Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Copyright policy Copyright violation policy Reusing Wikipedia content Text of CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License Text of the GFDL
Guidelines
Public domain content Non-free content Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations Copyright problems
Resources
General help Copyright assistance Media copyright questions Requesting copyright permission Image copyright tags Donating copyrighted material

	Archives for the Copyright problems talk page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

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

Contents 1 Out 100 list 2 Individual creation or a direct derivative? 3 Possible incorrect tagging 4 Far-ranging question, Billboard Hot 100 charts 5 fiction book blurbs? 6 Episode summaries 7 Rudolph Belarski 8 Content reused without correct procedure 9 Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio 9.1 Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

[edit] Out 100 list

I don't understand why Out magazine's Out 100 was deleted. It says it is "unambiguous copyright infringement"? How is it different from Time Magazine's Person of the Year or any other list of honorees? None of the content from the magazine articles were included. Just the names of the recipients. Could you please undelete this article? Queerudite (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question; I think the answer is that there's been so much commentary on Time's Person of the Year that we can take the commentary as our sources. When similar lists have been reproduced, for example, List of America's 100 greatest golf courses, they've been either deleted, redirected, or shortened considerably out of copyright concerns. I'll copy this conversation over at WT:CP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I believe it makes it harder to get past the copyright problems that they aren't using measurable criteria; this is a completely subjective assessment of who's cool and out. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be the core issue as I understand it. If the selection criteria are creative, then the list is copyrightable. "most interesting and influential" is definitely a subjective, hence creative, list. Time's "Person of the Year" is also subjective, but what's being reported in that article is simply the winners who have been chosen and published year after year. We can report on People Magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" winners (and do here), but could not reproduce the entire list of "100 Most Beautiful People" or "25 Hottest Bachelors." (I have to admit that creative lists are not an area of copyright with which I've had much personal experience. It mystifies me that Billboard can copyright some of its charts, but it certainly does: "Use of a Billboard chart on any Internet Web site is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED without prior written consent from VNU eMedia, Inc." Are they blowing hot air? I don't know. I haven't put a lot of time into it, but I've looked a time or two for a test case or DMCA take-down, but I haven't found one yet.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but in practice, I don't think Wikipedia uses "creativity" as the core criterion for excluding award lists. See for example most any of the lists in Category:Award winners and its subcategories. All of the examples of "acceptable" content mentioned so far (Person of the Year, Sexiest Man, etc.) are "creative". I mean, I'm no lawyer, but if creativity is the primary criterion, we have a lot more deleting to do. Queerudite (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But those are annual winners, not a full list. For example of a previous conversation, see this archived conversation from 2004: a couple of quotes, "Compliation copyright occurs when the compliation has a sufficient creative element in it to recognize authorship in the list."; "In general, in US law, a list isn't copyrightable unless what is on the list has been creatively selected (a significant subset of all possible entries) or is in some other way either fictional or creative." Here's another archived thread from 2007. There are other threads. I've just added a search function to WT:C, if that might help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I have a follow up question. Creativity and volume appear to be the limiting factors. For example, I noticed that the Time 100 doesn't list all the winners, whereas they do for Time Person of the Year. My question is does that mean that individual articles shouldn't be tagged in a category that's part of a large creative list? Is it a copy vio to tag people as Category:Time 100 honorees or Category:Out 100 honorees? Apologies if that is a dumb question. Queerudite (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Individual creation or a direct derivative?

I made this image in Inkscape about a year ago, taking a picture in my pharmacology book (Rang, H. P. (2003). Pharmacology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Page 223) as a source. The colors, arrows, cell morphologies and box formats are all different, and frankly the original source looks much better, since I was pretty new to Inkscape at the time. Still, the overall layout is basically the same, so could this be regarded as a copyvio, and what could the general consensus here be regarding having it in the project? After all, it does much good to the world of free knowledge. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As with the contributor below, I'd suggest that you bring this up at WP:MCQ. This page doesn't have a lot of reviewers and some of those who do watch it (like me) are not that active with images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for directions! Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible incorrect tagging

Should this image be tageed as no copyright, since it is a work of the U.S. Government? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, the US government can have special rules for logos, as in Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: "Also, certain works, particularly logos of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws similar in effect to trademark laws. Such laws are intended to protect indicators of source or quality. For example, some uses of the Central Intelligence Agency logo, name, and initialism are regulated under the CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. § 403m)." I don't know about Customs, but if it is protected in any way, simply placing a "no copyright" tag may not be appropriate even if it is technically accurate...at least you may need a disclaimer such as is currently at File:CIA.svg. I'd suggest you might want to ask at WP:MCQ, since while it's possible that an experienced image copyright person will respond here, it's almost certain they will there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Far-ranging question, Billboard Hot 100 charts

See here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fiction book blurbs?

See the articles for each book in the "James Axler" articles. Here's one example - Shadowfall_(Deathlands_novel)

The publisher may well want all the books to have an article, and each article to have the blurb. But is it allowed? [b]Where should I report this?[/b] I really can't be bothered to get involved with the articles for a series of over one hundred books, especially because there are multiple contentious issues here - copyvio, spamticles, cruft, encyclopedic or not?, and so on. So, uh, I'll let some wikipedian get trolled to hell and back if they try to sort out this series of articles. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong (even if the publisher does NOT want it) with having an article on a book. There are lots of articles on books on wikipedia and elsewhere. The problem comes if people start copying from the books then you have to look deeper into the rules but that generally isn't allowed. If you need a more detailed explanation of how copyrights work, let me know, I'd be glad to help.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time the blurb appears to be copied from the back cover and that is a problem; maybe that's what you meant but it wasn't clear to me at first.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for lack of clarity. I try again (I need to practice this stuff!) A series of many books has articles for each book, but those articles are all stubs, and seem to consist of nothing but copy-vio cut and paste from the book blurb. This poses several problems for me as a new editor: Are the articles worthy of an encyclopedia, are they notable? Are there guidelines for book-blurbs, maybe this particular publisher thinks they have released the blurb in a suitable licence and are not aware of wiki licencing. And so on. I'm not keen to tag a great number of articles, especially because I dont know if they need deleting or clean-up, and I don't know what criteria they'd be deleted under, so I ask for advice and help. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC) _{still not so clear but I try, huh?}

Hi. Thanks for noting this problem! The author himself seems to be notable; quite likely, it would be appropriate to redirect those one-line stubs to the author's page. The book pages aren't likely to be deleted (that is, erased completely) unless the author's article is. The plots are inappropriate. I will remove them with a {{Plot2}} note at the article's talk page. If you want to propose redirecting the stubs, you might want to read Wikipedia:Redirect. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Episode summaries

I was wondering if any of you had an opinion on whether or not these episode summaries violate fair use? Each summary is properly quoted and is only a couple lines long, but in summation, the quotations are basically the entire page being cited. This sort of thing has is quite common on VH1 reality television pages, and I was hoping to get some guidance. This particular case is actually better than most as people generally copy-and-paste without citations. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an opinion. :) I agree that it's better than most, because at least it's cited, but when you have 13 paragraphs (albeit brief paragraphs) copied from a source, you have "extensive" quotation, which is forbidden by WP:NFC. These episode summaries should be written in original language with brief quotations as necessary in accordance with that guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In re: your change (:D), you may or may not get one, depending on who happens by (sometimes this page gets many viewers; sometimes not so much), but I'll note that I've already replaced the quotes and have left a note about it at the article's talk page, for any who happen along. Your link above looks very different now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did get another response, but on my talk page. I have reposted it directly below for anyone interested. Plastikspork (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: IANAL

So, when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976, they included section 107, which lists four non-essential, non-inclusive tests for Fair Use. The third item in §107 is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." The main thrust there is that you must examine quantity as well as importance - there was a case (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises) where 300 words out of 200,000 were found to be substantial given their content. Essentially, you're right to notice a potential issue in those episode lists, since quoting the entire summary is, well, the entire summary!

Really, though, it all has to be considered along with other factors, such as the fourth (effect on the market). If, say, you were copying directly out of a TV guide, then you might be affecting the market, but normally I'd still say you're probably fine since each one would be from a different (old and therefore largely useless) guide. Still, it would be worth going through some/most of them and trying to rewrite them in your own words if possible, or only using a fraction, as quoting the entire thing really IS a poor fair use validation.

However, since all the quotes are from one page, you're essentially committing a copyright violation of that entire VH1 page. With that in mind, you're not only copying a substantial amount (all) of each individual summary, but a substantial amount (all) of the VH1 page itself. So... yeah, I'd change 'em, since as it stands, you've essentially copied the entire page into different sections. Hope that (overly exhaustive and largely irrelevant comment) helps! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolph Belarski

Rudolph Belarski has been tagged as a copy-paste for over a year now. Its author is a publisher who wrote a book on the subject, as detailed in this discussion. The current article is still largely a copy-paste from that source. Thought on how to handle this? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if I could clearly identify it as a copy, I'd tag it for {{copyvio}} and ask him to donate it officially, but I can't. You might consider stubbing/revising it. You might also consider a PROD? I see that a speedy for notability was declined, but there are considerably more issues here than simply notability, and I would imagine all factors combined would create an uncontroversial deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Content reused without correct procedure

I'm not sure how to go about resolving this as I've not dealt with this side of WP before. Basically, this web page uses content from two or three of our articles – without adhering to the content's licence. Could someone help out and explain what the procedure would be to clarify that a violation has occured, and to ensure that the material is removed (or attributed)? Cheers! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It should be fairly easy to determine if a violation has occurred. First, can you confirm that the material originated here? If you're quite sure that we didn't steal it from them and there's no reason to suspect we stole it from somebody else (say, if it evolved naturally here), then you look to see if they're attributing and licensing it properly. If there is no mention of Wikipedia and the material is not properly licensed under CC-By-SA and/or GFDL (if the article doesn't specify CC-By-SA only, either license is fine), then it's worth sending them a letter about it. The procedure is set out at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks under "non-compliance process". However, be warned that this dual-licensing business is so new that the standard license violation letter page is all of 22 minutes old. :) It's based on the one we used for GFDL, but has not yet undergone extensive review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

User:Fabrictramp placed a copyvio tag on Duration of Copyright (UK) and suggested that I placed the conversation here. Would someone who enjoys researching these things and playing with Copyvio tags like to check this out.

[edit] Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Thanks for visiting the page I created. It will be easier for you to judge whether this is a copyvio if I give a few words of guidance.

• All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear.
• I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly.
• I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training. Original work.
• I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols. Original work.
• I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across. Original work.
• I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry. Compare with Tim Padfields output boxes that breach this rule. Original work.
• I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use matter of fact
• I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes. Original work.

To my mind, all we have in common is that we have both chosen to represent the information in visual form, and both chosen to use the correct legal jargon. To my mind, Tim is the acknowledged expert, and any diagram must lead the editor to the identical conclusion. Tims representation is flawed because it does not attempt to stick to BS flowchart convention. My diagram is limited by Wikimedia not supporting the use of a background image in table cells, and the need for a high resolution monitor to display the image correctly.

After having read all the points above, could you let me know if I have missed something obvious and any point of the page does contain a copyvio, or what was the sticking point that caused you to suspect that any part of the page was dubious so we can tag that area for future users --ClemRutter (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my message to you, I'm certainly not an expert on copyright violations, but it definitely seems like the changes are superficial. I do know that things like changing a symbol or a color aren't enough to avoid copyvio. Perhaps the best course would be to post at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- feel free to link to this conversation to save on retyping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Posted as requested --ClemRutter (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some serious misgivings about this one. WT:CP doesn't always get that much traffic. I will invite other contributors from appropriate points. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)