Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Copyright issues archive Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
About archives • Edit this box

See also: Wikipedia:Public domain, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:copyright, m:fair use, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop.

Contents 1 Possible copyright issues 2 Remove images from copyright problems 3 Previously Given Copyright Permission 4 Articles composed of multiple copyvios? 5 Not sure if I've done this correctly 6 I have to report someone is using a link to their blog on wikipedia 7 Copyrighted quotes in infoboxes 8 Linking of dates to date articles instead of subpages 9 Unsure of how to proceed, copyvios 10 Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

Possible copyright issues

How does one tell if the wikipedia article is printed first, or an outside internet article. There is an article, which I started re-editing, which had also according to the talk page, also had a re-edit done previously as well List of Corner Gas episodes. If it did have copyright issues, then probably the history also needs cleaning. I got only so far and then came here for advice if I should just re-edit the article in this way to the end. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just as a general note, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of talk pages. It doesn't really matter, but on a page with more activity than this one, it's likely that your question would have been missed. I noticed somebody had edited it since I'd last been online and scrolled all the way up until I found you. If somebody had edited it after you, I probably would have stopped with them. :)

One valuable tool for determining which came first is the internet archive. If you put in a URL, it can often give you an indication of how old the page is. It's a wonderful thing when it works, because then there's no question of who was the first publisher. When it doesn't work, we usually look for other clues. Did the material pop out of nowhere newly formed, or did it gradually evolve? Was it added by an inexperienced contributor or one whose talk page shows other copyright concerns? Is the suspected source page a reputable or official one that would be unlikely to infringe on Wikipedia? The answers to these questions can help you figure out how best to proceed. For instance, I usually look for an idiosyncratic run of words and trace their history in our article. Once I find where they originated, I compare to figure out if the external source is an exact duplicate of that version. If it's not, I'll look to see if that material evolved in our article, with other editors adding, to a point that does match the external source. If it did, then it's likely that the external source copied from us.

Thanks for your revision of problematic material. I know it's not always fun, but it's important. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove images from copyright problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously Given Copyright Permission

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

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

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

Articles composed of multiple copyvios?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure if I've done this correctly

I don't think I've had to post here before, and I wonder if someone experienced with this page could take a quick look at what I've done, and fix it if necessary. I just tried to add a page to the September 23 list of possible copyvios, but although I thought I followed the instructions the article is not listed. If I click on the "today's section" link the article is there, but it doesn't show on this page. What did I do wrong? Or is the problem that the instructions which say "Go to today's section and add ..." are wrong?

The article in question is Dictionary of Literary Biography. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is in the instructions. The process has recently been revised, and while most of the instructions were repaired (in the template and at the bottom of the page), the one in the yellow box was not. I'll take care of it, and thank you so much for pointing it out! I'll need to make sure that this hasn't been a problem for others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The actual article did turn out to be a copyvio and has been deleted, so there's no need to post the note about that particular article any more. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you ran into this problem. :) We neglected to inform DumbBOT, which has been listing tickets in the old way. If you hadn't mentioned it, who knows how long we would have gone without realizing this? (What I did was transclude the date to today's, which made your note visible. Redlinked articles at WP:CP are quite common. Many of them are swiftly deleted.:)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to report someone is using a link to their blog on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Star_Force_3

This person has a blog titled Rockman Redux listed in references and the rules state blogs are "unreliable" sources of information. He has two links, one is listed as: ^ "Corocoro 9: Shooting Star Rockman 3 title, date; the other is listed as: ^ "Shooting Star Rockman 3: RED JOKER.

Blazinglight (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blazinglight

Hi. I was going to direct you to WP:COIN, but I see that you're already familiar with that page and with WT:CITE following conversations there about your own blog (here and here, as context for others). One of those may be better for this, if you cannot resolve the matter at Talk:Mega Man Star Force 3. I'm unsure why this would be a copyright concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I am still getting used to the enormous size of wikipedia, thank you for redirecting me to the right source, I'll bring the discussion there.

Blazinglight

I am the maintainer of the blog in question, and the information I present through the blog (and in turn to WP) is cited and marked as much as the sources can be done so. Probably worth mentioning is that Blazinglight is nothing but a 15-year-old (as admitted here) who isn't getting his way. After being warned by Wordpress staff for plagiarizing of the content in my own blog and not crediting what he takes, should a kid who's only proving he's pressing a few buttons be taken seriously? He wishes to have my sources removed because he's acting the part of a typical "spoilt brat".

While I see that blogs are lower in the resource food chain, and that I might not be a credible source, some fully-fledged sites are leaning towards blog-style approaches for relaying information. Some software used by news sites is very similar to blogging software so what determines the difference between a blog and a site in this case? --Reploidof20xx ^(TALK) 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a blog and don't deserve special treatment any more than anyone else does. I was told that a blog would "never" be allowed on Wikipedia unless it was backed by a source like the New York Times, or the Scientific American, and It just seems that the same rules should apply to both of our blogs.

Legally, Wikipedia would have to observe an un-biased approach to either blog. The moderators are fair and they have their criteria. It's unfortunate that you don't seem to be gaining in tact or wisdom from any of these experiences, and your peers have told you so on other forums, so I'll ignore your immaturity, and the statements here that would not be allowed on any forum, considered to be "trolling", or trying to obtain a worse response than the above (which would be difficult).

I think that this discussion should be about Wikipedia rules, and not stoop to slander and libelous conversation, this isn't the high school cafeteria, it's Wikipedia. Your blog has material that is copyrighted material; which includes any picture, film, song, etc. that comes from Capcom.

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*."

If you look under these statements, you will see this very same line (below this post). If Wikipedia allowed you to post, you would be breaking their rules of Content. I have consented that, if I were to place my content on their site (and it is theirs, not ours) then I would have to follow their guidelines.

"Important note: The Wikipedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations. It is therefore useless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce content. Permission to reproduce content under the license and technical conditions applicable to Wikipedia (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) has already been granted to everyone without request; for permission to use it outside these terms, one must contact all the volunteer authors of the text or illustration in question."

You have the rules dude, just like everyone else, and we all have to follow them.Blazinglight (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All of this coming from someone who plagiarizes and doesn't give credit. You're not above the rules either, on Wordpress OR Wikipedia. As for your "special treatment" idea, now you're being obnoxious. Unrealistic as it is, what makes you think globally reknowned sources The New York Times and The Scientific American are the only wiki-approved references that are usable by a blog? There's less immaturity in me than arrogance and laziness in your (deliberate?) copying of my material in my blog. You even went to the trouble of changing... 5-or-so words when you were reported to Wordpress for plagiarism.

I'm capable of trolling because you've got limited sources? This should disprove your blog as a source even more since you were too stubborn to check other sources which ended up contradicting others; there was no bias on my part, I checked all sources and I said you got things wrong. The other, MAIN source which you copy, The Undersquare, changed their news post after checking the other sources, which you didn't, again attributed to your stubbornness to change.Stooping to "slander and libelous conversation" is pure conjecture of yours.

Yes my blog has copyrighted material, thanks for noticing, but it's clearly marked on my sidebar what part of the blog belongs to whom (whether it belongs to Capcom Co. Ltd. for Wordpress or to RockmanREDUX). And again, you're just proving you can copy and paste, by quoting Wiki statements completely out of context; I am using everything for non-commercial reasons, so copyright is within junction. --Reploidof20xx ^(TALK) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You have serious issues dude, jealous of a 15 year old, I have better things to do than waste my time here. I truly hope you can get over this, but know I won't be sleepless because of you. Good luck God bless Australia (and the U.S.), peace. Blazinglight (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand now why you listed this here. Copyright laws do not give blanket approval for non-commercial reuse. Without digging through those pages to see how much of a concern they might for WP:EL, the real issue here seems to be reliability of sourcing. Policy at WP:V notes "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable" and gives a footnote explaining when they may be: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl: Thank you for taking the time to look through this, thank you for replying, Saito Network respects the decisions of Wikipedia. Blazinglight (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted quotes in infoboxes

I have removed quotes from infoxes from a few dozen articles recently, but all have been reverted, so I bring the question here: is the use of quotes in infoboxes, without any further use of the text (not used to illustrate a point, reference an idea or statement, ...), taken from copyrighted books (the subject of the article), a copyright violation or acceptable fair use? If it was an image, we would need a good fair use rationale or the image would soon be deleted, but it is not spelled out as clearly for quotes. One example is The Scriptures '98 Version. Fram (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire purpose of including selections in the infobox is to "reference an idea or statement", as it serves to illustrate the style of translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is entirely valid in my view. And although I have no direct proof I can't imagine any of these publishers would object to this level and style of quotation. If the comparison issue is unclear, we can work on making it more plain and useful. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People want easy access to information. If "comparison of Bible translations" is important enough as a subject to permit fair use quotes in discussing it, (and it probably is), then it should have its own page(s) where people can get the comparison at a glance,notby going back and forth between articles on Bibles where some have the text and some haven't. I would be very frustrated by the current method of comparing the texts, assuming I intuitively understood their purpose in the infobox. An article like John 3:16 has a short comparison of different translations with some context already. More complete articles should be very well possible, and acceptable, since there the quotes would be used in context, as illustrations of the actual discussion, not as "a quote from this book which isn't otherwise mentioned on this page". Fram (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't believe that it illustrates anything without commentary; in order to illustrate a point, there has to be a point being made. As Wikipedia:NFC points out, we utilize deliberately more narrow criteria than are allowed under fair use. I can see the material meeting Wikipedia:NFC#Text if it were used in the body with other text establishing why these pieces are remarkable (making a point, in other words), but their use in an infobox seems murky at best to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are articles relating specifically to John 3:16 and Genesis 1:1 indicates these to be notable verses. People with an interest in bible translation generally know their favoured translation of these verses verbatim, in which case the comparison is immediately evident to them, hence illustrating the point. Fram's argument of frustration regarding "going back and forth between articles on Bibles where some have the text and some haven't" is a result of his own destructive edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, nobody is questioning that they are notable verses. :) There is an article on Moby Dick, too, but we can't reproduce the novel in an infobox. Notability is not the issue. The point is compliance with WP:NFC, which indicates that brief quotations can only be used for certain purposes: "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." A quotation in an infobox does none of that. That can be done through text in the article body. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no attempt however to reproduce the whole of the bible in an infobox. Your comparison is slightly invalid. These are just for "two" verses. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that reproducing an entire novel in an infobox would be unreasonable, the copyright on Moby Dick has expired, and is therefore not an appropriate comparison. But ingoring that, there are not a great number of comparative translations into English of Moby Dick to serve of any value to persons interested in the style of any particular translation. In connection with articles about bible translations discussing style of translation, the inclusion of verses immediatly familiar to people interested in the subject in the infobox provides a clear and consistent location for this to be demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Please mentally substitute Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. As to the rest, I have replied below. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The other point from Jeffro77 is to "illustrate the style of translation" which can be seen with or somewhat without comparison. Anyone familiar with the material would see the point relevant to each version at a glance. A comparison article could be written. If this route were taken I would reluctantly support it as an alternative to the infobox approach. However it would need to be comprehensive and include all the conversed version PD or copyright and the infobox itself have the quote elements removed. And that after the establishment of an appropriate article. Probably one with vertical axis of version and the ot and nt verses horizontally. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the "illustrate a point" point is valid but perhaps should be made explicit in the infobox or maybe the article. They are there it "illustrate the translation style" and be a point of comparaison between version articles. Maybe this needs work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my lack of clarity in my choice of example. My point is that the existence of articles on these verses is as immaterial as the existence of an article on Moby Dick would be to replicating that volume. The notability of the verses does not relate to usage of copyrighted text from them. To use a less exaggerated example (and one that hasn't lapsed into public domain), Let It Be (song) is notable, but we cannot duplicate verses from it unless our use conforms to WP:NFC. Putting a verse of two of the song into an infobox would not conform, as it offers no context for the usage. Quoting a significant line or two in the article to illustrate critical evaluation would. From a strictly encyclopedic standpoint, though, please let me note that Wikipedia's articles aren't written strictly for people who are familiar with the material. This is why we have {{context}} tags. I believe that the usage of these quotes is problematic with Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines, but, more, I suspect that the articles would be strengthened for general readership by incorporation of the text into the article with context. Making the point explicit would not only resolve NFC issues, but improve the articles. (Illustrating the style of translation still requires that a point be made; critical commentary seems the obvious solution.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The song example also isn't good as the typical "verse" is a large proportion (maybe 25%) of the whole. Where as a verse or two from the biblical text is extremely small proportion (maybe less than 0.5%) which puts it in an entirely different ballpark in terms of quotation for copyright material. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then forget examples altogether, if you prefer. The core issue: WP:NFC provides limited circumstances under which we may use brief quotations of copyrighted material. As it stands, the cited infobox does not meet those guidelines, as the quotations are left to hang on their own and do not explicitly illustrate or explain anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or Let It Be (song) ignores my previous point, specifically that "People with an interest in bible translation generally know their favoured translation of these verses verbatim, in which case the comparison is immediately evident to them, hence illustrating the point." (If you were to compare with something like comparative translations of the works of Josephus, or the Cyrus Cylinder, the example would be relevant.) The same point was also the purpose of stating that the verses in question are notable, rather than some implied notability argument in itself. To people with an interest, inclusion of the verses immediately makes the differences evident. However, I take your point that "articles aren't written strictly for people who are familiar with the material". This suggests that the infobox could be improved to more clearly demonstrate the significance of the passages for unfamiliar readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If the alteration of the infobox adds context sufficient that the quotation meets WP:NFC, then I would imagine that should resolve the matter. :) Context should not be implicit. We need actively to validate use of copyrighted material rather than to presume that the point it is illustrating is understood. This is not a style issue, obviously, but a matter of complying with the policies and guidelines we've developed relating to our adaptation of fair use. As long as use is defensible within that guideline, we're in good shape. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are relying too much on the "people who are familiar with the material" point, Jeffro77. I'll try to find a good comparison. Let's assume that you are not familiar enough with the Qur'an to know any texts by heart. As you can see in List of translations of the Qur'an#English, there are quite a few translations of this text in English. Imagine know that you open an article on any of these translations, and a few lines are quoted in the infobox. Are these lines of any use to you? You may be interested in reading about different translations and the problems when translating an Arabic text and so on, but these infoboxes will learn you nothing. An article (or series of articles or whatever) on translation problems, perhaps comparing a number of texts, would be very interesting and would be what you would hope for. The infobox, even if you would e.g. add the text "quotes provided for comparison of translations", wouldn't be any use. Now, add to that the fact that in some cases, the text is copyrighted, and you are left with no good reason to include them, and a good reason to exclude them. Fram (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree; but this last contribution is the first truly cogent statement of this viewpoint. Almost convincing. The only thing is as readers of an English wikipedia, many are going to be familiar with the material at least in traditional translations (e.g. KJV). I return to the point I made earlier if a comparison article could be constructed, links to it could be placed in "all" version articles, then the quotes dropped.  :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing about usefulness of the quoted verses rather than copyright violation, then you should be discussing on the template's talk page about whether the verses should be included at all rather than for only translations for which copyright has expired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that gratuitous or not obviously necessary use of copyrighted text is not a good use of "fair use", which is a problem for copyrigted texts, hence my removal. I don't think it is very useful in the non copyrighted cases either, but since it is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, I have not bothered with those. "Fair use" is about how and why you use it. Short quotes (like here) are better than long quotes, but if no quote is needed for understanding the article or as "evidence", as a reference for a statement, then no quotes from copyrighted text are needed at all. Fram (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just been looking at some of the copyright notices made by some of the major bible publishers (I beleive they are all fairly similar). Here is an outtake from the publishers of the Good News Bible. This is when small amounts are quoted (typically less than 100 or 500 verses) clearly this applies.

"When quotations from GNB are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials GNB must appear at the end of each quotation." reference for this quote

We might have to do a bit more about putting the version code (i.e. "GNB") at the end of each quote but I see nothing else to make objection. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has no bearing on Wikipedia articles, as we are released under the terms of GFDL, which permits commercial reuse (saleable media). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, however the proportion of the quotation is still well within permitted limits. I will investigate the specific notices that are required. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the quote is within limits, as long as context as provided to bring it into accord with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A single verse in the info box is well within fair use. There isn't a copyright holder out there who would object to a single verse from their translation in an article ABOUT their translation. If anything, it's free advertisement. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it meets fair use. The question is whether it meets WP:NFC. As that document notes, our policy rationale is a "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Below, it notes, "Wikipedia imposes higher fair-use standards on itself than US copyright law." It also says, "Material that is not free is permitted only if it meets the restrictions of this policy.... Wikipedia distributes content throughout the world with no restrictions on how people use it. Legally, we could use any copyrighted material for ourselves that is either licensed to us by the owner, or that fits the definition of "fair use" under US copyright law. However, we favor content that everyone can use, not just Wikipedia. We want them to be free to use, redistribute, or modify the content, for any purpose, without significant legal restrictions, particularly those of copyright." Adding critical commentary brings these passage into NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a single verse in an info box in an article about a translation. There isn't a copyright holder for any of those translations that would NOT want to see their version of John 3:16 out there for everyone to see. For them, it's free advertisement. Heck, they probably want their own John 3:16 plastered all over the planet. They didn't make their translation to hide under a bushel. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We really don't guess about the wishes of copyright holders. If they want to release the material into public domain, they have that option. Is there some specific reason to prefer that these verses decorate the infobox rather than being incorporated with actual original, substantive text into the article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter, most if not all comics publishers want to have as many covers of their comics on Wikipedia as possible, since it is free advertising. Still, we don't accept the copyrighted images of covers in articles unless there is a good fair use rationale. There is no reason the same policy would not apply to quotes. Fram (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting 2.2.1:

  1. Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source.

The source is attributed. A more comprehensive bibliographic citaiton might be useful --- mainly because there usually is more than one version of any specific translation of the Bible. (There are over 100 versions of the KJV. There are five different versions of the RSV, and an equal number for the NRSV. These textual differences aren't always the difference between British English and American English. AFAIK, John 3:16 and Gen 1:1 are "static" --- there are no textual differences between different versions of the same translation. )

  2. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.

Gen 1:1 & John 3:16 constitute, at most 2/31102 verses of a specific translation. For Bibles that incorproate the AAnglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Orthodox, Orietnal, or Coptic Canon of 81 (Broader Canon), the percentage is less --- to as low as 0.0000444444444444% )

  3. An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source.

This is not an image, so that doesnt' apply.

  4. All copyrighted text poses legal problems when making spoken word audio files from Wikipedia articles, and should be avoided in such files, because the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL.

That is more concerned with creating the audio file.

Looking at 2.1.1 Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point,

It seems to me, that the point of the verses, is to illustrate a point --- that of how this translation differs from others.

establish context,

It seems to me, that it is obvious that it is used as an example of how the translation handles specific verses.

Going back to the example of the Q'ran, I may not have memorized a specific verse,but in an article on a specific interpretation of the Q'ran, into English, I'd be able to get a sense of how the different interpretations into English differ. (The Q;ran, by definition, is untranslatable. Everything that is not in the specific dialect of Arabic that Mohammad used, is an interpretation.)

A better example would be translations of the different version of the Dao De Jing.

The translation that begins with "The entrance is an exit, but only an emergency exit", is going to translate that work far more differently than the version that begins with "The way is not the way", and both of those will be different from the one that begins "The was that is, is not the way." OTOH, neither the Q'ran, in Arabic, nor the Bible, in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, has nearly as much ambiguity as the Dao De Jing in Ancient Chinese has.

or attribute a point of view or idea.

Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim.

The quotes are used verbatim. They are attributed, but it probably would be prudent to provide more precise attribution. (IOW, notjust KJV, but KJV-1758 (Oxford Press), or RSV-CE 2nd Edition (Thomas Nelson) IOW, incorporate the entire cite book ref tag into the infobox.

Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.

The amount translated constitutes between 0.000128609093% and 0.000044444444% of the complete text, depending upon the canon that is used. ( To be a completest, 0.000331235508% for the Samaritan canon, 0.00015980823. 0.000284575982% for Protestant New Testament only. ) jonathon (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Not addressing the material that doesn't seem applicable here, I fail to see how a verse, standing by itself, can illustrate "how this translation differs from others". It can't establish context if there's no discourse for it to establish context for. It can't explore differences if there is no basis of comparison. If these passages have been selected as particularly appropriate for comparative purposes, then surely it would add value to the articles, as well as settling any NFC concerns, to explain why and how those differences manifest. (To use your example, I would not be able to guess how a verse of the Q'ran, standing alone, deviated from other interpretations. Many of our readers will not be able to guess how a verse of the Bible, standing alone, deviates from other translations.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For persons with an interest in the topic, the comparison is immediate because they already know their preferred version. Because a 'preferred version' cannot be asserted in articles, it is not possible to list any specific translation for explicit comparison, though readers who are not intimately familiar with the subject can go to the category to easily find articles on other bible translations if they want to compare renderings. In addition, inclusion of the verses illustrates the type of translation (e.g. 'formal equivalence', etc.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it illustrate that, or anything, without a point of comparison? ("Equivalence" at its linguistic roots requires a point of comparison.) I would also question why you assume readers of this article already know their preferred version; surely scholars of any subject must start somewhere. But again, to illustrate a point, a point must be made. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'Formal equivalence' refers to a method of translating from the original languages. Even for a person who has no knowledge of the subject, they could see that a particular translation employs, say, 'formal equivalence', or 'dynamic equivalence' or some other method, and can immediately see a verse that has been translated using that method. But if you're set on having something explicitly stated to compare with, why not include the literal word-for-word rendering from the original languages in the info box - this can be sourced from Strongs concordance (of which the copyright has expired).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me. It provides context and therefore should eliminate any question of compliance with NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, but this solution presents its own problems. Strongs provides definitions for each word, but doesn't always provide a single English word to use. Selecting one of the available meanings for each word to translate the original text constitutes original research. The alternative is to use text from an interlinear translation - these are generally copyright, so they would need to be referenced, though it would be clear that they are being compared, so I think this should be acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good solution to me, if no free text can be found. As long as it makes clear critical purpose of the quote, then it should meet NFC without any issues. Sorry for the difficulty in finding a good base text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented some interlinear text. As the text is being compared with the (any) translation in question, the purpose for including the quote is self-evident. Have a look and see what you think. Template:Bible translation infobox, e.g., King James Version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the explicit point of comparison should make the critical function of the quote obvious and address any NFC concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The modified template may not show up on cached pages on the server, but will be updated when the pages are changed (or manually purged). I really couldn't be bothered manually purging the cached copy of every bible translation article. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Greek/Hebrew source text that is quoted needs to be stated. Comparing a Bible translated from LXX/Byzantine sources is going to be different than one using WLC/USB-4. Furthermore, for some translations, referencing Greek/Hebrew texts is utterly irrelevant--- Lamsa's is one such example. jonathon (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking of dates to date articles instead of subpages

Looking for a newly listed article, when I didn't see it on the main page, I clicked on the large, bold date above today's entries to see if it appeared there. I was taken to October 3. Not only didn't I go to the page I wanted, I can see no reason for this to be linked to an article instead. Why is the date linked at all, if not to the subpage? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

You got me. This seems to be one of those "it's always been that way" matters...at least it's been that way for a long time. I, too, have been irritated and puzzled by it, but not so much that I've tried to puzzle out why and put it to an end. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like WP:MFD has linked dates, too. I may tackle that after this. User:Zorglbot creates the new pages for each day and then adds them to the main page. Someone *cough*Moonriddengirl*cough* removes the old days manually. It should be easy enough to get the template changed for the main page addition (to link to the appropriate subpage), but is there any reason the bot can't also archive the old pages? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. :) It seems like a good idea to ask Schutz to take off the links for the dates or to link it to the subpage. The current system adds nothing and causes confusion. :) The reason the bot doesn't archive the old pages is because there's no easy way that I know of to communicate when it's ready to be archived. They're archived when either all the tickets for the day or done or all of them but one are, at which point I move the remaining one to "older consolidated" until the time or whatever has passed. When I got here, there were 20, 30 days of unaddressed dates. I've been hanging out here ever since. :) I think probably that system works okay; it only takes a moment. But I'm all for fixing the date link issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsure of how to proceed, copyvios

Hi, I came across Louvre Abu Dhabi at its peer review. I was checking the sources and noted that many of the sentences in the article were quoted from the source (and not in quotation marks), although the source was attributed. I noted this, removed some, and left a note for the user. I went back today to take a deeper look at the article, and noticed --after a Google Search-- that some sentences were quoted that weren't even in the references section. I removed these immediately. Again, I left a note on the user's talk page, and asked for others to be fixed. This article was a Did you know? on the main page and recently promoted to a GA.

I then thought it would be prudent to check some other article work. I notice that Drakensberg has the same problem. To begin with the section "Key Geological Events" is cut and pasted from here; the section on "Geomorphology, composition" appears to be cut and paste from here; the ecology section is from here; etc.

Continuing, I looked at Guggenheim Abu Dhabi. A random piece of prose: The next ring of galleries surrounding the core then radiating out of the centre will be larger galleries in a variety of shapes, and less formally constructed, for special installations. The third ring of larger galleries will be "less finished" and" more like raw industrial space with exposed lighting and systems is from here; the facilities section is from here, etc. This article appeared on the main page a few days ago.

On the article Henri Loyrette this sentence: Prior to his appointment at the Louvre, Loyrette served as Director of the Musée d’Orsay from 1994 to 2001, and Curator at the Musée d’Orsay from 1978 to 1999 is from here (this was a DYK also).

I've been working with the editor for about a week now on projects relating to WP:FRANCE, and think that he is well intentioned. I am concerned about these edits because some are clearly copy-vios and others misrepresent WP as the author. The situation is deeper than I am able to rectify, and I am not quite sure how to approach the issue. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is indeed a difficult situation, and I am the user at fault here. Through my actions I have unintentionaly misrepresented Wikipedia as the author, by not citing correctly and sourcing quotations. Though my edits were made in good faith, I see now that what I have done infringed on the intellectual right of the author to their work. I myself am not sure what to do in this situation, as it is clear to me that I have made similar mistakes in many of the articles I have written. I would greatly appreciate some guidance in this matter. Jordan ^Contribs 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a note about this. Since the whole section advising you of this conversation is no longer necessary, I will revise it. But let me summarize here that the best thing to do is to remove infringing material where it does not conform to WP:NFC and to attribute where it does. I'll take a look at your recent articles to see what I can find. If you believe that the problem is extensive, the best thing to do would be either for you to trace back into your own history or request assistance, as perhaps at WP:FRANCE. Thank you for taking steps to help address the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jordan, thanks for understanding. It is obvious you had no wish to misrepresent anything (you scrupulously used footnotes); but really, after awhile I realised I was unable to continue going through all of the contributions. Anyway, thanks; feel free to ask for help now or in the future. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting revision of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 9 October 2008, at 11:36.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.