Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations

Template:policylist

I wanted to add Template:policylist to this page, but there doesn't seem to be room. If someone could think about a good way to add it, either do it, or let me know. Fresheneesz 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restructured {{Wikipedia copyright}} to include a "policy" section, which I think covers it – Gurch 13:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge

I think that this page should be merged with Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Or perhaps, the instructions for dealing with copyright violations should be moved from WP:CP onto this page, and the list of articles with problems should remain on the other page. The current division of information is confusing and would benefit from being reorganized and simplified. Just a suggestion. Teryx 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Instructions now appear in both places; list remains on Wikipedia:Copyright problems because this is a policy page and that is a process one. I feel the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems are a little untidy; I might rewrite them as well at some point. – Gurch 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeat offenders

I have edited language on the project page to include this unambiguous statement, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project." A statement of this sort may be required by a provision of the DMCA:

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and"

We have the policy, but not the statement. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention of CSD

There doesn't seem to be any mention of WP:CSD#G12, which allows for the removal of blatant copyright infringements in certain cases (i.e. when the whole text is clearly from a copyrighted website). I understand that this policy outlines a process separate from CSD, but given that the two are related I think it's at least worth a mention and a link. I'd like to be bold and put this in, but given that this is a policy I thought it best to float the idea here first. --jonny-mt 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Added. – Gurch 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This policy was originally just a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia:Copyrights. I think such a move was a good idea as Wikipedia:Copyrights is very long and confusing and this information is important. However, the copied text as it stood was in need of an overhaul and little has been done since that time. I have expanded the page somewhat and given it some structure; I have also copied the instructions for copyright owners from the Contact Us subpages; this replaces a link to an obsolete page which now redirect to the Contact Us subpage anyway, and there's no harm in having the instructions here. I've also given more explanation of how to deal with copyright violations, including such things as a mention of the speedy deletion policy, which was not mentioned at all before, based on the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but not as detailed. Finally, I've tried to give some introduction beyond simply "Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations", pointing out how Wikipedia's content is licensed and explaining the difference between text and media. I've also added a nutshell – Gurch 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claims of copyright violation

Would one of you have a look at Talk:Duchy of Pless. Poeticbent (talk · contribs) is accusing me of copyright violation on the basis of the following comparisons:

Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.

from

Hans Heinrich XI...summoned his gendarmerie...and told them to work for the re-election...The constables rode...beating their drums...”

a different statement of the same facts; and

Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants

from

The preamble to an Inclosure Act states that the lords of the manor were owners of the soil and waste within that manor and the soil and minerals therein.

a different claim, in different words, about a different country (this is from the English Law Journal reports, which I had never seen).

On the chance that this is a genuine confusion, would someone go inform Poeticbent of what copyright violation actually is; if it is not genuine confusion, it would seem to come under the Wikipedia:General Sanctions on Eastern Europe, and Poeticbent should be notified of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are timelines of fictional universes derivative works?

For example, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Back to the Future timeline.

02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy question

I came across major copyright violations pasted by a user onto his userpage. Is this copyright violation? should it be removed? Tagged? Kingturtle (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unless the user is the owner, if it's blatant it should be deleted; if it's questionable it should be tagged. What do you mean by major copyright violations.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It's so long ago now, I don't remember the userpage. But it consisted of paragraphs of words lifted directly from another URL. Kingturtle (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Of course, if the user will discuss the matter, that's the best option. It's always possible the user would tell you that he or she owned it - or even could show that he or she posted it to Wikipedia before the other site. These aren't unheard of. Just for future reference.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

While making a thorough research and verifying the sources provided, I not only discovered that Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen was not a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, I also discovered that the article is not an "original" article as required by Wikipedia policy, but an article which infringes the copyrights of the National Timerwolf Association and Time Inc. It is a paste job using content from both sites which is in violation of copyright laws. See the following evidence and judge for yourself: Terry Allen ©1999 National Timberwolf Association andTerry Allen and His Men Copyright © 2008 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Am I right about being concerned and if so can somemone here please do something about it? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a template...

Is there a template that incorporates both the COPYVIO and SPAM headers? A lot of times I see text copies and pasted from a company's website. I can't tell if it's plagiarism, or an attempt at advertising. DarthSquidward (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How much?

This page, was copied from this page. Many unnecessary sentences were removed, and many other sentences changed, but so much of the original article remains, that it is obvious that it's copied from it. Is this a copyright violation? Where do you draw the line? -Freekee (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the text is substantially derived from a non-GFDL-compatible copyrighted work, it is definitely a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow copyright violations on Wikipedia

Why don't we move our servers to a floating platform in international waters (see seasteading) or to a friendly jurisdiction that allows pirating, and then allow people to freely upload copyrighted images, copy and paste copyrighted content into articles, etc.? It would eliminate the need to paraphrase and/or limit content borrowed from others, would save a lot of time that is spent on fair use discussions, would make it possible to illustrate many articles that currently are in need of images, and would enhance the quality of much of our imagery as well. The Pirate Bay assists with copyright violations and look how successful they are. I think we should jump on that bandwagon forthwith. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from any debate over the morality of copyright laws and from the infeasibility of it, this is a bad idea for two reasons: first, because plagiarism is a bad academic practice even if it's not legally a copyright violation. For example, Wikipedia already allows biographies of government figures to be copied and pasted from U.S. government websites, because the text there is believed to be in the public domain by default. This is a poor way to write an encyclopedia for reasons of bias, academic honesty, and so forth. Allowing this practice on all articles from all sources would only compound that issue. Second, such a move would be unnecessary since many of the restrictions on copyrighted content (for example, the jihad against useful photos) are voluntary restrictions, put forth by an extreme faction of free-everything advocates on Wikipedia, and designed to protest copyright law by ludicrously over-applying it. There is no legal reason that such content couldn't be used from American or British or Chilean servers, so moving the servers elsewhere would not bring that content back. DarthSquidward (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

I am not sure where to put this, I hope this is correct. Recently several editors have been adding copyrighted content from http://www.ctbuh.org to Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I have attempted to undo the edits and even responded to a message about the copyright status of the page. Is there anything that can be done to prevent the copyrighted material from being added, or responding in some other way? Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the contents of the article for now with the copyright violation template and placed a note at the talk page. The individuals may be blocked or the page protected if they do not follow through with verifying permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Slouschz

Could I get someone more versed in copyvio issues to take a look at this one? It is an obvious direct copy from [1]. But that source page has contradictory copyright information. The blurb itself declares itself to be under the GFDL, but the site itself has a blanket copyright statement at the bottom. So, is this GFDL, and useable, or not? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) This should be governed by their use policy, which indicates that "Some materials on this site including layout, look and feel, design, author biographies, and graphics are copyright Knowledgerush. Where noted Knowledgerush author biography texts may be distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License." It should be fine, though it sadly needs wikification! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright violiation?

http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center is violating?