Welcome to dextri.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Template:policylist

I wanted to add Template:policylist to this page, but there doesn't seem to be room. If someone could think about a good way to add it, either do it, or let me know. Fresheneesz 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restructured {{Wikipedia copyright}} to include a "policy" section, which I think covers it – Gurch 13:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge

I think that this page should be merged with Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Or perhaps, the instructions for dealing with copyright violations should be moved from WP:CP onto this page, and the list of articles with problems should remain on the other page. The current division of information is confusing and would benefit from being reorganized and simplified. Just a suggestion. Teryx 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Instructions now appear in both places; list remains on Wikipedia:Copyright problems because this is a policy page and that is a process one. I feel the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems are a little untidy; I might rewrite them as well at some point. – Gurch 13:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat offenders

I have edited language on the project page to include this unambiguous statement, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing to protect the project." A statement of this sort may be required by a provision of the DMCA:

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and"

We have the policy, but not the statement. Fred Bauder (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of CSD

There doesn't seem to be any mention of WP:CSD#G12, which allows for the removal of blatant copyright infringements in certain cases (i.e. when the whole text is clearly from a copyrighted website). I understand that this policy outlines a process separate from CSD, but given that the two are related I think it's at least worth a mention and a link. I'd like to be bold and put this in, but given that this is a policy I thought it best to float the idea here first. --jonny-mt 09:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Added. – Gurch 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This policy was originally just a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia:Copyrights. I think such a move was a good idea as Wikipedia:Copyrights is very long and confusing and this information is important. However, the copied text as it stood was in need of an overhaul and little has been done since that time. I have expanded the page somewhat and given it some structure; I have also copied the instructions for copyright owners from the Contact Us subpages; this replaces a link to an obsolete page which now redirect to the Contact Us subpage anyway, and there's no harm in having the instructions here. I've also given more explanation of how to deal with copyright violations, including such things as a mention of the speedy deletion policy, which was not mentioned at all before, based on the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but not as detailed. Finally, I've tried to give some introduction beyond simply "Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations", pointing out how Wikipedia's content is licensed and explaining the difference between text and media. I've also added a nutshell – Gurch 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of copyright violation

Would one of you have a look at Talk:Duchy of Pless. Poeticbent (talk · contribs) is accusing me of copyright violation on the basis of the following comparisons:

Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.

from

Hans Heinrich XI...summoned his gendarmerie...and told them to work for the re-election...The constables rode...beating their drums...”

a different statement of the same facts; and

Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants

from

The preamble to an Inclosure Act states that the lords of the manor were owners of the soil and waste within that manor and the soil and minerals therein.

a different claim, in different words, about a different country (this is from the English Law Journal reports, which I had never seen).

On the chance that this is a genuine confusion, would someone go inform Poeticbent of what copyright violation actually is; if it is not genuine confusion, it would seem to come under the Wikipedia:General Sanctions on Eastern Europe, and Poeticbent should be notified of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are timelines of fictional universes derivative works?

For example, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Back to the Future timeline.

The Transhumanist 02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy question

I came across major copyright violations pasted by a user onto his userpage. Is this copyright violation? should it be removed? Tagged? Kingturtle (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless the user is the owner, if it's blatant it should be deleted; if it's questionable it should be tagged. What do you mean by major copyright violations.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's so long ago now, I don't remember the userpage. But it consisted of paragraphs of words lifted directly from another URL. Kingturtle (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course, if the user will discuss the matter, that's the best option. It's always possible the user would tell you that he or she owned it - or even could show that he or she posted it to Wikipedia before the other site. These aren't unheard of. Just for future reference.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright concerns

While making a thorough research and verifying the sources provided, I not only discovered that Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen was not a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, I also discovered that the article is not an "original" article as required by Wikipedia policy, but an article which infringes the copyrights of the National Timerwolf Association and Time Inc. It is a paste job using content from both sites which is in violation of copyright laws. See the following evidence and judge for yourself: Terry Allen ©1999 National Timberwolf Association andTerry Allen and His Men Copyright © 2008 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Am I right about being concerned and if so can somemone here please do something about it? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a template...

Is there a template that incorporates both the COPYVIO and SPAM headers? A lot of times I see text copies and pasted from a company's website. I can't tell if it's plagiarism, or an attempt at advertising. DarthSquidward (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much?

This page, was copied from this page. Many unnecessary sentences were removed, and many other sentences changed, but so much of the original article remains, that it is obvious that it's copied from it. Is this a copyright violation? Where do you draw the line? -Freekee (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the text is substantially derived from a non-GFDL-compatible copyrighted work, it is definitely a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allow copyright violations on Wikipedia

Why don't we move our servers to a floating platform in international waters (see seasteading) or to a friendly jurisdiction that allows pirating, and then allow people to freely upload copyrighted images, copy and paste copyrighted content into articles, etc.? It would eliminate the need to paraphrase and/or limit content borrowed from others, would save a lot of time that is spent on fair use discussions, would make it possible to illustrate many articles that currently are in need of images, and would enhance the quality of much of our imagery as well. The Pirate Bay assists with copyright violations and look how successful they are. I think we should jump on that bandwagon forthwith. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from any debate over the morality of copyright laws and from the infeasibility of it, this is a bad idea for two reasons: first, because plagiarism is a bad academic practice even if it's not legally a copyright violation. For example, Wikipedia already allows biographies of government figures to be copied and pasted from U.S. government websites, because the text there is believed to be in the public domain by default. This is a poor way to write an encyclopedia for reasons of bias, academic honesty, and so forth. Allowing this practice on all articles from all sources would only compound that issue. Second, such a move would be unnecessary since many of the restrictions on copyrighted content (for example, the jihad against useful photos) are voluntary restrictions, put forth by an extreme faction of free-everything advocates on Wikipedia, and designed to protest copyright law by ludicrously over-applying it. There is no legal reason that such content couldn't be used from American or British or Chilean servers, so moving the servers elsewhere would not bring that content back. DarthSquidward (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations at Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

I am not sure where to put this, I hope this is correct. Recently several editors have been adding copyrighted content from http://www.ctbuh.org to Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I have attempted to undo the edits and even responded to a message about the copyright status of the page. Is there anything that can be done to prevent the copyrighted material from being added, or responding in some other way? Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the contents of the article for now with the copyright violation template and placed a note at the talk page. The individuals may be blocked or the page protected if they do not follow through with verifying permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nahum Slouschz

Could I get someone more versed in copyvio issues to take a look at this one? It is an obvious direct copy from [1]. But that source page has contradictory copyright information. The blurb itself declares itself to be under the GFDL, but the site itself has a blanket copyright statement at the bottom. So, is this GFDL, and useable, or not? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) This should be governed by their use policy, which indicates that "Some materials on this site including layout, look and feel, design, author biographies, and graphics are copyright Knowledgerush. Where noted Knowledgerush author biography texts may be distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License." It should be fine, though it sadly needs wikification! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyright violiation?

http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center is violating?

[edit] Direct lift from arXiv (and most likely published source) by likely author

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauge gravitation theory? There is some obvious copying going on here, but it is most likely by the original author. I don't know what the procedure is for dealing with this kind of thing, so I took it to AfD. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haplogroup IWX (mtDNA) -links to possibly illegally hosted articles

I've removed one but there are other links from this article to journal articles hosted on the web at various sites, and with no indication that there is permission for the article to be there. This is the 2nd Haplogroup article where I've found this sort of link. dougweller (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can we block links to a website that admits to copyvio?

greyfalcon.us says on its home page "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner." and I certainly have found links in articles to copyrighted stuff hosted there. Can it somehow be blocked? Thanks. Here are the current links, I am working on it when I can.[2] dougweller (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the place to go for it. Lyricwiki was added for that reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. dougweller (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article Tony Gosling linking to offical website selling pirate videos

The article links to the subject's website (yuk) which has a page openly selling pirate videos.[3] Is there anything we should be doing here? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to remove it under WP:EL, but I suspect this would not be a universal view. We do, after all, link to YouTube in its article in spite of its infringements. But this man is apparently seeking to profit off of his infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it, this is blatant and an attempt to profit by selling the videos as you say. dougweller (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading music

Can we upload music tracks from the company's website it has released for free download? I'm wanting to upload them to help show the type of music associated with a particular game.じんない 02:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Author is not always copyright holder

The policy states "if the contributor was in fact the author of the text ... they have the right to post it here", but I think this is incorrect - a reporter working for a newspaper may be the author of an article, but the newspaper is the copyright holder. I understand copyright of work created by an employee during the course of their duties is owned by the company. XLerate (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Potential copyright infringement

Hi. Looking for an informed second opinion. I am of the opinion that this section of an article is a barely disguised copy of a significant portion of this newspaper article and is therefore an infringement of the copyright. Another editor insists on adding it back and rejects my attempts to create a briefer summary. Separate from the fact that I think it's bad article writing, I'd be interested in whether other people agree with me that this crosses the line. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is not only too detailed a summary but incorporates text from that source verbatim. I have blanked the section, listed the article at WP:CP and left a note at the talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Shame it couldn't be resolved more peacefully. GDallimore (Talk) 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, thanks for trying. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme cases of copyright infringement

Occasionally a really prolific copyright violator surfaces whose misuse of sources requires a major cleanup. A year ago one such person was allowed to continue editing and continued copyright violation and plagiarism during user conduct RfC, creating new problems nearly as fast as a team of volunteers could remedy old ones. She refused to assist cleanup in any way, and the delays in getting a block implemented resulted in a substantially larger cleanup job that other people had to do.

Recently another individual has been found who created 2500 articles, and of the 1000 that have been checked so far most are copyvio.[4] He was confronted a year ago about the problem, failed to respond, and continued his copyright violations. He was recently blocked and then unblocked while the extent of the real problem came to light, and has returned to editing mainspace while ignoring two noticeboard threads about his conduct and doing nothing to assist the cleanup.

It would be a great help to the volunteers who are fixing this very large problem if they knew which sources he was using, but nothing in the policy held copyright violators responsible for helping to resolve the problems they create. So I have added a line stating that in extreme cases such as these, administrators may require that copyright violators disclose the titles, authors, etc. as a condition of unblock, to ease the burden upon the people who are fixing the problems. DurovaCharge! 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hoping to get a simple definition of copyvio included

Some of us are fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [5]. I for one would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying.

I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images."

This is all well and good, but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [6] and CopyVio [7], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could grasp.

I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is very clear and simple to understand, and the sooner that the info is encountered by new editors the better. I have mentioned this on the talk page of the 5 Pillars page [8]. Here is a draft I put together of something that could go maybe on the copyright/CopyVio pages.


"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must (in almost all cases) be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "


Thanks for your attention, Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be a very good thing to write up as a supplemental essay. DurovaCharge! 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Durova, we may end up doing that. Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement?

Could someone take a look at these two images? The first is of a controller for Nintendo's Virtual Boy (image viewable here), and the second is of a Pokémon mini handheld game system (image viewable here). The Nintendo logo (which is a registered trademark) is shown on both products, and the Virtual Boy logo/Pokémon mini logo are each trademarked as well. I took the pictures myself, so are they okay for Wikimedia Commons? -sesuPRIME talk • contributions 07:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost dispatch on plagiarism

Editors here might be interested in the recently-published dispatch on plagiarism. Awadewit (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Copyright Violations

An editor recently scanned several postcards and placed the images in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts article - the majority are stated to be from the early 1900s, and so would seem to be in the public domain, but a few are from the 1950s and 60s, and I believe they might be copyvios. Could someone please take a look at them? Files in question include File:Downtown Pittsfield 1960s-1.JPG, File:The Maplewood 1930-1.JPG, File:North Street 1957-1.jpg, and File:Aerial Downtown Pittsfield looking East-1.jpg. The uploader, User:Aaronlife, tagged the postcards as {{PD-Pre1978}}, but I am not sure what his/her claim of "published without copyright" is based on if the publishing company and photographer are listed. Others such as File:New Pittsfield High.-1.JPG (and countless more on the Pittsfield page) don't have dates, so I'm not sure if {{PD-US}} is appropriate either. Sorry, but I am not very experienced with this sort of issue :-) Cheers, Rai•me 01:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You may get a good answer here, but if I were in your position, I'd ask at WP:MCQ, which is specifically for copyright questions related to media. Sometimes, media copyright savvy individuals happen by here, but they almost invariably show up there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Cheers, Rai•me 01:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] minor edit

In the "See also" section, I removed the word "proposed" from the line "Wikipedia:Plagiarism (proposed guideline}" with the edit summary that the promotion to guideline does not appear to be in dispute. If I'm in error on this, please feel free to revert. Thanks, Best to all. — Ched :  ?  06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in dispute now. :) However, there is not yet consensus to demote it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on massive infringers: cleanup

The copyright problem process was created with an eye towards addressing articles with problems. Not infrequently, we encounter editors with problems: which is to say, they are found to have placed copyright text in multiple articles. The worst example of this I have seen is User:GrahamBould, who at last count had placed copyrighted text into as many several thousand articles. An emergency task force was convened to clean his contributions. Articles he created were proactively blanked. All content he contributed is still in the process of being removed.

Practice with other contributors who have done this has been to evaluate each article for infringement, but we lack manpower to do this efficiently, as a result of which we may have a known copyright offender who has blatantly placed copyrighted text into multiple articles but whose contributions are being permitted to stand unscrutinized on the project because we do not have sufficient people to evaluate them.

At the Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup talk page, there are a number of such individuals listed. See for specific example cleanup on Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Major project. Every stricken title has been evaluated; every checked title contained infringement. There are many titles that still need to be checked. But the workload doesn't wait for that. Just two days ago, another contributor was brought to my attention who has copied text from books and webpages into almost every article I've checked. His unchecked contributions (prioritized by size) are listed here. (I am not placing a checkmark or striking articles. I am simply removing those that have been processed.)

We need to devise a policy for addressing cross-article offenders. Many copyright offenders have placed text in one article only; some, in several. Some of them have been here placing text undiscovered in article, like User:GrahamBould or this one, for years.

On encountering a massive cross-article offender (however this should be defined: confirmed violations in x number of articles), should we:

  • Blanket revert all creative text additions by the editor, perhaps by restoring the last version of the article before his or her contributions, leaving it to the contributors of the article to work out what text is clean? (This solution takes into account the limits of manpower for evaluating contributions across hundreds or thousands of edits, but will almost inevitably have collateral damage as removing good edits by subsequent contributors)
  • Blank all articles to which he or she has contributed with a {{copyvio}} until each one can be evaluated individually to see if the contributors edits to it breach copyright? (This solution blanks publication of copyvio material, but effectively removes the article entirely from circulation until such time as the limited pool of contributors in this area can get around to evaluating it. Note: if we did embrace this solution, a new template might be appropriate noting that the copyvio is suspected based on the history of a contributor to the article. The {{copyvio}} is not written with this in mind.)
  • Create lists such as the one I have for gradual clearance that may or may not ever be completed? (This solution puts us in position of imposing less collateral damage, but also could lead to contributory infringement, as we are allowing the contributions of a contributor that we know has violated our copyright policy and US copyright law.)

Thoughts? Other solutions I may have missed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We simply can't tolerate copyvios, despite the collateral damage that may result. If a person has added copyvios to over a dozen articles, and that person is unable or unwilling to remove the copied information his/herself, then we have to either revert to the most recent clean version (or replace all text with {{copyvio}}) until the articles can be checked individually. It's a shame to lose subsequent edits, but Wikipedia has tens of thousands of active contributors, and we can survive losing good material. But systemic infringement really could kill the project, if left unchecked. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I unwittingly responded to this in my comment in the next section. :-) In brief, blanket reverting (or deleting, if they are the only major contributor) is the only tenable solution. The most important articles will get fixed up by interested subject area experts. This is the only way to penetrate the backlog and make progress against systematic copyright violators. Dcoetzee 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Reverting to the last clean version would leave a fair article available, and immediately remove the violations. Subsequent edits don't have to be lost. The editors who made them could be notified, and they may replace them (if they are still relevant in the absence of the copyvio material). This automatically brings to each article editors with an interest in the subject, who may no longer be watching the article. If there are thousands of affected articles, there may be ten thousand editors of interleaved edits. It would be worth making a notification template to put on their Talk pages. And perhaps a little bot to place them there. KoolerStill (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on massive infringers: rehabilitation

The policy currently indicates that we may block a contributor pending the naming of sources. In such cases as the current, this is not practicable. Here we have a contributor who very likely did not understand that the text he was placing could not be used. I think it highly unlikely that he could produce such a list, since evidence suggests he has simply taken text he wanted from any source he encountered along the way. He has already been issued a block advisory by another admin. Evidently, he had never been advised that this practice was unacceptable before.

Ideally, Wikipedia would monitor the contributions of editors such as these for a while, as my own experience tells me that the concept of US copyright law (and our copyright policy) is not as easily grasped by some as others. We do not have either manpower or a good process for doing this, so I think this is not practicable. However, it seems irresponsible to permit an editor who we know to have violated copyright in many articles to continue editing without some review to verify that the problem does not continue. In the case of User:GrahamBould, discussed above, who pasted text from books and websites into possibly thousands of articles on Wikipedia, he was first advised of our copyright policies here, in February 2006. Obviously, he would not have been identified as a massive infringer at that point. But there have been others. For example, in December 2008, I identified 43 copyright violating articles by a single contributor. He is on my limited list of individuals whose past issues are worrisome enough to merit checking on periodically, but I haven't checked him in some time. Between regular CP issues and new massive infringers, I simply don't have time. And I'm going to be kicking myself if he—or one of the other massive infringers we've detected in the past—shows up with another 40 or 400 or 4000 articles to be cleaned.

I don't think I have any practical ideas for dealing with this one. Ideally, mentorship (including monitoring & as necessary education) would be supplied to these individuals, many of whom are passionate contributors, some of whom almost certainly do not understand copyright. (Some do. I don't hesitate to block individuals who have received proper notice, including block advisory, and persisted.) I have engaged in long-term mentorship with one massive infringer, whom I hope (desperately) now understands our policies. (I believe he does; he has even approached me with copyvios he has found in articles that were placed by others.) But that kind of mentorship eats a lot of time. It's tedious, and I suspect we'd have a pretty high burn-out rate even if we managed to assemble mentors.

It would be great, obviously, if we could put them to work cleaning up their own messes. But that's not workable at all, since if they broke it, we can't trust them to fix it. :) Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The worst solution is to allow the infringements to continue. Slightly better is to simply block the user, biting the newcomers but stopping the infringement. Better still is to leave a {{uw-copyright}} note and watch the user's contributions, blocking them if they continue. And the best solution is to mentor the user, patiently explaining policy to him or her, etc. But if we don't have the time and resources for the best solution, do the next best. – Quadell (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The solution needs to be evaluated against a set of prioritised criteria. Copyright infringement is a serious legal issue aside from any ethical aspects. Acknowledging that we don't want to bite new editors, and that we want to maintain an open and easy to edit encyclopedia, stopping continued infringement should be accorded significant weight in evaluating a course of action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Most user sanctions are in the environment where the user is abusing the encyclopedia - vandalism, rudeness, edit warring, etc. Copyright violations expose the encyclopedia to external legal risk.
A one article one time incident should not result in a block. However, with someone who's done multiple copyright violations and plagarized routinely, I don't think BITE applies evenly in that situation. We're acting to prevent damage to the encyclopedia - from outside, by our having and hosting plagarized, copyright violation information.
It would be BITE to indef block someone rudely. It's not BITE to indef block them and say "Hey, this was serious, we need you to understand that this is not ok and cooperate on identifying where you got this all from. If you cooperate and agree to abide by the policy we can unblock you.".
That's not AGF - but at this point, we presumably have in hand evidence that they're in violation of policy, in a way that exposes us to legal risk. AGF extends to "Let's assume they didn't mean to do that and give them another chance" but does not mean we need to let them do it more before we block them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've thought some about this and I think the above is the right idea. When someone is a systematic copyright violator they need to be blocked immediately, regardless of their potential for rehabilitation, and this should be codified in policy. This is the only way to control the spread. They can appeal for unblock by the normal process, and undergo a conversation about their future contributions at that time.
Similarly, the only way to deal with the contributions of a systematic offender is to get out the big axe and revert (in the case of added content) or delete (in the case where they are the only major contributor) the entire article. This may remove useful newer contributions; this cannot be helped, and cleaning it up is a task that must be left to subject area experts.
This is not punitive action, but the only efficient way to penetrate the enormous backlogs of copyvios. The current cleanup task force is simply not up to the task of carefully reviewing every affected article, or mentoring every contributor. Wiki magic says that the things that matter most will get the most attention, and that will have to be enough. Dcoetzee 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed language for both of the above

Currently, policy says this:

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used.

I propose altering it to read thus:

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used. It may be necessary to remove all suspect material placed by contributors who have verifiably extensively violated copyright policy, even if individual infringement is not verified. If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately.

What do you think? Is this broad enough? Too broad? Open to misinterpretation? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This language seems good - it's an appropriate policy enhancement per our discussion here and is well written. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
A writing style nitpick (it's the copy-editor in me coming out). The original wording referred to "contributors" (plural), and the new wording refers to "a contributor" (singular). The paragraph Should be consistent in the usage. Otherwise, it's fine and the message is clear, and the broadness is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed in example. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence is a bit terse and vague. I'd go with something more like: "If a contributor has been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." Dcoetzee 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I've pluralized contributors for consistency. How's this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me, providing others agree with my strong choice of language. :-) Dcoetzee 06:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong violations warrant strong language. These are clearly people who are proud of their contributions. If/when they start to notice the removals, they might begin to get serious about understanding the importance of the issue.KoolerStill (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stolen picture report (2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#stolen_pictures.2C_info_requested User F203 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a copyright problem?

Not sure if this is a copyright problem or not. The article Cenogram consists basically of a single attributed quote, with no prior versions with other content. I wouldn't be comfortable writing such an article myself, but I thought I'd double check before calling it a copyvio. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the quote fails to satisfy fair use as it isn't being used in the context of any commentary, and in relation to the rest of the article, it is a substantial (as in 100%) part of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much where I'm leaning on this. I'll send it on to WP:CP. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Threading (epilation)

Stumbled upon this. It seems to be a copyvio of some advertisement site, but speedy delete tags keep getting removed. The long-standing version even encouraged Wikipedia readers that "If you are unsure or have questions, you should feel free to contact any of the salons sponsored on this website, and they will be happy to help you."

I do not trust this article at all, in any form. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The analysis of the of the text and its provenance is provided on the article talk page. Perhaps you should share your concerns there. -- Whpq (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs