Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/copyvio is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva


"WP:CP" redirects here. For the Community Portal, see Wikipedia:Community Portal.

ATTENTION: For blatant copyright infringements:

  • If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it.
  • If not, request speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld/}}
  • If you are not sure who originally authored the material, list it here instead for investigation.
Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Copyright policy
Copyright violation policy
Reusing Wikipedia content
Text of the GFDL
Guidelines
Public domain content
Non-free content
Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations
Copyright problems
Resources
General help
Copyright assistance
Media copyright questions
Requesting copyright permission
Image copyright tags
Donating copyrighted material
Shortcuts:
WP:CP
WP:CV

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be copyright violations. To request examination before including questionable content in an article, see Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations.

Contents

Copyright owners

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia

Policy shortcut:
WP:IOWN

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work, while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. It is sufficient to either:

  • Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

What's copyrighted?

Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

What about fair use?

Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.


Purge server cache if recent edits are not visible.

Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright

Wikipedia will naturally refer to and include some material that comes from outside sources. This material may be in the public domain, may be included under a fair use argument, or it may be under a license compatible with the license used on Wikipedia, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Examples of public-domain works include text and images from United States Government publications, and older works—such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica—that are no longer, or never were, covered by copyright. Some further examples are at Category:Attribution templates.

Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the GFDL.

Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.

If an editor has copied text or figures into Wikipedia without proper attribution, politely refer him to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and/or Help:Citations quick reference. Editors who have difficulties or questions about this guidance can be referred to the Help Desk. Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project, see 17 United States Code 512.

Instructions

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

Blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:
  • Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia;
  • There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving.
  • The text on Wikipedia really is an infringement of another source (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors — Make sure we're copying someone else, not the other way around)
  • Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable

After notifying the uploading editor, add one of these to the page:

{{db-copyvio | url=insert URL of source here}}
{{db-copyvio | describe non-web source here}}

An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.
Article? Image?
  • Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems:
    • Blank the page and replace the text with one of:
      {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}
      {{subst:copyvio | identify non-web source here}}
    • Go to today's section and add
      * {{subst:article-cv | PageName}} from insert URL or identify non-web source here ~~~~
to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you)
  • Add the text following Maintenance use only at the bottom of the now-blanked article to the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material.
  • You're done!
  • Add one of the following to the image description page:
    {{imagevio | url=insert URL here}}~~~~
    {{imagevio | identify non-web source here}}~~~~
  • Go to today's section and add:
* {{subst:image-cv | Image:ImageName}} from insert URL or identify non-web source here ~~~~
to the bottom of the list. Put the image's name in place of "ImageName".
  • Add the following to the image uploader's talk page:
{{subst:idw-cp | Image:ImageName}}
  • You're done!

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. All pages tagged with {{copyvio}} are placed in Category:Possible copyright violations.

Alternatives to deletion

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you may:

  • Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner and Ask for permission. Check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). Also see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission.

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if indeed they are not available under a free license or a reasonable fair use rationale. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
  • Non-free licenses
    These images are available for use on Wikipedia, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale. Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)

Instructions for administrators

Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins for some help.

See also

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

Remaining older issues, consolidated

Asserts permission granted on June 27. No sign of permissions ticket yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Consolidated on July 6th. Though a 7-day grace period from permission should expire on July 4th, I'd recommend allowing another several in case of July 4th-related delays in processing. Please note resolution other than deletion here.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 6 at approximately 21:00 UTC, I wrote to the organization in question requesting permission. If no response is received, the article should be deleted after 7 days, on July 13. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Consolidated on July 6th. Please note resolution other than deletion here.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I received permission on July 8 at approximately 17:20 UTC and forwarded it to the Communications Committee. Should be just a matter of time now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The contributor was not warned. I have remedied that. The typical 7-day grace period expires on July 14 at 18:07. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Consolidated on July 8th. Only ticket left open from June 27th. Please note resolution other than deletion here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
License at site incompatible--allows reproduction with attribution, but does not release for modification. Contributor asserts permission. Have left note at talk page addressing how to confirm. 7 day grace period expires July 14, 20:54. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Consolidated on July 7th. Only ticket let open from June 28th. Please note resolution other than deletion here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Incomplete assertion of permission. Instructions supplied to creator for following up. (7 day grace period runs July 15, 2:03.) --Moonriddengirl
Consolidated on July 7th. Only ticket left open from June 30th. Please note resolution other than deletion here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than 7 days, but have not yet been dealt with.

2008-06-27

Articles

Some copyvio already removed. Majority of article duplicates source licensed by GFDL, with proper attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Futures Working Group (history · last edit) from [6]. May be a copyvio, author states text is public domain as it is by the FBI but the website appears to say otherwise (I have copied the disclaimed to the article talk page). SGGH speak! 11:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Given questionable connection to FBI, I have replaced the text with properly attributed material taken directly from the FBI gov source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Heavy recent insertion of copyvio. I have deleted the recent, copy-vio introducing edits to help avoid accidental restoration of this material and warned the single logged-in contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Material already revised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, information published on Estonian Government websites is regarded as public domain under section 5 of the Estonian Copyright Act. Seems to me most of the allegedly copyrighted information in the Estonia article is derived from Estonian government websites. Martintg (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, Estonian Copyright Act says nothing about that, so unless you can provide a link that suggests otherwise, I will be forced to remove the text. BanRay 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I am following up on this conversation at Talk:Estonia#Copyright_problems_follow-up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
All identified copyright problems have been resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Article Eros Ramazzotti - User Harout72 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting copied material from a non-free source, the German paper Der Stern. The text can be found here [8] and the original here [9]. The user claims that since the original is in German and he has translated it into English, it's no copyright violation and that it's not even copied. Anyone speaking German can check for themselves and see that although not every single word is identical, it's an obvious copyright violation. The text is full of peacock terms, weasel words and generally extremely unencyclopeid and WP:POV but it's for the copyright violation I find it urgent. I have removed the text three times today but the user just keeps inserting it although I've warned him over this copyright violation. JdeJ (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has been extensively altered since this ticket was filed, but as I cannot read German, I can't verify that the matter is resolved. I have asked the tagger if further action is necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The tagger has returned to editing, but not responded to my request, so I'm presuming there are no further concerns. I have requested that he or she let me know if I've misinterpreted the non-response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently copyvio free. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Article already cleaned and actively monitored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio already cleaned. Tagged other issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Article with copyvio deleted. New article seems c-vio free, but tagged for other concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

The contributor was not warned. I have remedied that. The typical 7-day grace period expires on July 14 at 18:07. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've requested more information about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been relocated to Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-06-29

Articles

  • The alleged copyvio isn't obvious to me ... in any case, Wikipedians have edited the article mercilessly, and cleaned it up substantially from the original. -- Robocoder (t|c) 05:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a clear copyvio (was previously tagged and prod'd in March 2008). Assuming notability, there's been no attempt to bring this in line with other articles about speeches, ala Gettysburg Address and I Have a Dream. -- Robocoder (t|c) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Offending text was already removed by the reporter. Merged with last clean revision (as of 16:39, 4 July 2006), and removed copyvio notice. -- Robocoder (t|c) 05:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Infringment appears to be substantial, and there's no clean revision in history. The table "adapted" from Midwest Academy is lifted from this page[25] while the next 4 paragraphs are lifted verbatim from the reported url.[26]. -- Robocoder (t|c) 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have blanked the article and notified the creator, who had not received notice. 7 day courtesy period expires approximately July 14, 22:01. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

Comment: This one seems to have been investigated before. I'm checking into it to find out what happened. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see any clear rationale why this was cleared from WP:PUI, but as no suspected source was discovered then, that may be irrelevant. Lacking clear assertion of permission, the assertion of self-authorship may not be reliable here. Image had not been tagged, nor uploader notified. Both remedied, and the 7-day grace period ends July 15 at 1:40. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


New listings

edit this list (to add or to remove per-day pages)

2008-07-01

Articles

Already cleaned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Excised. Warned contributor. Left note at talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have advised the tagger that this is still a potential problem and am communicating about it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Article has been blanked pending verification of permission. Tagger advises that entire article is copied from the abstract and article. 7 day grace period expires 7/15 at approximately 21:20 UTC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned single sentence that sort of infringed on the source. Everything else looks fine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Permission granted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

2008-07-02

Articles