Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Is this a copyvio? 2 Linking to site containing copyright violations 3 WikiPakistan1.png 4 Transformers character bios 5 Wikify equals copyvio?? 6 Is GFDL compatible with CC-BY-SA? 7 Dalton Road 1912 8 Association of Corporate Travel Executives 9 DreamworldAdmin 10 Notifications? 11 Lustra 12 Leaked DVD's of a tv show to the internet 13 McHale 14 Stanisław Wojciech Wielgus 15 Question 16 Backlog? 17 Dunno how to list these ... 18 User:Naus 19 Fair use on other WIKI sites? 20 User-created drawing of a copyrighted image 21 Reproducing information vs Using it as a source 22 Concerns regarding images from BrainMaps.org 23 Image:SultanAliShire.JPG 24 Possible GFDL-violation 25 Securities Arbitration. 26 Campbell's Soup Cans 27 wikEd copyleft 28 Script to check copyright violation 29 Odd picture tagging 30 Charles Krauthammer 31 Amy Fisher - author asserts that external site took text from the wikipedia page 32 copyright protection 33 Equine Nutrition

[edit] Is this a copyvio?

Seeking outside comment on this article The National Council Against Health Fraud. Is this a copyvio(see the Position on Health Issues and compare to the "source" cited). The user who added claims that it falls under fair use. This lead to an edit war and protection, additional comments could help the discussion. --Wildnox(talk) 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Wildnox refers to the Position on health issues part, not the specific Wikify edit changes.--I'clast 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to site containing copyright violations

Kt66 keeps adding a link to the site diamond-cutter.org to Michael Roach (Buddhist) which I have been objecting to on the grounds of WP:LIVING (anonymous potentially libelous content). However, after looking through the site more thoroughly, I find that the site republishes private letters written by several parties including the party being criticized (Michael Roach), as well as the Dalai Lama. Surely the subject of criticism didn't give this critical site permission to republish his letters which were clearly written to specific individuals. Can this site be blacklisted to prevent further edit-warring over it (I am not the only party objecting to the use of the site, though one of the objectors has retired from Wikipedia recently). Or is blacklisting only for spam? Could repeated insertion of a link to the copyright violating site be considered spamming? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're hardly ones to talk, given that our article has an entirely unsourced, uncredited photograph spuriously tagged {{promotional}}. We don't typically blacklist sites because they may be infringing on someone's copyright. That said, that link is inappropriate, and this should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Jkelly 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiPakistan1.png

I reported a copyright violation for WikiPakistan1.png on 17th December. However, I saw that no action was taken over it (not even any discussion), and now an anonymous editor has removed the copyvio template from the image page. Based on my past experiences, I have known such images to be copyright violation per Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. I request an experienced admin to look into this matter. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 10:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers character bios

Far too many users create articles about Transformers characters as a verbatim copy of their biographies in official Transformers comics. These comics are copyrighted works by commercial companies. In the case of the original 1980s "Transformers Universe", this might not be such a problem, because the comic has been out of print for decades, but some are creating copies from "Transformers: More than meets the eye", which is still sold in comics stores. I would like to mark them all as copyvios but there are far too many articles to sift through. What should be done? JIP | Talk 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify equals copyvio??

I reported the Taj Burrows article as being a copyvio.

My problem? That someone already knew and just putzed with a few words here and there when the wikified, thinking that that kept it from being a copyvio.

While the user who added this information was 138.130.73.178 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log), a one day user who seemed to think that good parents equal noteable people, the real problem is/was User:RedRollerskate, a member of WikiProject Wikify, who knew that the article was a copyright violation, and during her wikification, slightly modified the copyrighted text, leaving whole chunks of copyrighted text in. RedRollerskate seems to be under the impression that she properly "wikified as part of WikiProject Wikify, rm copyvio and POV" (her edit summary), when while the article was properly wikified, it was still a blatant violation of copyright, so much so that I suspected so while reading it, and the first phrase I googled got me the article it came from. The other problem is that the wiki article was not encyclopedia at all. Had it not been a copyright violation, I would have added both the NPOV tag and the magazine tag.

I know that users are left messages on their talk pages in re copyvio, to explain it to them, and that no message has been left for anyone in re this article. I don't think that there's a point in leaving one for the user that added the stuff to begin with, but I think it's really important that some sort of message be left for RedRollerskate, only these sorts of messages are supposed to come from admins and stuff.

Also, my concern is that articles needing to be wikified and also unfortunately articles that are often partial or complete copyright violations. If this is just one users confusion that you can slightly reword a source and it's not a copyright violation, it's not too big a deal, but if a lot of users don't get that that's no ok, and are going around wikifying and at the same time making it harder to catch copyright violation, that's a big problem.

Anyway, thoughts? TStein 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, moving sentences and changing some words does not clear a copyvio. Try leaving a message in the WikiProject and the user's talk page to prevent future misunderstandings. -- ReyBrujo 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is GFDL compatible with CC-BY-SA?

The text of Onegai Senorita was taken from a CC-BY-SA-2.0. Does this licence grant enough rights to publish the text under GFDL as well, and thus include it in Wikipedia? Conscious 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found answer at m:Guide to the CC dual-license: incompatible. Conscious 10:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalton Road 1912

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring this out, and I'd appreciate your help. It's about the image Image:Daltonroad1912.jpg, taken in the UK in the year 1912. The editor who uploaded it used the {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} template. The problems are:

• It is extremely unlikely that the editor is actually the author of the photograph, given that the photo was taken in 1912.
• In the UK, this photo may very well still be under copyright. Under UK law, works by known individuals fall into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. That would mean that if the person who took the photo lived as long as 1937, a distinct possibility, it's still under copyright. ("Anonymous" works dating from 1912 are I believe in the public domain, but it's not possible from the information we have to tell whether the author of this image is/was anonymous under the meaning of the Act.)

So it's all but certain that the editor who uploaded it is not the author of the photograph, and there's a slight but non-trivial possibility that it's still under copyright. What should be done? --Charlene 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Images by Stevvvv4444. Conscious 07:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Charlene 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Corporate Travel Executives

Greetings. Kktg4620 (talk • contribs) has asked for help at the talk page for the above article, noting that s/he has sent permission information to the correct address. I was wondering if someone with access to that system and more experience in copyright problems would be able to assist. Thanks! --Rkitko 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DreamworldAdmin

DreamworldAdmin (talk • contribs) is uploading images claiming to be the web admin of Dreamworld, and applying a license tag that reads like fair use. I have contacted him stating this license is not necessary because a) we claim fair use if the image has been authorized to be used only in Wikipedia and b) they could be deleted in the future as it can be replaced with a free version. I am leaving a note here in case someone wants to converse with him, as he gives contact information in the images he has been uploading. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notifications?

Why doesn't the process include notifying the author the article at the time an article is listed as a copyright problem? (If it does include this, I missed it - is it somewhere in the fine print?) John Broughton | Talk 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At WP:CP#Instructions: Add the text following Maintenance use only at the bottom of the now-blanked article to the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material. The text to add is a {{nothanks-web}} template. Conscious 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. John Broughton | Talk 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lustra

The Lustra history page is word-for-word from their MySpace. Are those copyrightable? Makgraf 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Conscious 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked DVD's of a tv show to the internet

Recently the first few episodes of the new fox series 24 were leaked to the internet. The plot was subsequently added to pages concerning 24 pages. Is the inclusion of information only obtainable illegally a copyright violation in this context?--Lucy-marie 09:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Copyright is associated with a thing, not an idea -- the 52 minutes of video, or the written screenplay. Descriptions of illegally obtained material, while they may indicate that the authors have committed an illegal act, are not themselves a copyright violation. Of course, IANAL.  ◉ ghoti 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, material that is not supported by reliable published sources can be removed from Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McHale

Could somebody take a look at McHale? The page is a clear copy of [1] but the author of the article claims he has permission to use. I would suppose that makes little difference as the company's webpage is not GFDL but just in case I'm wrong, I'd appreciate advice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any permission claim needs to be verified by the copyright holder sending an electronic or postal mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, or by adding a notice to the website explicitly stating that the text may be published under the GFDL. Without such evidence, claims make no difference except for telling the user who is claiming how to confirm the permission. In this particular case, the article was created four months ago, the uploader is inactive and is never going to be contacted, and the article is just an advertisement, with no independent sources. So, just delete it. It is common for companies that want their public relations propaganda on Wikipedia to give "permission", but even if they had a full idea of what that means under the GFDL these articles warrant deletion as advertisements. —Centrx→talk • 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanisław Wojciech Wielgus

Hi, please help me to check copyright status in this article. I think is improbabile a copyviol by New York Times. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What parts? What New York Times article? —Centrx→talk • 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion here. --F. Cosoleto 20:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are similarities in, but not a word-by-word copyviol. I could well imagine that the New York Times is using a text from an unknown European news agency (the text is written i Paris and not in Warzaw where the story is developing). , regards Odengatan 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe true concerning to a common European news agency, but I see always around 1840 bytes of word by word copyright violation. --F. Cosoleto 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Text rewritten by Crestodina. --F. Cosoleto 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do I bring a user talk page that consists of nothing but cv material here, or to MfD? Thanks, delldot | talk 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The people at the MfD might refer it to here. If a discussion is warranted on the class of content, e.g., if it should be deleted even if it were not a copyvio, then a MfD could be initiated anyway. Also, if it is a blatant copyright infringement, it can just be speedily deleted with {{db-copyvio}}. —Centrx→talk • 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog?

The template for possible copyright infringement states Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. I notice that there are articles on the project page that have listed there for over a month, so presumably the one week action is not being taken as stated.

A month also seems a long time to block an article from being edited, and a long time to have a very large banner at the top of an article page. If there is some major problem here with a backlog, I'll be happy to post notices in a few places asking additional admins to help out. John Broughton | ♫♫ 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can help here, as User:Wherebot appears to be down. However, what about those that had sent mail to the foundation giving permission of usage? Those are handled by OTRS directly, right? -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are handled separately from this page. —Centrx→talk • 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The oldest articles in the queue still have been there for more than a month. If no one has any objections, I'm going to look for ways to let others know that there is a backlog here. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then of course, there is the editor who solves copyvio issues by deleting tags ... That's a good way to make sure a questionable image does not get deleted. Cbdorsett 20:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunno how to list these ...

A new user, Zsorathia, has been uploading various large images and labeling them as "bookcovers" -- which they aren't. I don't know how or where to report these images. If someone could please help ...

Image:Zkhan.jpg

19:53, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Zkhanvaada.jpg 19:13, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Blacksari.jpg ( 19:09, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Air-hostess.jpg 18:57, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Indian-bride1.jpg 18:37, 28 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Image:Rimi sen.jpg

That's from her contribs list. Please stop this editor. I've reverted all her edits for now, but she keeps going, sticking huge copyvio images into articles and throwing off all the formatting. Zora 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you left a message on his/her talk page? If not, that's definitely the first step. Similarly, did you just revert the pages, or get rid of the images? If you just reverted the pages, try tagging the images correctly. They're probably copyright violations, so you can tag them for deletion, and then he/she might get the message. If you've done these things, and no editor has responded to this message, I'd suggest you directly contact an admin, particularly one attached to this or a similar project. Verloren Hoop 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naus

I was checking images in RuWiki and found several which were linked here. Some examples Image:Residentialshanghai.jpg, Image:Shanghaipudongrear.jpg, Image:Shanghai ashish100 pudong.jpg. The license was {{cc-by-sa}} but when i checked the source http://www.flickr.com, I found out that it wasn't so and the true license was either {{cc-by-nd}} or {{cc-by-nc}}. I suggest checking user contribution.--Vayaka 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The images could have been uploaded when the license on flickr was appropriate for Wikipedia. It's really easy to change the license on flickr, and could have been changed afterwards. This is why it's much better to upload flickr images to commons: They are setup and have a bot/system to check the license of these images. If the bot/reviewer verifies the license, it doesn't matter if they change the license to a non compatible one, as we used it under the compatible one and they can't "undo" that ever. It's happened to me. --MECU≈talk 13:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use on other WIKI sites?

Hello. I recently started my own wiki page, glasspedia.org. I hope this site will mature into a vibrant wiki site catering to the highly specialized needs of glassworkers worldwide, with information on technique and tools and other things that only a glass artist or collector would care about. I have imported some glass related content from wikipedia, using the export tool on the special pages section. I have read and re-read the copyright notices on wikipedia and the copyleft page. I am confused about the fair use policy. I am trying to figure out that in users on my wiki page change the content I imported from wikipedia as per the philosophy (as I read it) of wiki engines, does this violate section two of the copyright notice, the verbatim rule? Yes, I copied the work verbatim, but the idea was to provide a starting point for others to edit and add to. Under this idea, the first time someone edits a copied page the work is no longer a verbatim copy, does this create copyright infringment issues? I believe the export tool was created for users to mirror articles on their own wiki's so wikipedia would have to know that the data would be changed right? Please advise me, if I am violating any policies I will remove the data and start from scratch on my site. Thanks. --Glasspedia 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that Citizendium, which is essentially a "fork" of Wikipedia, copied the entire Wikipedia database of articles, with the intent to use those as a basis for new and rewritten articles. So you're fine. To respond more in detail: my reading of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License is that (a) under section 4, you are allowed to modify articles; (b) you need to give credit to Wikipedia, somewhere on the page (e.g., a template at the bottom) as the source; you might even link back to the version you originally copied; and (c) you can't copyright articles you get from Wikipedia, whether unchanged or modified; in fact, these articles have to comply with the GFDL as well. -- John Broughton ^☎☎ 17:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You should note here that there is quite a bit of misinformation and simply wrong headed advise on Wikipedia telling you what you can and can't do with Wikipedia content. Note that all of the content on Wikipedia is available to you (or should be) under the terms of the GNU Free Document License (mentioned above) or perhaps under a license that is even more open. This would include images that are in the public domain.

You don't have to give credit to Wikipedia (although it is significantly appreciated), but you do have to acknowledge somehow at least five "principle authors" or others who were involved with creating the content in the first place. The "five author" rule is not part of copyright law but part of the GFDL. Copyright law may require you to acknowledge everybody who has touched the article... and something I wish Moglen and Stallman (who authored the GFDL) would explain sometime.

A link back to Wikipedia is not strictly needed, but it is "suggested" if you want to be nice to Wikipedia and encourage others to help create similar content. A link to the specific version you forked is not needed (legally speaking) at all. All that is strictly necessary here is that you maintain that the content is licensed under the terms of the GFDL and that any additions to that content must be under the same license.

You can copyright articles from Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you havn't authored the content yourself, you must also acknowledge the other authors. And if you formally register copyright (as you still can in the USA), you must include the names of the other authors together with where they live and their nationalities. How you do that is still a mystery to me, but I've griped elsewhere on other forii about this particular topic.

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with fair-use, but that you have been granted a copyright license (specifically the GFDL) to reproduce this content, as long as you keep within the terms of that license. One of those restrictions is that you must also allow others to be able to copy this content under the terms of the GFDL from your website as well. --Robert Horning 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User-created drawing of a copyrighted image

There is an image: Image:Wildwar.JPG which is a fair-use logo. I noticed it being used in a userbox and replaced it with a free alternative. The box's creater then drew their own version of the logo: Image:WildWar.JPG (notice capitalization) and uploaded it as GFDL-self to use that in the userbox. My question is: Does this qualify as GFDL-self, or as a derivative work, does the original copyright still apply? —Dgies^t c 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter - the original is a logo, which is copyrighted and fair use. Derivative works of copyrighted works aren't allowed, unless perhaps it's a parody...but this obviously isn't. So posting the work is a copyright violation. At least - that's my interpretation. See Wikipedia:Logos:

"Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign." Verloren Hoop 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not okay. The intent was to create a "copy" to avoid the copyright. Also, the "created" version is too near perfect to the original, that is, I think they took the original image and just changed colors and did things to it to make it "look" created. The second image should be deleted and the user warned. --MECU≈talk 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that 'no, not okay' directed towards me...? Because what you said is the same thing as what I meant...Verloren Hoop 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reproducing information vs Using it as a source

When researching information about Salvador Dali's works for Wikipedia, I came across a copyright notice in a book that prohibited reproduction of the information in any way without written permission. I don't think I've ever seen the word 'information' used specifically. Does this mean that I cannot give information about the ideas presented in the book, even if I credit ? Does that mean I have to say something along the lines of "The author of ___ believes that..." Or is this simply another way of saying to not copy it verbatim? Verloren Hoop 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I think (based on some reliable sources) that copyright doesn't prevent you from using the information. Once you have access to it, you may use it (unless it's classified). The expression of information in form of particular text is, however, protected by copyright. Conscious 07:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns regarding images from BrainMaps.org

I originally came across a BrainMaps.org image at b:Image:NeuronGolgi.png, then followed it to Image:NeuronGolgi.png. I discovered at the terms of use that the images from that site were explicitly not licensed for commercial use. I listed the two I found at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because they were licensed incorrectly. I then thought to use Special:Linksearch and found that another was being listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 25 in both the "images" and "articles" section.

In my discussion with the user at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, I expressed my concern that the images were not licensed for commercial use. They then responded that the terms of use was updated to release the images into the public domain. I expressed concern about public domain on their talk page [2], and they replied that "the screenshots are now CC-ed." [3] The link on the terms of use [4], however, is only to http://creativecommons.org/, not a specific license page. I am unsure what to do, and am concerned I am providing misinformation to the user.

I know that a specific license needs to be selected. I apparently have a choice here whether the image could be released into the public domain, GFDL, CC, or any other license. I don't, however, know what the legal requirements on part of BrainMaps.org are for whichever image they ultimately choose, and I seem to be the one deciding what legal action they should take in licensing the images, which I am not qualified to give. Furthermore, I am afraid that I am providing misinformation to the user, and I don't want to exhaust their sympathy and patience. Could someone more knowledgeable than I please help out, preferrably directly with the user at the user's talk page? I would sincerely appreciate that. --Iamunknown 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind here it is the responsibility of the image uploader to select the license, and to provide documentation that its use on Wikipedia is perfectly legal. If they don't want to provide that sort of documentation, it is necessary for administrators on Wikipedia to simply delete the image even if it results in a loss of context and information in an article.

That you are going above and beyond the call of duty here and trying to work with the uploader to try and put a proper license attribution on these images is admirable, and certainly some patience with these individuals is warrented, particularly if they are completely unfamiliar with FLOSS licenses and the positive or negative aspects of each of the various license approaches that you can use. For example, I prefer to upload only under either public domain or GFDL-only restrictions (depending on the source I use), but it appears as though I am in a minority opinion on this subject.

You also have to at some point "cut your losses" and simply suggest that these images can't be on Wikipedia if they insist on certain licensing requirements. Don't be rude, but be firm and try to educate people like this about what the goals of the GFDL really are about. This is about the freedom to copy and add to content. Even if the WMF goes bankrupt and what we currently think of as Wikipedia is a virtual and digital black hole of a website that no longer exists, all of this content will continue to be available for future projects to draw upon and still be useful. We don't need "permission" from Jimbo Wales or anybody else to copy this content, as the GFDL allows us the freedom to move on if necessary. We hope that images that are uploaded to Wikipedia can enjoy this same sort of tradition and lack of restrictions, even though we also encourage uploaders to retain copyright on anything that is uploaded, if they want to keep the copyright. --Robert Horning 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SultanAliShire.JPG

Could someone please check this image out and let me know if it's a copyright violation. It was uploaded by User:Sanaagian who I have already blocked and been in conflict over his uploading of fake pictures for POV work. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as copyvio. Either it is or the source is different. Conscious 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible GFDL-violation

The electronic book http://www.biomedicalphysics.org/images/CompenMedPhyswebAUG_PDF.pdf acknowledges the use of "many text fragments, figures and tables of the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia" (page 2), but is not published under the GFDL (copyright notice on the first page). I believe this does not comply with the GFDL. Can someone please take care of this? --Andreas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.176.205.195 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Securities Arbitration.

Please delete the article securities arbitration in its entirety. It is copied verbatim from one of my own articles published word for word and wikipedia has no right to use it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.253.228 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

and BTW please delete the account YHS. one of my friends decided it would be fun to drop my material here on wikipedia without my permission under my name and i do NOT want my material on wikipedia since it is currently selected for publication in a journal. I am the real author. Any material dropped here without this IP address does not belong to me. Thank you.

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans

I have attempted to obtain consent for use of copyrighted images in Campbell's Soup Cans. I have contacted The Artists Rights Society who have contacted the Warhol Foundation on my behalf. Their exact statement is "ARS as agent for the Andy Warhol Foundation may authorize your use for a discounted fee, however, we cannot waive the permissions fees altogether. " I need some advice on what to do. I don't think I should personally pay $20/image for 3 year licenses. Please advise. Respond to my talk page if possible. TonyTheTiger 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Paying the fees wouldn't do any good; the licensing arrangement is not acceptable for use in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd copyleft

I am the author of wikEd, a full-featured in-browser text editor that adds enhanced text processing functions to Wikipedia and other MediaWiki edit pages. wikEd highlights are:

• Pasting formatted text, e.g. from MS-Word (including tables)
• Converting the formatted text to wikicode
• Wikicode syntax highlighting
• Regular expression search and replace
• Server-independent Show preview and Show changes
• Fullscreen editing mode
• Single-click fixing of common mistakes
• History for summary, search, and replace fields

The wikEd homepage as well as the program code, its documentation, and several related pages are currently subpages of my Wikipedia user page. I would like to keep the program as well as all its documentation and the translations in the public domain. This was not a big of an issue as long as I was the only contributor. But now other users start to participate and write translations, contribute to the program code, or help with the documentation. My question is: is it possible to keep the documentation, the translations, and the program code in the public domain while it resides on Wikipedia. Cacycle 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Use the GNU General Public License and GNU Free Documentation License. If you have already released the code and documentation into the public domain, however, you can no longer control what is done with it. -- Donald Albury 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just assume that I want to use a non-GPL license, either PD or a cc-by. How could that be possible on Wikipedia. Cacycle 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Any text would be dually licensed. You can put it in the public domain, but anyone could use it under the GFDL—but, of course, why ever would they choose the more restrictive license, and even if it were technically only in the public domain they could always choose to portray it as being under GFDL or subsume it into a GFDL work. Anyway, it would be in the public domain, the only issue would be making it clear to any one reading the page that it is in the public domain and they can use it as such. —Centrx→talk • 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically it already is under the GFDL since it's on his user page on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but he is still free to otherwise license or release it under whatever terms he pleases. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. What about contributors, do they have to accept that their contributions are in the public domain when I put the GFDL/PD statement onto the relevant pages. Cacycle 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they could make their changes as being under the GFDL, not in the public domain. However, it is rather your user-space so you could require that any change be explicitly released in the public domain or it will be reverted. The only issue there would be if the larger community disagreed that you are free to use your user-space in this way (though no one could claim control over the documentation, only prevent future use of the user-space in this way). Also, even for changes that are not released into the public domain, or for the many changes where the editor doesn't state in his edit summary or on his user page "This edit to wikiEd documentation is in the public domain", or somesuch, you would still be able to make whatever improvements people do. They cannot claim copyright over spelling changes or grammar fixes or other such changes, and if someone makes a substantial change you can still over-haul it and commit your own change instead—half of which would be done in the normal course of things if someone made a huge, inevitably imperfect, change. —Centrx→talk • 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about asking contributors of non-trivial content to post a short PD statement on the talk pages of the program or the documentation. Cacycle 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that should be fine. —Centrx→talk • 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Script to check copyright violation

Hi, now PyWikipediaBot has a script (copyright.py) that helps to check for copyright violations by search engine queries. It has a system to exclude URLs that reads data from "Mirrors and Forks" and similar pages. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 10:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd picture tagging

Could somebody take a look at User:Fucc ma chuchus contributions, especially their picture tagging. The images in question are Image:Carideemyspace.jpg, Image:Tila 086.jpg and Image:Fhm rus september 2003 03.jpg. Their other image Image:Christinedolce3.jpg has already been tagged by Orphanbot.

At the same time, but not uploaded by the above user, are Image:Vikkiblows.jpg, Image:Playboy forbidden.jpg and Image:Alyssa milano 0046.jpg, which also appear to be strangely tagged. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is the best place to list images with questionable tagging. -- Donald Albury 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Krauthammer

Our article on Dr Krauthammer bears some resemblance to his bio[5] at the website of the Washington Post Writers Group. At least one early editor seems to have copied some text from the then-current version of the WPWG bio. I do not know (nor wish to know!) enough about U.S. copyright law to say whether we have a problem here. Could someone with more expertise take a look, please? Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Fisher - author asserts that external site took text from the wikipedia page

I had tagged the Amy Fisher article as a copyvio because if had mostly the same text as her bio on her official page. The text in question was added to the article in Sept 2005 diff. The person who added the text in question asserts on talk:Amy Fisher that he wrote it with multiple sources and had not seen this site in question, therefore asserting that the text was taken from wikipedia, not vice-versa. Based on the length of time this text has been in place and the history and reputation of user:Zaxem, I am inclined to agree with him, that no copyvio has occurred. I would appreciate it if some other editors can examine this situation and state an opinion. Thanks. --rogerd 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The domian in question wasn't created untill 25 jan 2006 so a clear case of copying from us.Geni 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyright protection

Hi, I am setting up a wiki with a focus on the environment. For part of the site, I would like to encourage writers from all over the world to submit their articles in order to try and spark discussion and debate on the issues. However I think that the only way of encouraging writers to release their work is to guarantee that it is protected by copyright. I know that this goes against the ethos of a collaborative space, but I think that without it, very few would wish to get involved. The benefits of collating the articles (for free) will outweigh the disadvantage of limiting the collaborative element.

Is this possible on a collaborative space? If so, what does it involve? The pages will obviously be locked and I will put a disclaimer, but is anything else needed to make it legally binding?

Cheers,

Climatechic 13:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)climatechic

What makes something legally binding varies by jurisdiction. You'll need to check. Every contribution to Wikipedia is copyrighted by the contributor, and must be licensed under the GFDL. This certainly doesn't have the effect of limiting the collaborative element. Jkelly 18:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equine Nutrition

I feel it was a bit hasty to lock down the Equine nutrition article as a copyright violation. As you can see from the footnoting work I have begun on Talk:Equine nutrition/Temp, where the page was exiled, there were multiple sources for the material and more than one editor. While I agree that some material needs to be properly attributed and some descriptions of universal concepts (like the fact that the horse IS a non-ruminant hind gut fermentor...how the heck else CAN you say that?) are not phrased differently than the source did, there is a line between using material as a source and flat out copying -- I think requests for citation and attribution were a more appropriate response than locking down the entire article. If the structure did violate copyright, then any assistance and helpful tips would be appreciated. 161.7.2.160 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (this is User:Montanabw not apparently logged in.