Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:CP

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 30 days

Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool

Hello! As of right now, Earwig's Copyvio Tool will now require logging in with your Wikimedia account for search engine checks. This is an attempted solution at trying to curb bot scraping of the site, which rapidly depletes the available quota we have for Google searches. New checks will require you to log in first prior to running. You will also still keep getting "429: Too Many Requests" errors until the quota resets, around midnight Pacific Time, as we've run out of search engine checks for the day. If this broke something for you or if you're having issues in trying to authenticate, please let The Earwig or me know. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about non-free in periods of uncertainty

Right now, the image at 1990 Plainfield tornado has an unclear attribution and is under a license review, and the hosting party, NWS Chicago, is unsure whether the image falls under public domain. If the image gets deleted, is it fair to use another, non-free image from the site? I know that non-free images can't be used if a free image in its place can illustrate the same content, but how does this apply if nobody knows whether or not free images could exist because of unclear copyright status? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baselios Thomas I

I'm looking into an RD1 request on this article, and the oldest archive I can find is from 2014, which is 8 years after this article was created with the copied content. I'm therefore uncertain whether Wikipedia contains content copied from this site, or if this site copied content from Wikipedia. What's the best way to go about resolving this situation? Do we assume Wikipedia copied the content, or do we leave it alone until more evidence is obtained? --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Comments are copied from the article's talk page] The smoking gun is how the initials of his name are rendered. On the church website and the original version of this article, the initials are rendered as C M (no periods, spaces between initials). By the end of 2007, the article on Wikipedia had swapped in C.M. (periods, no spaces). This suggests that, barring strong evidence to the contrary, the church website came first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is quite compelling. Thanks. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a bizarre request, but if we do confirm the copyvio, would you mind holding off revdelling it for a day or so? Modern day/ post removal version was mostly written by an editor called Werldwayd. (As in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd). I'll have a go at trying to clean their additions tomorrow, but it'll be much easier if I have access to the previous revisions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Feel free to ping me on the article's talk page or drop a note on my user talk page when you're ready for me to RD. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian and Crazycomputers: Thanks to you both for volunteering to take up your respective rolls in improving that article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CP header changes

Hi everyone. I'm hoping to replace the instructions up to the actual cleanup instructions for this board with something a bit more concise since this isn't really a good place for general CV cleanup. A draft is at my sandbox and I'd welcome a sanity check or two. I'm not sure on what to do with the first section that is just a TLDR duplication of WP:Copypaste. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a huge improvement. Just a small comment, "The source cannot be determined if it is a mirror or not." is not very clear to me. Would something like "You cannot determine if the source copied pre-existing Wikipedia text" or "You cannot determine whether the text originated with the source or Wikipedia" get at what you're going for here? Ajpolino (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, both are. I think the second one is better. Will bring it over. Nice to have you back, by the way! Sennecaster (Chat) 05:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, absolutely amazed at the work you all have done to clear this backlog. Ajpolino (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben I complex copyvio case

I looked at the redaction request for Ruben I and realized there were a number of different copyright violations from books and web sites. Could someone with more expertise than I look over this page? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe; from a copyright standpoint, there is no remaining copyvio present in the article. ~~For redacting, typically I see admins like Nthep just pick a random source that had copyvio or point people to the history~~. I would go ahead and complete the revdel as requested. This article is part of a CCI where there is typically a lot of sources copied from. Granted, I'm not an admin, but I have made worse requests before; like this mess from another CCI. Hope this helps, and thanks for jumping in with helping out! It's very appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the Copyvio findings were correct. I generally do not proceed without confirmation. But as this was formally investigated, I’ll go ahead and redact. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of. Next time, could the person making the copyvio revdel request put a link to the investigation in the comment for the edit? That way, I can tell that the request is reliable and that I don't have to track down and verify everything myself. When an admin does the revdel, we don't have to identify the source of the copied material, so what's more important to me is that an official investigation was done rather than that a specific source was the one that was copied. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case in question is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka, if that helps. That Ghazarian source is one of the ones that is confirmed to have copyright violations. Wizardman 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe fwiw you can trust that @MrLinkinPark333's gross RD1s are CCI-related and reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That tip'll help speed things up. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's @Sennecaster's. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe; We don't normally link CCIs in our revdel requests; if you see a crapload of URLs in the history you can pretty safely assume that it's for a CCI, even if we don't mention it. Furthermore, the CCI regulars tend to be very conservative with revdels; out of my actual CV removals I maybe take 1 of 6 to revdel, and we never revdel for WP:PDEL, only sourced copyvios. If you want a list of current copyright regulars, I can name some as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of names would be great. I'd store that list. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're also at the #wpcci channel at Wikipedia:Discord if you have any questions for us. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rsjaffe: Well, this isn't a 'trust us unilaterally' list, but a list where they are more likely to be doing CCI, CP, or copypatrol investigations and usually more experienced in copyright than the average editor requesting revdels. This list isn't exhaustive, but the clerks, MrLinkinPark, GreenLipstickLesbian, L3X1, 1AmNobody24, Trainsandotherthings, and a good amount of the permissions VRT agents and Commons sysops I trust too. There's some others I'm missing I'm sure. You can also check out the clerks page for a list of admins experienced in copyright if you have any more sysop-specific questions, or scrape through Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup participants for some more people; the latter is not a guarantee that they are actually active in copyright or active at all. If you're on Discord, we do have a channel as mentioned and are always happy to help. Thank you though, for stepping up and assisting with revdels. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the most active at CCI by any means but I know the basics and am happy to answer questions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will keep your name

on speed dial — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always down to help out with copyright questions, but I can't promise that I fully know what the admin side looks like myself. Feel free to drop by my talk page. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could fix that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster, can we lose the word random, please. That suggests we don't take these seriously. What goes in the log tends to be what was put in the revdel template, that's the way the script works. So, if the request doesn't contain all or any of the offending urls, they don't appear in the log. Nthep (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nthep (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this statue copyrighted?

I am currently writing an article on the Lord Botetourt statues (my userspace draft) that stand on the campus of the College of William & Mary. The original is from 1772 and obviously public domain. However, the 1993 replica (pictured here) may not be. While William & Mary calls it a "replica" in some places, they call it an "artist's interpretation" elsewhere. The artist behind the 1993 work understandably contended that it was not a replica despite relying extensively on the 1772 work and other public domain works to reconstruct it. I heavily lean towards this being a replica: that was the intended purpose of the design and it effectively mirrors the original in all ways but the medium it is made from. However, at least one other editor was concerned enough about potential issues that they uploaded a blurred image of the statue on the Commons. Any input or guidance here is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]