article be copied verbatim onto another Wikipedia article? Is this explicitly not allowed, or can it be done with attributions? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)::if it's done with attributions, it is not a copyright problem. Our text can be used with attributions according to the license anywhere, and Wikipedia can use any gfdl text. However, it normally is a very poor idea if used in more than a main article/sub article situation, and would normally be a good reason to look at for a suggested merge. DGG (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are using it within Wikipedia, it is generally sufficient for attribution/GFDL purposes to leave an edit summary that states the name of the article copied - similar to what you would use on the target page if you were merging articles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This page needs a proper archive and categories

I want to review a copyvio reported a year ago and cannot (easily). Please categorize pages like Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 May 16; we could use a lost of articles divided by months and so on (WP:RD does it well).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know the date the go to the page using the established naming convention Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 June 9 if you know the article go the article and use the Special:WhatLinksHere function which will (should) still list the specific report the article was reported on. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Free image use

The Lost Cause (song) page used to include a non-free image. The image's page stated (before I removed the image and the message ([8])) that this was a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria because it was being used on a page other than the one described in the image description. I noticed that the Cellphone's Dead page has simmilar image use, but there is nothing mentioning a violation on that image's page. Is the way that the image on Cellphone's Dead is used okay, or has no one spotted this violation? If it is okay, would the Lost Cause image be okay too? And how would I go about clarifying this on the image's page? Thanks! You're dreaming eh? 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism of a wiki article

I've spent half an hour looking for somewhere where I can report copying of a wiki article by an outside site. I found a dozen ways to report Wiki material copying outside content but no way to report license abuse outside of wiki. Anyway -

www.squidoo.com/the-history-of-drum-and-bass

is blatant plagiarism of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_drum_and_bass

--Dustek (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR and WP:GFDLC. Sancho 04:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing images from infoboxes

Many infobox templates contain an entry for an image, and frequently when a legal image isn't available, a placeholder image is used. I have noticed a pattern that when that placeholder image has been replaced by a violating image, that the violating image is just deleted from the infobox, rather than the placeholder being restored. This is a bad practice and there should be a policy in place to prevent it. In my opinion the policy should be as follows:

1. In the even that an infobox template contains a blank entry for an image, any administrator viewing the article should add the appropriate image from Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders
2. In the even that a violating image is placed in the infobox, it should be replaced with the appropriate image from Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders, and not simply deleted
3. If an editor or administrator does just delete the image, they should be notified of the this policy on their user talk page.
4. If after being notified, they repeatedly continue to just delete images, their account should be suspended for an appropriate number of days, or until they contact the suspending administrator and agree to comply with this policy.

- MistyWillows (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We could have the infobox templates supply the placeholder by default when an image isn't provided. As for creating policy, see Wikipedia:how to create policy. I don't think anything extreme needs to be done other than reminders/requests to editors that forget to replace the placeholder, and even this wouldn't be necessary if the templates default to providing the place holder. Sancho 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Old works still copyrighteable?

Hello,

I'm having trouble with

http://www.ub.unibe.ch/content/bibliotheken_sammlungen/sondersammlungen/sammlung_ryhiner/bestellformular/index_ger.html

Thing is, there are images of maps and such which would be in the public domain because of their age; but in order to view them you are required to click an "accept copyright" button, which states that the images can only be used with their permission. The images are watermarked, even. Is it safe to upload them to wikipedia with a public-domain-old tag?

Thanks in advance, --5wh1t5 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to {{copyvio}}?

When all versions of an article contain some text with copyright problems, is it OK to delete the plagiarized text and leave the rest (categories, infoboxes etcetera) and rewrite in our own words in place?

Or is it always required to move the unencumbered material to a temporary page and place the {{copyvio}} tag for administrative deletion of the original article?

An example is this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmond_Shawe-Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=214185703

Is that kind of thing ok? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your corrections look fine. Jeepday (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is good to know. I am not a copyright vigilante, but I do like to resolve potential problems when I see them, and your guidance makes that easier. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

here's another notice

I know that it's hard to get copyright violations dealt with here, but I'm willing to give it another shot. If someone want's to deal with this persistent person, that's great. Image:Polishlancers garde.jpg is a typical example of [9] this user's uploads. It was uploaded to WP, deleted from WP as a copyright violation, uploaded to the commons, deleted from the commons as a copyright violation, then uploaded back to wikipedia (all by the above user). Despite the fact that this user has repeatedly flaunted the policy, and repeatedly uploaded material that he knows is a copyright violation, no-one has had the balls to ban the user or delete the images.

Hi

My Name is Raj. I am the owner of www.pujyaya.org. This is a public website and what i am including is the brief history of this great person.

Please let me know if you have any questions. This is done in good faith.

Thanks Raj

Maybe copyright problems?

On it wiki thanks a copyright bot we have found some copyright problem on en.wiki i will signal here:

• List of Charmed good beings and this page ( first version of voice ,2004 )
• this edit and this page
• Some parts of Panentheism and this page

Thanks a lot for the attention Lusum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.100.72 (talk) 18:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism RFC

Hi. I started an RFC on a plagiarism issue here: [10]. I'm not sure if it is a copyright matter also, but I thought editors interested in these topics might contribute to the RFC. Thanks. Life.temp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission

Are permissions grated at the above inactive page still valid? In particular this one for Aaron Harber which was deleted in June and recreated as Aaron harber later in June and yesterday. The user that recreated it yesterday pointed it out to me here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is no, for the current procedure see WP:IOWN. If you have questions let me know. Jeepday (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template question

Why is the "nothanks" tag listed as "maintenance only" on {{Copyviocore}} instead of at the top where the tagger might be asked to place it? If no one knows the answer to that one, is there any reason that it should not be listed at the top and the tagger asked to place it? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had the same question (but never asked), and would support your solution. Jeepday (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody else weighs in with an alternate view, I suppose I'll implement it in a day or two, then. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. Jeepday (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is done. Let the WP:BRD cycle begin. :) (I can't think of any good reason why it should be problematic, but I'm sure that if I'm missing it, somebody will point it out. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy right for EMCCDA ?

I have copied lines from EMCDDA webb pages, about the drug law. One user states that this a not allowed. Comments?? Dala11a (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EMCDDA is an agency of the European Union, so the copyright status would be based on the law governing that government body. I looked at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/ and the copyright status was not immediately visible. When in doubt wikipolicy on copyright is to error on the side of caution and remove or significantly reword the text. In general unless you can find a GFDL compatible release or show that it is in the public domain, the text can not be used in Wikipedia. In the case where the text can be used the source must be clearly cited (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial). Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to quote this webb page- [11] "Important legal notice

The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer, a copyright notice and rules related to personal data protection." ...

"Copyright notice

© European Communities, 1995-2008 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use."

So "reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated." and I have not find any notice about that reproduction is prohibited for the copied text lines. Conclusion I have followed the law.Dala11a (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are correct that reproduction of the material is permitted and lawful when cited, the problem is that that is not GFDL compatible. So while it may be ok, if you want to post it on your personal web page and cite it, it is not ok for Wikipedia. Wikipedia GFDL specifically allows the text to be modified, while the EU copyright does not specifically allow this. If you post to Wikipedia then it must be specifically GFDL compatible which EU is not. In soem cases brief quotes are allowed from non GFDL sources. I beleive the article you are discussing is Drug policy of the Netherlands and you are in a dispute with another user about adding the content, if that is correct please let me know and we can take the discussion to that talk page for specifics of the question. Jeepday (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is GFDL compatible--it permits any use, and requires only the attribution. That's exactly compatible. If it does not reserve the right to be reproduced unchanged, it does not reserve that right. DGG (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG here. What is the supposed incompatibility? There is nothing there stating that reproduction must be of the work in its entirety. There is nothing limiting the contexts in which it can be reproduced. It's terse, but seems to give rights equivalent to GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism guideline

I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for a plagiarism guideline. All the problems with plagiarism are either Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:Cite your sources problems. —Centrx→talk • 05:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Process question

Do I understand correctly from the instructions given here for articles that before starting a discussion here about a possible copyright problem one is supposed either to revert the article to a version one is certain lacks problems, or blank the page? That seems very drastic if one sees only a possible problem, and the article may be OK as it stands. - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this seems drastic, but the alternative is to allow material that we know may be an infringement to stand, which would be legally problematic. For the purposes of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Wikimedia Foundation claims to be a service provider (last I saw, Jimbo was the registered agent under the DMCA). To be clear of liability, the DMCA requires that service providers remove infringement on notification. DMCA is fairly lax in this regard, as only the copyright holder or the copyright holder's agents can provide this notification. Wikipedia goes above and beyond the requirements of that Act, but that may be a good idea, not only because copyright violation & plagiarism are held in particular horror in academic communities, but because there have been questions raised as to whether or not Wikipedia should qualify as a service provider at all. These are the same questions that ultimately smacked Napster. (Not that I'm suggesting that Wikipedia compares to Napster. My point there is just that protection as a "service provider" can be overturned.) If it should ever come down that we don't qualify, we need to be able to demonstrate that we have handled copyright concerns responsibly, without malfeasance or nonfeasance, by watching for it and duly investigating it when it comes up. (This is quite probably why Jimbo publicly stated in 2006 that "we take a very strong anti-plagiarism stance” and indicated that whenever an author is found to have plagiarized, we review all of his or her contributions for further offenses. (source:SignonSanDiego.com, by the Union Tribute.) The only defense against a charge of facilitating copyright violation is to vigilantly monitor for and address copyright violations. We have Template:Copypaste for less certain situations and even Template:Cv-unsure for extremely iffy ones, but Template:Copyvio is meant to identify pretty clear cut cases, and it's probably best to blank those. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference if Wikipedia is a service provider in cases where no third party has alleged a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point here. If no third party has alleged a copyright infringement, then a copyright infringement is not listed here and a page not blanked, right? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Copyright and WP:BLP are the two areas where Wikipedia tends to error on the side of caution. Keeping in mind that no work is ever lost (even if it is deleted), it is safer from both a legal perspective and a moral perspective to remove or hide questionable material as soon as it is noticed. The burden is on the contributing editor to support inclusion per wikipolicy. For the most part this is a satisfactory solution in that validate content can and usually is quickly validated while content that is questionable and can not be supported or supplied by an editor who is not aware of policy, does no harm while waiting for the final decision to be made. Jeepday (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Material that we know may be an infringement" seems to me a very odd phrase. We know that almost anything may be an infringement: certainly any photo could have been taken by someone else than the person who claims to have taken it, and any time someone writes an article it could have been plagiarizded from an offline source. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Every potential copyright infringement that is reported regardless if it is speedy, {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld/}} or a new posting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for investigation should be posted with the suspected source of the copyvio. So, "Material that we know may be an infringement" is material that appears to be copy and paste from another location where the location is provided in the posting about the potential copyvio. An admin will review the potential copyvio, to see if there is a problem or not then take the appropriate action. Material that may be plagiarized from an offline source would be subject to WP:V and WP:OR, Which combine to say we don't except Original research, so please list the source(s), which is followed up by {{onesource}} or {{refimprove}} as required. Images without proper sourcing or licensing are covered at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. There are no gaps in the policy. Jeepday (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The case I'm looking at here is Gas Works Park. There is no lack of citation, so WP:V and WP:OR don't enter the picture. There is no online source, so "cut and paste" is not an issue. But, as I explain at Talk:Gas Works Park, I strongly suspect (from looking at the article history) that the major portion of the article constitutes a copyright violation of an offline source I haven't seen. Maybe the discussion is best continued on that talk page; I don't see any sanctioned way to raise my suspicions on this project page without first blanking or stubbing the article. If someone thinks that's what should happen, go for it. And, by the way, I am an admin. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it seems like Template:Cv-unsure would be the place to start in that situation (I'm referring to this in the theoretical, so I'm not checking into the below). So far as I know, there's no mandate to remove material that you suspect to be a copyright violation if you do not have a source to compare it to. WP:C says "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation on Wikipedia's part. If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed." The instructions at this page for removal are for material that "infringes copyright". Without a source to compare, there may not be compelling evidence that material infringes copyright, so (in that case) there should be be no mandate to blank. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Second everything that Moonriddengirl, has said. Also I agree that Talk:Gas Works Park would be a better forum for this specific article discussion. I would disagree with you on the quality and quantity of citation in the article, there is lots of room for improvement in the article Gas Works Park. If you have any doubt about the source, accuracy or neutrality of the content, place one or several {{fact}}. Depending on the severity, it may more appropriate to remove the content from the main space to the talk space while requesting validation of copyright status or other verification. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the latter text at Gas Works Park was copied in at revision [12]. The section headers indicate it, the edit summary admits it, and as with many such copies, the text is not neutral, for it is from the "Landmark Nomination prepared for the Friends of Gas Works Park". —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• In such a case, I would regard that as "compelling evidence that material infringes copyright" even in the lack of text to compare. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never seen {{Cv-unsure}} but it looks useful.

Again, as I said on the talk page: the question isn't whether he used the Landmark Nomination. It's whether Landmark Nominations are copyrightable. I think they may fall into the same category as court testimony. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request help investigating contribs

Extensive issues. I'm out of time for today (I'm actually well over time for today), but there's a big potential problem with the contributions of User:Edelmand. Investigating June 8th listings, I came upon his (<--assuming) article Hunt Armory, which contained significant copyright infringement, though by his note on the talk page he didn't seem to understand why. When I headed over to his talk page to explain more about the necessary use of quotations (and the fair use limits of same), I discovered that he had also been tagged for duplicating text from other Wikipedia articles. I left him a note about both types of copyright concerns, here. But having just been reminded a few sections above that we need to check other contributions, I've been going through his list of created articles on his user page. I have identified one other GFDL concern, handled, but more seriously have found sentences or significant phrases copied in 5 of the other 9 articles I've looked at so far (starting from the bottom of the list): Seattle Pop Festival, Montreux Casino, The Drake Hotel, New York, Pirate's World, and Bill Curbishley. I have applied at least band-aids where possible, putting quotations marks around material I find copied verbatim from other sources, but there are quite a few articles still to examine in that list. (I'm maintaining a list or problematic articles as I go at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox to be sure I follow up.) I've been finding it helpful to look at the foundational edit, as some of these issues have been softened by subsequent contributors. Compare this, for instance, with this, where the connection remains quite clear.

I don't have any reason to believe that there is any intentional violation, mind you, and depending on how the editor responds to my note don't necessarily expect any problems as he moves forward, but clean up of previous material could be significant. Anyone available to google a few idiomatic phrases? I'm done for today, but will resume tomorrow. Let me know what you've done, if you go at them, and I won't duplicate efforts. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

older versions with copyright violation

I've found the following text:

The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.

Is it a correct rule? In Japanese Wikipedia, they always delete copyvio versions even when the latest version is clean. Is it okay to have a copyvio version in English Wikipedia if it is not the latest? If yes, why? - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is my interpretation, anyway. :) Yes, it's okay, unless the copyright holder requests its removal, when US law mandates that we comply. Material in history is not technically published, as it is not visible, so it is not infringing on copyright. It can be very difficult to remove a copyright violation that has been added in part to an article. Say on January 20 2008 User:BadStuff adds one paragraph of text to a three paragraph article that he or she has copied from another website. For the following four months, editors contribute to that article as normal, turning the four paragraph brief article into a 12 paragraph amazing article, but not eradicating the copyright violation. On June 2nd, somebody edits the article in such a way that the copyright violation is eradicated from the article. We discover the situation on June 15th. If we removed the copyright violations from history, we would have to erase every edit subsequent to January 20th, including the most recent, which does not contain copyright violations. We'd have to do that to comply with GFDL, since we could not use the material contributed by editors during those four months without acknowledging their authorship in history and we would have eliminated that acknowledgment. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater (as the idiom goes), we remove the copyrighted text and leave a note cautioning against its restoration. Obviously, there are cases where removal of the copyvio from history is not that complex, and in those cases deletion from history is a simple matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm rather surprised to know that. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A Japanese Wikipedian told me that under the Japanese law, copyright violation continues if it can be accessed from the history page. (ja:Wikipedia‐ノート:著作権侵害への対処#過去の版の著作権侵害) That's why Japanese Wikipedia deletes all versions with copyright violation. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. :) Different countries, different laws. Someday the US law may go that way, but at the moment Wikipedia seems to be more vigilant than US law requires, as we address copyright concerns from anyone, not just the copyright holder. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Picasa Web Albums

Clarification required on copyright of Picasa Web Album images: If a person uploads photo's to their Picasa Web Album (which has a link on the page for people to order printed copies), are those images uploaded under this :- Creative Commons Licence and therefore permitted to be uploaded to Wikipedia by another person, for example this image:- Lake photo. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you think they are under that license?Geni 10:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor has uploaded these images under that licence. See:-

• Image:Mangla_lake_after_sunset.JPG
• Image:Sultan_Gate.jpg
• Image:Masjid,_Mirpur.jpg
• Image:Azad_Mega_Mart_24.jpg
• Image:Upper_Jhelum_Canal,_Mirpur.jpg

The same editor has uploaded other images from the same website as his own work See:-

• Image:Shivala,_Old_Mirpur.jpg, which is a cropped image of the original work.

Other images, from the editor I have already reported as imagevio's. A message was posted on his Talk Page to sort out those that are not his own work, which I feel may be all of them. He has had many others already deleted as copyvio's. Those latest ones are after I posted the message to him, so I wanted clarification before tagging them. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

←My two cents, with the understanding that I've barely dipped a toe in images: There doesn't seem to be a general release. According to their official blog: "From the start, we've designed Picasa Web Albums to be 'open' -- after all, your photographs belong to you, and you should be free to decide how to share them." It seems from this that uploaders determine how to license their own images. The terms & services link takes us to Google's general, which includes:[13]

“ You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services. ”

Seems they've granted Google rights, but that doesn't make the images appropriately licensed for use elsewhere for other reasons. Seems to me we'd need proper evidence that this individual actually has the right to give those images away before accepting them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has now added:-

• Image:Allama_Iqbal_Road.jpg
• Image:Shivala temple in old Mirpur.jpg
• Image:Ramkot Fort, Old Mirpur.jpg
• Image:Mangla Fort.jpg
• Image:AJK council logo.jpg (Government website logo)

This makes me feel there will be dozens more to come. Can you recommend a suitable tag to place on the Picasaweb images? Richard Harvey (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eeps. I think probably the best place for you to ask that is at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As I said, I've barely dipped a toe in the image pool and, in fact, if you go over there soon, you'll find my question on a media topic right above yours. :) There doesn't seem to be any justification for reproducing these images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a note at his talk page asking him to point to the release at the web. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He indicates that he has permission from at least the contributor that I asked him about. I've questioned steps necessary for him to confirm that. He's indicated a willingness to get them to update the description to include a release at Picasaweb. I want to be very sure that the instructions I give him are adequate, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. He's been told how to handle this. If he handles it in a timely fashion, no further steps should be necessary. If he doesn't, then you might wish to follow up by tagging the problematic images {{Imagevio}}. When you place the notice on WP:CP, as the template directs, you might want to add a comment explaining that the site does not release material and that no permission has been confirmed. (I'd check the URL first, though, to be sure that hasn't changed, as I've recommended he get the photographers to display the release at the photo sites.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right! I'm dubious about this being done, as he had not followed up on previous advice to sort his obvious Imagevio's that you have deleted so far, or even other simple advice such as placing four tildes at the end of his messages. I will leave the issue for seven days then check them and the original Picasaweb pages for a release notation for Wikipedia use. If none are shown I will tag any uploaded images from the user as you advise, or would it be an idea to tag them now to encourage the editor to speedily provide the required permissions to each image? In the meantime I have just located this:- WP:CONSENT, its of any use! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my message above is more relevant now that the editor has uploaded an obvious copyrighted image from a Pakistan Government website, see:- Image:Map of Mirpur.jpg copied from:- Mirpur Development Authority. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks. I've offered that up for text, but wasn't entirely sure if there was special handling for images. Since it's not my usual ballpark, I wanted to be careful to be spot on before advising. :) Tagging them now is not problematic, in my opinion. It gives the contributor 7 days, which should be more than enough time to verify permissions, if he is going to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I've tagged them all with {{Db-i9|'Image URL' requires proof of release by original photographer}} and an edit summary saying:- (tag Imagevio- 7 days to provide release details confirmation). As he already has multiple warnings on his talk page to sort them and his previous images out that tag will save having the 'copyright status' issue drag on with a warning in a weeks time with a further weeks notice and then a probable 'hang on' tag seven days later, to keep delaying the issue. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I think. That's for ferreting out this problem and following up on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto hide text on post of template

I just found out that the copyvio template over at Wikisource (wikisource:Template:Copyvio) automatically hides everything else on the articles page, see example s:Split Cherry Tree. Any thoughts about using the same magic over here? Jeepday (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me! I've encountered tons of articles that haven't properly been blanked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the skills to include command in the template? Jeepday (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Technologically, I have the skills of a hamster. (Well, a hamster that could once code a little in Apple Basic...and was darned proud of it, too.) :/ It might be a good idea to bring this up at WP:VP/PR, where not only will others see and have a chance to respond, but some of them might be templaters. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Auto hide text on post of copyvio template, Jeepday (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The magic in the template is to put unclosed <div id="copyvio" style="display:none;"> at the end of the template so that rest of the article becomes invisible. --Kusunose 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some article talk pages transclude {{copyviocore}}[14], adding this feature to the template would hide rest of discussion in those pages. --Kusunose 06:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That would be a problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk pages with the template, in each case the template is only placed on the talk page. This brings up that occasionally the template is used on only a section rather then the whole article, we should be able to address both concerns of only hidding part (or none) or the text be putting directions at the bottom of the template "To limit blanking of text place </div> at the end of the suspected copyvio area". It becomes a question of is it more appropriate to set up a template to have built in function to error on the side of blanking or not blanking when there is a serious question as to copyright violations. Jeepday (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's a simple work-around, then I suppose it wouldn't be problematic. I've encountered a number of copyvios today that have been up and forward in spite of the copyvio tag. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is getting close to time to be WP:BOLD, would you like the honors? Jeepday (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this one should be yours, since it was your idea. :D I wouldn't mind, but I'm nervous enough about that wacky coding stuff to be scared it would go wrong. :) (I guess we could test it...?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I will post a message at both of the templates and direct editors to this talk, if things still look like a go and no "Tempalte experts" step forward to do the work, then as you have been doing most of the work here recently, the fun of trying it should fall to you (Moonriddengirl). I am here if you need support, and if we make a mess I will help clean it up. {{db-copyvio}} redirects to {{Db-g12}}, I invite you to go to {{Db-g12/test}} and practice away. I built a page at User:Jeepday/Testing Copyvio Template that you can practice using the template as you build it. Doing the speedy delete first will probably be easier because it does not have to be substited so you can test with show preview but if you want to go with the {{copyvio}}, you are welcome to. You can practice with the templates in test while we are waiting a couple days for feedback from the templates talk watchers. Jeepday (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no. I'll work on the copyvio template, but I will not attempt to change {{Db-g12}} unless you get consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I've already been involved in a big revision project for the db templates, and I know what a tricky process that can be. Since I'm also already involved in several discussions there, I won't propose it myself. If you want that one altered, that's up to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've implemented the change to {{copyviocore}}. Needed only a little tweaking in my test subpage before it worked all right. Here's hoping that unforeseen breakage/problems don't occur. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok posted to both template talks Jeepday (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding some auto-hide to {{db-g12}}. I've always kinda' wondered why the regular copyvio template asked users to blank but the speedy template didn't (well, I'd assume to make it easier to check, and they're gonna' get deleted fast anyway), and as long as the text is still at least in the edit box it shouldn't be that difficult for admins to look at it. No comment for {{copyvio}}, since I'm not active over there. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Db-g12/test hide copyvio

I built the test template {{Db-g12/test}} and installed it as a test on User:Jeepday/Testing Copyvio Template, I will post a conversation about it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in a couple hours as real life is calling right now. Jeepday (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It worked all right at copyviocore, although I first I thought I'd messed it up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Since speedies are (obviously) speedy deleted anyway, I am not sure if auto hide is a benefit there. It only makes more work for the deleting admin. With wp:cp it's different since those are kept at least for another 14 days before deleting (or not). Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The speed of delete is a good point Garion96 and very much worth considering. I am not sure about the extra work though, as the admin should be looking through history for a good version before deleting "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving". Jeepday (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding looking at the history, all true. I do think auto hide makes it all a bit less easy. If only for the fact that I always check if it is a copyvio or not before I do anything else. (like looking at the history, deciding to delete etc). Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Frequently you find that copyvios have been replaced by the speedy template. How would this proposal be different in added workload for the admin? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

←Looks like things are quiet here. One thing I've been wondering about is why it's this way to begin with. The instructions here specifically say not to blank articles tagged for G12. Why not? Is it just a convenience for the investigating administrator? Is it presumed that it won't be here long enough for mirrors to pick it up and advance the infringement? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I did some research looks like the change happened here, I did not find any talk on the talk history about the change. I will ask User:Stifle to comment. Jeepday (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Posted to User talk:Stifle#Auto hide text on post of Copyvio template and invited the user to pop in over here. From what I can see in history it looks like they choose not to make it a requirement to blank for speedy, which morphed into a mandate to blank. Jeepday (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• A little more history, the change from "You do not need to" to "You should not" happened here, User:AmiDaniel did not participate on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems from at least 19 October 2005 through 18 August 2006, There does not appear to be consensus decision for this change but rather a series of simplification for the average user... Jeepday (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

G12 speedies shouldn't be blanked. It makes more work for the admin who deletes the page, as they must go into the history to check what the content was and make sure that it is a copyvio. The whole reason that normal copyvios are blanked is to prevent the page from being mirrored, spreading the copyright violation further. Since G12 speedies are deletable straight away, it is unlikely they will be mirrored in time.

There used to be a rule that to be deleted as a copyvio the content should have been added in the last 48 hours, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument for more work for the admin is moot as seen in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins reviewing the history of the article is a requirement before deleting it (one could argue that blanking it would encourage the admin to follow the procedure). Presumably the argument about 48 hour limit for deleting copyvio's relates only to speedy delete, which has been changed to "introduced at once by a single person", with multiple editors requiring {{copyvio}} for more intense review at "Copyright problems". Passage of time measured in less then decades does not impact copyright law. Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion, There has been mixed support for the suggestion to auto blank text for speedy delete, with neither side having real strong arguments. There has not been much response on the topic and while silence implies consent, there has been about equal response for support and oppose in the search for consensus. As Stifle and Garion96 point out above the actual amount of time between posting the speeding delete tag and it being addressed by an admin can be measured in minutes so the negative impact of leaving the suspected copyvio posted is not significantly increased over the time from initial posting. There is no clear lawful requirement for Wikipedia to respond any faster or more aggressively then it does currently in the case of speedy delete requests on copyright violations, and without a clear motivation by the community to install the auto blank feature on {{Db-g12}}, there is no reason to do so. Suggestion withdrawn as no change indicated at this time, should a lawful mandate requiring more aggressive treatment come to light the suggestion may be revisited. Jeepday (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been preoccupied and kind of forgot about this. Sorry! I'm sort of with you that as reviewing the history is required anyway, it doesn't seem much of an additional burden to hide the copyvio. Perhaps it would be worth revisiting in the future regardless. I may bring up the matter again when I have more onWiki time and am not already involved in evidently contentious matters at CSD. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

patrolling for copypastes — list of mirror sites

I've been seeking out and tagging articles that copy and paste protected material from other websites, and I was wondering if there is a list of sites (or at least the major sites) that mirror Wikipedia's content. Does anyone know of such a list? Bms4880 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It is always expanding and if you find something not on there that should be... Jeepday (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Wowwwwwww.... thanks, this helps. Bms4880 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trademark

Someone at the talk page of our Facebook is wondering if we are allowed to use that trademark. It's propably a stupid question, but are we violating anything? Cheers, Face 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Facebook would say so, I think. :) According to their website, FACEBOOK is a registered trademark and "Company's trademarks and trade dress may not be used, including as part of trademarks and/or as part of domain names, in connection with any product or service in any manner that is likely to cause confusion and may not be copied, imitated, or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the Company." (Their right to the use of the name has been recently challenged, but it either hasn't resolved yet or was settled favorably to Facebook, I guess, given that they still display the notice.) Facebook is registered and well-known. It would come down to a question of (1) similarity of trademark and (2) similarity of product/service. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read that section, after which I concluded that we're not violating it. We do not use the trademark as (part of) our own trademarks or domains, the page itself is not a "product or service", and it will unlikely "cause confusion" over anything, so no problem. That dispute is interesting, as it correctly states that "facebook" is a term that was already used before the start of Facebook to refer to a page with faces of colleagues/students/friends and such. It was also the name that Raul used when he first set up the page on April 21, 2004, when Facebook was barely started. As for Greenspan's legal effort, according to this article published 5 days ago, it has not been settled, and propably won't get settled any time soon. A call for cancellation of a trademark seems a rather difficult procedure. Cheers, Face 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC) PS: my name is a coincidence ;-).

Ok, I just saw that this isn't the first time that the name of this page is disputed, see here and here. Consensus was never reached though. Cheers, Face 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Trademark is not my area. :) I tried to figure out how litigious Facebook is, but all I keep finding is reference to their being sued. Which, in a way, could be an answer. (That's an active MfD!) I'd say if somebody feels renaming is necessary, they probably ought to treat it like any other controversial move. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous debate concerning Wikipedia:Facebook stirred debate over privacy issues, whether a page of this kind belongs in the namespace, and whether the page is useful or harmful to the community. My concern is none of those. My concern is one of copyright violations, which was not raised in that debate at all.

Facebook says (emphasis added) "Company's trademarks and trade dress may not be used, including as part of trademarks and/or as part of domain names, in connection with any product or service in any manner that is likely to cause confusion and may not be copied, imitated, or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the Company." I don't understand why we would run the risk of a problem, when it is so easy to rename the article Images of Wikipedians. Kingturtle (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss this at WP:C, which may get a wider range of responders than this page. It's always possible, of course, that somebody familiar with trademark can pop in, but there are only a few people who seem to respond with any regularity here. (Of course, for all I know, User:Jeepday is a trademark attorney. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil your image, but I am not a trademark attorney, I can't offer anything definitive but it seems to me there is ethical violation at the very least. http://www.facebook.com/ is "Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you." and Wikipedia:Facebook appears to be using a distinct similarity with a commercial site to mimic the function of that site in a smaller and more local usage. I think Kingturtle's suggestion of a change to Wikipedia:Faces would eliminate any question, and not detract from the page in the slightest. Jeepday (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Law copyrighted?

Can verbatim copying of Law, or an Act be construed as a copyright violation? Specifically Indian law? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like you've already answered this one yourself. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's because I got no anwswer here. :( A second opinion here wouldn't hurt. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Things take time on Wikipedia, and this page is not heavily patrolled. Usually, when I leave a note on a board, I go do something else for 24 hours or so before despairing. :D

It's actually fortunate that you answered yourself, though, because Wikipedia's policies don't cover Indian law in "Comments on copyright laws by country", and I'm not individually familiar with the copyright laws of India. After checking the context of your question, to see if I could figure it out, I had planned to suggest you ask at WP:C, which gets more generalized commentary. :) I'm glad you placed it here, though, as I wasn't familiar with this website, and I'm looking forward to exploring it.

It looks to me as though you're interpreting the situation correctly. It also looks like your responder there had a good suggestion. The material should be clearly marked as copied from the law. In addition to adding a citation to the official source, you should probably add a note in the references section based on a template like Template:US Army, perhaps saying something like This article incorporates text from the Indian Wireless Telegraph (Amateur Service) Rules, 1978 in compliance with the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done so. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Text moved from one Wikipedia article to another without preserving edit history

In the Wikipedia article Polygamy in the United States I found some text I had contributed to a different Wikipedia article. However my userid does not appear in the edit history of the new article; a different user copied it over to this article. I always thought that under GFDL, all contributors are entitled to attribution. We have discussed this on the talk page, but the user takes the position that “imitation is the best form of flattery”.[15] I wonder if someone could help sort out this situation. If I am wrong then I owe the other user an apology, but if I am right then I would like to ensure that the other user does not do this again. --Mathew5000 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not wrong. I'll come help out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Losing Patience

Resolved

The user who uploaded Image:CANDYMAN.jpg‎ doesnt seem to understand that what public domain is, and that photobucket is a hosting website. Can someone please take over? I've lost my patience. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice on PD pic.

This is an engraving or drawing published in Harpers Weekly in 1875. Obviously something published in 1875 is now PD but the site hosting the pic is a State website: [16]. I think I'm ok here to use it but would rather have a second opinion. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think you're fine, too, as "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain", but I'd answer that a whole lot more assertively if I could see the picture on the site and verify that there isn't some special factor to take into consideration here. The session on your link timed out, so I couldn't take a look at the image. If you want to be particularly careful, you may wish to post this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is the suggested forum for image questions. Somebody else may answer it here, but that's where I go when I have image questions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I will post over there soon. --Brad (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia use policy violation

I'm a longtime reader/user of Wikipedia; this is my first post. I recently purchased an ebook in which two appendices have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, one of them from a section on memory, another on mindmaps. The material wasn't similar in tone to the rest of the book, so I put it into a search engine and turned up the Wikipedia source. When I contacted the author, the author said it was an oversight and will now cite Wikipedia as the source, though presumably he will continue to sell the material and put his own copyright on it.

I have posted on the discussion pages for both topics. This section looks relevant as well, though you're used to dealing with copyright problems coming into Wikipedia, not going out. What action do you recommend? Is anyone interested in taking this up as well? You would probably want to verify my claim; I'm happy to provide evidence.

I might also mention why I care: because I admire Wikipedia and believe in building the cultural commons, I find this sort of piracy repugnant.

OrangeBlueRed (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome. :) Sorry that your first post is on such an unpleasant issue. I find it repugnant as well. :/ Reusers: rights and obligations sets out what that author needs to do to use that material. He is within his legal right to sell it; he is not within his legal right to publish it under his own copyright as if it is his. Since it's an e-book, I would assume that you don't have any recourse to a publisher or somebody with editorial control to make sure that future editions comply. I have read more about this somewhere on Wikipedia; I wish I could remember where. (Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content doesn't say anything more than the first link.) I'll look around and see if I can dig up something more specific. Meanwhile, maybe somebody will pop by here who knows. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some more information on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Garion96 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I ended up confronting the author, who wanted me to remove a negative review I had posted on my own website. After a back and forth via email, he agreed to remove the Wikipedia material from what he was selling. I need to check his stuff but otherwise I consider the matter solved. OrangeBlueRed (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a summary constitute copyright violation?

Our article about the book Technics and Time, 1 currently includes a summary of the book with a length of 72 KB or almost 12,000 words (counting the "General introduction", "Part I" and "Part II" sections combined, but not their footnotes). While the article isn't incorporating the text of the book verbatim, I'm concerned that this is effectively an abridgement of the work and may violate copyright. The article's creator considers that "there is no problem with this material", so could I ask for some comment on this issue? EALacey (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a summary can constitute copyright violation (as I understand it), but knowing when you cross the line from fair use to violation is a bit tricky. The proportion of the material summarized and the importance of the material summarized do factor in, but I believe that the only test of these cases is where a federal judge comes down on them. Something like the old test of pornography: "I know it when I see it." Wikipedia has deliberately adopted a more narrow definition than allowed by US law, as Wikipedia:Non-free content indicates. Summary for the sake of critical commentary is generally regarded as acceptable, but, as you suggest, abridgement is derivative work, and the only person who has the right to create derivative work is the original copyright holder. It looks to someone unfamiliar with the book as though that summary likely "reproduces the original in great detail", at which point it becomes a derivative work by Wikipedia's copyright faq. I've blanked the section and will invite the contributor to discuss this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument is absurd. The article entry is not a "derivative work": it is an article constructed to benefit the encyclopedia and its readers. If the article can be improved, improve it. I have great difficulty understanding the motive of somebody who would wish to remove this material from the encyclopedia. Is this really a matter of protecting the encyclopedia from some potential copyright violation? There is no evidence that any potential copyright holder thinks so. This is precisely where Wikipedia can be of benefit in comparison with other encyclopedias. Drawing on the willingness of volunteers who are sufficiently aware of a topic to be able to write on it in detail, without thereby conducting original research, maintaining a neutral and verifiable article, this is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia should encourage. But if Wikipedia is to do this, it requires contributors willing and able to do so, which requires an atmosphere conducive to encouraging such editors. Deciding for no good reason whatsoever to conduct a campaign against a perfectly good if not indeed exemplary article is not the way to achieve these objectives. But if you wish to press ahead with your concerns about this terribly serious matter of a purported possible violation of copyright, be my guest: no doubt there is some logic according to which it is possible to believe that this is a virtuous struggle to save Wikipedia from some forlorn fate. I apologise if this response seems terse, but I cannot help being amazed that this is an issue about which anybody would feel the need to take up arms. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtevfrog (talk • contribs)

Additionally Wikipedia:Plot summaries suggests a limit of "300 and 500 words" for plot summaries. Jeepday (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary for me to point out that we are not talking about a "plot summary"? Mtevfrog (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a summary. There are fair use restrictions on summaries. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean you are the Wikipedia administrator who is resolving this issue, and that you have done so, and that you have resolved to delete the material? Mtevfrog (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, if I had resolved to delete the material because I believed it was a clear-cut violation, I would have done so and placed a copyright violation warning on your page. I am doing exactly what I said at your talk page and above: discussing the issue. Copyright problems are generally listed for one week, at the end of which resolution is determined. I am of the opinion that the extensiveness of the summary here exceeds fair use and that the summary would be better replaced with one that is less detailed. These are legal concerns and have to be handled accordingly--not just for the good of this article, but for the good of the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. I can only reiterate that I don't believe that the "project" benefits by removing this perfectly good material. There is, in my opinion, zero chance that copyright holders will object to this content, and in the absence of any objection I don't see any reason for this pre-emptive strike. One can, of course, if one really wants to, construct an interpretation of the rules and an interpretation of the article according to which the latter can be construed as violating the former, but, as I said, I don't understand what motive would lead someone to do this. My guess is that the main (if not indeed only) effect of this campaign to save Wikipedia from this purported violation will simply be that I lose most of my interest in contributing, which, the more I think about it, the less it seems like a bad outcome. Mtevfrog (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that it may make for a good article, we have strict policies at Wikipedia about copyright infringement. We don't wait for the copyright holders to protest them, but remove them when they are brought to our attention. Currently, Wikipedia has some shelter from contributory copyright infringement under the claim that we are a "service provider", which gives us protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. There have been challenges to our right to claim this protection, and if we lose this then we become proactively responsible for verifying copyright on every article. We also run the risk of being held financially liable for any copyright concerns found to exist within Wikipedia prior to the point that a court decides we do not meet the standards for this protection. Our best defense of this is a demonstration of due diligence, without malfeasance or nonfeasance, in guarding against it.

Driving away good faith contributors is certainly not the point of our copyright policy, but the larger concern here is not whether any one of us—you, me, or any of the other editors in this conversation—choose to continue editing Wikipedia. It's how we best serve and protect the project.

I don't believe that it requires any great stretching of interpretation of fair use to perceive that summary as exceeding it. I also see no reason to believe that it was brought up here for any other purpose than to ensure that we remain compliant with US law. That's what we need to address here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything Moonriddengirl has said here is keeping with policy, expectations, and friendliness. I can understand your frustration Mtevfrog, I beleive that you beleive "There is, in my opinion, zero chance that copyright holders will object to this content", pretty much everyone who posts work that moonriddengirl, and other editors who work Wikipedia:Copyright problems, have to make decisions about has the same belief. As we all do when we post to wikipedia we submit our "writing to be edited mercilessly" (a quote from the bottom of the edit page), in some cases that means large scale deletion. Jeepday (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If people want to stick to their guns about this, of course I am powerless to stop you, but the fact is there is no way that this is a copyright violation, and only a will to construe it as such could make anybody believe it is. As you also know, there are no space restrictions on Wikipedia (one of its virtues), and thus length itself is not an argument. Furthermore, even though the article is lengthy, it is nothing like the 295 pages of the book, and is no substitute for reading the book. However many times you wish to repeat the point about copyright law, does not make it any less ridiculous: this could not and will not ever be a matter debated in a court, and if it was, I simply do not believe that any judge or jury would conclude that copyright was violated. It is very clear that the article is a separate work from the book manuscript.The reason this article is being targeted is because it is accurate, objective, neutral, precise, sourced, and contains worthwhile encyclopedic information which cannot be found in other encyclopedias: in other words, it is the object of attention in this forum precisely because it fulfils Wikipedia requirements and goals. It stands out because it fulfils these requirements better than many articles here. Given how hazy and unlikely the arguments about copyright violation really are, the other considerations I mentioned come into play, such as whether Wikipedia or its readers are better off without this article, or whether informed and capable contributors whose main concern is actually creating content find they are no longer welcome. This is not about whether what you are doing is friendly: it is about whether you are sticking to your bureaucratic guns for no real reason other than because you believe you can, and because you have managed to construe some fictitious way in which you are protecting the website from threats which in this case simply do not exist. By all means continue to assert your rights to keep behaving in the way you have started, and just keep repeating the slogans and formulas dear to the hearts of Wikipedia editors who enjoy wielding the power that comes from "the rules," but this is in fact a misapplication of those rules, and more importantly it is a mistake which harms Wikipedia and benefits nobody. Mtevfrog (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has not been nominated for deletion. The question at hand is whether the summary needs to be made more concise in order to meet fair use guidelines. In any event, at this point, others may yet have input into this conversation, as this page is monitored by others who address copyright concerns on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Hopefully good sense will prevail. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that raising this issue (starting a "campaign"?) seems to have produced such bad feeling, and I wish I'd come here before editing the article if that would have made the situation better. For the record, I wasn't looking for content to remove when I happened upon the article, and I don't want to see useful material removed unless there is a copyright problem (something I can't claim the legal knowledge to judge). But I can't agree that the extended summary is obviously fair use or unlikely to draw opposition from the author or publisher. If I had a commercial interest in a book, and the top Google hit for its title was an unauthorised journal-article-length summary, I think I would be concerned. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply find it ridiculous to argue that this article somehow threatens the sales of the book it is about: the opposite is quite clearly the case. And while it may be the case that you yourself, if you had a "commercial interest," "would be concerned," in this case the actual author of the book does not seem to feel this way, as indicated by the fact that he links to the Wikipedia article from his website (see here), a decision on his part which, by the way, had nothing whatsoever to do with me. So if you wish to believe that removing this material is somehow doing somebody a service, I don't think the author of the article can be counted among those you are helping. Mtevfrog (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered contacting the author to ask his permission to run the summary? Although we can't tell at what point in the article's development he linked to Wikipedia (the copyright notice on that page is certainly no help, since it seems to predate the article by several years), if he's linked to it at all, he may be open to such a request. If it doesn't concern the author or the publisher that you have summarized pages 2 through 276, then no one else is likely to have a concern. If he placed a statement at that website granting his permission or at least sent a letter to the communications committee, there'd be no more reason to worry about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "if he's linked to it at all": the link is there for all to see. I can assure you that he linked to the article after it was completed. I can't prove that, but I know it to be true, because I regularly look at that website. Furthermore, the fact that he continues to link to it indicates that he approves of the existence of the article. I also believe that this is not a surprise, given the content of his work, but that is not a discussion that needs to be entered into here. I do not intend to request permission or approval from the author: he is one of the world's great philosophers, and I have no intention of intruding upon his time regarding this matter. However, as mentioned, the fact he links to the article shows clearly that he has no objections to the article, and that the contrary is the case: he is actively directing people to it. Rather than continuing to construe concerns for which there is no evidence, this is evidence that the opposite situation is the case, and hopefully this will suffice to put those concerns to rest. Mtevfrog (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean "if he's acknowledged it" as in "it being the case that he has linked to it in some form, then". (This would be sense 1B, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll write him. If he's interested enough in the article to link to it, then there's no reason to presume he wouldn't be interested enough to give his permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand what you are saying. He has linked to it, as can be seen at the link I supplied, so does that mean you acknowledge that he has acknowledged it? I'm unsure what it is you still seem doubtful about. You can of course write to him if you like, but given that the clear evidence as it stands is that he supports the article as it originally stood, I see no reason to remove the material until such time as there is evidence any relevant party has a problem with it. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not doubtful about the existence of the link. That's why I linked to the dictionary definition to show the sense of "if" that I was using. :) "If" can also mean "on condition that" or "allowing that." The article as it originally stood did not contain the summary, as I'm sure you're aware, given that you established it. It looked like this. When it comes to questions of copyright, silence does not necessarily equal consent. It is quite common to request permission to run material on Wikipedia. Most of the people that I've approached have been agreeable. Only in a few cases have such requests been refused. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am being dense, but I still don't understand what you mean. You say you are doubtful about the existence of the link, but it is there to see, just after the words: "You can read this introduction to Stiegler's works." Other than not understanding what you mean by doubting the existence of the link, it seems that what you are saying is that you don't trust me when I tell you that the link was to the version including the summary. But the words I just cited above indicate that he did not link simply to a short description of the book, but rather to "this introduction." Why would he link just to something that tells you in a few words what the book is about: clearly he is linking to an article he believe will be worthwhile for people to link to, in other words, to something that will actually inform them about the content of the book. Furthermore, I am telling you that the link was to the full version of the article, and there is no reason for you not to assume good faith about this. In summary: it is true, there is evidence it is true, and you should assume good faith about the fact I am telling you it is true (especially given there is no evidence of anything whatsoever to the contrary). Of course there were earlier versions of the article. The article was written, and it took about 300 edits to do so. However, it did not take long to go from its initial state to pretty much a "complete" version (future improvements notwithstanding). All evidence points to the fact this article was not a problem in any way. I hope this can now be resolved. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I said I am not doubtful of the link. I think this is probably a case where you're not understand the syntax I used and nothing more. Try substituting the word "since" for "if", and perhaps that will clarify. I'm afraid that we can't take anybody's word for issues related to copyright concerns. My word is insufficient as well. When I get a confirmation of permission, I must send it to the Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it is handled there. This, even though I have not contributed to the articles I'm investigating and may be presumed to have no investment in the material at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the permissions request has been sent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: I missed the "not." I'm not saying that "my word" should be sufficient for copyright concerns: I'm saying that you should assume good faith when I tell you the link was to the full version—it was, and you should assume good faith about that. I'm saying that evidence has been presented that this is not a problem, that no evidence has been presented to the contrary, that there is no reason to assume that he linked to some early version of the article, and that there is reason to assume I am telling the truth when I say that he linked to the full version. There is reason to assume good faith when I tell you he linked to the full version, and the fact that he continues to link to the article is more than "silence" on the matter: it is continuing evidence, especially as the article has existed in pretty much its complete form, and in a very stable way, for quite some time. All this is evidence that the article was not a problem: very little (next to nothing) in the way of evidence has been introduced to indicate it is a problem. All this should be acknowledged, and the article restored to its full version until some kind of evidence of a problem is found. In the absence of any evidence, deleting the body of the article is overkill, to say the least. There are no concerns that demand immediate action: this is not a BLP problem or anything like that which would justify acting immediately: until the time comes when somebody someday with a stake in it actually indicates they have a problem, then it is perfectly fine for the article to remain in the form it was before this action was taken. This is not to deny that copyright is an important issue, but given that there is precious little evidence that this is a copyright violation, or that anybody with a stake in it believes it is a copyright violation, there is simply no reason to exclude this material now. This is not an issue that threatens Wikipedia in any way, and it should not be treated as such. Where there is no question of defamation or harm, and where the copyright issue is at best highly hypothetical, the benefit of the doubt should lean toward inclusion, until such time as any actual evidence is found. I call for the material to be restored, pending discovery of any actual problem. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns demand immediate action. That's why the process exists as it does. It's standard practice to remove the material pending outcome of the investigation; as the front of this page indicates, "Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made." It's also quite clear that not all cases that are questioned will, in fact, be found to be infringement. (When advising rewriting in a temporary sub-page, it says, "If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged.")

Again, if this had been a clear-cut copyright violation, the text would have simply been removed. The reason a conversation is necessary at all is because it is only potentially problematic. I think it's better to wait a few days to give the Stieglers a chance to respond, if they are so inclined. The letter I sent them was very clear that a question had been raised but no conclusions reached as to whether the material was problematic. I asked for their permission. I also told them that lacking clarification the material might be restored or removed, depending on the outcome of the investigation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What proportion of the text is the summary? How long was the original work? Not knowing the original work, but at an average for an academic book, I would guess 300 words/page time 500 pages times 3 vols, this would be 450,000 words. In that case the summary presented here would come to about 3%, I don;t think that's anywhere near what would be considered a copyright violation. Further, not knowing the book, I do not know to what extent it is a true summary, and not a r-presentation of the authors ideas. If it does not paraphrase or copy the material in the book, a presentation of the ideas there by someone else, no matter how detailed--no matter if it were as long as the work being discussed--would be no copyright violation. Only the expression of the ideas is copyright.

However, I think its too long in any case as a matter of encyclopedic style. My standard for that is when it becomes too detailed to be clear except to someone who already knows the work. For example, I cannot se that the discussion of related and earlier arguments by other works is appropriate here--it's necessary in the academic work itself, but it does not really help the reader here know what the book is about. Quite apart from copyright, I think a better presentation could be done in perhaps one-third the space, and not necessarily following the book chapter by chapter. I urger the editor involved to make the copyright issue moot by writing a better article. DGG (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response, DGG. I'm glad that it has been established there is no violation. I understand what you are saying about encyclopedic style, however I also believe that specific issues to do with the nature of the work make the style of the article worthwhile and appropriate. I do not need to go into these here, but of course competent and interested editors are welcome to examine the article or contribute to it. As it stands, however, I don't believe the article would be served by changing format, and I do in fact believe the article was encyclopedic within the meaning of that term for Wikipedia: it is precisely because of the unique character of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and the fact it is unburdened by space considerations, that it has the potential to offer far more accurate and detailed information about important works. Can I therefore assume this copyright issue is resolved and concluded and therefore go ahead and remove the copyvio template? Mtevfrog (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnotes show that the article is summarising only volume 1 of the book, pages 1 to 276. At your 300 words/page estimate, that's 82800 words, making the summary about 14% of the length of the book. EALacey (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for joining in, DGG. :) (Mtevfrog, this is not a conclusion, but part of the discussion that will lead to a conclusion. Note that DGG stars with a question. :))

In addition to EALacey's estimate, which is pertinent--if you look at the version in history, the footnotes make clear that the summary covers every page of text--I'll add a little background, since I'm not sure that Mtevfrog understands the source of concern. From The Court of Appeals (996 F.2d 1366, Twins Peaks Productions vs. International Limit), "Recognized in the Copyright Act as a form of "derivative work," see 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988), an abridgment is a 'condensation; contraction. An epitome or compendium of another and larger work, wherein the principal ideas of the larger work are summarily contained.'" At one point, abridgments were fair game, but, as the Court noted in the background of that case, "The current Copyright Act confers no absolute right on non-copyright holders to make abridgments. The Act defines a "derivative work" to include an abridgment, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988), and gives the copyright holder the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work," id. § 106(2) (1988 & Supp. III 1991). An abridgment of a copyrighted work is thus likely to be found to be prima facie infringing. [emphasis added] Where...the abridgment serves no transformative function and elaborates in detail far beyond what is required to serve any legitimate purpose, the first factor cannot be weighted in favor of the fair use defense." In a court of law, the salient point here would likely be whether this material could potentially damage the marketability of the book--that is, whether someone with an interest in the subject might read the summary and feel no need to then read the original, which would cause material damage to the author and the publishers.

(The above text was taken from this source. Most of the material I have on copyright law & fair use is not online. While, of course, that particular case deals with a work of fiction, the sections I have quoted are on general law and, indeed, discuss as a launching point a book which reproduced letters of George Washington.)

As I've said above, I don't find this an obvious case, but I do think that the extensiveness of summary makes the question and concern valid. It summarizes every page. This seems to go beyond the degree of detail necessary for critical commentary and stands a risk of damaging the marketability of the original, which--of course--could get Wikipedia in legal hot water. It would be ever so much easier to determine what to do here if the copyright holder chooses to give permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I say again that it is absolutely ridiculous to imagine this article can "damage the marketability of the book": the opposite is quite clearly the case. Moonriddengirl and EALacey: you really are now giving the appearance of conducting a campaign against the article. Moonriddengirl, I am sorry to say that I think you are far too preoccupied with your own supposed legal knowledge, and not nearly concerned enough with a thoughtful reflection on your own actions. But if you insist on discussing the legal aspects, there is a legitimate purpose to the form and content of the article, and it makes a big difference whether one is talking about a work of fiction or a work of philosophy. The article has existed for over a year with no objections whatsoever (quite to the contrary), and I ask both Moonriddengirl and EALacey to reflect on whether they really believe they are serving any worthwhile purpose by continuing this argument. It seems to me that neither of you want to hear the conclusion that is unavoidable: there is no copyright issue involved here. I ask that for the sake of everybody you swiftly accept this conclusion. Mtevfrog (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you have yourself referred to WP:AGF, you must be familiar with it. Questioning the state of an article does not constitute a "campaign", and it is not AGF to continue suggesting that it does. Yours is not the only article being examined here. There is no compelling reason to abrogate the usual 7 day discussion period here. The fair use doctrine applies equally to fiction and non-fiction. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but it certainly seems to me that you are trying to avoid the unavoidable. I didn't say the fair use doctrine applies differently to fiction and non-fiction. I said that there is a big difference between a work of fiction and a work of philosophy, in terms of the legitimate purposes of summary. An extensive summary of a work of fiction is, essentially, retelling the story: this is very different from the case at hand. I continue to believe you would benefit from a little self-reflection about your thinking and your decisions in relation to this argument. If you are not conducting a campaign, the best you could do is cease sticking to your rights to continue a pointless argument, and simply allow editors who wish to contribute content to Wikipedia to actually do so, rather than taking up their time in attempts to demolish perfectly legitimate contributions they have made. I hope you will find yourself capable of hearing this appeal to good sense. Mtevfrog (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

on the basis of the response to my question, I would personally think that a 14% summary of that length that followed the exact order of the book is excessive and inappropriate. I'm not qualified to say if a court would judge it a copyright violation in the legal sense, but I think that Wikipedia should consider it inappropriate content. My advice is the same as earlier, the article would be greatly strengthened by a more concise rewriting of the material. A summary ofthat length and density is too long and detailed for a general encyclopedia. It's effect, I must say, would be to dissuade me from examining the subject. :) DGG (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the 14% figure is just a made up number, and a highly doubtful one. I understand your stylistic concerns, but as I said, I disagree and find it justified in context. Several people have informed me that they find the summary very useful, and as mentioned, the author of the book himself links to the article. The purpose of this forum is to establish if there are any copyright issues, not whether editors approve of content or style decisions, and I believe it is clear there are no copyright violations. Mtevfrog (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is clear that Mtevfrog is a valued and respected long term contributor to Wikipedia, but it seems that on the topic of Technics and Time, 1 the user is suffering from ownership issues in regard to the article. There is no doubt that the user has contributed significant amounts of work to that article and that they have every right to be proud of it and want to share with the world. While all the comments in this section from, other editors point out that there are specific rules and policies against an article in Wikipedia in the size and format that Mtevfrog prefers, Mtevfrog has failed to show any policy supporting their prefered version, while arguing why the varied policies should not apply to this specific work, which the user has contributed to greatly. I think we all hope that Mtevfrog, as the clear subject matter expert, can be convinced to edit the article down to address the copyright and summery size issues brought fourth by multiple editors. Failing that I don't see where we have any other choice but to perform the edit ourselves and request that it be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review if there is still a challenge. I am sorry that I can not offer another wiki where all this hard work could live but, it does not seem to meet the requirements of any other project. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I am happy to have other editors who are competent and interested contribute to the article, as I said from the beginning. I just do not agree that the policies mentioned preclude inclusion of the article in its current form. This forum is to decide copyright issues, and there are none. The other issues amount to stylistic concerns and ideas about what encyclopedia articles look like. I believe there is a failure of imagination by other commentators here about what Wikipedia could and should be. I believe reflection by these editors may cause them to realise that they are simply interfering with the growth of Wikipedia, with no benefit to Wikipedia or its readers. The truth is I am not interested in playing the games that some Wikipedia editors enjoy, so if editors who are not actually interested in the article, nor competent to contribute to it, nevertheless insist on deleting it, then I will simply withdraw, and find something better to do with my time. This is, of course, one of the key reasons why many scholars, etc., who would be able to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, decide instead to steer clear. I again ask the editors here to engage in a little self-reflection, rather than looking around for this rule or that rule to find justifications for what is really nothing more than an objection to the fact the article is lengthy, a fact which is clearly and explicitly of no consequence for Wikipedia. On the contrary, this inconsequentially of article length is in fact one of the key virtues of Wikipedia, and I ask you to really ask yourself: are your arguments about why lengthy articles are a bad thing really so cut and dried? Is it really always the case that shorter articles are better than longer articles? Is it possible that what you are calling for is for a worse article, or no article, to replace a better article? Do the rules and stylistic guidelines really give you such self-confidence that you are incapable of reflecting on these questions? Will you really look back at this episode and say you are proud of the role you have played here on Wikipedia, getting rid of this article? Or might you look back and say, what exactly was I worried about there, and was it really worth it? Or might you say, there is so much nonsense here on Wikipedia, and this is what I decided to make a big deal about, and this is the editor I decided to bother for no good reason whatsoever? Mtevfrog (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

←Again, no one is proposing the deletion of the article. At question is the summary, which may need to be abbreviated. (I have not yet heard back from the permissions e-mail, unfortunately. That would eliminate the copyright concerns, at least.) As far as whether others are "competent to contribute", Wikipedia is the encyclopedia to which anyone may contribute; every Wikipedian is presumed to be competent to contribute to any article. From Wikipedia:About, "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles." That's the purpose of this project, after all. For scholars who may be put off by that notion, Wikimedia has another project: Scholarpedia. I've recently become familiar with it as I've had to process a copyright question raised about an article one of their scholars duplicated here, Neural correlates of consciousness. (He filled out the requisite permissions form.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. In fact, if you read back a little more carefully, you will see that someone was proposing the possibility of deletion. 2. Your definition of competence is rather unrefined: there are many many many articles I am not competent to contribute to, and that is why I don't interfere with those articles. That doesn't mean I think those articles are either good or bad: even if they are in my opinion bad, I steer clear of them if I am not competent to edit them—this is a prudent approach. If someone wants to correct a typo in the article on Hegel or plasma physics, that's fine, but surely you don't mean to tell me that all editors are equally able to judge and contribute content on those articles. 3. Also, your cavalier attitude toward losing scholars who might otherwise contribute is unfortunate: Wikipedia, and not just Scholarpedia, benefits from scholarly input, and would benefit more from more scholarly input. Your democratic impulses are admirable but, again, somewhat unreflective. And, again, this is marring your capacity to understand the issues involved in this particular case. 4. I don't wish to continue pointless arguments: you no longer seem to be arguing the case, just defending your rights to do what it is that you want to do—unfortunately this is the opposite approach to the moment of introspection I was hoping for. Mtevfrog (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I should imagine you could point out, that being the case, who proposed the possibility of deletion? I've reread the discussion, and while the deletion of the material has certainly been proposed, I still fail to see anyone here who has proposed deleting the article. What I do see is four editors who are concerned about the material and one who is fiercely defending it to the point of questioning the motives or belittling the intelligence of those who disagree. As far as scholars are concerned, I don't see anything cavalier in acknowledging that there is a purpose and a premise to this project. We welcome contributions by anyone, so long as they operate within guidelines and policies for content and behavior. Altering those guidelines and policies to attract specialized contributors would undermine the foundation of Wikipedia, which was born from a project that did require high qualifications in contributors.

I persist in believing this material is a problem; I've cited Wikipedia's policy and US law to set out why. In an effort to resolve the matter without altering the article--notwithstanding that several editors have objected to the summary based on other concerns--I've written the copyright holder to request permission. There's not much else I can do, other than wait for further development. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well you've clearly made up your mind and, like I said, there's no point continuing the discussion in that case. Mtevfrog (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have restored the tag, despite the 7 day period elapsing. I don't know how it is you propose to "resolve" this issue: no violation has been established. What is your plan from here? It seems to me you are making it a personal issue for yourself: clearly there is no immediate threat to Wikipedia from this article whatsoever, so in the absence of any established violation, I see no justification for maintaining this campaign. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue will be resolved when it is addressed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Since I seem to be one of the few administrators currently working there, it may take a little longer than 7 days. The matter is not as clear as you continue to believe. You are the only contributor who has not perceived at least a potential problem, and there are at least two who perceive a serious one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So it seems to me you are saying that you are the one who is going to resolve this. If so, please do so. Are you seriously saying that you still believe there is a copyright violation involved here? If so, I have to say I no longer believe you are a neutral editor in regards to this issue, and ask you to abstain from placing yourself in the position of authority about this question. If on the other hand you acknowledge that there is no violation here, then please resolve this issue that way, even if you find that you dislike the article in its current form. Otherwise, it looks as though you simply don't wish to take action on this issue, but are insisting on depriving Wikipedia readers of the opportunity to read the article in spite of this. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you would imagine I'm saying I intend to handle it. I rather presumed you would prefer to wait for another administrator and had already intended to abstain. This is why it may take longer than 7 days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but in that case I don't believe you have the right to deprive readers of the ability to read this article indefinitely. The fact is, no violation is established, and in that case, and given the fact that there is clearly no immediate threat to Wikipedia from the existence of this article, the article should be restored to its full version in the interim. I do not believe your behaviour in this matter is helpful to Wikipedia. Mtevfrog (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag offers clear instructions. It's not to be removed until the matter is resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you think you are doing a very important job, saving Wikipedia from lawsuits, and I understand that you think you are really good at following and enforcing rules. But either you truly continue to believe this is a copyright violation, or you do not. If you do truly continue to believe it is a violation, I think you are obliged to find experienced administrators who agree with you enough to back you up. If you don't do that, then your motives in insisting on maintaining the tag are questionable. If on the other hand you do not truly continue to believe the article violates copyright (and, honestly, no administrator has supported the notion that there is a copyright violation involved here), then you are obliged to allow Wikipedia readers and editors the right to read the article. Simply referring to the instructions on the tag, after this lengthy discussion, starts to smack of abusing procedure for dubious reasons. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I am quite frustrated by what I perceive as a lack of objectivity on your part in relation to this matter. I hope, again, that you are able to reflect on your role and your decisions in relation to this issue, and that you will recognise that you are not helping anybody or anything with this behaviour. I think you should simply decide that the issue is resolved, until such time as someone decides they wish to raise it again, and provide convincing arguments that there is a violation involved here. I am hopeful that you will see the wisdom and good sense of this solution. Mtevfrog (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At least two of the other contributors to this conversation are administrators, User:DGG and User:Jeepday. Administrator backlogs, unfortunately, happen. When I started volunteering at this page, there were over 20 days worth of backlog here. Some articles had carried the tag for over a month. If this one is not addressed in a timely fashion--within a day or so--I will seek out an uninvolved administrator to close the matter. However, it has only within the past few hours reaching the point where it should be closed. It is not yet "stale". Communications with others about ongoing discussions must be handled carefully to avoid the appearance of canvassing. (This communication, for instance, constitutes "campaigning" in Wikipedia's sense.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have received a response from Madam Stiegler and am discussing the situation with her, and I hope that we will be receiving permission to use the material soon. If we do, the question of the usability of the material by copyright concerns will be resolved, although content concerns may still remain.

I contacted the Stieglers on this matter with the knowledge, as I indicated here, that “Most of the people that I've approached have been agreeable.” It doesn’t surprise me that the Stieglers may prove to be as well. But even “the world’s great philosophers” appreciate the importance of intellectual property laws, which exist (after all) to protect them. By ensuring we comply with those laws, we not only protect ourselves, we also demonstrate our respect for their work. Patience in such cases hurts nothing.

Mtevfrog, I would urge you to read over WP:OWN, as the behavior you have demonstrated here, including your ongoing failure to assume good faith with contributors who disagree with you and your removal of appropriate maintenance tags (not only the copyvio tag, which clearly indicates it should not be removed, but the Primary Sources tag which blatantly applies), does lend itself to the interpretation that you are not open to community input. Our behavioral conduct expectations are ingrained in our five pillars. A confrontational style of discourse is inappropriate and unhelpful.

I’ll update again as the conversation continues. I hope that now lines of communication are open (and we are communicating through personal e-mail address, as opposed to the general website address), it will resolve quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mme Stiegler has now granted permission and indicates as much at the Stiegler's website, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are Multiple issues beyond copyright which I brought up at Talk:Technics and Time, 1#Multiple issues beyond copyright. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I see you have tagged the article. Perhaps those concerns will be addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Close and condense

• User:Mtevfrog is the only editor on Wikipedia who has argued for maintaining the article in full version. Editors who question or or supporting a condensed version of the article are

1. User:ViperSnake151 diff,
2. User:EALacey who besides bring the issue here posted a {{primarysources}} on the article diff, which was removed by User:Mtevfrog in one of the many reversals the user has made to other editors work, I do not find a single edit by an editor other then User:Mtevfrog, that has been unchallenged, all edits are reverted or other wise modified, a clear violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
3. User:DGG diff
4. User:Moonriddengirl who has been exceedingly patient in her multiple dealings on this subject here.
5. User:Jeepday who suggested diff that Mtevfrog recognize that consensus and make the required changes to the article.

• User:Mtevfrog is invited to bring this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, if he continues to question the consensus of the multiple editors here.

I checked and did not find a suitable condensed version to revert to, I will be preforming the condensing in the next few minutes.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not one editor is arguing that this article violates copyright. It does not violate copyright, and you all know that. The lack of reflection, insight, and imagination in relation to this article by the editors listed above is very unfortunate. No matter how secure you feel in this action by being able to refer to each other and to "consensus," the decision you are collectively making is the wrong decision. I honestly wonder what benefit you truly think you are bringing to Wikipedia. The truth is: Wikipedia loses. Mtevfrog (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. I have argued that the summary constitutes an abridgment, which is a violation of copyright (and I have quoted relevant case law to support that). User:EALacey has also argued that the article violates copyright. If at some point in the future, the author should choose to respond to the request for permission, then that concern would be alleviated, although content concerns might still remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image removed due to copyright violation

Obviously, I'm missing something somewhere and I don't know enough about the backend of Wikipedia to find it.

I loaded 2 images and thought I had all of the tags filled in correctly... evidently not, as I received a "we're going to remove it" message the next day. I searched around for the appropriate copyright tag and I thought I had it filled in correctly... again, evidently not, as 1 of them has been removed.

Page - Norwegian Lundehund Image - Vaeroy.jpg

Someone help me figure out why the copyright tags are wrong so I can fix them and not do it wrong in the future. Please!  :) Peter Rousseau - Webmaster, NLAA (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Questions about images are best posted to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you will receive responses from editors more specifically focused on copyright and media. However, a quick glance at this particular image tells me that you assert that Anneli Rosenberg is the copyright holder. As you are not the copyright holder, we need verification from her that it is released. If Rosenberg granted permission to Ski's owners, that doesn't tell us that she has also granted permission for its placement on Wikipedia under the tagged license. Similarly, Image:Vaeroy.jpg says permission was granted for NLAA use, which doesn't verify that it is granted to use by everyone. You may wish to visit WP:Permissions to get information on how to verify the permission of the photographer under a license that Wikipedia can use. But, again, a more detailed response may be available at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about asking this in the wrong area... didn't see a specific media section.

I am Ski's owner, along with Annelli, so I can assure you it's okay to use. :) In this case, Anneli was the photographer & we were both co-owners of the dog, so I believe this grants us both control of the photo.

With the Vaeroy photo... I'm the webmaster for NLAA and I can assure you that Pederson allowed the unlimited use to NLAA, provided it was used to promote the Lundehund.

So, you're saying I used the *wrong* copyright tag, not that I put it in the wrong place and/or formatted it wrong... is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NLAAwebmaster (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may not be able to give you much more information than I already have. I do very little with images, unless they are blatant copyright violations. I suggest Wikipedia:Media copyright questions not just because it's the recommended forum, but because I believe you'll get a more informed response there. :) That said, the copyright of a photograph is owned by the photographer, which may not give you right to release it even if you and Anneli co-owned the dog. You should seek further information about that at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As far as Pederson's permission, no such restrictions can be put on photos that are placed on Wikipedia. The license granted by Pederson must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. (See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) We cannot guarantee that this image would be used only to promote the Lundehund. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New copyright-related CSD criterion proposal

Just a quick note to invite comment here on a proposal to create a new criterion for speedy deletion. The proposed criterion is that where an uploader has supplied a copyright tag but has specified a third party as the content owner, without any evidence that their permission was ever given, the media will be speedied seven days after the uploader is notified if no such permission is forthcoming. This is equivalent to the NPD process used at Commons, and parallel to our NSD and NLD. Please weigh in! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another concern about copyviocore

One thing this template ({{copyviocore}}) doesn't address is the concern for GFDL violation. Our licensing being what it is, Wikipedia's contributors don't release their material into public domain. They retain the right to authorship credit. When contributors rewrite a page to remove copyright infringement, they must be careful not to utilize text that has been contributed by other Wikipedians. If they do, and we delete the original while replacing it with the temporary, then we are infringing the copyright of those contributors. The current text says

“ Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be clearly identified and the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. An administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. ”

I propose revising this to read

“ Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement—if the original copyright violation cannot be clearly identified and the article reverted to a prior version, it is best to write the article from scratch. For GFDL compliance, the article must be written from scratch; it cannot incorporate phrases and sentences that were placed in the original article by other contributors. You may, however, duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself. An administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. ”

I'm inclined to think, though, that this is a tad bit long. Feedback? Assistance? I think this is an important concern to address, as I'm not sure that many contributors are aware that Wikipedia does not own the copyright of material it hosts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback, I've added the following: "For GFDL compliance, the new article cannot incorporate phrases and sentences that were placed in the original article by other contributors. You may, however, duplicate non-infringing text that you had contributed yourself" Still open to feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

hrm, this is difficult for many people to understand which means we need to try to keep it simple. The problem is that to re-write the article you probably will need to use many of the same facts, which is fine, it's the presentation of them that is protected, often you can incorporate phrases and telling editors they need to "re-write" often results in nothing more than a change in the sequence which doesn't get past a violation if there is one. I think we need to think on this more.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A request for help

Could someone aid Leoboudv with his concerns about Image:Seuserenra Khian.JPG? He believes that it is a copyright violation, but is unclear about how to handle it. (He has left 2 successive requests for help, then deleted each before I saw them.) I would help him myself, but despite my long tenure at Wikipedia, I don't know much more about the process than he does. (Which consists of, when in doubt, look up the relevant pages & follow the current version of the instructions.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove images from copyright problems

Copyright problems' handling of images is redundant to WP:CSD#I9 and WP:PUI. I propose it should be removed to help simplify the image deletion process. Blatant copyright violations (with links, normally) should be tagged with {{db-i9}} and those that require discussion should go to WP:PUI. BJ^Talk 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Do we need to village pump this or bring it up elsewhere in order to gain consensus for implementation? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just do it I think. It needs some work though, template:imagevio needs to be addressed. People have to choose whether the image needs a speedy tag or a PUI tag. The listing here at CP is still a leftover from when copyvio's were not speedy deleted. Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing all references to {{imagevio}} from project pages. I'm not sure what a good way to deprecate it is. BJ^Talk 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That's a bit bolder than I usually go (WP:Bold notwithstanding), but I'll follow along. :) I've done some revision of the CP instructions with that in mind. But, note, Dumbbot currently lists items at Category:Possible copyright violations on WP:CP. This includes image vios as well as text vios. Thoughts on handling that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone told the bot's owner yet?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I've been thinking about it and how it works. It seems to me that what we need to do is mark Template:Imagevio as historical or something, to keep it from being used, and instead direct people to PUI or CSD. I'm not really sure the protocol of marking a template historical. :) At this point, I'm planning to move images from copyvio to whichever board seems more appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've notified User:Tizio of the change. Pretty radical application of WP:Bold, but probably a good thing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Do you know of any deprecated templates? How does one go about doing that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Template added. BJ^Talk 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped DumbBOT from adding image copyvios to this page. I presume that the hierarchy of /Articles /Images can be removed at this point. If you plan to do that, please let me know. Tizio 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to be a good idea. I wouldn't know where to begin with implementing it, though. :) Seems to involve User:Schutz and Zorglbot? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, User:Zorglbot creates the daily pages and both the /Articles and /Images subpages. I guess we can wait for the current backlog of image pages to be cleared before changing the structure (so that possible problems have time to show). Tizio 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • • At this point, I think it's causing more confusion than it's catching. I think I'll go ahead and talk to Schutz about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • {{imagevio}} is now completely unused, after the bots are updated I think it should be safe to delete. BJ^Talk 14:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Just as an update, I contacted Shulz here on August 29th. On August 31st, as he hadn't responded, I contacted him at the French Wikipedia, which is his main home in the wikimedia world. Haven't heard anything back yet. He has edited since, here, and perhaps will manage to get to this soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have modified Zorglbot so that it does not create the "images" pages anymore; what should happen about the "articles" sub page ? Should it be removed as well, and replaced by the main copyright page for each day instead ? Schutz (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• That seems like the best solution to me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a test, I have created tomorrow's page in advance, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 16 (it isn't linked from anywhere yet, though). Let me know if there is anything to change. Schutz (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! Thank you very much! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the new bot will run tonight at 0:00UTC, as usual — I'll keep an eye on it, but let me know if anything goes wrong. Schutz (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Found a problem! The copyvio template directs to the subpage. I've attempted to fix it (doesn't look that hard), but will be watching carefully when the wikiday turns around to be sure that I have! (When towards the end of the day we only had one listing, I had a feeling something had gone wonky. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have messed up Zorglbot for today. :/ Not sure what I did to it, but the 17th isn't showing up. Maybe it'll pop up later? I'll keep an eye on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot will not do anything if the page already exists (even if it has been blanked) — someone may already have created it manually, so it is better not to mess with it. My log file indeed shows that the page was already there and that the bot skipped it; however, it was correctly added to the list of copyright problems. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I had created it. :) I was so anxious to see if I had fixed the copyvio template that I tested it probably precisely at 0:00. (I did not want to find out that copyvios weren't logged because I messed up the template!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Previously Given Copyright Permission

I posted "Bruce Crane" last week and indicated on its talk page, and on my talk page, that copyright permission had already been given. The text for the article comes from the website of the Florence Griswold Museum, which has agreed (under the terms of GFDL) to allow publication of its text on another website. Copyright permission was emailed from the museum to Wikimedia on September 5, 2008. What more do I have to do to keep the article up? Art History 1 (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Art History 1

Wait for the Wikimedia Foundation to receive your clearance and duly record it at the article, at which point the article's contents will be restored. Very occasionally, it is necessary to resend the clearance letter, but I personally don't suggest doing this until at least seven days after you've first sent it. These matters are usually cleared within that period. On the very remote chance that the article is deleted prior to that clearance being recorded, it will be restored if and when that clearance is received. This happens occasionally, but, really, not often. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add one note (since I see it has now been exactly 7 days): you should be sure that the letter that you sent follows the steps at WP:Permission, including a link to the article in question on Wikipedia and using the language specified in the boilerplate template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Your permissions letter may conform to that perfectly, but I wanted to make note of it in case it did not. :) If you do wind up resending it, you want to be sure that it covers all necessary ground just to prevent additional delays. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles composed of multiple copyvios?

I've come across a couple of articles - Imani Coppola and Little Jackie (band) - in which much of the content appears to have been put together by stitching together long quotes takes from copyright articles. Most of the quotes are well sourced, so comparison with the original articles is not that difficult.

I'd like a second opinion from a seasoned copyvio fighter. Is there a problem, can it be fixed by severe pruning or should the articles be deleted and restarted? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. That's some serious stringing together of quotes! I would go for severe pruning with a note at the article's talk page pointing out WP:NFC and the guidelines set out there on "brief quotations", including the relevant bit: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left a note, which I'll expand, on the IC article; and contacted the single author of the LJ article. Can you confirm that if the articles are not severely pruned, they should be deleted? (I'm afraid I'm not up for doing the pruning - there's other stuff I'd prefer to be doing - but I want to make sure the advice I give to the author(s) of the articles is correct.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they should be deleted as a first resort; I'd say they should be stubbed. This is particularly true of Imani Coppola, which was not always in that condition and could be reverted to an earlier version. But investigating points out another problem. Little Jackie (band) was split without attribution, which is itself problematic by GFDL. I'll attend to that one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've left a note to the editor who split the articles. But this makes clear that he or she (unless a name change) didn't actually create this pastiche of quotes. This was started here by User:Reservoirhill. That's probably the editor to address in the NFC matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to User:Reservoirhill now & let User:ChillaxNOW know that I might have been beating him/her up for something that someone else did. I greatly appreciate your input; many thanks to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just to note, this patchwork style seems to be the Reservoirhill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) modus operandi; there are several other articles which have exactly the same issues. I've left a note for the user, but have a heavy feeling that we may have to revert a not insubstantial number of articles if the user will not do the extensive editing necessary to correct the problems. It's quote ruined my evening: I was all set to write another article about very obscure (but notable) minor nineteenth century poets :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've revised my opinion. After examining the parent article quite closely, I believe these should blanked pending resolution one way or another. I have blanked the parent article. It takes enough content from the source I've identified to seriously infringe on copyright there, attribution and quotation marks notwithstanding. I'm out of time now, but if the other articles you see are similarly extensively drawing from single sources, you may wish to follow suit. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(And if you've run your Wikiclock down, too, I'll take a look when I get back. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(I'm teetering, but if I don't do it now, I too shall return.) I've done the LJ article, but not examined in enough detail other inserts by Reservoirhill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

←I have cleaned the article at Marsha Hunt (singer and novelist), vastly curtailing quotations. Based on the talk page of this article, it seems that this contributor was embarrassed on our behalf when the subject of the article complained about inaccuracies and wants to be sure that material is scrupulously verified. Commendable goal, and an impressive amount of work has gone into attending to it. But, as you recognized, the cumulative result is that we have duplicated too much of the sources. Thank you for persisting. On my first glance, I did not realize just how much was being drawn from each source. I'll look at other contributions to see if there are additional concerns, though I may not be able to revise them myself immediately. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have also now cleaned Little Jackie (relocated from an unnecessary disambig) and Imani Coppola. With the contributor's invitation, I'll take a look at some of his other contributions when I'm able. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)