Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because the servers are located in the United States, Wikipedia is subject to US copyright law in this matter.

Could something be added explaining what the situation will be when the new servers are installed in France please. It is believed these will be squid caches. Angela. 14:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The last section (fair use) is incomplete right now. I'll see what I can do though. →Raul654 15:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Photos from concerts which ban photo-ing...

I posted this to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights but got no answer. Perhaps this is a better place?

(William M. Connolley 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?
(This is not legal advice) - If you took the picture, you own the copyright. If it's an outdoor event, they really have no recourse to stop you from publishing it. Basically, they can kick you out of the concert, but that's about all they can do. I think girls gone wild adjudicated a similiar suit. →Raul654 21:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)) OK, thanks for that. I shall upload some to wiki once I get my video capture properly sorted out and see what people think.

[edit] Copyrighted Art

Which tag is preferable for images of copyrighted works of visual art? I'm not very good with legalese, so I would also like a very plain explanation of what would be involved in using such a license? I would also like to know if there are any special stipulations for photographs of sculptures and buildings? Justin Foote 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted. →Raul654 03:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
First thing to say is that if the work of art is sufficiently old it will have passed into the public domain (q.v. that article for the details of what "sufficiently old" means). As for works of art that actually are copyrighted, the same goes as for any other image — the copyright holder has to license them for use, and then on the image description page you need to state this license. As for your other question, displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building. (Warning, entirely irrelevant fact: in North Korea if you take a picture of a statue it has to be from the front and include the entire body in the frame). If you took the photo you can choose to license it as you see fit. Are there any particular scenarios you have in mind that prompted you to ask the question? If you give the details someone may be able to offer better advice. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We're generally not interested in images of copyrighted works of visual art. If the copyright holder has decided to release those copyrighted works under a free license, then you'd tag the image with the tag for that license. Otherwise, we don't want it. anthony

(see warning) 13:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, my question is about pictures of sculptures. The FAQ is not explicit about that. Are they derivative works or not? "A new copyright is generated." Does this mean, the copyright (if there is one on the statue/sculpture) is not important? I mean, look, e.g. at Henry Moore. He is dead only 19 years, so his works are not PD. If photos are derivative works, they should be fairuse, right? Could somebody add there and "deconfuse" me? Ben talk contr 10:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
(IANAL) If the work in question is not in the public domain, then yes, your picture is a derivative work. The only way you could use it would be under the guise of fair use (subject to all the limitations thereof). →Raul654 16:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not a lawyer either, but the situation is complex and appears to vary internationally.
  1. In the UK, works of artistic expression, including sculptures are covered by the copyright act of 1988. However, 3D works on public display may be photographed without infringing copyright (see for example the section 'Public Exhibitions' at [1] - although there are probably better sources).
  2. The situation in the US and Germany may not be the same, in particular Wikipedians have had the copyright questioned on a larger version of this sculpture in the US and this sculpture in Germany. Although these were both sculptures displayed inside buildings (art gallery and a cathedral) where it may also be possible to question whether they were on public display.
  3. Further, in the US, works of architecture are apparently covered by copyright with exceptions covering photographing buildings from a public highway.
  4. Conversely, photographic reproductions of 2D works which are in the public domain are not considered creative and so not eligible for copyright in the US on the basis of the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. However, this is not thought to extend to photographs of 3D artworks. So a modern photograph of an old PD sculpture, may be copyright of the photographer.
Although I haven't read much of the site, it looks like there is some interesting discussion on these questions at http://www.photopermit.org. Including this story about the city of Chicago trying to claim copyright on a city park, with notes suggesting that public sculpture is not covered by copyright in Canada.
You might also be interested in this discussion on the Commons concerning night time images of the Eiffel Tower, where recently copyright has been claimed on the light display. -- Solipsist 22:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
This all sounds very complicated. At least it probably means this kind of pictures should be fairuse internationally (i.e. e.g. nothing for commons). But then, (see head of page) servers are in the US, so copyright matters concern US law (only) in en, if I understand this correctly. So, if somebody could find a case, where photos of a not-PD sculpture could have their own copyright independently from the sculpture copyright in the US, than this is all we need to have them not as fairuse, correct? Ben talk contr 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes it is complicated. And figuring out how it works internationally is even more complicated. My expectation would be that if a photograph doesn't violate copyright in the territory in which it is taken, and is then released under a license that allows Wikipedia to publish it, then that is OK (I could be completely wrong however). This would mean photographing a Henry Moore in a public space in the UK or Canada would be fine, but photographing a similar sculpture in the United States would not be, although FairUse might then apply. -- Solipsist 22:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] links

The two links under the licenses section, labelled "Jimbo has prohibited the use of these" currently appear to be linking to

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012133.html

it doesn't look right, and certainly isn't clear what relevence that post has to licenses...?

I noticed this recently. Someone has been screwing with the mailing list (I suspect one or more older emails were deleted) and *ALL* links to older emails are broken - go to the wrong email. →Raul654 19:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. renewal records

[2] looks very useful (it includes maps, and presumably other images). First, I'd like confirmation that it's accurate and all. Assuming it is, should it be added to the article? --SPUI (talk) 06:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A clarification - this is for anything made between 1923 and 1964, which not only needed a copyright notice (which everything needed until 1989) but needed to be renewed at some point, or it's public domain. For example, most of the maps in commons:Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (though those don't seem to have copyright notices either). --SPUI (talk) 20:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowing images

Can I borrow images from other language wiki's, does this cross boundaries ?.

In general you just treat images from other languages wikis as you would images from any other source. If someone uploads a photo to the German Wikipedia and releases it under the GFDL you can put it on the English Wikipedia provided you comply with the terms of the licence, which basically means crediting the person who took it on the image description page and saying that it's GFDL. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing diagnoses

I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization (NANDA) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for nursing diagnoses. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a list of nursing diagnoses? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) Matt 23:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? Matt 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scanning PD images from copyrighted book

I want to include some photos that were taken in the late 1800s in a wikipedia article. The only source I have for these photos is a book that is under copyright. Based on the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation case, it appears to be permissible for me to scan and upload them, however I'd like to get confirmation from someone else first. I can't be the first person to want to do this, maybe the answer should be included in the Copyright FAQ article itself. Toiyabe 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I think this is a clearly covered by the case. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though. →Raul654 20:38, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading example removed

Example - Any published writing by William Shakespare or Mark Twain, or published composition by Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach, is so old, it is no longer protected by copyright. It may be copied without restriction.

I deleted this for the following reason: derivative works of material which is in the public domain (such as the text of a Shakespeare play) can sometimes be copyrighted. For example, I think that a critical edition of Romeo and Juliet can be copyrighted as the publishers have had to have it typeset and edited. Similarly, musical scores of old music can be copyrighted, not least because they are often heavily edited (eg to comply with modern musical notation, for stylistic consistency, annotations and commentary added), although the original manuscripts may be out of copyright. The statement above seems to imply that I can photocopy and redistribute any Mozart score without restriction, which is wrong. Lupin 20:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, typesetting certainly won't give you copyright, and I suspect that editing will only give you copyright to text that you actually compose yourself. To gain copyright of a public domain artwork, you must creatively modify it substantially. See the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation as cited above. Mwanner | Talk 19:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and fair use

This article says that US law applied because the servers are in the US. But in fact, we have 67 machines in Florida, 5 in France, and 11 in the Netherlands, Ref. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers. Besides, I am dubious that applicable copyright law is strictly based on server location. It could be dependent on the editor's location, the viewer's location, or the origin of the material. Mention should be made of fair dealing which is the international version of fair use. --Yannick 1 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed improvement

This page is a thoughtful, thorough, and accurate overview of copyright law and survey of common licences. Unfortunately, I fear that it has lost its way somehow, as it doesn't directly address any of the frequently asked questions about copyright on Wikipedia. In my observation, users most commonly ask (or should ask!):

  • Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
  • Can I reuse WIkipedia's content somewhere else?
  • What should I do if I find a copyright violation on Wikipedia?

I propose that we add a pithy leader section something like the following:

[edit] Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

In general, no. Every piece of text or image that has been created is automatically copyrighted by the creator, and you are not allowed to use it without permission. Some work has been made available by authors under an appropriate licence (see below), and some work is in the public domain (see below). Works that have permission to only be used on Wikipedia, or only be used in non-commercial contexts, cannot be used on Wikipedia either. Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law (see Wikipedia:Fair use and below). If in doubt, assume the worst — you cannot use it.

[edit] Can I reuse Wikipedia's content somewhere else?

In general, yes, but there are a few caveats. Text in Wikipedia (excluding quotations) has been released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (or is in the public domain), and can therefore be reused freely providing that the authors are credited and you release any derived work under the GFDL (this is a summary, see the licence text for details). Many images used in Wikipedia are similarly licensed, but many are used on a fair use basis, and you must evaluate for yourself, for each image, whether you can reuse it. See the description page for the specific image you want to use; if no further information is given, then the copyright status is unknown.

Some Wikipedia contributors dual license their contributions, which may give you more options.

[edit] What should I do if I find a copyright violation on Wikipedia?

We take this very seriously. We try hard to keep copyright violations out of Wikipedia, but we don't always succeed. If you are the copyright holder, go to Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation; otherwise, go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and report the instance in question.

Please feel free to edit the contents of the box above, and comment below on what you changed. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for new copyright notice. Bovlb 06:33:02, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

  • Looks good. --Janke | Talk 07:38:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments and improvements. I have added the new section to the article. Bovlb 19:35:19, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I'm unclear about how the idea-expression divide is applied to maps.

An idea cannot be copyrighted, but an expression of that idea can be. When you have a map that shows boundaries, there isn't much difference between the idea and the expression.

It seems to me that the location of a boundary is an idea, and isn't subject to copyright. What is subject to copyright is the way that boundary is expressed. So if you copy the map, but you use a different line thickness and a different colour it seems to me you wouldn't be breaching copyright.

There's another reason I can think of that they might still have copyright: the map projection. If they prepare the map using a special projection they can claim that the preparation using that projection is subject to copyright. So you would have to redraw the map on a generic projection to be safe. On the other hand if they use something generic like Mercator or the New Zealand Map Grid, then it seems to me you could trace directly.

There seem to be five possibilites:

  1. You can copy a map if you change the line style. The projection doesn't matter.
  2. You can copy a map if you use a generic projection and a different line style. If they used a generic projection then changing the line style is enough.
  3. A company holds copyright over any representation of the boundary using the projection that they used. You'd have to change the projection to copy the map, even if they used a common projection like Mercator. You'd also have to make sure your map wasn't cropped in the same place.
  4. It's the copying that's illegal. You cannot trace a map. You must be able to demonstrate that you calculated the geographic location of every vertex in the boundary and then constructed your own map from that raw data.
  5. Companies hold copyright over the location of the boundary. Any representation of that location is a breach of their copyright.

That's my conjecture, what's the real story?

Ben Arnold 00:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The data in a map is probably not copyrightable, though, no more than the data in a phone book. Presentation is probably copyrightable. So if you make a new presentation of given map data, it should be just fine. Obviously the line between re-drawing based on the same data and flat out copying (i.e. scanning or photocopying) is going to be fuzzy in this instance. I don't think companies hold copyright over the location of a boundary, but inclusions of specific boundaries, perhaps. They certainly hold copyrights to specific map images, but because the basis of such images is in raw data and not creativity (with the exception of selection of which data to use -- what boundaries, what features, what cities, etc.) it would seem unlikely that tracing a map, as long as it was not an exact copy, would be deemed as using the same data to create a new image.
But I don't really know. It would be interesting if there is any specific caselaw on this. The way I see it though, tracing a map is not a whole lot different from tracing a phone book, if that makes any sense. (and at least in the U.S., the data in a phone book is not copyrightable, see Feist v. Rural) --Fastfission 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PD-CAGov

I am concerned about this template. It make the claim that all works made by employees of the CA State goverment are in the public domain, and I have been unable to find statutory evidence for this. I have found considerable statutory and other evidence against it. It is complicated by the fact that most, although not all, CA State departments "Conditions of Use" pages state: "In general, information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use.", which makes the whole issue rather confusing. Any comments (at the above linked page), would be very greatfully appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Choose the right licenes

I have added several self made pictures to this site, but I am confused by all the legalese. I want to allow anyone to have these images, but I want them to credit me when they do? Which license should I tag my images with?--Ewok Slayer 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licenses...Eh??

I'm confused as to why certain liceses are banned... Firstly, the non commercial license: "There are many different kinds of non-commercial licenses, but generally they say something like You may use, copy, or distribute this work for non-commercial purposes."

Surely Wikipedia is not a commercial project, and thus these licenses are allowed by U.S. law, correct? And yet here they are listed as prohibited.

There's also the educational license: "Others include all forms of public education, including encyclopedias, to be educational."

Again, this is an encyclopedia, so I fail to see any reason why these shouldn't be allowed. In cases where licenses allow only for use by schools and colleges, this would not be the case, of course, but surely it would be OK in all other cases?

In both cases, the email linked to did not help clarify this in the slightest, so I' hoping someone here could explain it to me.

First you should log in and sign your contribution. If I want to sell a CD with wikipedia on it that is comercial even if I'm a non-profit or giving the profits to a charity. One can argue that any distibution of information is educational therefore we must assume educational use means something more restrictive. --Gbleem 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia/Wikimedia are non-profit, but that doesn't mean we want the database to be restricted to non-profit uses. Raul654 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old editions

How does one access old versions of Wikipedia with articles that have since been deleted? Are deleted articles completely gone from the history of Wikipedia? If so, is it possible that somebody with the authority to do so could abuse this feature, by deleting their own user page, to cover up discussions that they do not want to be public anymore? oneismany 13:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit histories of deleted articles are not visible to normal users, but can be retrieved by administrators. Specific edits that have been removed from the edit history of articles are likewise hidden from normal users but are still retained in the database. The reason for this, as mentioned in the FAQ, is to comply with copyright requirements; if copyrighted material is uploaded to Wikipedia without permission, it has to be removed from public view. However, in most cases the old versions of articles can still be retrieved, though in some cases it may require a developer to do so. Some history, particularly from very old articles, has been lost/wiped or was never stored in the first place; any edits made recently, however, should still be there. Until a few months ago it was possible for all logged-in users to view the edit summaries of deleted edits, but this has now been disabled. Note that when images are deleted, they are permanently removed; this is mainly for reasons of storage space on the servers -- Gurch 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution of authors

"This requires that, among other things, you attribute the authors and allow others to freely copy your work." - what exactly does this mean? One has to list all the authors?(!) How? Where? Thomas Ash 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This simply means to footnote your sources. The rule of thumb is always cite sources when you put a direct quote in your work. When you are summarizing or paraphrasing, you typically do not have to cite a source when the information you're using is found in the same form in three or more sources. And, yes, you should indicate them all. To do otherwise is plagiarism.--CTSWyneken 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, what I meant was what to do when reproducing a wikipedia article, or other article covered by the same license, elsewhere on the web? Has one to list all the authors then?(!) How? Where? On the same page? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Thomas Ash 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate question. I'm not sure where else to ask this. When uploading an image covered by an "attribution" Creative Commons license, is the attribution on the image page itself considered sufficient? Or should the author/photographer also be credited in the article where the image is used? — MSchmahl 12:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Typically, photographers like to have some sort of caption as well, although I suspect the image page is enough. It is good practice to caption each photo in any event. --CTSWyneken 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDP license

Is the Linux Documentation Project License compatible? It seems so... TheAnarcat 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to add public information that's sourced from a particular website?

Moved to: WP:HD

[edit] Question about CC Attribution-ShareAlike

CC by sa states that the user of the image must acknowledge the originator of the image in a manner specified by the origiantor/author. Now, if someone mentions in a CC-by-sa image that he must be mentioned in the image caption credits, is it necessary to add his name to the image caption when the image is used in wikipedia? For example, if the author "X" says the usage of image Y should mention his name, should the caption of Y used in article A be "<some description>. Photo:X"? Is there any argument / policy for or against mentioning the author's name in the image captions? --Ragib 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From the CC-BY-SA legal code: "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice... Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." (Emphasis mine). Putting the information on the image page, in my opinion, qualfies as being "reasonable to the medium". To that end, I do not believe it necessary to credit the author in the caption; in fact, given the nature of a wiki, it is emminently likely that such captions will be changed. (It is, to that end, unreasonable to expect that to be the means of attribution) Raul654 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Reasonable to the medium on the Wiki means on the image description page with the full-size version of the image. --Fastfission 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the explanation. :) --Ragib 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] song lyrics

Is it a violation of copyright to post lyrics to a song? --Bookgrrl 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If those lyrics are copyrighted, they should not be treated differently than any other type of copywrighted work. In most cases, non-trivial and/or non-fair use of unlicensed copyrighted lyrics would be a copyright violation. --Benjamin Mako Hill (talk•contribs) 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical help needed re images

I would like some practical help, in layman's terms and simple language, regarding the use of images. Editors seem to be only too pleased to clamp down on people who are still fairly new, such as myself, and remove images with great glee - even though I always state that I have done my utmost to find out where the image came from. I am rather fed up with being treated like a Wiki-criminal! (When I complained about this in the Wiki Commons, I got banned for 24 hours - I won't be going there again!) Here's a typical scenario for me - I find an image on a website which I would like to use, so I email the website owner. They usually email me back saying that it is fine for me to use the image - so I load it into a Wiki entry. It's then that some captious editor decides to castigate me, quoting acronyms galore (I do NOT understand such gobbledegook as 'GFDL' and 'GNU' - I'm sorry, I just don't!) and generally showing off their copyright knowledge - but nobody ever helps! By that, I mean, nobody actually tells me what to do, in plain English - or is this too much to ask? Coming back to the point, my question is - why can't I use an image when I've been given permission by the owner? And what do I call it when I do use it? Many thanks to anyone who is actually prepared to take the time to explain all this to an avowed lamebrain in words of one syllable, who just wants to improve their Wikipedia entries without being 'arrested' by the 'Wiki-police'..........?! (P.S. I am not alone!) Jaycey 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at your Talk page and it looks like several people have pointed you to at least some of the information you need. If you look here you will see an itemized list of what you need to do to get an image accepted. The most important thing is that every image has to have a copyright tag with it. If the owner/creator has given permission, then you'd have to look and see which of the options matches the permissions he has given. In other words, if he's given permission to anyone to use it anytime, you'd use {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} . If he's given permission but with certain restrictions, you'd use {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} and specify the restrictions -- e.g. "citation and link to his home page required" or whatever. You might also use a Creative Commons license. Mostly it depends on exactly what permissions the copyright holder has given you, so you'd need to talk with him and figure it out, then use the right tag. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask me on my Talk page also if you have further questions. --Bookgrrl 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of Political Figures

I've read through the various articles and am still unsure what rules apply to photos of political figures, especially those who don't have government photos of them. I'm more than willing to e-mail them for permission to use a photo or requesting a photo, but want to be sure I'll be doing everything right. --Tim4christ17 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Also note that the planned usage for these images would be for the subject's Wikipedia entry, as well as relevant Wikipedia articles and lists of politicians, campaigns, potential campaigns, and (possibly) political parties. --Tim4christ17 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing question: what to do if a site or a printed source is violating Wikipedia's copyright?

As per heading, we seem to be concentrating to much on 'what if we err' not it's difficult to find information what to do in case others err.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the appropriate response in such situations? Just email the site admin? I know of a site that has culled content from multiple wikipedia articles without attribution. I have not received a response from the site admin yet. What would be the next step? Myasuda 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to credit work - example/practically

I have asked for copyright permission, and was just told to attribute it to them. I know I'm supposed to add a footnote to do this but I don't practically know what this should look like etc. Is there an example of a page which has done this so I can see how to do it. --MatchDancer 22:57, 09 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan drawings

Shentok recently uploaded this drawing of Speedy Gonzales and released it into the public domain. I suspect that it's not that simple though, since Speedy (and presumably his likeness) are property of Warner Bros. What is the proper tag for this type of fan drawing? — BrianSmithson 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/p/Wikipedia_talk%7ECopyright_FAQ_825e.html"