Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Athena effect)

"WP:CP" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:CP (disambiguation).
    Wikipedia copyright
    Policy
    Guidelines
    Advice
    Processes
    Resources
    Shortcuts

    This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback, rewrite infringing content, or request copyright permission.

    Listed pages appear in the bottom section of the page. For additional guidance, see below.

    To add a new listing, go to today's section.

    Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal by following these instructions.

    How to list an article

    Copyright problems handles articles where the copyright status is disputed or complex cases of infringement. You should list an article if one of the following applies:

    • All revisions of an article have copyright violations (copyvio), and speedy deletion does not apply.
    • The removal of copyrighted content has been contested.
    • Removal or reversion is complicated or involves a majority of the article.
    • You cannot determine whether the text originated from the source or Wikipedia. Do not blank the article in this case.
    • The article is eligible for presumptive deletion.
    • Other complex situations not listed here or in the section below.

    If the article needs to be listed,

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. A pre-filled version can be copied from the top of the copyvio template after substituting it. If yours is the first listing of the day, please add a header to the top of the page, using the page for another date as an example.
    • Warn the contributor of the listing at their talk page, unless advised not to. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

    What not to list here

    • Blatant infringement. Articles that are entirely copyvio can be handled through speedy deletion if it meets the criteria. You should not blank or list the article here if you tag for G12.
    • Non-extensive obvious copyvio. If the copied content is not extensive, you can remove, rewrite, or revert the page to before the text was added. You should place {{Copyvio-revdel|url=copied source|start=diff of copyvio insertion|end=diff before copyvio removal}} on the article afterwards and warn the contributor of the material to the problem, unless advised not to. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
    • Requests for revision deletion. These should be handled by placing {{Copyvio-revdel|url=copied source|start=diff of copyvio insertion|end=diff before copyvio removal}} on the article.
    • Files. For files that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; otherwise list at Files for Discussion. If the file is on the Commons, they can be handled through Commons speedy deletion or Deletion requests.
    • Individual editors. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted text or files after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512. If one contributor verifiably inserts multiple copyright violations and systematic review is needed, please file a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.
    • Copyright violations without a source. If you cannot find a source of where something could be copied from, do not list the article here. The content may be removed for other reasons, like being unreferenced or violating our biographies of living persons policy.

    What text can be reused?

    Further information: Wikipedia:Copy-paste

    Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or claim copyright, for a copyright to exist. One of the following must be present to reuse the content on Wikipedia:

    If one of the following is not present, the text cannot be reused. Even if the text can be reused, it must be attributed or it will be considered as Plagiarism.

    Responding to listed articles

    Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

    Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright clerks, and VRT agents should remove {{copyvio}} tags and resolve listings. Copyright problems is run by volunteers and it usually takes a few days before listings are first investigated.

    You can assist in the following ways:

    • Providing information on the copyright status of the article
    • Obtaining or verifying claims of permission
    • Rewriting or removing infringing content (without removing {{copyvio}}.

    Not every article listed here has copyright infringement. The content may be on Wikipedia first, public domain, compatibly licensed, or below the threshold of originalityEditors can provide information about licensing or public domain status under listings here or on the talk page of the article. A link or a clear explanation is very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the article. It may take a few days before a response is provided.

    If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing here.

    Obtaining/verifying permission

    Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. The owner may be willing to give permission and proper license. Any

    Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

    Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

    Rewriting or removing content

    If an article is verified to have infringement, it is best to remove the content. However, any contributor may rewrite articles to replace any removed ext. If the article is blanked, the rewrite takes place at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

    The article should not be copied over without first removing copied content. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. If the content is copied from an inaccessible source like a book or cannot be verified, please remove all text added by the contributor. If you copy any text from the old article, please leave a note on the listing or in your edit summaries of the rewrite. Reviewing clerks or administrators will then preserve the history of the old article.

    Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

    Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies in it as necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues is usually as simple as supplying proper attribution.

    Shortcut

    If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, you must do one of the following to resolve the problem:

    See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

    Letters and emails may take some time to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your email will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

    Please keep in mind that content previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

    Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

    Clerks and patrolling administrators

    For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

    Copyright clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia, especially with copyright policies and their enforcement. On this board, they are trusted to evaluate and close listings and request administrative actions when necessary. Clerks are periodically reviewed by other clerks and patrolling administrators.

    For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

    Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. This may involve evaluating listings personally or completing evaluations by clerks. Clerks are trusted in their work and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

    Closing listings

    Pages can be processed at any time by anyone, but are not formally closed until a clerk or administrator verifies that all problems are resolved. Pages listed for presumptive deletion stay open for a minimum of 7 days before being processed. VRT agents may close listings at any time.

    For advice for resolving listings, see:

    {{CPC}} may be used to denote resolutions of listings by administrators, clerks and VRT agents.

    Update this page

    Older than 7 days

    Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. They will be processed at any time by clerks or administrators (see WP:CPAA). When every issue on a day is clear, the day may be removed.

    16 September 2024

    8 October 2024

    • Peshtigo fire: Storzeme1852 in 2021 added copyvio that has now been removed by Firefangledfeathers. Kaya098, another SPA editing in the same time period (not outright socking, I don't think, but maybe a class?), lifted a quote from [1] (search "Modern students of such matters"), which appears to in turn be a quote from Fire at Peshtigo by Robert W. Wells (so not public domain despite appearing in a government document). I sadly don't have time to sort it out right now, but both editors' contributions to the article should be investigated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    10 October 2024

    18 October 2024

    24 October 2024

    It was a quote, and I removed it. It's fine now. Dhantegge (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia article was created in 2012 as can be seen here: [3]
    • The Canadian Encyclopedia article, was "Published Online March 15, 2016.
    That's unexpected. The Canadian Encyclopedia author's bio doesn't match that of the wiki editor who wrote largely wrote the article either so it doesn't look like the CE article happened to be written by a Wikipedia editor. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another possibility is that this CE article was adapted either from another CE article or from another published article by the same author. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New listings

    Update this page
    Some issues may not be displayed on this page due to template transclusion limits. This can be alleviated by clearing the backlog.

    New listings are made on daily reports transcluded on this page and are not directly added to it. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Editors may resolve issues within listings by removing the copyrighted content or rewriting content on the temporary pages at any time, save for presumptive deletion. See the section on responding for more information.


    8 November 2024

    9 November 2024

    Ao Siam National Park (history · last edit · rewrite) - Tagged as Article created by a student editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies; needs to be checked for copyvios (previous deleted versions included machine translations from various Thai sources; current version still needs to be checked * Pppery * it has begun... 23:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    10 November 2024

    There is no evidence that either Rodger nor his estate have ever released the manifesto into the public domain as the template otherwise claims. As the text of the manifesto is the sole focus of this photograph this is cannot be considered De minimis which makes this photo an obvious copyright infringment against Rodger's estate

    {{PD-CAGov}} is strictly reserved for works created by the State of California but because the photo infringes on the copyright of Rodger's estate this doesn't apply here.

    I tried to bring the issue up with the uploader but he didn't seemed to understand why the photo was problematic so i felt it was necessary to bring attention to it here. @Shoot for the Stars: --Trade (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trade: Rodger has been dead for over a decade. I also do not think he cared at all about it's copyright when he went on a killing spree. But if the PD-CAGov license doesn't apply here, then it should be deleted. I just thought since it was taken by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and submitted as evidence and sent to me FOIA request, it fell under the public domain. But if it is an issue with copyright because this mass murderer wrote it and his "estate" owns the copyright, then delete it. (I still fail to understand to know who would want to involve themselves with a horrible, vile mass murderer's "estate") Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trade I have nominated the file for deletion. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trade, Shoot for the Stars; in the future, please note that WP:CP does not handle files. You also can tag your own created pages with G7 speedy deletion if it hasn't been very long. Media copyright questions is a noticeboard that helps navigate image copyright if either of you need any assistance in the future.Sennecaster (Chat) 01:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted Trade (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    11 November 2024

    File:TeganNox2020Cropped.png (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4y-U0JArHA. McPhail (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a screenshot from a YouTube video that was taken down at the request of WWE. At the file talk page Whpq raises the concern that the video was originally (see archive) listed as released under an (unspecified) CC Attribution license by Diva Insider. The video appears to be taken ringside by hand, rather than being a TV broadcast video, and the user uploaded plenty of similar ringside videos of womens' wrestling. So the idea that they may have taken the video themselves and uploaded it is plausible. If that were the case, the video would be valid, and the screenshot equally so. WWE can copyright their broadcast, but not someone else's videotaping of the event (right?). My inclination is that this might actually be fine as is (but thank you, McPhail, for bringing it here for discussion, and feel free to add any detail we're missing). Ajpolino (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 November 13

    Wikipedia's current date is 13 November 2024. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 November 13. Files should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=1256837756"