Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This archive has had personal details removed (real names, email addresses and telephone numbers) so they do not remain searchable by Google. See the page history of Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation for the original poster's details.

Contents

[edit] http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church

Hello,

I've noticed information on Wikipedia (and on other sites that acknowledge Wikipedia as a source) that I have written, but for which I have not given permission to be copied. Information (but not the entire text) in the following pages has been taken from my page: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church and http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_juris (and there might be others that I haven't discovered yet).

My page is located at http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html .

Unfortunately, I very recently updated that particular page on 27 Dec. '03. However, the information that I wrote and that is now in Wikipedia was available online between 1 Sep. '01 and 27 Dec. '03. Luckily, the old page is still available in Google's cache: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html I don't know how long the old version will remain in the cache, so please act quickly!

Actually, I don't mind so much that what I wrote is posted on Wikipedia, but if it is here, then I _insist_ that I be acknowledged. Moreover, if information that I wrote is quoted directly, then I insist that direct quotation be indicated.

Than you in advance. I very much appreciate your cooperation. If needed, you can contact me at ---


Sincerely, Alex ---

Pages blanked. I've sent you an email regarding this issue. --mav 09:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pages deleted. --mav 03:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Someone restored this page 18 March of this year. I have reverted to the non-infringing stub, but the new version needs to be removed from the history. -- llywrch 06:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Brianism

The founder of Brianism has requested the article's immediate deletion. See An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. Posted here for comments. Secretlondon 14:39, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a copyvio... Morwen 14:51, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's not - but this is the only immediate takedown page we have. Do you know of anywhere better to stick this? Secretlondon 14:57, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I only scanned it, but I don't see anything in the letter requiring immediate takedown, so shouldn't we just let it run its course on VfD? Morwen 15:01, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Anjouli said that they had requested immediate take down. However they seem to have requested only take down.

"6) We would prefer it if the article on Brianism were removed from Wikipedia, as it is easily subject to the malicious insertion of disinformation to the detriment of our movement. It also seems to have sparked the recent attacks mentioned above. The present article carries inaccurate information. The version last week was misspelled, inaccurate and offensive. Wikipedia undoubtedly provides much amusement and intellectual stimulation to the many editors, but it is not totally reliable as a research tool. Currently, there is no guarantee that any page consulted has not been maliciously seeded with false information. This is not to say that we disapprove of the concept of Wikipedia. We wish you well and hope you will resolve the reliability challenge.". I guess this can just go through the VfD process. Secretlondon 15:07, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation. It is not within the scope of this page. — Alex756 17:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. There's no infringment in the article - the quote is easy fair use in this context. It's also off VfD now and has been significantly rewritten. Hopefully those who object to this faith will show more religious tolerance than that which prompted this open letter. Jamesday 01:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Dundee and related entries

While I am a great supporter of the concept of Wikipedia, I must ask that materials are immediately removed which contain considerable plagiarised sections take from the 'Gazetteer for Scotland'.

The text:

"Dundee Law, or Law Hill, the highest point in the city of Dundee, 174m (571 feet), takes its name from an old Scots word for a hill. An Iron Age hill fort once occupied the site on which now stands a memorial to the dead of World War I, erected in 1923. "

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst125.html


"D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd, established by David Couper Thomson in 1905, is a Dundee based publishing company. D.C. Thomson produces more than 200 million magazines, newspapers and comics each year from offices in Dundee, Glasgow, Manchester and London.

The company was notable for its conservatism. Indeed, Thompson strenuously resisted the introduction of trade unions into his work-force and he refused to employ people of the Roman Catholic faith.

The company currently employs around 2,000 workers."

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst437.html

"Newport-on-Tay is a town in the north east of Fife in Scotland. It is situated between the Tay Rail Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge. The town owes its existence to a ferry which has been crossing the Tay there since at least the 12th century.

Newport enjoyed a great expansion during the 19th century. Thomas Telford constructed a new harbour in the 1820s, and the prosperous Dundee jute manufacturers established their fashionable residences there; they called Newport "New Dundee"."

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/towns/townfirst123.html

While these sections are the ones I have identified, I would ask the editors / maintainers to take appropriate action to check that other material on Scottish locations is not plagiarised from the same source.

Sorry to be a nuisance. I support the free distribution of material created for that purpose, but it cannot be fair to substantially 'rip off' the work of others and present it as your own.

Best Wishes

---

I've removed the infringing material from Dundee and D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd, and listed Newport-on-Tay for deletion as the whole article appeared to be infringing. Thank you for bringing these to our attention. I will also check the contributions of Dduck who as far as I can tell was the user who submitted this information. Angela. 01:42, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
I could only find a single sentence that was copied (the sentence starting: "An Iron Age hill fort..."). I rewrote that and even the other parts you cited in order to remove the possible plagiarism (in terms of using the same words in a different order). Now there are new words standing in for the old ones and the phrases have been reworked. I also added references to the above links. Just a note: Information cannot be copyrighted - only the unique expression of that information in prose. --mav 02:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for acting over these and I am generally happy with the actions undertaken. Thanks too for the reminder about what is copyright-able, but we are well aware of that. There is a grey area here, in that it is very easy to create reference content by taking work published elsewhere and changing a few words or re-arranging a few sentences. This however is both unfair and unreasonable, as well as not adding to the intellectual value of the work by introducing new facts, views or interpretations. Experienced reference editors will draw information from a variety of sources, integrating these with new information where possible, to increase the value of the result. Copying and changing words is the activity of the weak student and should not be part of a fine project such as Wikipaedia in an poor attempt to rapidly add content. Recycling information from one place on the web to another doesn't help increase the value of the web overall or the value of Wikipaedia. -- Bruce --- 14:05, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are operating under the dead tree/static webpage notion that content is authored by a single individual. We are a wiki so I see nothing wrong with user X using source A to add information to an article and then user Y using source B for adding more information to the article. The end result is an article that uses two different sources. In time more people will draw on more sources and add that content. We are really only concerned about the overall result, not what any particular user does. That is, IMO, one of the great strengths of our content-generation model - no one edit needs to be perfect. --mav
Sorry no dead trees here. The delivery mechanism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your editors do not copy material from others, change the odd word and claim it is something new. That is a waste of everyone's time. Granted you have a great model for evolving content, but its pointless and unfair to publish things at ANY STAGE which are ripped off from elsewhere. -- Bruce.
I agree, and that is why I rewrote the content as described above and added references. My last comment was in reference to that not to what the original author did (which was borderline plagiarism). --mav


[edit] Uncredited material on Indo-European religion

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_religion

This site contains the following material that was written by me:

  • Ghosti is a PIE word which means "one with whom one has a reciprocal obligation of hospitality." Our words guest and host both come from this root.
  • Artus is the pattern of the universe. It comes from the root *ar-, meaning "to fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern." Artus is the root of the Vedic rta, and is similarly in operation to the early Germanic wyrd.

Order, allowed to remain unfed, becomes brittle and dead. Chaos is dangerous and not capable of supporting life. It is only through the interplay of these two, in a sort of *ghosti-principle way, that the cosmos can live.

It has been taken from my website http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/whatwasreligion.htm

That it was cut and pasted is shown pretty clearly by the typo of "similarly" for "similar."

I have no objections to being quoted; I have strong objections to being plagiarized. If this material is properly cited, with direct quotations marked, and with a link to my website where it was found, it may be used. Otherwise, I must insist that it be removed.

Followup questions can be addressed to me at CeiSerith@aol.com.

Thank you.

Ceisiwr ---

Thank you for the note. I've added a reference and a link to your webpage and have informed the main author of the Wikipedia article and have explained the situation. --mav 06:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Update: It looks like the offending text has been removed. If not, then please say so. --mav 07:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pittsburgh Photo

Hello,

The photo of the Pittsburgh skyline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pittsburgh_skyline_daytime.jpg) which appears on the main Pittsburgh page is protected by my copyright and used without my permission. Can you please remove this photo from Wikipedia since, by placing it there, it now appears that the photo is in the public domain.

The picture appears on the About Pittsburgh Web site (http://pittsburgh.about.com) where it quite clearly states the copyright date of 2002 and that the photo is NOT in the public domain: http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/wallpaper/bl_pittsburgh-2.htm

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter,

Kimberly ---

This photo was deleted after being listed here for two weeks with no objections. Angela. 14:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pantheists

[edit] Third dynasty of Egypt

[edit] Robert Priddy / Talk:Robert Priddy

[edit] Night and Fog Copyright Infringement

[edit] Universal Turing Machine

I am Jin Wicked, the artist who created the image which has been uploaded to Image:Turingmachine.jpg. I do not consent to its use on Wikipedia and do not agree that its use here is covered under "fair use" as defined by US copyright law. Please delete it immediately.

I placed the copy violation tag on the image and it is removed from the article. The Admins should take care of this asap. --None-of-the-Above 11:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the image. See User_talk:Jimwicked for details. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement on: Atsushi Fukuyama

The page Atsushi Fukuyama has been directly copied almost verbatim from my website without permission. The page can currently be seen here: [1] I do not wish to place the contents of this page in the public domain. Could an admin please remove this? Thank you,

flowersofnight 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, as requested. --HappyCamper 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image cropped without permission

We have found a picture from our webpage used on Wikipedia, renamed, with the copyright line cropped off, and the EXIF information deleted.

The original image is here, and this is the same picture at Wikipedia.

We do not mind at all if someone uses our meda, as long as they do not remove copyright information without asking. I. e. it is perfectly ok to upload the original picture, should you so wish, but please remove the cropped one.

Terminalproducts 13:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Done. --HappyCamper 03:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures on Bun Festival page

For details see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bun_Festival

[edit] No permission granted to lift work off www.european-defence.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

While browsing the internet, I came across the use of material off my website European Defence (www.european-defence.co.uk). In particular, there is material lifted from http://www.european-defence.co.uk/directory/armedforces/turkey.html for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Turkey

While the sources have been acknowledged, I have at no time ever been asked permission for use of this material, which I would be willing to allow you to use for a fee. While European Defence is free to view at the present, IN NO TERMS is material allowed to be lifted without permission. I request that you immediately remove the above information. I hope that this request is honoured without me having to seek legal advice.

Michael Fishpool European Defence www.european-defence.co.uk

As far as I can tell, you edited this article yourself to remove the information. Is there anything else that you would like done? silsor 00:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Silsor.
In reference to your comment regarding my rant over the use of material from the European Defence website. I wrote the piece before I worked out that it is possible to remove the material myself... for that I apologise. I then added a piece to the discussion forum on that page. It appears that "CeeGee" has now updated the Turkish military piece, having used listings taken from a German forum. There is no further action now that I want Wikipedia to take.
(copied from my talk page - silsor 19:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Arantis

Hi, have put a page together, but didn't think about copyright. Please remove "Arantis" immediately, thanks!

This appears to have been done. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reproductions of baseball logos

The owner and publisher of the Negro League Baseball Dot Com website has sent us a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that several graphic images (emblems relating to Negro League Baseball teams) of which he is the creator and copyright owner have been posted to articles related to Negro League baseball teams on Wikipedia without permission.

The specific image URLs were [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Michael Snow wrote that he did not have any reason to doubt the claim to ownership and recommended that we remove these as requested. He doesn't think they're important enough to us to warrant claiming fair use, and if they're not exactly the original logos, thinks a claim of fair use is much less likely to prevail.

I've now deleted these. Angela. July 2, 2005 01:27 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright Violation

Image:8th duke of wellington.JPG This above image has been created by User:John_Kenney from my previously uploaded image:-

Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

Which is an official copyright image from the Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archives, where I am the Regimental Photo Archivist. The name and title was embedded into the image to prevent abuse. User:John_Kenney does not have permission to alter the Crown Copyright image I uploaded. Could you please delete the amended image from your database and replace the original image to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Valerian_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington it was uploaded for. I would also appreciate it if User:John_Kenney could be given a warning about altering images, simply because he doesn't like them. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it [personal attack removed]. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don't get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

I now appear to be getting personal abuse from user:John Kenny on my talk page and on the 8th Dukes discussion page IE:

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I assume that this user is a sysop and as such should not be allowed to act this way. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

[edit] Request from original uploader to delete copyright images

The following list of images were uploaded by myself and are all the property and copyright of The Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archives collection. Following a further reversion by User:Petesmiles of the image, see above, to the one deleted after a previous copy violation I have been, regrettably, instructed to request the images be immediately removed from your database. Please note a fee is payable for future use of the images. Richard Harvey 10:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:1DWR Colours & Guard.jpg
Image:2Lt Henry Kelly VC.jpg
Image:33rd Regiment.jpg
Image:76-0169C 1858 76th Regimental Sergeants.jpg
Image:ASgt Hanson Turner VC.jpg
Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:CSgt Wayne Mills02.jpg
Image:Dmr M Magnar VC.jpg
Image:Drumsticks.ogg
Image:Dukes 2004.jpg
Image:DWR 33rd Badge Small.jpg
Image:DWR 76th Badge Small.jpg
Image:DWR Anzio Plaque.jpg
Image:DWR Cap Badge small.jpg
Image:DWR Combined Badge small.jpg
Image:DWR Combined Badge.jpg
Image:DWR Regimental Colours.jpg
Image:Henry Valerian George Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:Lt JP Huffam VC.jpg
Image:LtColonel Gerald Wellesley KG 7th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:Maj General Sir Evelyn John Webb Carter.jpg
Image:Mike Campbell Lamerton OBE.jpg
Image:Pte Henry Tandey VC.jpg
Image:Pte J Bergin VC.jpg
Image:Pte Poulter VC.jpg
Image:Pte RH Burton VC.jpg
Image:Sgt A Loosemoore VC.jpg
Image:Sgt W Firth VC.jpg
Image:The Hook Korea July 1953.jpg
Image:The Wellesley.ogg
Image:Victoria Cross Pte Poulter.jpg

See also #Copyright Violation above and the discussion at Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. --cesarb 23:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Note, many of these don't have copyright information, but the ones that do state no comercial use, so they'll have to go anyway. --Duk 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

All images have been deleted except Image:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg (might be PD). I hope this puts an end to the pissing matches. --Duk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jill Craigie biography

This article was clearly sourced from the Jill Craigie biography written by Sarah Easen for the Screenonline site (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/581828/), which is copyright of the British Film Institute.

Although some minor changes have been made (mostly cuts), the structure, content and even the wording of several sentences is essentially identical, and goes far beyond any possible definition of "fair use". Furthermore, the author has not been credited as the source, and neither has a link been offered to her work.

I therefore suggest replacing the bulk of this piece with a link to the original article - which, being longer than the plagiarised version, will hopefully prove more valuable to your readers.

Michael Brooke, Content Developer, Screenonline

Well, articles that are just external links will get deleted on sight, so that's not a good solution. The best (and easiest) solution here is to simply rewrite the Wikipedia article so that any copyright violations are avoided, which I will take a stab at. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the article to the pre-copyvio version. --Duk 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequest_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation_Archive1_7d1d.html"