Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
"WP:CP" redirects here. For the Community Portal, see Wikipedia:Community Portal.

ATTENTION: For blatant copyright infringements:

  • If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it.
  • If not, request speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld/}}
  • If you are not sure who originally authored the material, list it here instead for investigation.
Wikipedia copyright
Policy
Copyright policy
Copyright violation policy
Reusing Wikipedia content
Text of the GFDL
Guidelines
Public domain content
Non-free content
Copyright information index
Processes
Suspected copyright violations
Copyright problems
Copyright examinations
Resources
General help
Copyright assistance
Media copyright questions
Requesting copyright permission
Image copyright tags
Donating copyrighted material
Shortcuts:
WP:CP
WP:CV

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be copyright violations. To request examination before including questionable content in an article, see Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations.

Contents

[edit] Copyright owners

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

[edit] Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia

Policy shortcut:
WP:IOWN

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work, while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. It is sufficient to either:

  • Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

[edit] What's copyrighted?

Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

[edit] What about fair use?

Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.


Purge server cache if recent edits are not visible.

[edit] Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright

Wikipedia will naturally refer to and include some material that comes from outside sources. This material may be in the public domain, may be included under a fair use argument, or it may be under a license compatible with the license used on Wikipedia, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Examples of public-domain works include text and images from United States Government publications, and older works—such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica—that are no longer, or never were, covered by copyright.

Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the GFDL.

Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.

If an editor has copied text or figures into Wikipedia without proper attribution, politely refer him to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and/or Help:Citations quick reference. Editors who have difficulties or questions about this guidance can be referred to the Help Desk. Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing.

[edit] Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project, see 17 United States Code 512.

[edit] Instructions

Material whose presence on Wikipedia infringes copyright (ie. the material is not Public Domain, licensed under the GFDL or specifically licensed to Wikipedia on suitable terms) should, as a general rule, be removed.

Blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:
  • Material was copied from another website which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia;
  • There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving.
  • The text on Wikipedia really is an infringement of another source (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors — Make sure we're copying someone else, not the other way around)
  • Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable

After notifying the uploading editor, add one of these to the page:

{{db-copyvio | url=insert URL of source here}}
{{db-copyvio | describe non-web source here}}

An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.
Article? Image?
  • Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems:
    • Blank the page and replace the text with one of:
      {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}
      {{subst:copyvio | identify non-web source here}}
    • Go to today's section and add
      * {{subst:article-cv | PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~
to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you)
  • 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.
  • You're done!
  • Add one of the following to the image description page:
    {{imagevio | url=insert URL here}}~~~~
    {{imagevio | identify non-web source here}}~~~~
  • Go to today's section and add:
* {{subst:image-cv | Image:ImageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~
to the bottom of the list. Put the image's name in place of "ImageName".
  • Add the following to the image uploader's talk page:
{{subst:idw-cp | Image:ImageName}}
  • You're done!

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. All pages tagged with {{copyvio}} are placed in Category:Possible copyright violations.

[edit] Alternatives to deletion

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you may:

  • Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner and Ask for permission. Check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). Also see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission.

[edit] Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if indeed they are not available under a free license or a reasonable fair use rationale. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
  • Non-free licenses
    These images are available for use on Wikipedia, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale. Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)

[edit] Instructions for administrators

Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins for some help.

[edit] See also

[edit] Listings of possible copyright problems

[edit] Very old issues

[edit] Remaining older issues, consolidated

edit
Definitely a copy, but not in the initial (2003) version. So detective work is needed to find the right version and revert to it. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than 7 days, but have not yet been dealt with.

[edit] 2008-05-16

edit

Articles

Current article wording:

Traditionally, ash trees from Pennsylvania and upstate New York are used to make baseball bats. The ash is valued for its strength, flexibility, and light weight. The best trees are those that grow in dense clusters where they are protected from the wind and forced to grow straight up towards the sunlight. Forty to fifty years of growth is required to bring an ash tree to the preferred trunk diameter of 14-16 inches (36-41 cm). Each tree yields approximately 60 bats.

Wording from How Products are Made

Traditionally, ash trees from Pennsylvania and upstate New York are used to make baseball bats. The ash is valued for its strength, flexibility, and light weight. The best trees are those that grow in dense clusters where they are protected from the wind and forced to grow straight up towards the sunlight. Forty to fifty years of growth is required to bring an ash tree to the preferred trunk diameter of 14-16 inches (36-41 cm). Each tree yields approximately 60 bats.


I believe that I've removed to apparent copyright vios from the article, but will defer to an administrator to verify.--Nowa (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article seems copyvio free at this point; editor who introduced the material duly warned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-17

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-18

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-19

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • Image:Montego Glover.jpg (history · last edit) from [78]. Note the article in which it appears is also blatant copyvio from the same source. Voceditenore (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Canopy-AP-Backhaul.jpg (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-20

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • Image:Rosa-maria2.jpg (history · last edit) from [94]. Image copyright is held by the Miss Universe Organization, their press website is password protected so I've provided a screenshot to confirm. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Brian at AMA 2006.jpg (history · last edit) from [95] (may or may not be the original source, but it's definitely not the Wikipedia uploader's work). —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Im01a.gif (history · last edit) from [britney.com], baseless claims of being the copyright holder by the same uploader as above. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-21

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-22

edit

Articles

  • San Jacinto College (history · last edit) from [107]. Useight (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My Girl (Philippine TV series) (history · last edit) from [108]. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 05:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • [109] personal email posted on WP:ANI against the express wishes of its author. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The e-mail's purpose was to canvas, which is against wikipedia rules. Ordinary e-mails are not privileged communications and have no commercial value, and the author's real name was protected, so his privacy was preserved. The IP address' claims are an attempt to hide the facts of the rule violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Even beyond all that, there is no indication in the cited e-mail [110] that the originator of it wanted it kept secret. He made a false assumption that its recipients would keep it secret. They didn't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • "Ordinary" emails are indeed protected by copyright. They may be summarized and even quoted from, but not reproduced in full without permission. 10 Big Myths about copyright explained, point 10. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That was my source also. Item 10 makes it clear that there is no legal protection for the author of this e-mail. It has no commercial value, nor did the recipients and the author enter into an agreement that its contents were to be kept secret. It's fair game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are misinterpreting it. There is legal protection and if it went to court there would be an order to cease and desist. There would simply be no monetary damages awarded. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You would be laughed out of court. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, I'm glad to know that Wikipedia policy has changed from "is it copyrighted?" to "what's the likelihood of having to pay damages?" There's some much good non-commercial stuff out on geocities and tripod and clearly the owners don't have the wherewithal to be a threat. Now according to you we are free to cut and paste it because it too would be laughed out of court. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hiding behind alleged copyright violations in order to hide the breaking of wikipedia rules undermines the IP address' argument. Also, the IP address' contempt for wikipedia process [111] mirrors that of the author of the e-mail in question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not my email. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I didn't say it was. I just said the contempt shown for wikipedia process is similar, and thus it deserves similar consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The anon IP is probably technically correct that the e-mail could be considered a copyright violation. But ask yourself -- is this really a fight you want to pick?! I mean, really, this is insanity. The Church of Scientology, with their high-priced lawyers and intimidation tactics, has tried the same ploy to squelch leaked information the didn't like, and even with all their resources they've only gotten mixed results. This is just not an argument worth having. (And in any case, it's reported in the wrong place -- WP:ANI is not an article). --Jaysweet (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • The only other choice was images. The heading is in error, should be "text" as a copyvio can easily occur on a talk page, user page, or any other page. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Canvassing is against wikipedia rules, and that inclues canvassing going on via private e-mails. Hence, private e-mails can be used as evidence in wikipedia. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • But Wikipedia doesn't have the right to violate copyright in the process. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • (undent)As a point of information, please note that Checkuser has determined that 70.243.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been blocked accordingly. This in no way invalidates the IP's arguments re: copyright issues as being considered here. Although I have to say, wanting to disallow evidence of violation of Wikipedia policies on this basis seems weak to me. Apparently originally sent to several people, I don't think it can unquestioningly qualify as a "private" email. One option might have been to show it only to a few impartial admins to summarize the contents with small quotes as illustration on the ANI case but this would probably be an inadequate and poorly representative solution. Pigman☿ 18:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-23

edit

Articles

{{copypaste}} was later removed diff --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (I am not an admin)
edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-24

edit

Articles

  • RECON (River, Estuary and Coastal Observing Network) (history · last edit) from [140]. Claims copyright on talk but unclear any release has been made. Rividian (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the backlog, I've added source citations to the one source, maintained templates re: problems, but delisted it by removing the copy-vio template. Perhaps an administrator can review this in time. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-25

edit

Articles

  • Mary Lou McDonald (history · last edit) from [150]. Setanta747 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • De-listing. I'm not seeing the issue at all there. There's one sentence, with three long-phrase institutions named, as well as job titles. There are only so many ways that can be said. The rest seems just fine, really - Alison ❤ 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Re-listing. I see duplicate text in the introduction, taken from the web page I cited. I'm not an expert on copyright law, which is why I listed it here: this obviously needs discussion. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Resolved. --Setanta747 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg (history · last edit) from [155]. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 2008-05-26

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • Image:WahiawaGoogleEarth.jpg (history · last edit) from Google Earth. I don't know Google Earth's copy status, but the image was most certainly not created by the user, as the tag claims. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-27

edit

Articles

edit

Images

This is fair, it is a scan and is used in the artilce for the publishers too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caxton_and_CTP_Publishers_and_Printers_Limited Teatreez (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-28

edit

Articles

  • Lupinus luteus (history · last edit) from [175]. Only the taxobox appears to be non-infringing. It could well be self-posted, but this is not noted in any way. It does not make a very useful Wikipedia article as is anyway. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

Image:Zune.png (history · last edit) from [183] Jevin (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Alicep2.jpg (history · last edit) from [184]. Image was taken by Fadil Berisha, you can see it on the Miss Universe Canada website from 2006 (internet archive link). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:InterlockingPentagons.png (history · last edit) from [185]. 155.41.160.31 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I drew it myself. Also, the URL does not contain the image in question. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just verified. I can't find the original on my hard drive so anon may be correct. I will upload an SVG version that I've definitely drawn myself and remove the PNG image in question. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:WCST.png (history · last edit) from [186]. 155.41.160.31 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The image in question does not appear on the listed web site. Kevin (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-29

edit

Articles

Could an administrator look at the proposed replacement and "rule" on this issue? Thanks. 99.228.247.82 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images

[edit] 2008-05-30

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • All pictures of user:Mike Babic need to be deleted because of copyright problem and WP:DUCK rule. "His first pictures" has been deleted because of missing information on its copyright status [198] . Maybe I am mistaking but after this first deletings he has learned how to write false copyright information so new pictures has survived (example:image Cuvari Hristova groba has been deleted on 20 March, but he has recreated picture on 24 and because of new "OK writen copyright information" picture has survived [199]). Now we are having evidence that user:Mike Babic is writing false copyright information because image manastiri is copy of image on site www.kosovo.net (first and second picture). Similar thing he has done with Croatian historical map (Mike Babic, www.croatia-in-english.com)and Picture of Hotel Lapad which he has taken from National newspaper site (wikipedia, National ) and I can find many other examples but this is enough.--Rjecina (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have started similar action on WP:ANI and until now there has been 1 interesting comment--Rjecina (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, continuing this discussion on ANI then. (note that the observation below by AMAPO is about an unrelated case.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • uploader has had pictures deleted already for copyright violations. uploader claims he created Image:Monterrey at night.jpg (history · last edit) but it was taken from [200] which states it is copyrighted. AMAPO (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Image:Noronic49.jpg (history · last edit) has a notice saying that it is fair use in the US and public domain in Canada. The fair use rationale makes sense, so it is logical for the image to remain on Wikipedia and therefore I have not placed a copyvio tag on the image talk page or the contributor's page. But the justification for saying that it is public domain in Canada is that it is a "Canadian image" made before 1949. Yet the description says that it shows the ship in Detroit (not in Canada), and according to the article on the Noronic, the ship was in Detroit in 1949, so the image could date from that year even though the ship was destroyed later that year. So while the use of the image is legitimate based on US fair use, the Canadian status is suspicious. Incidentally, I see that the same contributor has uploaded other images of the Noronic which have been deleted. 207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-05-31

edit

Articles

That site links to http://www.nps.gov/jeff/william_holmes.html and suggests that was its source; the link results in a "page not found" error but on the same site is http://www.nps.gov/jeff/historyculture/upload/mcguffey.pdf which appears to be the same, only in PDF format. A disclaimer suggests it is in the public domain. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The disclaimer you speak of specifically states, Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. Additionally, if the original source link is dead, it's certainly questionable as to whether or not the content should continue. However, Yilloslime isn't saying the content was a copyvio of the National Park Service source but of http://www.mcguffeyreaders.com/history.htm which contains content from many sources, all of which would be considered copyvio except the NPA one. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for reverting the copyright notice without checking this page, but the text is originally from a government site which claims all work is in the public domain unless otherwise indicated (which it is). While the text is appropriate for a site on culture it is very unencyclopedic and the entire article needs to be rewritten or stubified as soon as possible, however that is something that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As the copyright tag says, "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue." As you are not an admin, I have reverted your removal of the copyright notice. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 05:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for any confusion, I believed that given the clear and unfortunate mistake made (the oversight of the link to the government site) there was no need for administrator intervention. This is not an attempt to excuse my actions, merely to explain them. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any text from the other sections of http://www.mcguffeyreaders.com/history.htm in the article, and the paragraph beginning "Even though there were originally four Readers" is on nps.gov, but not on mcguffeyreaders.com. The copyright notice on nps.gov states that "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." and there is no indication on the PDF, or the HTML page that links to it, that it is not in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snigbrook (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio of http://cna.ca/english/about.asp: all except the final paragraph is the same as on the website (also the first two edits do not appear to be copied. The article has been on Wikipedia for a while, however, the unusual formatting makes it more likely that is has been copied and pasted. The suspected copyvio was added by an IP address of the organisation (its domain name is mail.cna.ca) but that does not necessarily mean that permission has been given for the use of the text in the article. --Snigbrook (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images


[edit] 2008-06-01

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-02

edit

Articles

Talk:Neocatechumenal Way (history · last edit) from [214]. Ncwfl (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

edit

Images

  • Image:DDR2 SDRAM.jpg (history · last edit) from [222]. Unable to find exact image, but similar image available at URL with same copyright logo (see RHS of wiki image). User uploaded new version without changing copyright status. Unsure revert is worth it since old image is very low resolution? ~Xytram~ (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to remove the image. It was an honest mistake. --truthbeforepride (T ・C) 16:53, 02 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Image:Mark Lund 2.JPG (history · last edit) from [nothing to prove that Mark Lund has released the copyright on this publicity photo]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-03

edit

Articles

we removed the infringing content, so pls do not delete the pageJasy jatere (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
edit

Images


[edit] 2008-06-04

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-05

edit

Articles

Design Walk (history · last edit): On bottom: " all rights reserved for Greece by the design shop, g, pi6.". The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

edit

Images


[edit] 2008-06-06

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • Image:Great-neck-hs.jpg (history · last edit) from [265].
  • The image date provided (1923) appears falsified as well. The school was not built until 1926 [266] and it does not qualify it for Public Domain.--DueAmici (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The website also contains text referenced by the user 5 days prior to uploading the image (website wiki article).--85.219.9.3 --DueAmici (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Image: Map Canada political-geo.png This map is copyrighted by the Canadian government, and a now-inactive editor E Pluribus Anthony made very slight cosmetic changes. This Wikipedia image is a derivative work, thus violating Wikipedia rules. Here is the original version of the image with copyright notice: [267] Note that whereas US government documents are public domain, that is not true of the documents of the Canadian government. The Canadian government treats all of its publications, images, etc., as copyrighted like any other publisher. Perhaps the US government has a map of Canada which could be used without copyright problems? I found this map on the US Department of State website, although the level of detail is disappointing: [268]

Canadian2006 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Image:Map Canada political-geo.png


[edit] New listings

[edit this list] (to add or to remove per-day pages)

[edit] 2008-06-07

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-08

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-09

edit

Articles

edit

Images

  • Image:Tunguskaevent.jpg (history · last edit) from Scientific American. Fair use rationale does not cover the purpose of the image in the article. Neither the image (or the article) illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. 76.252.1.173 (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Tamil.gif (history · last edit) from [303]. Lukematthewss (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Zewail.jpg (history · last edit) from [304]. This is mislabeled as GFDL. The site gives a copyright notice, but I can't find anything about it being released under a free license. Yekrats (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-10

edit

Articles

[310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] [317]. Zpb52 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-11

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-12

edit

Articles

edit

Images

second time (Image:Monterrey at night.jpg) "different uploaders" upload this same picture claiming they're the creator yet it is copyrighted in flickr

[edit] 2008-06-13

edit

Articles

edit

Images

[edit] 2008-06-14

edit

Articles

edit

Images


[edit] Footer

Wikipedia's current date is June 14, 2008. Put new listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 June 14.