Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???

Hello!

Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)

@HridoyKundu: The use of non-free images such as the Bangladesh Football Federation logo must comply with policy. The use of this logo for identification on the article about the federation is acceptable, but uses on team articles which are considered child entities of the federation are not. See Non-free Content examples of unacceptable image use, and specifically item 17 which states that the use of the parent entitiy's logo is not acceptable for use as identification in the child entity's article. In this case, the child entities are the men's and women's national squads. As for the usage on the Bangladesh wiki, each wiki has its own policies. I do not know if the usage on that wiki complies with their policies or not, but that is irrelevant with respect to its usage here on the English wiki, the use in articles aside from the federation article does not comply with non-free content policy. For ffuture refeences, this type of question would be btter posted at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using? Aren't they

violating copyrights?

My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams.

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The same thing is being discussed at WP:MCQ#Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???. So, it's probably best to keep all relevant discussion there to avoid redundancy and confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Michael Faraday

Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the passage in question. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Despair not :)

Wizardman (and MER-C and Justlettersandnumbers), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP. I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days. At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic. Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this, SandyGeorgia, I know how mind-numbing CCI can be (and just don't know how Wizardman manages to keep at it so tirelessly!). Just a thought: as I understand it, if a CCI subject was not the first editor of a page (i.e., it was created by someone else), then any editor in good standing is completely free to revert to the last revision before the first edit by the CCI editor. There's no need need to blank or list it, just revert, stick a {{cclean}} on the talk-page, and request revdel if that seems appropriate. Anyway, thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That is also the understanding I have been working under, and I have only been sending to WP:CP those that were a) created by DC, and b) almost all DC content still. So I do hope I have by now listed all of those, so that as you work through the next six days, we should be mostly done with that side of things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I second JLAN's thanks emphatically. What I do is many times easier than the tedium of cleaning it up via ordinary editing - it's just my time was short last week. MER-C 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, was actually just about to ask what the ETA was (I've found some more foundational cv I wanted to send here to be safe but I've been holding off to avoid blowing this up too much). Thanks for all the help, making that significant a dent in what would've otherwise been a painful CCI to sift through makes things so much easier going forward. Honestly I'm just thankful that people are generally ok with just scrapping the edits of the worst offenders, if we actually had to manually check every single ref on some of these I wouldn't even bother trying. Wizardman 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there are still boatloads of pages to be checked and still many more diffs to be processed; I fear the easiest work (identifying those created by DC that could be deleted) is done, and the hard part is ahead on the CCI, but at least we should be off of this page for now, if that makes it feel less overwhelming. Now it's back to page by page, diff by diff, and reverting to the last version before DC may be the best option for many. Thanks to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Can not login to CopyPatrol

I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Hut 8.5 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Still does not work for me. When I press the login button the page gets reloaded but I am still not logged in. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to login to tools?. I still cannot log in. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, trying several times worked indeed for me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

John Caldwell (Michigan representative)

Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and

• family photos of unknown origin and
• images he says the "Caldwell family" release to the public domain.

How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the page was started at John Caldwell (Michigan state representative) (or at least that's where the page has ended up) and the history merge missed some of the edits. The first version was by Doug Coldwell. There isn't any meaningful deleted history, John Caldwell (Michigan representative) has one deleted edit and it's a redirect. I've checked Doug Coldwell's deleted edits, I can only see two on any variation of this title, one's a redirect and the other's a page move. Hut 8.5 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much; that will help. Pretty sick of DC content for today, so will look tomorrow; much appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is copying a blog post to a sandbox a copyright violation?

I saw this: User talk:Manish kumar 675/sandbox which came from this. The copyright problems page only talks about articles, not user sandboxes or other user pages. It's possible the editor is going to try to rewrite it and turn it into an article. STEMinfo (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyright policy applies to all name spaces. I have deleted the sandbox as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do e-mail exchanges with content experts need to be stored somewhere?

A question has arisen about my methodology when adding sentences to Wikipedia articles that were sent to me by content experts via e-mail. Those sentences are not copyright violations as they are "own words / new words / original text" so that is not the problem. The question is rather whether the e-mail exchanges with those content experts need to be stored somewhere, or their explicit permission to use their words needs to be stored? If so where should it be stored, for how long, including their actual name and e-mail address?

The reason for asking is that technically they don't click on the little box saying "By writing text for Wikipedia, you agree to Wikipedia's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." but I do (on their behalf if you like). Further background to this question is available here.

Often times their proposed sentences are not added directly as they are but modified by me (e.g. to make them easier to understand) so technically, that content then becomes "my content" anyhow, not theirs, right? So in a way, they are rather advisers to my editing rather than ghost editors themselves. The content experts that I work with have all been given the option to edit directly themselves but most of them have declined that option and are rather sending me marked-up Word documents of the Wikipedia articles to show me what - in their opinion - needs changing. EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are adding someone else's text to Wikipedia, see the consent that we need from the author. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi JJMC89, thanks for your reply. I've used that consent form in the past for when people donated images. I haven't used it for when people send me snippets of sentences for Wikipedia articles which I often tend to modify a bit to make their reading ease easier. I see that kind of "text" more like "advice & suggestions" by experts on how a Wikipedia article could be modified. There is not one particular "text block" that we could send with that consent form. It's basically "suggested edits by someone off wiki in a private channel". We also ensure a "good faith, clear and transparent interaction with the experts with the full knowledge it would be published on Wikipedia" (which is how User:Sadads wrote it here). Do you agree with that? EMsmile (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on talkpage

This person has a page on talk that they say was previously submitted as a university thesis. I've left a message on the talkpage but no response for more than a week - I'm not sure whether I should use the copyvio tag or not, I can't find a relevant policy about talkpages and this specific scenario User:Aquaticonions/Beyond_the_Neutral_Point_of_View JMWt (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Which page? Secretlondon (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown CC

See also: Template talk:Creative Commons text attribution notice § CC-BY-SA 1.0

Hi all, what is the license here? Proeksad (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question, Proeksad! – this page is far from clear. I have a similar one about this; you've changed the attribution at Luigi Bisi to CC BY-SA 3.0, which is indeed what the website said in 2015, but not in 2012. I added the {{CC-notice}} here without specifying the CC BY-SA version; it seems that the template defaults to 1.0.

Questions: is that a good thing? should the attribution be updated if it changes, or remain as it was when the text was added? and should the attribution template remain in the article even if all the copied text has been removed/replaced (of course old revisions that do contain copied content will also contain attribution for it). I wish I wasn't so hazy about all this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In 2014 Creative Commons clarified that BY-SA 1.0 is not compatible with other versions. So Wikipedia cannot use such texts. From my point of view, we can update if the author did it or probably did it.
CC BY-SA is not necessarily CC BY-SA 1.0, it can be any version. 1.0 appeared in 2002, 2.0 — 2004, 2.5 — 2005, 3.0 — 2007, 4.0 — 2013. Proeksad (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0 or dual: [1]?
What will we do with article Information commons? Proeksad (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

An article that's on the Wikipedia is a direct copy of a draft I and a few others made

The article Modhalum Kadhalum directly copies all content from the declined draft submission I made Draft:Modhalum Kaadhalum, with the help of a few others (mainly @Aspiringeditor1 with everyone else on the history page), without being mentioned in any way. It would be helpful if there can be a reasonable solution to this. Tirishan (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I was going to second this and @Tirishan himself on his talk page about this - it doesn't seem fair that a user can just copy and paste a majority of our work like that, I did edit on Modhalum Kadhalum - you can see that on view history but that was mostly grammar and english based - not copypasting our work on this new article because that's just stupid. Also, if there is no verdict on AfC it would be easier to just move to mainspace, no? Also the creator of Modhalum Kadhalum seems to have done a cut-and-paste move with their article they have made, it was moved from mainspace from draftspace and the creator has just moved it again to mainspace making a redirect for the new page from the draft. Aspiringeditor1 (talk)11:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

From @Samyazh talk page, looks like @DoubleGrazing declined the AfC request. Did you forget to actually move the page? If not, please consider this issue. Tirishan (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it from mainspace into draftspace under the new title Draft:Modhalum Kadhalum 2, as well. no need for it to be in mainspace when it copies our article + it was declined. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see it at first, but after further investigation I did see enough copying from the original draft to the newer one to perform a history merge (and then a post-merge page move to fix the page title). DanCherek (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Is {{Cv-unsure}} useful to you?

I personally don't find this useful or helpful in cleaning up and identifying copyvio - I spend way too much time hunting down a potential source that may very well be dead, or not even cited in the article. If other people here also don't find it useful, then I will probably start a wider discussion for deprecation, but if people do still find it useful, I will leave it be. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to your request for comment at Discord. For me, it looks like an overlap of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections as it's tagging an article with potential copyvio without an URL. The difference is that it's tagging the talk page, and not the article. I think combining the cv-unsure ones into copied and pasted articles would be better. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Six articles are currently tagged with this in the last five years. It should be merged per above once the existing members are run down. MER-C 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Deputy June 2023 User Experience Survey

Hello! I'm Chlod, the developer of Deputy. You may have heard of this tool before or you may be an active user, but in case you haven't heard of it prior, it's a tool for streamlining some of the copyright cleanup work on this wiki.

I'm currently holding a survey to gauge editors' experience of the tool, be it as a user or a non-user. You're invited to participate, even if you don't use Deputy! The responses collected will help improve the tool and, if you're not a user, help make Deputy work smoothly with how you do your work.

The survey can be found here, and you can learn more about this survey on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback needed on pending TFA (July 5)

Can the amazing folks who work this page take a look at a close paraphrasing concern in an upcoming TFA and provide some feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Opinions solicited on mixed lyrics/list copyright issue

I would appreciate the input of any copyright experts at Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire § Event list removed for copyright reasons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming the introduction

Currently, half of CP is taken up by instructions that largely duplicate existing policy pages. As mentioned by others, the problem is that CP used to (and to a degree still is) largely be a hub for copyright instructions so information like backwards copy, etc still links here, despite the prevalence of many alternative pages that such guidance could (and should) be included on. I have a few suggestions:

• Collapse {{Noticeboard links}}
• Move sections that are explicit copies of other guidelines and instead provide a clear table of links for them, similar to ANI's header
• Give brief instructions on filing a CP listing and for more detailed information link to a subpage
• Completely move clerk/admin instructions to a separate page as most whom use the page do not need this info.

There is a broader problem involving a lack of cohesion on copyright guidance pages; the copyright sidebar contains a score of links that contain large amounts of overlap: perhaps merging some of these should be considered.

For now however, I think moving some of the instructions that have broader impacts outside of CP, e.g. backwards copy should be a focus and I might boldly do that if there are no objections. I think the status quo is more overwhelming for reporters than actually useful. – Isochrone (T) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

tl;dr, split off content on the CP instructions to other pages and remove redundant info – Isochrone (T) 12:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive. – Isochrone (T) 13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days. is being discussed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if this is a violation

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

---

Please see here. I included a too many quotations tag on the page but it was removed, with the justification there is only one quotation (no there are many!), and posted to the main page as an RD! Need advice on whether this is actually copyvio, given they're all quotations. Polyamorph (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• see WP:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_A._S._Byatt Polyamorph (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• P.S. as it's on the main page I don't want to re-tag it, hence asking here instead of submitting a report. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Unclear instructions

The instructions at WP:CP for using {{copyvio}} seem inconsistent with how said template actually works. CP says to replace the text with {{subst:copyvio}}, while the way the template works, and as the template itself says, one is meant to put {{subst:copyvio}} above the problematic text, and {{copyvio/bottom}} below. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: I believe {{copyvio}} is meant for when the entire article is problematic. Adding {{copyvio/bottom}} is meant for when only a portion of the article is problematic. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 Maddy from Celeste; Reworded with this edit. There are people that blank it (especially if intending for deletion) but if there's going to be selective removals it's best to just let the template hide the content from reader view. People don't know about copyvio/bottom so I added a little qualifier for that as well. Thanks for bringing this up! Sennecaster (Chat) 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's excellent! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:AFI 100 Years... series is a wretched hive of scum and villainy

I don't want to put this in a normal report because it concerns an entire category of not-entirely-obscure pages which have been copyvio for many long years, so I infer that something unusual might be going on such that the pages are maybe de facto protected or something, and that's out of scope for a bog-normal report. You guys figure it out.

So, every article in Category:AFI 100 Years... series is list articles, and all (I think) consist mainly of the complete lists -- 100 entries, usually. The lists were produced by the AFI, American Film Institute, based on a vote), which:

• The AFI decided who would get to vote. ("over 1,000 leaders in the creative industry") -- intellectual work.
• The AFI decided which works would be on the ballots given to the voters -- intellectual work.
• Each voter made subjective judgements. -- intellectual work, altho the voters aren't copyright holders.
• (For whatever it's worth, at least some of these lists were published in books, which if still in print would cause financial harm to AFI. (I'm virtually sure the books aren't in print, but still; and people selling their used copies could lose sales.)

I don't know if the AFI then made a purely mechanical tabulation of votes (I'm sure they didn't legally bind themselves to have no right to tweak the list orders, so who knows how it went down) but even if so, that doesn't cancel the earlier work.

So if these aren't copyvio lists I don't know what would be. Herostratus (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right about lists like these in general. But see the template at the top of Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and the talk page discussion there. AFI put the lists in the public domain. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh jeez I'm an idiot, I did look at talk on a couple of the pages but not that one, and didn't notice that, sorry to bother, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama (US only)" and the Berne convention

Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think its not exactly clear that a photo taken in France but first published in America is necessarily considered to be a French work. I believe its open to interpretation. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What does this sentence even mean?

“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”

Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that isn't clear, I've rephrased it now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright templates

There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio on a talk page

Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. If you come across something like this in the future, you can remove the copyrighted content, and then tag the page for revision deletion using {{copyvio-revdel}} and filling in the appropriate parameters. -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving instructions not directly related to Copyright problems

What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.

1. Split the instructions into its own page, titled something like "Copyright cleanup instructions".
2. Rewrite it to be less wordy in all areas.
3. A lot of the cleanup instructions are essentially mirrored over at WP:CV101, so we could condense everything that isn't specific to copyright problems over to that and link it.
4. Rewrite other policies, guides, and guidelines to contain the guidance at CP (some of it is already thereand remove it entirely.

TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The main problem I see is with WP:BACKWARDSCOPY... it could go into WP:CV101 but if we are to move out stuff from here that page should be completely restructured really. – Isochrone (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, if content is moved out, then WP:Copyrights#Copyright violations needs to be amended as appropriate, as it links here. – Isochrone (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I've rearranged the header a bit-- I'm considering moving the backwardscopy instructions to CV101 if there aren't any objections? I know it isn't great but it seems to be the most relevant page.
The other solution is making a new page altogether for most of this stuff, but I doubt adding another explanatory essay is going to make anyone happy. – Isochrone (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:IOWN and should be merged into WP:CV#Information for copyright holders. Most of rewriting can be merged into WP:CV with a bit of relevant stuff about rewriting on CP pages specifically kept. Obtaining/verifying permissions section is duplicated in WP:Requesting copyright permission and WP:CV#Contributor is copyright holder. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly merged WP:BACKWARDSCOPY into WP:Mirrors and forks, and have significantly changed the wording of it to make it more understandable to non-copyright versed editors. Hopefully it's fine. – Isochrone (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated CPC template. I have removed deletedcup, because I do not think it is used in our current workflow with how VRT and CP interact. I've changed the VRT parameter to read more about that permission is pending; this can happen with or without temporary deletion of the content. Unverified as a parameter was kind of a "pending, will need deletion", so I just changed it into a verification fail parameter for when VRT cannot accept a licensing request. more rationale at CPC talk. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

List of dog diseases containing references that link to potential copyright violations.

On the aforementioned article are multiple references using Wikia's 'nocookie.net' domain to host PDFs such as: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/diabetesindogs/images/d/d5/Providing_care_veterinary_diabetics.pdf These do not appear to be open access journals and given what Wikia is, I believe these are illegally hosted here and I presume referencing/linking to them on Wikipedia may be a copyright issue, although I am not sure. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Solidifying the request review timeframe

It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".

Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We get around to it when we get around to it, except for presumptive deletion which is 7 days. See WT:Copyright problems/Archive 23#5 day minimum. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather Archive 22: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 22#5 day minimum. Boud (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ping

Any chance of cleaning up Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024‎ to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Dealt with. Next time, simply removing the paragraph and using an RD1 request may be more efficient. Thanks for raising it for attention. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@MLauba: thanks! Next time I'll use {{Copyvio-revdel}} if in my judgment the case is simple enough. From a random sampling of a few of Category:Requested RD1 redactions, it looks like these get handled quickly - all the ones I checked are dated today. This would also reduce the number of versions of a given article that are revdel'd. Boud (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is this not appearing on the main page?

• Draft:Qefweqf (history · last edit · [[Talk:Draft:Qefweqf/Temp|rewrite]]) from [2]. I wasn't able to find their license. Both articles are clearly promotional. I see I've broken the syntax somehow, sorry. Why isn't there a template? Doug Weller talk 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Also [3] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible 20+ year old copyvios

Resolved

 – I have found 48 articles created more than 20 years ago that each contain content that exactly matches a website that was created a couple years later (see User:Donald Albury/Desk articles). The website content may have originally been in a printed catalog before being uploaded. If the content in the WP articles is copyvio, it will mean revdeling 20+ years of later edits. I figured I needed a sanity check on this. Donald Albury 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

People also copy from us. If the source appeared later it's likely they copied/mirrored us. Secretlondon (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The archived copy of the putative source literally says "WIKIPEDIA" at the bottom. I'd take that as fairly strong evidence that they copied from us. rbrwr^± 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I should came back to this sooner. I had concluded last night that the WP articles came first. Donald Albury 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Copying an entire sentence from a source without attribution or quotation marks

Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Software&oldid=prev&diff=1230471608 ok? I thought the limit was more like 3 words before you have to use quotation marks. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Are large quotes from studies fair use?

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Bernese_Mountain_Dog&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig just for ease of viewing. Do these particular quotes qualify as fair use or lean into copyright concerns? I'm unsure but leaning towards them being problematic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

{{u| Traumnovelle}} No this far beyond OK and I would reject this anywhere it showed up—AfC, NPP, DYK etc. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The content has been removed, should I request revdel? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I would. (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How much can an article match a public domain source?

I came across the article Autobiographic Sketches tonight, and noticed that the language seemed a bit unusual/formal ("reminiscent articles"), which made me suspect potential machine translation or copyright violation.

The sole reference on the article is the entry on the book from the 1920 Encyclopedia Americana, which is in the public domain. If you look at the entry in wikisource (linked from the article), you can see that large chunks of it are repeated verbatim in the article (and have been since the very first version of the article). I am aware that we can "incorporate text" from a public domain source, but I hadn't seen an article before that hews so closely to the source. It seems like this is probably okay with the acknowledgement, but I do not have much experience with the public domain, so I figured I'd check here to see if this is okay or if the content needs to be changed.

Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@CleancutkidPretty much as much as you like, as long as its attributed! In the early days of Wikipedia, it was really common for people to create articles by copying from old, out of copyright editions of various encyclopedias. This has fallen out of fashion as of late, since a lot of public domain text isn't suitable for inclusion to Wikipedia on non-copyright grounds. (Typically it presents original research in Wikivoice, doesn't maintain neutrality, or is simply too outdated to be of any use. If dealing with a non-European/American topic, sometimes they're overtly racist). But if something is public domain, that means it cannot be protected by copyright laws anymore and can freely be uploaded to Wikisource, Commons, or even Wikipedia. I hope that's an okay answer? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I still do this frequently. I write a lot of articles about 19th-century judicial figures, and there are often contemporaneous public domain biographies of these persons that contain material that requires only a little language tweaking to fit into our modern encyclopedia. Our purpose here is to provide information to our readers, not to engage in an academic exercise in original thinking. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian@BD2412 Thanks, this was quite helpful! I knew that whole public domain sources can be uploaded, but I wasn't 100% sure about articles which are mostly a source but also partially original. Cleancutkid (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Adapting table of example words

Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples (the table uses 3 × 4 = 12 examples total), but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense诉 02:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Copy from US government source

Hello, I'd like a second opinion to check whether I ended up in the right place. I was reviewing Draft:ATPIII and found that a large section is copied from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/atglance.pdf. I deleted that section and request revision deletion. Then I realised that the document copied from is by the US government / Department of Health and Human Services, so I have restored it as not copyright-protected in the United States. But I still feel uneasy about it. Any advice appreciated. Thanks Mgp28 (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-notice}} was what I was looking for. DanCherek kindly added it to the article. Mgp28 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Query about copyright

I'd be grateful for advice on the possible use of this. I would like to cite it in this new article, Scethrog Tower. However, it is headed by this clear warning, "© Vernacular Architecture Group 2021 These files may be copied for personal use, but should not be published or further distributed without written permission from the Vernacular Architecture Group." I would like to reference it, and then link it as a cite, but am concerned that this may infringe the VAG's warning. I'd be grateful for advice. Obviously, if the advice is that it's not usable, then I will delete the link from this page. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 I don't see any problem with your proposed use. You're not publishing or further distributing the document, just linking to it. Nthep (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - that is most helpful. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool

Hello! As of right now, Earwig's Copyvio Tool will now require logging in with your Wikimedia account for search engine checks. This is an attempted solution at trying to curb bot scraping of the site, which rapidly depletes the available quota we have for Google searches. New checks will require you to log in first prior to running. You will also still keep getting "429: Too Many Requests" errors until the quota resets, around midnight Pacific Time, as we've run out of search engine checks for the day. If this broke something for you or if you're having issues in trying to authenticate, please let The Earwig or me know. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about non-free in periods of uncertainty

Right now, the image at 1990 Plainfield tornado has an unclear attribution and is under a license review, and the hosting party, NWS Chicago, is unsure whether the image falls under public domain. If the image gets deleted, is it fair to use another, non-free image from the site? I know that non-free images can't be used if a free image in its place can illustrate the same content, but how does this apply if nobody knows whether or not free images could exist because of unclear copyright status? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)