Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 15

CC BY-SA compatibility

1. From section "Contributors' rights and obligations":

you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license

Who can tell me if the terms are compatible? Is there a "list" of the compatible licenses or I can decide on my own?

2. For example, can I contribute a text under MIT license ([1])? A friend told me it's like a CC BY where the author decides a custom attribution style ([2], attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor) can you confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the MIT License would be unacceptable for text, because it would require additional text above and beyond that required by the rest of Wikipedia's content, and is thus more restrictive (at least for Wikipedia's purposes). A custom attribution style doesn't work for text on Wikipedia, because of the line "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." which you can see between the edit window and the edit summary, and similar such lines viewable at wmf:Terms of Use.

In general text needs to be either in the public domain or licensed under a less-restrictive CC license, such as CC-BY. Please note that none of this prevents you from additionally licensing your contributions under the MIT license, but it can't be the only one you use. Please also note that none of the above applies to Files, which have less stringent requirements, and the {{MIT}} license is available for use both here and on commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A clear and useful response, thank you very much. Meanwhile, I found that there's a list of official CC compatible licenses, which in fact, is currently empty. Maybe one could include the link to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Compatible license, which redirects to WP:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dual-licensing

How is it possible that one can relicense CC BY-SA-only content to CC BY-SA + GFDL, if s/he is not the author of the text? When I submit content to Wikipedia, I'm dual-licensing it, while the page states, You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License, unless you are its sole author. and you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license, or ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.6.57 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Content imported under CC-BY-SA only and derivatives thereof stay under that single license. Original content authored by the contributor must be dual-licensed. See WP:FAQ/Copyright, specifically Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? and Can I reuse Wikipedia's content somewhere else?. I think there might be a more specific page, but I can't find it. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I got it - the double-licensing only happens when you are directly contribute the text, i.e. when you're its author, and this word makes the difference. Still don't get why one has to double-license, given that Cc BY-SA is sufficient (now that has passed a lot of time since GFDL 1.3 dual-licensing deadline of August 1, 2009 [3]) --151.75.6.57 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One example: when we were a younger website set up under GFDL, a few other websites licensed under GFDL so that they could make use of our content. Transitioning license is not easy; if they did not transition, they would not be able to use our newer materials. Our goal is to make our content as widely available as possible, while also ensuring that it can continue to grow (through modification) and remain free (through perpetual licensing). Making it available under multiple licenses that encourage this makes sense. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks to all of you =D 151.75.6.57 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Countries without copyright relations with the US - RFC implementation

In response to a request at WP:AN I've closed an RFC on this page about countries without copyright relations with the US. Some additional steps are needed to implement the conclusion.

1. Update the relevant templates (and if necessary move to template namespace, categorise, and document), to clarify that a FUR is needed. Relevant templates include (there may be others)
   • User:Buffs/PD-Afghanistan
   • User:Buffs/PD-Somalia
   • User:Buffs/PD-Ethiopia in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-Eritrea in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-Iraq in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-Iran in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-San Marino in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-Turkmenistan in US
   • User:Buffs/PD-Tuvalu in US
2. Update policies:
   • Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law
   • Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Countries without copyright relations with the United States
3. Label files appropriately with these templates
4. Ensure each file use has a Fair Use Rationale.

In updating the policies, I would add in a reference to principle 3 in my closure (Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Closure), perhaps in a footnote - but I'll leave that and everything else to others. Rd232 ^talk 12:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, I've nominated various Iranian photos for deletion. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 14#File:Tohid tunnel iran tehran31.jpg. All current photos using the tags need to be checked and proposed for deletion if necessary. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I think we should have a link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing somewhere in the policy, just to make sure that new contributors reading the page for the first time can see that just altering a few words of a copyrighted source and then uploading it to Wikipedia still counts as a copyright violation. The link is also missing from a few other important pages, for example WP:COPYVIO and WP:FAQ/Copyright, but I thought I would start my enquiries at the most important one. :-) Do people think this would be worth including? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but usually short passages are closely paraphrased. Since quoting a short passage would be fair use, a short paraphrase with proper acknowledgement would also be fair use. So any mention should be written to include the possibility of fair use. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Proper acknowledgement may impact fair dealing, but isn't really a factor in fair use. It helps with plagiarism, though. :) Our implementation of fair use media (text included) is governed by WP:NFC, which requires that non-free text being asserted under fair use be directly quoted. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#Non-free materials and special requirements. I wasn't around when this requirement was decided, but it seems like a sensible one, since we have no other means to identify potentially non-free text to our reusers and since fair use allowances vary widely throughout the world. In any event, the suggestion here is not to add content, but to link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. While I think close paraphrasing is an important factor for users to understand, I'm a little hesitant to link to an essay...but that said, there are already essays linked here, by long precedence. Maybe under "Further discussion"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I had vaguely envisaged it appearing in the "Copyright violations" section, along the lines of "Be aware that lengthy close paraphrasing of sources may also count as copyright infringement." But I could certainly live with linking to it in the "Further discussion" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the images I uploaded was tagged. It was from San Marino, San marino cable car view.jpg

So what is the decision, we leave as is, which is unclear? Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Using an Image Taken For and Sent to Me by Someone Who Has Their Own Wikipedia Page

I have a friend who has their own Wikipedia page that doesn't have an image. I was hoping to add a candid & non-copyrighted image that this person took of themselves & sent to me personally via. text message. What is the best/easiest way to do this? I understand how to do it from a technical standpoint.....I only need to know how to go about it from a Wikipedia policy standpoint. I mean, since she took the picture of herself on her cell phone & personally sent it to me via text message....does that give me the right to use it so as to add a decent pic to her Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs173 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. The copyright belongs to the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

such text will be identified either on the page footer

What does "page footer" as used as used in the following two sentence fragments mean? Are wikipedia editors being asked to provide copyright information in the "footer?" I suggest clarifying these sentences, and/or providing links.

"such text will be identified either on the page footer"

"review the page footer"

Wikfr (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

CGI Images

From Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#CGI images

Chinese space station free image

Some CGI images can be made, some cannot, and for some, it's not appropriate to try.

as an example of an image which is not appropriate, would this be correct, or too brief, to explain ? "A computer generated image, rendering or animation of a copyright free subject that could be recreated to a standard that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose."

as a clarification between for example, some thing that we can draw in the graphics lab, and say, a scene from toy story, avatar (movie) or elephants dream and so on. We can make some images to a reasonable standard ourselves, but not all CGI images would be handled the same way, so some sort of guidance for editors would help here I've noticed. Media outlets have their own graphics, and I figure it can't always be a good idea to copy them to wikipedia. There is not enough input on the policy talkpage, and I'd like guidance (not for myself but for other editors) which can be placed onto the policy page.

I personally don't need the clarification, I'm happy with the examples and actions taken either way, however I am certain some guidance written down is a great idea here. A link to something existing would be as good. Penyulap ☏ 19:38, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Long quotations

Is it OK to use long quotations (a paragraph or more) in an article under "fair use"? What about if the quotes come from a public domain source; e.g., the CBO, part of the US federal government? Specifically, the last paragraphs of United States fiscal cliff#Effects of sequestration? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Extensive quotations of copyrighted text are forbidden by policy; WP:NFC. From public domain sources, we can take as much as we like. No copyright issues with those. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

LINKVIO Question

Is it a WP:LINKVIO to add link to a Google Document Viewer (for a PDF document) available online? --SMS ^Talk 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Did the copyright owner put it up and share the link? Then, no, it's fine. If somebody else put it up, then possibly. It depends on how it was used and by whom. For instance, we don't link directly to images that are being used in external sources as fair use; depriving them of context makes their use no longer fair. If there is any doubt and the PDF document is available online, it seems most prudent to link to the PDF document. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will surely use the direct link from now onwards. But I will still like to understand whether it was a copyright violation or not. Actually I am talking about this document. In Google Search, for document files (like PDF) that appear in the search results, there is a "Quick View" link to view them, that opens the document in Google Document Viewer instead of downloading it on your computer and then viewing it. This feature is available to all users, whether they have google account or not. So I considered it to be just like a browser, which are also used to view sites (and documents etc.). Am I correct in thinking like this? --SMS ^Talk 15:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody can tell you whether something infringes copyright but a court of law, I'm afraid. :) But I'm not 100% sure based on what you say here that I'm understanding the question - you're not talking about a link to a document that's been hosted somewhere other than the original location, but rather some alternate means of reading content in a pdf? If that's all it is, why does their Terms of Use say, "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Service." What are you submitting or posting, exactly? </puzzled> --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about reading the PDF document by alternate means. Well I sometimes link to the "Quick View" version of the PDF documents in discussions which makes it easier for other editors to open the document just like a webpage instead of downloading it. But what you quoted above from their ToU is really confusing. Why are they offering this service without permission from the rightful owner or the one who is hosting that file is completely beyond my understanding. --SMS ^Talk 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor things

If a disambiguation blurb is copied from the lead section of the respective article, or if text from an image description page is copied to serve as caption of that very image, do those need to be attributed per WP:COPYWITHIN or is the implicit attribution from the page/image link sufficient to comply with our license? Assuming they are not common phrases anyway of course.
I am mainly asking whether those need to be repaired as part of copyright cleanup.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The assumption I've always seen is that implicit attribution doesn't count. We often do wikilinks without duplicating text, so there's no presumption when we make them that text is copied. :) If it's a small amount of text (but not common phrases or otherwise uncreative), I wouldn't bother with the talk page template, but I would note it in an edit summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not with Wikilinks in general, right, but if image and caption are added in a single edit like e.g. in this diff my thought was that it is almost part of the image, and for the image the attribution behind the link is considered enough.
The above diff is not the best example actually since the image was uploaded by the same editor, and the caption was actually taken from a whitehouse.gov blog, so if anything it was plagiarism. And in fact, most of the time the editor who embeds the image in an article and the uploader will be one and the same person, so it's probably rarely a concern anyway.
But meh, the first part of your reply reminded me that I actually hate copyright questions, too much uncertainty and room for interpretations for my taste. I've restored the diffs that prompted my question to the CCI and let someone else decide whether they are common phrases or not. :)
Amalthea 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a related discussion, regarding implied attribution like {{main}}, at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#How to attribute. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Compilation re-use

I just tripped into an interesting site (NimbleBooks.com) that sells automated compilations of Wikipedia pages for 49 cents each --- some of the current "titles" have two articles others ten or so. I understand there are more comprehensive compilations as well. I didn't pay the 49 cents to find out if the eBook has the appropriate Creative Commons license information and attribution to Wikipedia, etc. I have at least one researcher who has been frustrated with Amazon listing similar compilation books that have nothing but the material from Wikipedia and/or other sites. It concerns me that this may not be consistent with contributor expectations, and can also diminish the value of actual authored materials. JimInNH (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

MIDI files of public domain music

Note: this was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and it's been agreed that it's more appropriate to discuss it here. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Are MIDI files being treated as recordings or as electronic encodings of sheet music? Since MIDI files are not recordings, but instructions to synthesizers on which note to play, how long to play and which instrument to use, wouldn't this just be the original music score in a MIDI format, and thus also PD if the source music score is PD?

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is "it depends". Musical arrangements and human interpretation are subject to copyright, and a midi that is a recording of a performance certainly would be protected. The only kind of midi file that would be unambiguously in the public domain is one that is a very strict, very literal transcription of a public domain score. — Coren ^(talk) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it even possible to use MIDI to record sounds from some other source? I thought that MIDIs were purely electronically produced sound from a score that was fed into the device and that they weren't able to take in sound from another source. If so, this isn't a matter of human creativity, since machines are capable only of producing very strict, very literal transcriptions of scores because they can't interpret anything. Unless I misunderstand something, I can't see how a MIDI file could be copyrighted when the score is in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the MIDI file is a literal adaptation of the score, then the same PD should allow apply to the MIDI as well, since just "translating" the score into MIDI commands is not a creative work. If however the person creating the MIDI made changes to the score when "translating" to MIDI, then it's a new work of art and new copyright might apply. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

An instrument such as an electronic keyboard can produce MIDI output, recording the keystrokes of the performer, and thus the performance itself. As mentioned earlier, the performance is a creative work apart from the score, and so has a separate copyright status. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that; I thought MIDIs could only be made by putting a score into a device that produced the sound by itself, such as NoteWorthy Composer. That type of MIDI is definitely fine, since a public domain score will always be played precisely the same, but I agree that the electronic keyboard that Isaac mentions is completely different. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, MIDI stands for Musical Instrument Digital Interface, and was invented as a communications protocol between input devices, such as instruments and control panels, to other processing devices. Thus a performer's actions — push this key, turn that knob — are recorded precisely, to make easier to process. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion relates to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the original poster was probably concerned that something would be deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A MIDI file of an opera score was speedily deleted, if the score itself is out of copyright, then would or would not the MIDI representation be not-copyrightable. Specifically this file File:Zhhenitba sound sample.mid was deleted off Wikipedia (and it's companion is up for deletion on Commons) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Might be better discussed at WT:C rather than here, but asking if MIDIs are copyrighted is a bit like asking if photographs are copyrighted—the answer is "That's a broad question and it depends on the specifics." If it's a MIDI of a copyrighted work or a live performance, it most certainly is copyrightable. If it's a mechanical reproduction of public domain sheet music, such that anyone could do the reproduction using the same rules and get the same results, no, much like a photograph of a public-domain painting or electronic copies of a public-domain book are not copyrightable, because they are "slavish copies" and therefore do not rise to the threshold of originality. In any grey areas in between the two clear "yes" and "no" examples I noted, we would evaluate case by case but generally err on the side of caution; that is, unless we can confidently say "No, it can't be copyrighted", we'll presume it can be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, the Wikimedia Foundation's legal interns did some research on the question of copyright in MIDIs here last spring. It doesn't say much that isn't said here, but it has citations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Guideline for talk pages

In light of this discussion, it might be a good idea to specify that the rules apply to talk pages. A user thought it would be all right to post an entire newspaper article I sent him because most people did not have access, in order to help people improve the article. I was reluctant to post it myself as he suggested and it turns out I was right, but I thought it might be all right since it wasn't for the encyclopedia itself.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding former versions of articles that were copyright violations?

The page currently located at Uta monogatari violated copyright in its initial version up until September 11/12 of this year. The page was a near carbon copy of the Santa Fe Poetry Broadside "A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose" by Jeffrey Woodward. It saw only relatively minor edits until User:Bagworm and myself basically overhauled it, and at least until that time entire sentences were still copied verbatim from the Woodward piece. I moved the page, and changed the subject (the original topic was not notable, and assuming good faith I guessed it was meant to be about uta monogatari, which I later found out was unrelated). Therefore, some of the text may still resemble the Woodward article, but in a completely different context and entirely by coincidence. However, I recently found out that on Japanese Wikipedia past versions of pages can get completely expunged if they are revealed to be copyright violations. This seems logical, since the offending material still exists in Wikipedia even if it has been removed in the current version of the article. Is this also policy on English Wikipedia? If so, is there a "past-edits for deletion" page I should consult? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

On this project, fill in {{copyvio-revdel|start=revision number of the first revision infringing copyright|end=revision number of the last revision infringing copyright|url=source of the infringing material (for example a URL)}}. Such revisions are deletable per WP:CRD#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How far removed for Copyvio not to be appropriate?

Simple question, we correctly assume that Billboard does not impinge on copyrights and as a matter of course is regularly linked by various editors as a matter of course - so far no problems. On this particular Billboard page there is a link to a YouTube video which is patently loaded up unofficially and without permission. It would be a violation if the YouTube page had been linked directly on WP, but what about through a third party? What then? Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO speaks to context. If an external website seems to be making fair use of the content, then linking to the website itself may be okay. I think context is important here, as well. I would myself be more comfortable linking to it to discuss the Billboard work - for instance, if it were used as a source - than to link to it baldly to access the copyrighted content they're displaying. A link that says, "Billboard says this was leaked" is one thing; a link that says, "See the video here!" is something else entirely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking account of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content

Since Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content exists, I think the paragraph Prior to June 15, 2009, Wikipedia did permit some text under licenses that were compatible with the GFDL but might require additional terms that were not required for original Wikipedia text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). However, these materials could only be placed if the original copyright holders did not require that they be carried forward; for that reason, they impose no special burden for reuse. – which appears to suggest there's not practical effect of the original licensing conditions and therefore might be better confined to that dedicated page.

I think a {{main}} link toWikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content should be added, and All text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility. worded a but differently for flow, perhaps Since all text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, you can ensure GFDL compatibility by using the page history to retrieve content published before that date. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are no other contributions (waiting however long some wants to wait), might I suggest an admin implements this? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

While participating at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy, I noticed that this page does not specifically discuss copying content within Wikipedia. Perhaps we should add a paragraph with a brief summary? How about this after the "Reusers' rights and obligations" part:

== Reusing text within Wikipedia ==

{{Main|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia}}

When you [[Wikipedia:Merging|merge]] or [[Wikipedia:Splitting|split]] an article, or otherwise move text from one page to another within Wikipedia, the [[Help:Page history|page history functionality]] cannot by itself determine where the content originally came from. This may violate the attribution clause of the project's licenses. If you are copying text within Wikipedia, you must at least put a link to the source page in an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] at the destination page. It is encouraged to do the same thing at the source page, and to add notices at the talk pages of both.

If you reuse text which you created '''yourself''', the above may still be a good idea to avoid confusion, but it isn't mandatory.

Thoughts? - theFace 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as an uncontroversial good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to be a good idea to me; it's logical that an important copyright guideline is mentioned somewhere on this page. CT Cooper · talk 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support important licensing issue, which needs more prominence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Question- I might be ignorant here, but I was always under the impression that every contribution onto the encyclopedia was released to the public domain. Is that not true? If it is, then this would be a little bit pointless. Feedback ^☎ 09:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't, see the text that appears above the save page button (if you haven't hidden it). MER-C 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Although I might be called a buffoon, I really didn't get most of what was on that page. I'm not fluent in lawyer-speak. In any case, I'll just assume that what you're saying is true. Feedback ^☎ 12:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
      • If you write a Wikipedia article and I wish to use that article, then, somewhat simplified, I have to do three things if I don't wish to violate your copyright:

1. I have to tell that the text was written by you (for example by including a statement saying "Text written by Feedback"). This corresponds to the "BY" part of CC-BY-SA.
2. I have to include a link to the legal text of the licence (for example by linking to WP:CC-BY-SA). Alternatively, I can include a copy of the legal text.
3. If I make any changes to your text, then I also have to publish my changes under the same licence. This corresponds to the "SA" part of CC-BY-SA.

Requirement 1 is solved by having a link in the page footer of all Wikipedia articles. Requirement 3 is solved by having a statement on the edit form saying that you agree to certain things when you click on "Save page". The tricky part is the second requirement if you copy and paste text from some other page, which this proposal is meant to fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Feedback says it all, really. This happens way too often, even amongst established Wikipedians. MER-C 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, Per "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license", including a link is required. Putting in the edit summary I believe is sufficient. No Opinion on notes on talk page. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Side note, It is now possible to transclude a single section, I am not finding the directions on Wikipedia, but they are here on Wikisource. Much of the copy and paste from one article to another could be bypassed by transcluding a section. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - we must be a good example of how to reuse content. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviving

MiszaBot put this topic in the archive. I just pulled it out. Even though only 4 people, myself included, supported this proposal, I really think this page should have a reference to WP:CWW, certainly since that guideline was close to becoming a policy itself some time ago (see here). I'm not an admin so I can't add the above text myself. Here's an edit request tag... - theFace 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Although there is a consensus for the change among the editors that responded to this proposal, my instinct is that this discussion needs to be advertised more widely. Changes to policy need a broad base of support among Wikipedia editors, and that isn't really in evidence here just yet. Perhaps start an RfC and post notifications on WP:VPP, WP:VPR, and WP:CENT? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, requested feedback at VPP and VPR. Thanks, theFace 10:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Mr. Stradivarius' view. Something straightforward and logical things should be just done. Changes to policy need a[n explicit declaration] broad base of support among Wikipedia editors? No. Policy pages are descriptive, and should be kept up to date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that something this logical need not be fraught with excessive process. Yes, we want to make sure that policy changes are well advertised in advance, but a formal RFC, with its attendant timeframe, for something that will, in my estimation, likely get near-unanimous support seems like just delaying the positively inevitable. That said, the cross-posting notifications are a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Question... I understand why this is proposed (and in that context, I agree with it)... but is it realistic to expect editors to actually do what is proposed? What happens when editors (whether through ignorance or laziness) neglect to leave the required edit summary? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• If you don't include attribution, then it is a copyright violation, and copyright violations should be deleted per WP:CSD#G12. However, in this case, it would be much better if the copyright violation could be repaired instead of being deleted. If the copyright violation occurred on 2013-01-02 at 12:13:14, then the reparation would seem to be to insert an extra revision with a correct edit summary dated 2013-01-02 12:13:13. This is currently only possible for stewards (by following mw:Manual:Importing XML dumps and modifying an XML file in a text editor), so it isn't easy to correct such errors for ordinary users. Would it be possible to use an approach which can at least be repaired by ordinary administrators?

Also: When accessing Wikipedia content, you won't always see the edit summaries. For example, if I use the "Download as PDF" link in the toolbar to the left, I only get a long list of user names which neither includes any statement that edits have been copied from elsewhere within Wikipedia nor the names of the authors of the original source. Aren't the PDF files copyright violations here due to the lack of attribution to certain editors? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So if someone does not leave a proper edit summary (for what ever reason), the move/split should be undone/deleted per CSD#G12?... is that realistic? Are we really prepared to enforce it? (or is this just something we have to say, to cover our asses legally... but will ignore in practice.) Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We routinely repair these issues in the manner described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I've only really seen these pages deleted when they were improper moves and the new page stands in the way of an actual move. Stefan, the PDF issue is concerning. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

IIRC it was for this reason that WP:BJAODN was deleted. Some people didn't like it, some did, but there was never a consensus to delete it, but one guy deleted it anyway, because it's not allowed to copy text to another location without proper attribution. A lot of people were mad about that, but nothing could be done: he was right. This came up recently regarding paid editing. Because of Bright Line, paid agents typically post a complete rewrite of an an article (or sections of it) on the talk page, and somebody else has to copy and paste it into the actual article. OK, but this requires attribution, which is not being done. This leaves the possibility of someone opening a can of worms in future. Basically, my understanding is that there's no gainsaying deletion for GDFL violation, and we're not allowed to say "Yes its copyvio but the person obviously won't mind", at least I thought so. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Why is this even open to question or voting? It's a copyright violation, period. We don't allow copyvio exceptions on the basis "I'm sure he won't mind" or "It's just a technicality" or "No one is being harmed" or "He won't even know". Do we? Cos if we do I think that'd be great, we could copy text from company websites and old ads and out-of-print books with no commercial potential and so forth, and it'd make my life a lot easier. Please inform me when these types of copyvio exceptions are allowed. Until then, violating GDFL terms is copyvio, period. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

So... I guess this proposal has wide support. Can someone implement it? Cheers, theFace 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No response. Here's an edit request... - theFace 12:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Looks like I was just delaying the inevitable. Let me know if I've made any mistakes in my edit. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you made no mistakes. You did the right thing. Thanks a lot, Mr.! - theFace 17:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

External links

Do films linked to YouTube through external links have to be PD in both the US and source country, or is PD in just the source country okay? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's specifically addressed, but I would say we go by the same rule of thumb as the rest of Wikipedia: it would have to be PD in the US. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the copyright holder itself uploaded the video in question. Linking to such a video (when relevant) would still be fine, even if it's non-free. See also: WP:YOUTUBE. Cheers, theFace 17:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Club Alpbach Croatia

I originally posted the following on the WP:Donating copyrighted materials page but I see it has <30 watchers and is fairly inactive so I am also posting here for visibility:

Hi there copyright minded people.

I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro

Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that this has been resolved. :) Thank you. I've added the necessary attribution template. This is not only required to comply with teh license of the external source but also to indicate to reusers that the material is not co-licensed. Most of our content is available under GFDL or CC-By-SA, but this page is not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK

Where should we report suspected violations of WP:COPYLINK? That is where Wikipedia articles cite links to copies of documents on a website which is infringing the copyright of the document owners. 212.183.140.60 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd either go with WP:ELN or WT:CP, depending on how the link is used, unless the article has an active talk page, in which case I'd start there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Username of real name?

Sometimes authors of photos are mentioned just as nicknames of a Wikipedia user. When attributing the used photo from Wikipedia with author, is is enough just to use the nickname? Sometimes there is also a real name mentioned and nickname: in this case do I use both?

Thank you for any advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennett (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia's editors (including me) are not authorized to give you legal advice, I will say that I myself would default to whatever it says in the author information section - nickname, real name or both - unless the specific form of attribution is set out elsewhere in the image attribution page. :) If you want a more definite answer, I'm afraid you'll have to ask them or consult an intellectual property attorney with jurisdiction in your area. (This is for your own protection, and not because I'm trying to be difficult. See the disclaimer in the lead of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. All I can do is tell you what I'd do, but I can't guarantee that I'd be right. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

interwiki

Hi, please add the urdu interwiki link to this page [[ur:منصوبہ:حقوق نسخہ]], thanks. محمد شعیب (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What copyright is this under?

Hi, I uploaded an image that I own, and submitted it for use in an article. Wikipedia says that I have not cleared the copyright procedure for this image to stay online. My question is, under what copyright is this image if I own it, and when I want to own exclusive copyright to it? Thanks to whoever is reading this!Thisisprovoke (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this?Thisisprovoke (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say you "own" the image, do you mean you have a printed copy of it, or that you took the image yourself? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut needs Rcat update

A shortcut REDIRECT to this policy needs updated categories. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] {{R from shortcut}} {{R from Unicode}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]
Please leave one line blank.
{{Redr|to project|from shortcut|protected}}

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut that is used to categorize redirects. The Unicode category now has other uses, and {{R protected}} has replaced the use of the linked category, [[Category:Protected redirects]], on redirect pages. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – Mr. Stradivarius – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Web archives

Please remove, It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. struck, see later comments 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I can find no reason why these certain websites are treated any differently to any other link to copyrighted work. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is policy and has been in policy for almost six years. Consensus can change, of course, but consensus requires discussion. To get consensus for the change, you may wish to visit WP:VPP and/or launch an RFC here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

See [4]. Trying to keep discussion in one place, for now... 88.104.28.176 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)`

I've put back your full request. Please don't modify comments after people have responded and especially after they have quoted you. :) It confuses things. See WP:TALK. If you didn't mean to ask for that to be removed, you can strike it out and explain the issue or simply leave a note here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know all that, and didn't want to confuse anything; it's just that I noticed my request had quoted too much of the policy, not the specific sentence. I'll strike it. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Since I've quoted it in completion elsewhere, I don't want to confuse others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Archival websites RFC

It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

Why?

I can find no reason why websites that are 'internet archives' should be treated any differently to any other websites.

I accept that there are certain provisions within DCMA that allows such websites to avoid legal repercussions on condition that they immediately remove any content that is disputed.

However, Wikipedia does not link to copies of copyrighted websites. Full stop.

I see no reason why it's acceptable for us to link to a copy of a copyrighted work just because it is on "WayBack Machine" or any other similar site, but not link to copyrighted works on random-other-websites. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not full stop. Full stop implies there is nothing more in the policy. As per WP:COPYLINK, "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." Unclear, except for many court cases in which claims were dismissed on the basis of fair use. We have a policy that says we can link to the WayBack Machine et al. and you're trying to change it based on a flawed interpretation of another policy (which you've been proven wrong on User talk:Jimbo Wales). So, in bold, oppose any change based on flawed interpretations and misinformation. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note that wmf:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities tells that you may not be "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law." The words "applicable law" appear at various places in the terms of use and sometimes there is a statement indicating that applicable law may include the law of the country where the editor is residing. Since it is illegal to link to copyright violations in a lot of countries, it seems that it may be against the terms of use for editors in those countries to add links to the Wayback Machine.

Please explain why. Why do you think it's acceptable to treat "WayBackMachine" differently to Joe's blog site? Thanks. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the WayBack Machine and others like it (big full fledged archiving websites) have been treated differently by the law. The courts have said that these websites who exist to archive, in full, websites for future use are not violating any copyright. Plus, since the WMF servers are in the USA, we abide by US law, in which the WayBack Machine type sites are under fair use. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see in what way linking to material hosted by Webcite or the Internet Archive without the permission of the copyright holder is any different to linking to material hosted on Youtube without the permission of the copyright holder. I assume that the word "acceptable" needs to be changed into "unacceptable" unless the copyright holder has granted a licence to the archive which allows hosting verbatim copies of the material. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1st sentence - yep, exactly. 2nd sentence - I see no need; just remove it. No reason to specify "WayBackMachine" or "Webcite" any more than there is to specify YouTube, or Joes-blog, or whatever.

Copyvio is copyvio, why the hell are we promoting it? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't copyvio. This is fair use, and has been determined by courts that exact replication, in whole, of a website is not a violation of copyright if for the use of archival of previous versions of websites. Therefore, not copyvio (and that has been explicitly stated, that it's not copyvio, multiple times in court cases). gwickwire^talk_editing 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me that law, or those multiple court cases? 88.104.28.176 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Depends which state you want, never said law by the way. Google "court cases internet archives fair use" and you'll find tons. Granted, a lot ended with the archival site removing it because they felt a moral responsibility to do so, but there rarely is a court that orders an archival site to take down something. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that US courts apparently "look kindly" on sites that remove info when asked, but the fact remains that they're violating copyright.

I have to insist - please, substantiate your argument with direct evidence, not just saying "there are tons of cases" - I've looked, and I cannot find anywhere that US courts have said it is OK to 'archive' (ie COPY) something that is copyrighted. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A “cache” refers to the storage of an archival copy—often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company’s cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe. Source: [5] Libraries and archives have additional preservation options under 17 USC § 108 of United States copyright law. One of the few good things included in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") was a provision that explicitly allows libraries and archives to make up to three copies of a work for preservation purposes. Unlike the rest of the provisions of Section 108, the items being preserved can be in any format (text, images, sound, etc.). Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives. In order to take advantage of the exception, libraries and archives must follow certain ground rules. They must be either open to the public or allow access to non-affiliated researchers; the copying cannot be for "direct or indirect commercial advantage"; the library or archives must own a legal copy of the original item; and any copies made must carry with them a notice of copyright.[10] If the work is unpublished, preservation copies can be made for the purpose of preservation or security.[11] If the work is published, preservation copies can be made to replace an original that is "damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete." The law stipulates that a format is obsolete "if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace." The library or archives must also conduct a reasonable investigation to confirm that an unused copy cannot be obtained at a fair price. If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives.[12] Using Section 108, libraries and archives can start preserving old digital files in their collections. It does not help them, however, preserve materials that they do not own, such as networked resources or Web sites. Nor does Section 108 help individuals who want to preserve a digital files they may have legally acquired or obtained from the Internet. For this sort of preservation, we must rely on fair use. Source: [6] I figured you'd rather have the nice pretty Stanford legal team version than the court cases, so I decided to give you that, with the links. gwickwiretalkediting 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's evidence, all emphasis mine gwickwire^talk_editing 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, you say it's never been okay to copy something copyrighted? Why the hell do we have fair use then? Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain (and it's not explicitly prohibited in the terms of use of the thing)? There's TONS of exceptions to copyright violation law, and this is one of them. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

"Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement" - fine. But, Wikipedia is not a search engine.

"make up to three copies of a work for preservation purposes" - we're not doing that either.

Wikipedia is free - and can be freely copied even for "commercial gain". That is exactly why it must be so careful not to use resources that are copyrighted. copying cannot be for "direct or indirect commercial advantage" - right.

Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. - WP:FAIRUSE

Even commercially. We want people to be able to copy our work, even if their website has adverts.

It is antithesis to the mission to link to copies of copyrighted works.

"Why can I copy anything I want copyrighted if I previously purchased/obtained access to it for my own personal use as long as I don't use it for commercial gain" - because, it's copyright. And even if you could, that does not apply here on Wikipedia.

"Fair use" is, frankly, a load of shit. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. Your original argument was "we can't link because these websites are violating copyrights". Now you're saying we can't host copyrighted content? We aren't doing so. We are linking to it, legally doing so. By the way, you misquoted me in your second to last, I said "Why can I do so?" because it is perfectly legal for me to do so. Your arguments are fundamentally wrong, and you've given us no good reason to feel that the policy should be changed. I'm done arguing about this now, because you seem to be failing to listen to me and others. My oppose any change vote above still stands. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you accept that we're linking to copies of copyrighted content, right?

You have not explained why that is OK if it's WayBackMachine, and not OK for YouTube. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I accept that, and I'm done after this clarification: Youtube does not legally host copyrighted content, users upload copyrighted music/works all the time in violation of copyright law. Also, Youtube is almost never a reliable source, so there's rarely a reason to link to it. The WayBack Machine hosts old copies of newspapers, etc. that otherwise would be dead, unverifiable, links, and since they don't violate copyright law there's no reason for us to not link to them, but all the reason to link to them. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that it is legal to distribute digital copies outside a company's building because you've found a document which says that it is legal to keep digital copies of a work as long as the copies aren't distributed outside the company's building? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no clue where I said that. I clearly said personal use, how is distributed personal use? You're trying to discredit me now, and that's why I'm not going to continue. There's the evidence right there, and there's more in court documents scattered across the web. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments are nonsensical; when we've asked for specific clarification, you've not given any. Please stop espousing nonsense about alleged myriad "court documents" if you cannot support it with cold hard factual references. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I make no comment on the legal position, but merely note the following, quoting from the evidence provided by gwickwire above in relation to the DMCA (my emphasis):

"Furthermore, the copies can be digital, so long as they are not distributed digitally nor made available to the public in a digital format outside the premises of the library or archives.

… If digital copies are made, access to the digital version must be limited to the premises of the library or archives."

So this would not allow publication on a publicly-accessible website, thus, it does not support your argument. —sroc (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This isn't really a good forum for deciding what the law is. If it's believed that links to archive sites are illegal, the best thing to do would be to raise the question with WMF. The question for this discussion should be limited to whether or not the policy is good or bad. Formerip (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I already asked Jimbo about that; he didn't answer, and I was advised by Moonriddengirl (who works for the Foundation) to make this RFC instead.

It actually doesn't matter to us whether the sites are breaking the law. The question is just, should we link to suspected copyright violations. These 'web archives' clearly contain copies of copyrighted pages. DMCA provisions mean they are not likely to be libel for fines, as long as they agree to quickly remove anything if asked to do so. But that does not change the fact that they're providing copyrighted material that they do not have permission to reproduce.

We do not link to other sites that are suspected of violating copyright (example, youtube) - so why are these considered different/special? 88.110.246.208 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. ... Why? Because the content is (to the best of our knowledge) hosted legally, and linking to legally hosted content is (to the best of our knowledge) fine. If either of those things changes, we'll have to review our position, and potentially mass-remove a boat-load of links via bot (which would be bad, but not actually very hard). That seems unlikely to happen, and I don't see why we should worry about it unless there's some actual sign of legal issues arising. There's really no need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think they're hosted legally? I can't see anything that indicates they are. Just a bunch of copyright notices. As mentioned, they're usually not fined as long as they conform to DCMA take-downs, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

If it was a legal copy, why do they have to respond to take-downs?

I've looked, and can't find any indication that they're legal copies. 88.110.246.208 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use can be pretty wide-ranging, and depends on many factors. The value of having such a service may very well outweigh most copyright claims against it, in its particular form. That doesn't mean one can copy the content for other purposes, but I think they would have a pretty strong claim to fair use. What makes you think it is illegal (i.e. outside the bounds of fair use)? It has existed for years and to this point has not been ruled to be a copyright violation; the longer it goes that way tends to lead credence towards the assumption it is fair use. In the end, I think we would need an actual court ruling against it to change policy. I would agree that if the Wayback Machine archived a site which was a copyright violation in the first place (one of the reasons they have to respond to DMCA take-downs), we shouldn't link to it -- but if it had been acceptable to link to the original site I don't see any issue in linking to the archived version. A big part of Wikipedia is the need for verifiability, and the ability to continue to link to reliable content dramatically helps the stability of articles (otherwise people could somewhat control the content of Wikipedia by getting content removed from websites, forcing us to remove content which used that as a source if your proposed policy is accepted). We have a pretty strong fair-use need to continue such links. The IA documents the history of websites and little else. Google also archives content to aid in searching (both images and the web); those have been actually found fair use (even their book search) and I don't see why the IA's claim would not be at least as strong. For me, we would need actual court rulings to reverse existing policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Such cases already exist - you can read about some of them in Internet_Archive#Controversies_and_legal_disputes.

If you recognize the fact that the sites contain copyright material, then the simple question remains - why are we linking to them but not to other sites that contain copyright material (such as YouTube news clips, for example)? The only argument seems to be that it's very useful to link to web archives.

An example archive, the "United States 108th Congress Web Archive", says this - which is quite pertinent;

Many, if not all, of the Web sites in the collection and elements incorporated into the Web sites (e.g., photographs, articles, graphical representations) are protected by copyright. The materials may also be subject to publicity rights, privacy rights, or other legal interests.
Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with the person desiring to use the item. You will need permission from the copyright owners or rights holders for reproduction, distribution, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. [7]

Harvard web-archive says, The Site and its content are being made available for the purpose of private study, scholarship and research. The Site and its content are protected by copyright.[8] Those purposes are not compatible with Wikipedia.

To come back to the primary point - I do not understand why the current policy considers it OK to link to a copyrighted work that happens to be stored on the WayBack website, but not if it is on YouTube, or Random-blog, or anywhere else. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would assume Wikipedia is compatible with "private study, scholarship and research" Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption; wikipedia can - and is - freely copied on commercial websites; that's why we have to be so careful to use truly free content;

Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. WP:NFC

Furthermore, let me use a simple example; a CNN news article.

1. It's copyrighted, so we cannot copy-paste it on Wikipedia.

2. We can link to the information at CNN, because it's their own site.

3. We cannot link to a copy of that copyrighted site on e.g. "joe's blog"

That makes sense.

4. (Current policy) We can link to a copy on WayBack.

Why?

If you claim some kind of 'fair use' then we could just copy the whole thing to Wikipedia - the article, the pictures, everything. If it's not "fair use" then we can't link to a copyright-violation either.

Why is it apparently magically OK if it is on "WayBack" (as the current policy says)?

If I posted the CNN article on my own website, I couldn't link to that, right? Or if I made a YouTube video of the website.

I see absolute no reason for any difference, and so far nobody has given any difference. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In those cases, I think we could link to the WayBack cnn.com archive, but should not link to the WayBack "joe's blog" archive. I don't think being on the Internet Archive should change its status one way or the other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the person uploading it to YouTube had permission (i.e. it was a corporate account and uploaded by the copyright owners), I can't see a problem with that type of link either. If it is an unauthorized copy on YouTube (quite common), it's a completely different situation (and if the WayBack site archived that bad copy, we should not be pointing there either). There may well indeed be some problematic content on the Internet Archive -- that can happen with the automated archiving they do -- but in general all such content has been made previously available for free on public websites, which avoids some copyright pitfalls (the right of first publication for example which can outweigh many other fair use factors). They are making such copies available only on a fair-use basis, that is quite true, and that protection does not extend to other uses people make of that material if they copy it -- that is only what those terms of use sections say. That does not make their presence illegal though, and more importantly, does not make links to them illegal either (links can only be contributory infringement, not direct infringement, since no copyrightable material is actually copied). And in the end, if there are particular instances of content which should not have been made available there, the solution is to file a request to the Internet Archive itself. They can remove the content there, which additionally means that Wikipedia can no longer link to it, which would solve both issues at once. There is no need for Wikipedia to do anything in particular. Our use is also for private study and scholarship; we are not copying content and as such that content does not need to be "free"; we just need to make sure our links follow the law (the problem with contributory infringement would be pointing people to infringing copies on the net; there should be no problem referring people to non-infringing copies, and a copy covered by fair use would not be infringing). Wikimedia would be protected by fair use as well. The fact that there are likely a few instances of inappropriate content does not mean that we should avoid linking to the other 99.9999% of the material they have. I could see discretion on things like the Omni magazine being made available wholesale -- that could have just been a mistake in robots.txt on the original website with no particular intent to copy the magazine -- and we should use common sense in those situations, and probably no link to it. If an individual makes a similar copy available, it's different, as they were knowingly targeting that particular work rather than the publicly-available Internet as a whole. Fair use determinations are made based on the entire situation and all facts involved; a similar act but in different circumstances may end up with a completely different result. We do need to be somewhat careful about sites we link to -- in the Internet Archive's case though I think that would only extend to sites that were originally a problem as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if I start a blog which copies CNN news articles every day, we can use that as a reference too? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The intent and situation would be a bit different, again -- you would be targeting one particular copyright owner, not making a general archive. That would likey change the fair use determination. Secondly, the Internet Archive typically does not make copies available for months or even a couple years after they archive them -- for current content you need to go to the original site, and that is where a lot of the commercial value is. I suspect that if the WayBack machine were to make up-to-the-minute copies available it would be a different situation with some content (such as those with ad revenue). The content there is also not typically included in Google searches, so they are not trying to draw traffic there. Their goal is to make historical content available, not be an ad-free alternate for currently-available content. There is a public interest in that, but there are limits, and your blog would have to demonstrate a similar level of balancing of the public interest and copyright owner's rights in order to demonstrate fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I'll make a site that archives CNN news every month (and not before) - does it then become OK as a reliable source?

I'm sorry to get so hypothetical, but it's actually a quite reasonable concern. I just don't see why "WayBack" is such a special case. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are targeting one specific site, yes I think that is different -- that is prejudicial to that particular copyright owner. Fair use isn't really set in stone, and a judge could fix on one particular facet to distinguish one case from another even if they seem largely similar. There is some further info here. If you are focusing on only providing archives of one site, or commercially-oriented content only, it would be much less safe ground. The CNN archives are a relatively small portion of the WayBack Machine's entire site, but that would not be true of a CNN-targeted archive. It's also entirely possible that certain archives would not really be permissible on the Internet Archive either if it came down to it, but that is best determined by if they take down access upon request rather than guessing here. Website owners know about the WayBack Machine, and given that there are automated ways of preventing copying it's somewhat tacit permission for that use in particular -- those factors may also be considered. Fair use inherently has a certain amount of uncertainty to be sure, and without something more solid (in the form of actual rulings) I don't think we should assume that their use is inherently infringing. They have a pretty good case in most situations, I'd think. The nature of websites are different than a book or magazine, as well. As for being a "reliable" source... if we know it's an accurate copy that would technically qualify on that regard but it can be hard to tell if someone with an agenda might have slightly altered it, and that kind of thing, which is why even apparent copies on "joe's blog" are not really considered reliable.

OK, my blog will keep a copy of CCN and Fox News, and the BBC news, and Ouest France. I know it's facetious but, I do not understand why you think 'WayBack' should be specifically excluded from our policy on not linking to copies of copyrighted works. I'm pretty sure "YouTube" tries hard to avoid copyright too, and they have lots of (unofficially uploaded) news reports - I don't know why you think they're any more 'trustable' than Wayback? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a side note on YouTube (this does not address the issue of Wayback): Unless something has changed recently, we actually are allowed to link to YouTube videos that are posted by their copyright holders (Example, a video of BBCNews report hosted on the BBCNews YouTube Channel is acceptable). What we can not link to are copies of that same news report copied and posted by someone other than the BBC. Those other users are violating BBC's Copyright when they copy and post the video. Also, please remember that there are multiple reasons for our limitations on YouTube besides the issue of copyright... a major one is the issue of reliability (An anonymous YouTuber can not be relied on to present a "true and accurate" copy of the original... he/she might edit or alter the report in some way). Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that's fine. We can link to CNN publishing their own copyrighted works on YouTube - no problem with that. But we can't link to <random> posting them. So why can we apparently link to WayBack posting them? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately its because the foundations lawyers say we can.

(now for some speculation from a non-Lawyer as to why this might be:) It might be because WayBack doesn't actually "copy and post" the webpages you see... Wayback archives the actual websites themselves (complete with the original URL). In this regard, it may help to think of Wayback as a library that keeps old editions of the dead tree paper books in its collection. As each new edition of the book comes out (containing corrections and changes, or even complete rewrites), the library puts it on the shelves next to the older editions... but library users still have access to the older editions, for reference. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, the Foundation lawyers don't care if we link to WayBack or YouTube or Joe's Blogg. It is not illegal to use a link to a copyright violation. Current policy says we should try not to do so - which makes sense. The question is, why it excludes links to WayBack. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason I just set out. When we link to unauthorized YouTube postings, or Joe's Blogg, we are essentially pointing the reader to a copy of the material. It's like pointing to an unathorized xeroxed copy of a book. When we link to an archived page on a site like Wayback, however, we are not pointing the reader to a copy... we are pointing to a previous edition of the actual website in question. It's like pointing readers to an old out of print edition of a book located in the Public Library. Depending on the circumstances, it can be a copyright violation for people to xerox pages from old editions of books, and make them available to the public... it is never a copyright violation for a public library to make an old edition of the actual book itself available to the public. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WayBack provides copies of the original - exactly the same as YouTube or whatever else.

Public libraries loan books to individuals for personal use - they do not publish them. If they published copyrighted materials, for example by posting them on a website, that would be a copyright violation. Otherwise, libraries could make all their books available on the internet.

Pointing to the WayBack copy is not showing readers where they could obtain the material, it is directly linking to the material.

Going back to the example - if WayBack is providing a CNN news story, they do not have any permission to do so. Same as someone other than CNN posting a CNN video on YouTube. 88.110.248.82 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, they do not have permission. Their defense would be fair use, which does not require permission. Someone posting a CNN video on YouTube could try a fair use defense but would be very unlikely to win. The same act done for different purposes can end up with different rulings -- the "character and purpose of the use" is one of the four fair use factors. Any judge would get into why the act was done, and if that reason was good enough to override normal copyright. The why question between the Internet Archive and someone uploading a single video is completely different, as might be the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". If you were to put as much effort into creating an archive of the entire Internet as they do, only then would the situations be reasonably comparable. The "nature of the copyrighted work" is also at play in fair use; there is no way the Internet Archive could make available copyrighted books without permission but the nature of website material is not the same. Every situation is going to be a little bit different, no matter how similar it might seem to you, and the small differences are often the difference between being found guilty or innocent. For one example, see the judge's reasoning in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., where they go over the four fair use factors and weigh each one carefully. Copying entire works is normally not fair use but is going to be necessary to provide an archive -- the judge must decide if the public interest in having that archive is enough to outweigh normal copyright. In the WayBack Machine's case that is likely for the vast majority of their content; for someone just making copies of news stories it is a lot less likely. If you wanted to have a site such as WebCite, which makes targeted copies for bilbliographic purposes, you may be OK. But as for just uploading to YouTube, where it is out of your control and you are just making it available to others, it is not at all the same purpose and there is very little chance for a favorable fair use ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, actually it may be illegal. Providing links to known copyright infringements has been ruled contributory infringement in at least one case (en:Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, which was after they had removed directly infringing copies from their own site but linked to others). Other courts have not always decided that way, but it's right on the borderline. Wikipedia is a very popular website and links to known infringing copies could be considered that we are actively directing users there and therefore contributing to direct infringement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need archive sites to deal with the huge linkrot problem on the internet. While the practice remains legal, we should not shoot ourselves in the foot over this. Any reuser who needs to also reuse an article's references will also not have a legal problem since they are merely pointing to the source of their information. It is not alright, of course, to link to an archive copy of a site that itself contained copyvio material, but I don't think that is what the proposer had in mind here. SpinningSpark 13:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right!

The English text of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses is the only legally binding restriction between authors and users of Wikipedia content.

Not! First, 'is' should be 'are'. But the sentence is false. There are lots of other restrictions. There are legally binding restrictions on your use of the FBI, NASA and IBM logos, for example, (but they don't relate directly to copyright).

How's this? Is this true? s/only/key? --Elvey (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The English texts of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses are the only legally binding copyright restrictions between authors and users of Wikipedia content.

• The important phrase is "between authors and users of Wikipedia content", which was inserted May 2008. The sentence has been edited twice (March 2009; CC-BY-SA, June 2009), but it has been otherwise unchanged through today. Those logos are not "Wikipedia content" created by Wikipedia editors. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a few cases where companies uploaded their own logos to Wikipedia. I have sometimes seen logos uploaded as "own work by uploader" which have got an OTRS ticket confirming that they indeed were own works by the uploader after I questioned the copyright tag. I realise that this is an unusual situation, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems an odd phrasing. Would "The legal relationship between a content author and its user is governed by the terms of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licences." not be better? [... The user may also need to consider their relationship with a third party, such as the holder of a trademark or similar right...] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the current wording is wrong. Both GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution in some form. However, I could grant someone else the right to use some of my content without attribution, provided that the other party and I both agree on the terms for that. The current wording suggests that no such contracts ever can be written. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Musical scores

How does copyright law apply to the use of musical scores in Wikipedia?
—Wavelength (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the sheet music, or audio recordings of the score? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Musical "scores" are typically the written form of music. That is common knowledge. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but compare a film score, which can be a recording. Anyway, written musical works are copyrighted just like any other creative work. They have been protected in the U.S. along with other works since copyright was first protected. (Recordings of music, on the other hand, have only been covered by copyright law in the U.S. since 1978.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

US minors

In the US, do minors have the authority to license their own works under the license that Wikipedia requires for article contributions and uploads? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See m:Talk:Legal and Community Advocacy#Minors on Wikimedia projects (very long). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

CC 4?

Are there any plans to migrate to the version 4 of CC? Or will CC4 licences be available for uploaded files in the near future? After a bit of research I have growing objections against the harsh termination clause in CC 3 and earlier, according to which any usage of a file granted by the licence beyond standard copyright becomes illegal after even a single, temporary and accidental licence violation. Only an explicit statement by the copyright owner can "cure" the licence, while a simple re-download doesn't, as descriped in this CC Wiki FAQ. This could lead to serious "runaway" problems since any slight licence break would grow with time in legal severity. In German law, this could lead to a severe case of a long-lasting copyright violation which can be prosecuted ex officio, and thus possibly even against the copyright holder's interests.

CC4, however, includes an automatic reinstatement if the violation is stopped within 30 days of notice. For this reason, I would like to migrate all my uploaded files to the 4.0 version as far as time permits, but this would require an official OK for these licences in Wikipedia/Commons. Meanwhile, could a simple statement that, in addition to the rules of the actual licence, the licence termination is automatically cured under the rules of CC4 (or simply that the termination clause is entirely omitted for my works), help to avoid the legal runaway effects described above?--SiriusB (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons has templates, see Commons:Template:Cc-by-4.0 and Commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0. If you wish to migrate your files to the 4.0 licences, consider adding 4.0 templates in addition to the existing templates, but keeping the old licence templates in case someone prefers to use your files under those licences instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Input wanted: orphan works

We're looking for examples of how the unavailability of orphan works (works under copyright where the rightsholder is unknown or uncontactable) hurts the mission of the Wikimedia projects. Please see WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Manuals for things no longer being sold

Does it qualify as fair usage to website that host old computer manuals? It came with the product, which is no longer for sale, so no possible loss of revenue for them. I suggest we add a bit in the article to state that manuals for anything no longer being sold, are acceptable to link to. For manuals to things that are being sold, such as modern video games, then you still probably wouldn't have a problem, since people don't buy the games just to read the manuals, and anywhere you could download an illegal copy of a game would let you download the manual as well, so a site with nothing but manuals archived shouldn't be a problem. Any article talking about electronics would benefit those who are interested in such things and understand the tech side of them, by having a link to the manual that came with the product. Dream Focus 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Dream Focus. Unfortunately, copyright law doesn't work that way. :/ Copyright remains on content for 70 years after publication, regardless of whether or not it remains in print. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple image license grant

I'm pursuing a license grant on several photos. I see that a release listing a single license for images is acceptable (two for text). For simple, non-commercially viable photos like mine, which is suggested, GFDL or CC-by-sa-3.0? Also, the executive director of my organization is willing to grant such licenses, as they have published these photos previously. Can he do a combined release via e-mail to OTRS for a set of these? Or must he write a specific response e-mail for each one? Jax MN (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jax MN. I apologize for the great delay in response. I hope you've gotten an answer from somebody else by now. :) He can do a combined release to OTRS, as long as he is specific. While either GFDL or CC-By-SA 3.0 are quite acceptable, CC-By-SA 3.0 is probably the better choice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this text copyrighted or public domain?

I was just looking at an ITV press release webpage (here:[9]) where they provide a brief plot summary for an episode of Law & Order: UK. Above the summary they have written this: "The information contained herein is embargoed from press use, commercial and non-commercial reproduction and sharing - in the public domain - until Tuesday 30 July 2013." Now maybe I am just dumb, but it is not clear to me whether they are saying that after the date given that the text becomes public domain. Does anyone understand this better that I do? Also, if the text is in the public domain now, does that mean that the Wikipedia page with information about that episode can copy it verbatim? Any input is appreciated. 99.192.73.179 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That is incredibly confusing. :/ It might mean that, but it doesn't explicitly say that it's being released into the public domain. ITV.com's Terms of Use are considerably more conservative. Honestly, if I wanted to use that material, I think I'd take advantage of their "contact us" link and ask them. If they write back confirming that this is a PD release, then I'd forward that to OTRS, same as any other copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

They're not using "public domain" in the copyright sense. They just mean "publicly". Formerip (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I guess it is best to assume it is still copyrighted without a more clear indication. I notice they say that the "information" is embargoed, so it seems they are really more addressing the issue of the content of the summary and not the wording of it. To release the information in a text to the "public domain" is not the same as releasing the specific wording of the text. Thanks. 99.192.73.179 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification requested for ELNEVER "uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, if you have a proposal to change this policy, please make it here or at WP:VPP with a link to that discussion here, and not at a "content guideline" talk page where it's mixed up with discussion of that guideline. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

First, let me cite the relevant parts of LINKVIO and ELNEVER.

policy and guideline excerpts

1. WP:LINKVIO Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [10]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use. 2. WP:ELNEVER For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.<ref>"In December 1999, for example, a U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah granted a preliminary injunction against a religious organization that maintained a Web site that established links to other sites containing material that infringed on the plaintiff's copyright. The court ruled that the links constituted "contributory infringement" and ordered them removed." ([http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyrightarticle/hypertextlinking American Library Association: Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues]) However, this remains a developing area of case law.</ref> If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Questions about aspects of ELNEVER/LINKVIO

First, I am going to list, in bullet points, the key quotes relevant to my clarification request from the policies cited above:

• "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work"
  • this sentence notes that we should not link to the copy of the work, however it does not prohibit us from linking to the very site in question
• "An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders."
  • Now this is a bit confusing, as the example now discusses linking to a site, not a specific, copyright violating page on it. As such, I believe that one of those two sentences needs to be clarified. In particular: if a site has some copyright-violating materials somewhere on it, are we allowed to link to it or not? Personally, I'd think that the question would be what portion of a site is composed of copyright-violating materials. An extreme reading of the policy - never link to a site that has copyvio content - would, after all, prevent us from linking to ourselves, and probably to most of the Internet. I think this sentence should be fixed to read thus: "An example would be linking to a lyrics of a songs hosted on a site that did not receive a permission to do so from their copyright holders, or to the song itself hosted without permission on a streaming website such as YouTube, or a website offering illegal mp3 downloads."
• "In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site."
  • This is why we are allowed to link to The Pirate Bay website from its article. Now, here's an extension of this to consider. In an article about a concept, if there's a consensus that a specific website is the best - most relevant, informative, etc. external link related to the subject, more so than any official site (if it exists at all), can we link to that site even if there are possible copyright violation somewhere on it? In other words, it seems to me to be unfair that articles about a websites can link to (even highly problematic) websites, but articles about different topics don't get a similar dispensation. Yes, I know that a website link in a website article is of core relevance, but if an article is about a concept, and there's a website of core relevance, is it really that different?
• Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use).
  • Here we acknowledge that we treat fair use as an acceptable, global exception.
• "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
  • This suggests that we primarily care about preventing (or not abetting) illegal distribution (i.e. piracy).
• "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."
  • As further illustrated by YouTube entry at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, it's ok to link to those sites as long as we don't link directly to the sections which violate copyrights.

Reading the above I believe that the primary purpose of those policies is to ensure we don't link to sites that engage in what is generally understood as piracy. The policy was intended to say that "in an article about a copyrighted work, don't link to it's torrent or such". Perfectly reasonable and understandable. But the question is - how far can we take it? In particular, I want to resolve the contradiction between the first two sentences of LINKVIO, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" and the example that follows. It is clear that we should never link directly to a webpage that contains a copyvio'ed work, whatever the media. However, can we link to a relevant website, when we can be reasonably sure that at least a small portion of its contents are copyvio'ed? The thing is that virtually all websites, if we look hard enough, will have copyvio problems.

Consider the following example: even if a journalistic website uses content that can be argued is fair use, if it has a reader comments section that allows non-text media to be included, from avatars to embedded pictures, then it's almost certain that copyright will be violated - taken too far for fair use to rescue it. For example, User:Nikkimaria showed me recently that fair use does not allow for purely decorative use of works. Which means that any website that uses avatars or allows readers to post pictures is probably violating some copyrights. Examples? io9 portal, for example, allows for both ([11] random article we use which I am sure in the readers comments at least violates fair use numerous times, [12] and we link to that website hundreds of time). And it's not like io9 is an exception; CNN allows registered readers to chose an avatar too. Worse, CNN for example has a "From around the web" section (see for example [13], another link chosen from [14]). Here, CNN links to headlines and images from other websites, which I think violates fair use as well (then there's also the commercial aspect). How about sites that have advertisements on them? It's certainly possible for an advertisement to violate copyrights (ex. [15]). Are we going to ban linking to all and any websites that carries advertisements? If we don't, we know that somewhere, someone will carry an ad that's a copyvio... All right, I hope this makes my point clear: on the modern Internet it is impossible not to violate copyrights. We (Wikipedia) do it, other websites do it even more. I think the cited policies should make it clear that we are not going to 1) link directly to COPYVIO'ed content, ex, torrents, files, listings of thereof and such and 2) sites that abet piracy (unless an article is about such a website), but are not restricting linking to websites that on some subpages run afoul of copyright as if we try to avoid that, we won't have any Internet to link to. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, WP:ELNEVER is part of a separate guideline, so I'm not going to discuss that, however, I'm happy to talk about WP:LINKVIO. Hopefully I won't miss any points - this is pretty long. Inline would be easier, but I hate that {{interrupted}} business. It is not forbidden to link to a site that contains many copyvios - for instance, Youtube is not forbidden. However, the example refers to a site that hosts copyright violations by habit, as many lyric hosting sites do. By contrast, YouTube has a lot of authorized material. Your extreme example of Wikipedia falls off the rails a bit when you re-read "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" - when we know or reasonably suspect that works are carried in violation of copyright, we remove them. Unlike many websites, we do not require the copyright holder to pursue this - in fact, our copyright policy puts the burden for doing something about it squarely on the shoulders of the person who notices it, regardless of who they are. In answer to your question, "In an article about a concept, if there's a consensus that a specific website is the best - most relevant, informative, etc. external link related to the subject, more so than any official site (if it exists at all), can we link to that site even if there are possible copyright violation somewhere on it?" - if there is reasonable suspicion of copyvio (rather than vague suspicion), then, no, because our policy disallows it. And for good reason - when we link to The Pirate Bay website from its article, we have a pretty good shot at defending fair use. Our intent is to illustrate an article about the website itself. If we link to, say, Pokemania (which may or may not exist) in a Pokemon article because it has copies of the Pokemon cards and we think this is "relevant and informative", we are implicitly collaborating in their copyright violations, as our purpose becomes clearly to supersede the original. To a few other points - "Here we acknowledge that we treat fair use as an acceptable, global exception" - of course, because it's not a copyright infringement if it meets fair use. :) However, the point is that our linking directly to something used under fair use may remove that context and create a copyright infringement. At this point I'm out of time, so I'm just going to summarize my basic thought that the policy is pretty clear. Nutshell: We don't link to pages that we know or reasonably suspect contain copyvios, and we don't link to sites that we know routinely violate copyright. We can link to such sites in discussing them, but not in other instances. We recognize that other sites may use copyrighted content under fair use, and we also recognize that deep linking to such content strips the fair use defense from it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: First, you make a very good point about lyric hosting sites being almost completely made of copuvio content. However, my point about this example being confusing stands: I believe it would be more clear in my example, as there should be no prohibition from linking to a legally hosted parts of such sites. The most famous case would be linking to TPB, which does on occasion carry official releases for some products. Correct me if I am wrong here, but it would be ok to link to an official distribution of, let's say, a notable movie on TPB, wouldn't it, like in TPB AFK article? (Incidentally, I just checked and we link to TPB few more times, at least: in A Farewell to Dragons, Endgame tablebase, and Chess (musical), and neither of those appears very justified).

In your Pokemon example, linking to a website which would be dedicated solely to hosting images of cards, without permission, would be of course not right. But what about linking to Pokemon wikia ([16])? It does not have any clearly infringing content such as downloads of games, manga or card pictures, but it does have a lot of images whose use likely exceeds fair use (for example, the site's very background/skin is using Pokemon graphics for decoration, which I was told recently is a clear fair use violation). On that ground, for example, I was told by another user that LINKVIO forbids linking to such a site, even if there's a clear consensus by readers interested in a topic (let's say, Pokemon) that this is the most useful external link we could add, outside official links), and even that 3RR does not apply to reverting addition of such links (because LINKVIO justifies 3RR exception). Note that I am not suggesting we link to those sites deeply - but I believe that using COPYLINK to argue that in article X we cannot link to a highly relevant wikia about concept X because wikias use too many images, some in clear violation of fair use, is taking LINKVIO too far. What would you say to this? (And if you say that we cannot link to wikis, please tell me why we can link to CNN, a website which as I noted above also clearly hosts thousands if not more fair use violations, from user avatars to galleries?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, it looks to me like TPB AFK is a perfect example of considering context. In terms of your Pokemon example, I would agree with a user that "most useful" isn't a good metric for determining if we can link to such a site. Before I answer your question about Pokemon Wikia, I'm going to move ahead to the CNN/Wikia distinction. It's apples and oranges. When we link to CNN, we're linking to the content of their stories. Avatars are minimal usage and not the purpose for our links, or of the CNN story itself. If the avatar is the purpose of our link, then we have a context problem. (For instance, if we're linking to a CNN story because we don't have a good picture of a celebrity, and the second avatar from the left is a pretty good one.) With a Wikia hosting pictures of Pokemon, linking to it from our article on Pokemon is the purpose. Moving back, I'd say the question of Pokemon Wikia may be a linkvio, but the determination of that is subject to consensus. If there is debate over whether or not a page is context appropriate for linking, that's probably worth talking about at the WP:ELN. If consensus emerges that the page is not a WP:LINKVIO, then 3RR no longer supports removing it, in the same way that if a BLPN listing determines something is not a BLP issue 3RR no longer supports removing it. That said, you have to be careful with this sort of thing - a review by uninvolved editors at ELN can help consensus emerge on the core issue, but a consensus of editors of Pokemon articles runs the risk of "I like it" and may be tossed out on wider review. When it comes to legal issues, like copyright and defamation, I think starting with the wider audience is the best approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: First thing first - are you or anyone reading this objecting to my proposal to refine the example sentence as proposed above? Second, I see why you distinguish between a wikia and a CNN (one can be used as a reference, the other cannot). That's a valid distinction, but isn't it still one related to usefulness? If we cannot link to Wikia because "just useful" is not good enough, couldn't we say that we cannot link to CNN (but can cite the article without linking to it? Third: I certainly agree that ELNEVER, BLP and such can supersede 3RR, my point here is that unlike 3RR which is usually clear cut, ELNEVER is not doing a very good job at drawing a clear line between sites that can be linked to or cannot, because it's clear that we are allowed to link to domains that have "some" copyvio's (ex. CNN with its avatars). We can link to a CNN article, we cannot link to a pirated movie, where's the middle line? If in doubt, seek a consensus, is what you are saying? See, my current problem is that I've been trying to do so for a month or so. The particular discussion which led to me coming here to ask the question can be traced to Talk:Honorverse#Can_we_link_honorverse.wikia.com_from_external_links.3F, where a situation very much like the Pokemon example is discussed (through I think a bit better, as there's no copvio wallpaper...). Since one experienced editor claimed the backing of ELNEVER/COPYLINK to override consensus for inclusion, I've asked about the rules at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_requested_for_ELNEVER_.22uses_the_work_in_a_way_compliant_with_fair_use.22 and now here. It is my reading of both of those discussions that nobody is willing to clarify the rules, in particular, to say clearly if they think a link to Honorverse wikia is fine or not. I'd very much appreciate your suggestion as to what should be my next step: an RfC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must have overlooked your specific proposal. Can you please pull out your specific proposal for changing this policy? The distinction between wikia and CNN is not solely related to which one can be used as a reference, although purpose and character is certainly part of it. It has to do globally with the tests of fair use - focusing in on "substantiality", a Wikia site that is dedicated to Pokemon runs the risk of substantially infringing the property. A CNN article that includes a tiny picture of a celebrity, considerably less so. Likewise, the Wikia site is more likely to have an effect upon the value of the property, where the tiny avatar (even multiple tiny avatars) almost certainly will not. The Pokemon wikia may supersede the original; the tiny avatar, not. These are all the kind of context considerations that should go into determining the usefulness of a link. The owners of the Pokemon property hold the rights to make derivative works of that intellectual content - for instance, they can and probably have licensed reference works. Reference works like a Pokemon Wikia may constitute fair use (reference works are generally encouraged), but they can lose that fair use defense if they appropriate too much of the creative content of the original. In terms of this particular issue, did you post at WP:ELN? That was what I suggested above. If not, that would be my suggested next step - to ask if specifically the link you want to include is permissible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the specific proposal, I am proposing to replace "An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." with "An example would be linking to a lyrics of a songs hosted on a site that did not receive a permission to do so from their copyright holders, or to the song itself hosted without permission on a streaming website such as YouTube, or a website offering illegal mp3 downloads."

Regarding the wikia issue, I have been doing more research (archive reading), and the wikia sites are often discussed, with varying outcomes (it was one of the very first discussions at ELN at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_1), but the problem is that very similar wikias get either linked or not linked with little policy backing as it is not clear when a wiki site fails copyvio or not. For example, Yu-gi-oh Wikia is linked from Yu-Gi-Oh!, following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_45#Allow_external_links_to_Yu-Gi-Oh.21_Wikia.3F as it was determined that the site does not host any major infringing content (manga chapters, etc.). Naruto links to Naruto wiki ([17]). Memory Alpha ([18]) wikia linked from Star Trek or Wookiepedia ([19]) linked from Star Wars. Young Justice (TV series) links to Young Justice wikia ([20]), following a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14. Yet it appears that time and again certain editors keep removing link to wikias no different than those cited above, saying that COPYLINK/ELNEVER prevent their linking. I think it is high time we established a clear guideline on Wikias. I tried doing so at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Perennial_websites#Proposed_entry_on_Wikia, but few editors participated, and no clear consensus emerged. While I am going to take one or two specific wikias to ELNoticeboard, I wonder what is the best place for a centralized discussion on when can we and when cannot we link to wikias? People keep directing me to other pages, which gives me a general impression that nobody wants to deal with this and tries to shove it off on others... I started at the Perennial websites page, was told to take it to External links tag page, then was told ELNEVER derives from COPYLINK and I should take it here, and now you are telling me to go to ELN... sigh.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

These pages have different purposes. :) WP:ELN is for discussing specific links. WT:EL is for discussing the evolution of the external links guideline. WT:C is for discussing the evolution of the copyright policy.

In terms of your general change, I'm not really comfortable with it. For the lesser reasons: you're moving from one example to three, while still introduced it as "an example". I think a single example is sufficient, as this is a relatively small part of policy. There are some grammatical issues that could be easily cleaned up ("a lyrics", "a songs"), but even so I fear as my main points that this could lead to gaming if people say "I'm not linking to the lyrics; I'm linking to the page." I might support "An example would be linking to a page hosting the lyrics of a song without permission from the copyright holder", but would prefer what we currently have unless language can be proposed that addresses workarounds, landing pages that themselves link to copyvios. For instance, linking to a fansite that hosts a cracked videogame may be an issue even if we don't link to the page that actually hosts the cracked videogame. Context remains crucial, in my opinion.

I see you've posted your comments about Wikia at WP:ELN. I hope you will get good feedback there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Unfortunately, the comments at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Honorverse_wikia are not sufficient to help with the discussion at Talk:Honorverse, as both me and the other editor interpret them to support our own positions. Would you mind offering a third opinion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Are copyright usage limited to only the United States government, or other governments as well? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:COPYLINK

Some time back, I remember seeing a discussion of lyrics-hosting sites that were compliant with their local copyright law. Does a page exist with a list of such sites? If so, we ought to link it from WP:COPYLINK (or at least say "See below for a list"), and if not, we ought to create one if possible. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Historylink

The website historylink [21] has a lot of good content about the History of Washington State, and I've noticed here and there that some of its content has been reused here. I had moved some of this content from an old Wikipedia to a new one and got speedy deleted for it - However, I go to the website and at the bottom see "This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that encourages reproduction with attribution" - so are we clear to reproduce content from here, or is that an infringement issue? Ego White Tray (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ego White Tray: What page was speedied? Based on your description, the deletion certainly seemed inappropriate at first. BUT: I found the terms here, which read in part "... commercial purposes is prohibited..." This seems to be a license similar to CC-BY-NC. The -NC (non-commercial) makes the content ineligible for verbatim reuse here; the license is not compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, . But, you can paraphrase; that is encouraged. See here for guidance (that section and the whole article). --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2014

In the lead section, Berne Convention is piped to a page that redirects back to it. User J. Dalek (talk | contribs) 04:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 February 2015

Could the 3rd and 5th lines at the top:

{{dablink|[[WP:COPY]] redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Copyright Problems]] (shortcut:WP:CP), [[Wikipedia:How to copy-edit]] (shortcut: [[WP:COPYEDIT]]) or [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]] (shortcut: [[WP:COPYWITHIN]]).}}

...and...

{{dablink|[[WP:C]] redirects here. You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] (shortcut: [[WP:CON]]), [[Wikipedia:Civility]] (shortcut: [[WP:CIV]]), [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] (shortcut: [[WP:CAT]]), [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNTRIES]]) or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNCIL]]).}}

...please be replaced with the following text, consecutively:

{{Redirect3|WP:COPY|You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Copyright Problems]] (shortcut:[[WP:CP]]), [[Wikipedia:How to copy-edit]] (shortcut: [[WP:COPYEDIT]]) or [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]] (shortcut: [[WP:COPYWITHIN]])}}

...and...

{{Redirect3|WP:C|You may be looking for [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] (shortcut: [[WP:CON]]), [[Wikipedia:Civility]] (shortcut: [[WP:CIV]]), [[Wikipedia:Categorization]] (shortcut: [[WP:CAT]]), [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNTRIES]]) or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] (shortcut: [[WP:COUNCIL]])}}

...? The changes to the hatnotes allow them to utilize the best possible existing hatnote template for their purpose, {{Redirect3}}, rather than the generic {{Hatnote}} (which, in this case, is actually {{dablink}}, a redirect to {{Hatnote}}). Steel1943 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 March 2015

Takingnotes21 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)i would love to start source code on takingnotes21 Takingnotes21 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Takingnotes21 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Takingnotes21: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Copyrights. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How close is too close in paraphrasing?

I was told the following was copyright violation; but was wondering if it's because it was a press release or because too many words were similar.

"President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007."

The ref is no good for the biography, however that aside; is it because 2 facts from the same source were used; instead of just one? I'm wondering how many words need to be different from the source to constitute sufficient paraphrasing; blurry not clearly defined legal lines seem confusing to me. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bullets and Bracelets. In respect to your headline question, I wish there was a bright line, but unfortunately there really isn't. :/ What's "too close" is assessed even by the courts in very subjective tests of concept & feel - readers are instructed to look at similarities rather than differences and determine if the origin is obvious. If so, for Wikipedia's purposes, it may violate copyright policy even if a small amount - our policy requires that we use copyrighted content (whether from a press release or any other copyrighted source) in specific ways. In most instances, a direct quotation is preferable to a very close paraphrase, although you can more closely paraphrase if there is reason. For instance, if you are attributing a point of view, it might be okay to say, "Professor John Smith of Important University notes that close paraphrase." If that kind of named attribution (WP:INTEXT) would be weird in context, then probably a close paraphrase is not okay. The point is that we can't follow closely on a copyrighted source just because we want to communicate the same information.

In this case, we're not looking at a press release, which is a very specific thing - a subject puts out a statement that is meant to be widely distributed. These are generally still copyrighted, but what we're looking at here is a standard news story. It is authored by an individual or agency, like AP, and is most definitely copyright protected.

In this case, the problem very definitely comes from closely following the language.

Source text	Article text
Mr Obama, 49, has confessed to picking up the nicotine addiction in his late teens, though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007.	President Obama had picked up nicotine addiction in his late teens; though his usage had dwindled to a few cigarettes a day by the time he launched his campaign for president in 2007.

I've added bolding to make the copying more obvious. Only a few words have been changed. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are.

Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for placing content that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". WP:Copy-paste is also recommended reading.

One could word that information differently, for instance, something like this:

Obama was not a heavy smoker—by 2007, he was smoking a few cigarettes a day—but his addiction to nicotine was long established, dating back to his late teenage years.

or

Addicted to nicotine since his late teens, Obama had cut down the amount he smoked years ago until by 2007 he was smoking a few daily cigarettes.

There are, of course, other possibilities. If any of that language is useful to you, feel free to have it without attribution. I waive my copyright in this case. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dead link

The link to Jimbo's comment that "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations" needs to have 'lists' substituted for 'mail'. 9carney (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes,  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

requested edit: translations as derivatives

Please add to the policy on the following issue: If a source is copyrighted in one language, a translation into another language may be infringement, because it is under copyright law a derivative work requiring the copyright holder's permission, and that translation may not qualify as a paraphrasing, even though a close translation in either direction may show a proposed addition to Wikipedia as a paraphrasing. Even permission to use someone's work may not include permission to derive anything; I don't know whether permission to use and modify necessarily includes deriving. A safer solution may be to find a translation that has already been prepared in the desired ultimate language with the copyright holder's permission, paraphrase from that, and cite it. Generally, a translation using Google Translate or a similar service (by automation or human) does not qualify because it generally lacks the copyright holder's permission for the result, but possibly there's an argument that that's not true where, for example, a website provides a link to Google Translate for a visitor's use and the original-language content in question is on that site and under that site's owner's copyright. If you have a solution for cases where an intermediate translation is not available, please add that to this policy. I also don't know how copyright duration is calculated for a derivative made after the year of the original work's creation. This general subject is relevant to English Wikipedia for non-English sources and may be relevant for English sources because editors may be influenced by English Wikipedia policies when editing in other languages. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A free license includes permission to translate. Permission to modify should include permission to translate, as any modification is a derived work. This should be an issue only with fair use text, but any text which we could legitimately quote under fair use, I think we can equally legitimately translate. A published modern translation of a PD source might be under copyright and so more restricted than the source. A derivative work has its own copyright, the term under US law is the same as for any work created on the same date, and is quite independent of the copyright, if any on the original work. A new translation of Aristotle, for example, would be fully protected by copyright, even though the source never was under copyright. DES ^(talk) 23:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

request for creating a comparative essay on copyright for all projects and languages

I'd like to request an essay comparing Wikimedia Foundation's positions on copyright across its various projects and languages. Many of the Wikipedia pages are, at least by their terms, specific to Wikipedia or English Wikipedia. Some editors translate into various languages and edit other projects and tend to remember what we learned about the Foundation's positions from en-WP although that might not apply. On the other hand, it may be that what we learned is applicable; work being in another language generally does not alter which law applies. A table would probably be enough, so we can find needed links to policies, essays, FAQs, etc. The essay can be in English; it probably wouldn't be hard to translate it later. I'm not competent to write that essay. I don't see a place to request the creation of pages in nonmain namespaces, so I hope this is the right place. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I could easily write an essay that covers the WMF position and the various en-WP policies, with links to the various pages. However, I'm not sure if there is any policy variation at other projects, nor do I read well enough in other languages to find out. The copyright law doesn't change, but some projects may pay more attention to the laws of other jurisdictions, even though the WMF position is that only US law applies to all its projects, although other laws may apply to individual users and editors, and particularly to downloaders of images and other files whose copyright status is different outside of the US. Copies of PD art and the Bridgeman decision are the issues that particularly spring to mind. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I kmnow that other projects have different policies on use of copyrighted content under fair use, with at least one edition of Wikipedia (and of course Commons) disallowing it entirely. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for hire

or Copyright and paid editors

I'd like to include something about paid editors and works-for-hire. It should probably go in a paragraph before "You should never..." Something along the lines of

"Paid editors who insert text supplied by their employers must secure copyright permission to use the text and report it to OTRS. Other text inserted by paid editors will be assumed to be work-for-hire unless a release is secured."

Any comments appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

For context, this is in regards to a recent discussion at the Conflict of Interest guideline's talk page, section WP:COI vs. CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing is not necessarily a work for hire; far from it. You can see the discussion about it in this copyright office circular, as the details get messy. In short, if it's an employee, then yes it's a work for hire -- but simply by asking the employee to edit the site they may well be agreeing to the terms of use, and therefore quite probably no copyright issue. If they are an employee editing on their own time, it's not a work for hire and it's their own work. If it's a contractor, then the work for hire status depends on the contract they signed -- most of the time it would not be a work for hire. And even if it was, they may still be able to agree to the site's terms of use anyways. If someone adds text which is previously found elsewhere, and not authored by that person, then like anything else that would probably need some separate permission. In short, I don't think copyright is a good area to try and find ways to make paid editors different than regular editors -- it just doesn't seem to to me be a "natural" outcome of copyright law but rather an explicitly different licensing requirement policy for paid editors vs regular editors. I would imagine the situation you care about most (freelance editors-for-hire) would not be works for hire anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly a confusing area and I think that it should be cleared up. Of course many freelance editors-for-hire may not be doing work-for-hire, but others may be, and we have no way of knowing which is which. There are additional complications. For example, paid editors often seem to reuse material from press releases - which would be copyrighted by the business they work for - or they use material prepared by a third party (this actually seems to be pretty common) - which may be copyrighted by the business or by the third party. Sometimes, they seem to be subcontractors and likely don't know what the copyright status of the material they insert is.

I think this can all be cleared up fairly easily by requiring a statement of permission. It's pretty much like uploading a photo on Commons, if you don't know that you own a copyright, or if there is reason to suspect that somebody else owns the copyright but admins and editors can't verify the status, then an email to OTRS clears up the entire thing right away. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case the important section WP:COICOPYRIGHT of WP:COI now reads

"Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. ...

"Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia. If the text is a work for hire, the copyright resides with the person or organization that paid for it ("the employer"). Otherwise the text's author is assumed to be the copyright holder. It is important not to assume that the paid editor is the author; for example, companies may provide paid editors with approved texts.

"Paid editors, the employer or the author should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free license."

I'll ping a few editors that have contributed to this policy to see if we can get some input @Piotrus, Moonriddengirl, and DGG: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You might want to change the heading to something like Copyright and paid editors or some such rather than Work-for-hire since work for hire is a narrow subset of what the issue is and, as the first response here shows, may garner answers only for that narrow case. Jbh^Talk 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Smallbones, thank you for raising this. It's a complicated issue. The problems with paid editors are that they may insert text that is copied from a company website or press release. Or they may insert approved versions of the article that the company has supplied, without the company realizing they must release the text and that it might be modified in ways they don't like. Also, I've seen such poor editing by paid editors that I've wondered to what extent the company's legal department was aware of the situation.

It would therefore be helpful to require that, in the case of paid editing, the copyright holder (whether that's the paid editor or the company she is working for) email OTRS stating that she is the copyrght holder and that she releases the text under a free licence. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to come up with some simple text

The copyright status of material submitted by paid editors is generally unclear. The copyright may be held by the editor, if he or she is an independent contractor; or it may be held by the employer or a third party who originally wrote the text; or it may be held by the client of the paid editor. To avoid this confusion, the employer or client of the paid editor must submit a copyright permission or release to (permissions@wikimedia.org) before the text is included in an article.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's very good. I'm thinking that the employer can't release if s/he's not the copyright holder, so some suggested tweaks:

The copyright status of material submitted by paid editors is generally unclear. The copyright may be held by the employer, client, paid editor, or by another party who is the author. Before the text can be included in an article, the employer must submit a release to (permissions@wikimedia.org), together with confirmation that they understand the text will be freely shared and modified. Alternatively the employer must confirm that they do not hold the copyright, and the release must be sent by the copyright holder.

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a change in policy, not something made necessary by copyright law. I think it would be best left on the WP:COI guideline without any change here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't really think that this is a copyright issue? We're pretty strict about copyright around here, e.g. we'll delete a fair-use image of a living person, even if it is the only photograph of that person available anywhere, on the theory that since s/he is alive that we might possibly get a freely licensed photo in the future. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright law doesn't differentiate between paid editors vs. non-paid editors. If non-paid editors can agree to the terms of service and edit text, then paid editors can too. The risk in assuming good faith is really the same. If text is found to exist elsewhere first, then OTRS would likely be required if they were paid editors or not. The copyright status of non-paid editors can be just as unclear, to be honest -- if an employee edits on their own initiative (perhaps on something completely unrelated to the company) on work hours, or even perhaps on company equipment on off-hours, which would be non-paid per the disclosure policy, is that a work for hire per copyright law? The terms of use just say that contributed text must be freely licensed, and paid editors probably usually do have such permission and can comply with the terms of use. I'm not sure there is anything inherent in copyright law that would make employees editing the site legally unable to agree to the license, especially if there were being paid to do so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We often insist that the author of an image give permission.

I've had a situation where I emailed the image of an academic to OTRS. The OTRS agent said it didn't look like a self-portrait, at which point the academic said her 13-year-old son had taken it at her request. The agent replied that the son had to email the release. Yet for approved conmpany texts, we don't question who actually wrote it, even when it's not the paid editor's usual writing style.

A separate issue from copyright is that we don't question whether the employer asked for help with the article, or whether they were approached by the paid editor and persuaded that they needed help. The situation is an ethical mess, and clearing up the copyright aspect is one step in the direction of fixing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that happens if we find the image online elsewhere (such that it's possible someone had simply copied it without permission). The extra OTRS step is for situations where the uploader does not appear to be the author and therefore there is a real concern that the copyright license as given is invalid. For photographs, the copyright owner is usually the photographer, so unless it was a work for hire, the subject of a photo is often not able to validly license that photo (selfies aside, and perhaps ones where you ask a stranger to take the photo). That is much more rarely an issue with text, but the same situation would apply if you found text copy/pasted from another source -- it would not matter if they were a paid editor or not, that text would be deleted unless we could see the text had a free license on it at the original source, or we got an OTRS release from the author of the text. But regular paid editing really doesn't fall under that scenario -- if you think the paid editor is the author of the words they write for edited articles, there really is no copyright issue. A conflict of interest and neutrality issue, sure, but no real copyright issue -- that text would be as validly licensed as any non-paid editor's work. The disclosure of paid editors is purely a Wikimedia policy distinction -- there is nothing in copyright which makes them different, and this page is more about describing the contours of copyright law (for all editors).

Since this page is mainly about the contours of copyright itself, and what the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses mean, I don't think there is anything special for paid editors. If Wikipedia wants to make a new policy that paid editors (as such are defined by Wikimedia) are required to submit all edits through OTRS, that is a policy change as far as I'm aware -- but really wouldn't belong here I don't think. There is really nothing in copyright law itself that would make those edits less likely to be validly licensed (in fact, they are probably more likely to be OK) which is what OTRS is generally concerned about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Carl, I'm not seeing what distinction you're drawing between images and text. I gave you an example of where I was asked to supply a release from the 13-year-old author, not from the author's mother, who had requested that he take the image. Similarly, we should make sure we are requesting releases from the authors of approved texts, because as things stand we don't know who wrote them. Some companies will allow the paid editor a free hand; others will want to exercise strict control.

We ought to make sure that the company's legal department has released the text, if they own it, and that the company understands the consequences of so doing.

Smallbones, this is a separate issue, but I wonder whether we ought to do spot checks of companies that have hired a paid editor, to avoid other Orangemoody situations. Perhaps a survey: were you approached by an editor and asked to pay; do you feel you got value for money; did you supply any text; were you asked to release it, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds kind of excessive on that particular photo. Generally the photographer has the rights, but when you ask someone to take a photo, you are usually specifying a lot of the expression -- the subject, the basic angle, what to include, etc. That at the very least should be a co-author status. Particularly in a parent/child situation -- children under 18 technically can't be held to binding contracts, so often places will want agreement from the parent/guardian as well. Licenses aren't technically contracts, but things like the "irrevocable" clause may not apply. More generally though, things like even wedding photos can be an issue -- unless there was a contract which specified otherwise, the photographer still owns the copyright to those photos. There may have been an admin that took the wedding photographer situation to extremes, applying it in places which may be more exceptions to the general rule.

The difference on text vs. images is that we almost always believe that the person doing the editing is the author of the specific words -- it is much more rare to copy/paste text from another source, and it is that one situation which OTRS would indeed be concerned about. Copying images from another source happens much more often.

As for "work for hire", it's really not a useful way to distinguish paid vs non-paid editing. If the work is done via contract or commission, it is not a work for hire. The contractor would own the copyright and can license it. A company would generally not be the one writing the specific words -- even if they strictly control the content, and veto parts of it, they are still not the author of the copyrightable expression and have no copyright interest. Copyright is not about the ideas contained; it is about the specific way those ideas are expressed (the sequences of words). For an employee, yes it's a work for hire -- but if they direct an employee to edit the site, it's kind of absurd to say that company was unaware of the terms of use and to claim the text was inserted without permission. I find it hard to believe that a judge would find that a company did not willingly license the text in that situation. Whereas, if an employee edits text without any direction from their employer, that is not a paid-editor situation per Wikimedia's definition, yet it would still be work for hire technically (and much less likely to be willingly licensed). Yet, you appear to be suggesting a policy that the OTRS requirements are different between the two, and make them more stringent in the situation which is virtually certain to be legally licensed. The concept of "work for hire" does not line up -- at all -- with the Wikimedia "paid editor" definitions. If you try to make a "work for hire" policy, you will likely need to include anybody at all editing from work, whether paid or not paid, and it would exclude paid editing by contract anyways. If you make licensing requirements different for paid editors, well fine if that is decided-upon policy, but it's not based on any copyright concepts or any real additional dangers of such. I think the dangers are more imagined than real (is there an actual situation where an employee editor put up text which the company then claimed copyright over?) and would likely target many situations which you may not have intended, probably causing unnecessary friction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I like User:Smallbones' proposed text, but I'd also add the following option: ...or explicitly confirm, on their user page, that they have read and understood the Terms of Use of this project, in particular the Licensing of Content provision (therefore confirming that they own the copyright to the submitted work, and release it on Wikipedia under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL Licenses). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the addition of the user page acknowledgement and think it should be required even if the OTRS release is not. I do not know how much legal force it has but at least if an employer later attempts to remove material we have a representation from the editor that we took in good faith to fall back on. Jbh^Talk 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• A related matter comes up when the editor is an employee of a PR firm. If the client hires the PR firm and the editor is then assigned the job of contributing to the article would not the copyright lie with the PR firm not the editor? I believe, firmly, that we need to take significantly greater care when edits are the result of commercial transactions among companies rather than, as originally intended, the volunteer contributions of individuals. Jbh^Talk 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• All of this talk of release or securing permission is superfluous for original content. OTRS releases apply to content published elsewhere before. For any content originally created here, regardless of its form, the Terms of Use apply, and nothing else. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if it's a work for hire, it has to be released whether or not it is originally written by the paid editor and whether or not it has been published before. Of course the bigger problem is that we can't tell whether it is original material, and is highly likely not to be. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)$

Actually, if it's a work for hire, it has to be released whether or not it is originally written by the paid editor and whether or not it has been published before. That is not a problem that Wikipedia has to consider nor solve. But let's consider the hypothetical scenario for a moment. Absent the proposed new policy, the employer would handle this through a DMCA request sent to the WMF. You're proposing to shift a reactive burden with a tiny amount of issues per year that is handled by paid professionals to a proactive process sending innumerable requests for investigation and verification onto the OTRS and the copyvio volunteers. Unless something has changed, OTRS permission queues for EN wiki are backlogged for over a month. And the amount of articles that require examination at WP:CCI is several hundred thousand. The proposed solution in search of a problem would cause massive amounts of bureaucracy for addressing a minuscule amount of potential issues. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MLauba, the issue is that we treat images differently from text. It is often obvious that a paid editor has not written the text they've submitted, because their writing on talk or on other articles is significantly different. So we have a situation where off-wiki actors are supplying texts about themselves or their clients. These texts are inserted into Wikipedia directly by the paid editor, or indirectly by volunteers at the paid editor's request. It's not a good situation.

Smallbones's proposal would go some way toward providing a solution, simply by alerting the off-wiki people that they need to identify the author, and that the author has to release it. Then we would at least know, in the case of the honest ones, who had written the material.

Piotrus's proposal also has merit, namely that paid editors be asked to confirm on their user pages that they have read and understood the terms of use, etc. I would add that they should confirm for each text that they are the text's author. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

the issue is that we treat images differently from text. Two different media, which are governed by different sets of precedents. No issue there. So we have a situation where off-wiki actors are supplying texts about themselves or their clients Yes, and if the text has not been published anywhere before it was posted to here, there is no conflict to resolve, regardless of who wrote it. Re-read the blurb just below the edit window: By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. It covers all scenarios of original contributions, including Piotrus proposal.

Even if the goal of some people were to try and discourage paid editing through additional procedures, how is it smart to create an additional undue proactive burden on volunteers? Under the scenario before the recent modifications of the policy, if a client wanted to repudiate text submitted on their behalf, they would be carrying most of the burden, interacting with paid employees of the WMF, and, as an added bonus, create a clear trail of evidence that they are gaming the system, which could then be acted upon by the community. Instead, this proposal would cause a huge churn for wikipedians, trying to figure out at every venture whether a disclosed paid editor is speaking in his own voice on behalf of his client, or in the voice of his client. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Accepting the licensing terms in MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning is not really any different to clicking on a button in an upload wizard which confirms that a picture is own work by the uploader. Sometimes we trust the claim, sometimes we don't. It is possible that it is more common that users contribute copyvio images than copyvio text, but copyvio text is also contributed once in a while. We don't know what contracts a paid editor has signed, so we can't tell if the paid editor is authorised to license the content. OTRS could be needed for some contributions by paid editors. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If accepting the terms of use is legally good enough for non-paid users, it's legally good enough for paid editors as well. There is nothing that makes the result be treated differently in copyright law. In the situation where someone is paid or instructed to edit Wikipedia, it defies reason to think that a judge would rule the text was not licensed -- the employer would know those terms of use going in (it's not exactly a big secret), and were willing to pay someone anyways. The odds that contributed text is owned by either the editor or the entity paying them are pretty astronomically high -- and I think that would be enough for the terms of use to be binding. The most likely situation for works for hire (which have relatively little overlap with paid editors) being a legal problem is actually with non-paid editors -- and any policy based on works for hire would have to apply to non-paid editors as well. Photographs are very different -- they are much more commonly copied from elsewhere, and also a common situation is when someone takes a portrait photo of you, and the copyright ownership was not thought about. If someone claims that they do own copyright anyways via contract and the photo was indeed original and not on the web, we'd probably accept that at face value (or should). In situations where we find copy/pasted text, then OTRS would apply of course, paid or non-paid. I am in full agreement with @MLauba -- real copyright licensing issues with original contributed text are so vanishingly rare (paid or non-paid) that they would be far better be dealt with by DMCA, rather than putting a preemptive OTRS blockage in their path and swamping the OTRS volunteers. Especially as that blockage would very likely apply to some non-paid editors as well, and would still miss the most problematic paid editing (paid contractors are not works for hire). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright and "top songs" lists

English Wikipedia includes dozens of pages which simply reproduce lists of top songs as compiled by other publications. For example, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1959, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1960, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1961, etc. The sources for the lists are owned by Billboard, and as our lists don't add any substantial original content (nor could they), our article must be a copyright violation, unless the original lists themselves aren't subject to copyright protection. Is there an existing consensus that these lists lack sufficient originality to benefit from copyright, or are we violating Billboard's copyright? Pburka (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If the selection and arrangement is a creative choice, then it could be a problem. But if the songs are listed and ordered based on objective criteria like sales and radio play statistics, then there was no human creativity which went into the selection and arrangement, and they should not be copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the charts are objectively compiled, but that the rules used to compile them are proprietary. According to Billboard Hot 100, the chart is based on a proprietary points system which assigns weights to sales, radio airplay, and streaming. It also says that "the methods and policies by which this data is obtained and compiled have changed many times throughout the chart's history." If the list itself is mechanical, but the rules are complex, proprietary and evolving, does the creativity involved in formulating the rules flow through to the chart? Pburka (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so. That sounds like an algorithm (a non-copyrightable idea), and the list is the processed result of the algorithm. There is no human originality in the selection and ordering of the lists themselves, it doesn't sound like. But, something like the "100 best songs" given someone's pure opinion would be copyrightable, most likely. If they tweak the algorithm each year though, does that amount to selection creativity, to get the list they want? That would be the argument. 17 USC 102(a) says: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. It sounds like they have a process to get a result, but do not really apply creativity to the list itself -- it is the result of a process. It doesn't take much -- it looks like this case ruled that the heading labels and order thereof of a table of factual data created a copyrightable compilation -- they found other vendors with similar data were organized differently, but there was one company which copied that layout and lost. That case did cite another though which may be more relevant here: Bellsouth Adver. & Pub. Corp. v. Donnelley Info. Pub., Inc ruled this way on a list of advertisers selected according to an algorithm they had developed: The protection of copyright must inhere in a creatively original selection of facts to be reported and not in the creative means used to discover those facts. The algorithm was ruled the means to discover facts, and not an original selection in and of itself. So, the list of Billboard songs would sound more like a discovery of the facts (the songs which most satisfied the predefined criteria) rather than an original listing, to me. A little more general information here, and Chapter 3 of the Copyright Compendium, especially section 312, goes into the details of what constitutes an original list. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Your argument is convincing. Pburka (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Help requested on a Superman-related article

I've been helping another editor, User:BaronBifford, on the new article Superman ownership disputes. He's done some excellent work using both book sources and old court decisions from decades ago, which are now freely available online. Since he's fairly new, essentially only on Wikipedia since September, he's asked me to see if an editor well-versed in copyright can look over the article and offer changes / corrections / suggestions. I'm not sure if this is the right forum to ask, but I figure it's a start. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

3RR exception

Does removing copyright infringements and links thereto constitute an exception to the three-revert rule? WP:3RRNO seems to state that it does. And if it does, would it be helpful to mention the exception on this policy page? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2016

41.235.101.205 (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Per directions, blank requests are declined. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Machine-translated versions of WP articles published elsewhere as "customer reviews". What to do?

By coincidence I have found a number (possibly hundreds) of product reviews (purportedly by an actual customer) of DVD's published on bol.com, a large, bonafide commercial website in The Netherlands, which appear to be machine translations of substantial sections of the English WP articles for the relevant films. All reviews are by the same user/customer, who seems to re-use WP content on a large scale. There is no attribution or reference to WP.

Though I think this is not the end of the world, I find it annoying, both as a WP editor and as a customer who keeps running into these fake product reviews. I also think it is illegal and misleading.

I am quite sure this is not the right page to discuss – but where can I take this issue? Is this something we act on? Superp (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

<crickets>. If anyone wants to help or discuss, please notify me via my talk page, I am no longer watching this page. Superp (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Near the top of the page, the red box about emailing the Wikimedia Foundation mentions "your company or school or organization". I think that should be "your company, school, or organization". KSFT^C 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 21 Feb 2016

I found a grammar error (subject/verb agreement).

Change:

The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.

to:

The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission.

(Emphasis added for clarity.)

Thanks,  DiscantX 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I don't think this is correct. The subject of that sentence is "content", which is singular (or possibly a mass noun--I don't know). KSFT^C 02:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2016

I found a few very minor errors and unclear phrases.

---

In the red box near the top of the page, it says this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations."

That means that they don't own copyright on both, but they could on one. I think it should be this:

"The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations."

(emphasis added)

---

The paragraph under that box says this:

"such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article"

That sentence uses "either" with three items, which is confusing, and it doesn't use a serial comma, which makes it ambiguous. I would write it like this:

"such text will be identified on the page footer, in the page history, or on the discussion page of the article"

---

The next sentence says this:

"Every image has a description page which indicates the license under which it is released"

Either there should be a comma before that "which" or it should be replaced by "that". I think the latter is better.

KSFT^C 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Seem to be uncontroversial improvements — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Belvedere Cricket Club

I have serious concerns about the articles recent expansion, included images uploaded as own work example of such. I was wondering, I have just posted on the articles talkpage, could someone with a better understanding of the process throw some light on the ins-and-outs. Thanks for your time. Murry1975 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 May 2016

Section: 3.1 Reusers' rights and obligations; Sub-section: Licensing notice

Original text: "Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text "

Change Request: Shouldn't "... CC BY-SA and either..." be changed to "... CC BY-SA by either..."? where, "and" is replaced with "by"; the present form does not appear to make much sense.

Regards, AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It's trying to say we need to satisfy these 2 conditions:

1. State the work is released under CC BY-SA.
2. Give either a hyperlink to the license OR give the full license text with your distribution.

The phrase is fine. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, my bad. AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries :) Happy editing! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2016

Tosifafaqi (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Empty request. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Illegible headnote

The "Important note" at the top of the page on a pink background is almost entirely unreadable on a mobile device in portrait orientation, at least this one*. The box it is in is just one character wide

What it looks like on the device in question
a n d l o o k s l i k e t h i s : I m p o r t a n t n o t e : T h e W i k i m e d i a F o u n d a t i o n d o e s n o t o w n c o p y r i g h t o n W i k i p e d i a a r t i c l e t e x t s o r i l l u s t r a t i o n s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e p o i n t l e s s

... to continue this sample any further. This is true whether I choose the mobile or the desktop version.

• Samsung S-6 Verizon SM-G920V, Android version 6.0.1

--Thnidu (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see the same think on my Nexus 5. Pburka (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Passport stamps

I have checked out a few of the passport stamps pictured at passport stamp and Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory and in each case the uploader has claimed the right to release them under CC BY-SA. Surely the copyright to a passport stamp is held by the issuing authority, not someone who has scanned it from a passport? Sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking but I'm not prepared to go through the process of tagging hundreds of files for WP:FFD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Academic reusing their own lecture notes that were published online

An academic I know contacted me to ask if a colleague can paste their own lecture notes into an article or articles on geology. If the notes have not been published anywhere, obviously this is not an issue. However, the notes have been placed online -- presumably at their academic institution -- and so may have an explicit or implicit copyright notice. In that case I assume an OTRS ticket would have to be opened to get permission. If there's no copyright notice, is there an issue? And what about plagiarism -- clearly we are fine with the academic re-using their own words without rephrasing, but is it going to appear to be plagiarism, and how can that be addressed so others don't remove that text once they find where it comes from? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is one of the chapters of his notes that he is considering pasting from into Wikipedia. I don't see anything about copyright but I'm not sure of the answer on plagiarism; and I'd like to know a general answer as he's said his colleagues may have the same question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright to former Wikipedia articles that were deleted

I would like to know what is the policy concerning copyright to the former Wikipedia articles that were deleted after a nomination to AfD and disucussion. Does the text written by a user keep being "licensed to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL", after the deletion, or do the copyrights return to the original author as they are no longer Wikipedia content. In other words, are other people licenced to re-use the text originally written to Wikipedia and republish it elsewherem even after it has been permanently deleted from Wikipedia, or not? Please be kind to show links to specific regulations, if possible, while answering. I am not able to find this information in all the legal stuff I was looking through. Thank you. noychoH (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Content contributed is irrevocably released under CC/GFDL at the moment it is saved. Since page content changes and we can't tell when or what version of a page someone might re-use, the release stays in effect even if all of one's contributions are edited out of the article (or if it is deleted for that matter). Additionally, nothing is ever permanently deleted from WP (except in exceedingly rare situations), and it is not out of the realm of possibility that a deleted article is restored well after its deletion, so making the license release irrevocable at time of save removes any ambiguity from the question. Crow^Caw 23:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Also, to your question on linking a policy, I think this is more a requirement of the CC license, which states that the license grant never expires until the copyright on the content expires. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Crow^Caw 23:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-mainspace use of workmarks covered by trademark law and allegedly not copyrightable

I commented out a use of the logo of The Simpsons, File:Logo The Simpsons.svg, used on a talk page for humorous effect, as an impermissible use of a non-free work. This was reverted, presumably in good faith (though by an editor who acts in opposition to me on every single encounter; good-faith or not, I think it was a knee-jerk reaction and ill-considered). The image file is hosted here on WP, not Commons, and has a trademark template on it. It also claims a public-domain copyright template, but I believe this is erroneous, because a) it is not simply plain text, but a creative logo, and is thus almost certainly covered by copyright, even if the font used in it were a publicly available one (it's colored, bordered, canted, etc.), and b) even aside from that, it's not actually a font at all, but Matt Groening's handwriting adapted into a logo, which almost certainly makes it a copyrighted creative work from the start.

1. I think the licensing information on the image is incorrect and should be fixed, and that the talk-page use should be commented out again (or deleted).
2. Even if it were not, it would be helpful to have clarification whether it is permissible to use trademarked but not copyrighted wordmark images, outside mainspace articles to which the wordmarks pertain.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd that no one has commented on this but I do notice that the file you linked to is on Commons, not En WP and has been for several years, even surviving a deletion discussion there (albeit a discussion with only two participants). Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Basic question about how Wikipedia describes copyright on all articles

I posted a question about copyright at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Why_is_the_copyright_license_described_in_two_different_ways.3F. I am feeling unsure and seeking a few more comments. Thanks for anyone who can help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Historical markers in the US

In the U.S., are historical markers (on public land) something that can be copyrighted? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bubba73: A better place to post this is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but the answer is yes. Everything is copyrighted unless there is a specific release. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Photos of ones made by the state or Georgia or the Georgia Historical Society are OK to use. I asked for permission and that is going through OTRS on Wikimedia right now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

majority.fm logo.png

I want to include an info box into the majority.fm article, best with the logo image included. Now, how do I manage that? Do I ask the folks at http://majority.fm if they agree to release the icon under one of the wikipedia acceptable terms? Starting with the ones that leave the most rights to them? If so, are there templates or howtos how to do so? Since I don't have the time to read all through all possible terms for such images and break them down into a few words short enough for them to read but still correct enough not to misrepresent the term(s)... --Rava77 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rava77: I believe the logo would fall under Template:PD-logo. Upload it with {{Template:PD-logo}} as the public domain reason. I would recommend uploading it to Commons (It will be linked if you go to the upload page on wikipedia), because it is Public domain, and almost all public domain images are moved to Commons anyway. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

But... that is only assuming it falls under PD. Is that due to the text and colours, without any specific graphical detail? Do folks at Template_talk:PD-logo are a good starting point for asking? Or are you really sure it would fall under PD? --Rava77 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. How do you manage your custom User sign code?

@Rava77: it depends on what country the logo is from. I believe it to be based in America, which has a very low threshold for originality, and simple logos like these, with geometric shapes, should be covered. My signature was done in my preferences. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"low threshold for originality", does that mean it falls under the rationale of {{Template:PD-logo}}, or not? [Me is no native tongue, and especially such rule/law lingo tends to confuse me at times...] --Rava77 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rava77: It means it does. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────┘
Okay, thanks. I never uploaded anything to wikipedia, nor to commons. I tried to figure out how to do so with using the template by reading the info on the template {{Template:PD-logo}} but to no prevail... Mind giving me a shove to the right direction? Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rava77: If you give me the link to the page you found the logo on, I can upload it for you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iazyges, thanks, I figured it out by myself. Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, the following countries do not have copyright relations with the U.S.: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, and San Marino. These countries do not recognize U.S. copyright, and the U.S. does not recognize their copyright. All work created by a resident of those countries, and published in those countries, is public domain in the United States, and much of the world. WP:C currently states:

The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.

And Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights currently states:

It is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case, bearing in mind the goal of being able to freely distribute Wikipedia in the country an incorporated work originates from.

The last RfC on whether or not the English Wikipedia should host such content was 4.5 years ago and was closed with no consensus for the status quo, and no consensus for change. Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Support hosting such content

1. Support because the English Wikipedia already hosts content that is public domain in the United States, but not in the source country. We have {{PD-USonly}}, which is used on 900+ pages, mainly for work that is copyrighted in the country of origin due to the Sweat of the brow doctrine. We also have {{FoP-USonly}}, which is used on 400+ pages for work that is copyrighted in the country of origin due to a lack of freedom of panorama there. In addition, there is {{Do not move to Commons}}, which is used on almost 10000 pages. The English Wikipedia even hosts content that is copyrighted in the United States per WP:NFCC. All of this is in pursuit of the goal of hosting as much encyclopedic content as possible. I don't see why content that is in the public domain in the U.S. due to a lack of copyright relations is any different. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support, but create appropriate copyright tags - The countries without copyright relations with the US also don't have copyright relations with most (if any) other countries. Copyright is based on national law and most countries only recognize copyright for foreign works by reciprocity. As such, works first published in countries like Iran are not copyrighted in most countries, but can be in the future if those countries join the Berne Convention. Copyright templates for works from these countries should be created similar to Template:FoP-USonly, which would allow works from these countries to be identified in the future if they become copyrighted by virtue of the origin country joining the Berne Convention. AHeneen (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Support, but with the caveat from AHeneen above. It does not further Wikipedia's mission to attempt to enforce the contradictory copyright states in multiple countries, and we don't currently do so. Enforcing U.S. copyright law is a simple, effective, legally enforceable solution. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support I don't understand why we would treat such images any differently from other images that are copyrighted in their home country but free in the US (as noted by Ramaksoud2000). Others below say that we are assembling content that is free throughout the world, but that is not in fact what we are doing. My one concern is that (as noted below by opposers) this policy would reduce the incentive to create new, freely licensed works that would be free worldwide. But I don't think this concern outweighs the utility of using the many images that already exist and are in fact in the public domain in the United States and in many other countries. And I don't buy that this creates a "mess" in case a country joins the Berne Convention in the future. No one has presented evidence that this is likely to happen, and if it does, images tagged appropriately can be deleted. There have been statutory copyright restorations in the US in the past, which have essentially the same effect. We don't worry about the contingency that more could happen in the future. So why should we worry about the possibility that a country will join the Berne Convention? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. I see a lot of misunderstandings here. There's a lot of talk about how we should only host content that's PD in the source country, but we already host content that's only public domain in the United States. That's the current English Wikipedia practice. Why would we carve out one weird exception for these five countries? If we're going to change the whole policy, that's a broader discussion we should have, but a targeted exception makes little sense. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose hosting such content

1. Oppose - Our mission is to present the world with a free encyclopedia. While it is true we do accept fair use under some circumstances, it's explicitly because to avoid doing this would significantly detrract from the quality of the encyclopedia. While I would tend to be lenient on borderline cases for NFCC criteria, we should only accept such images if they are at least plausibly following the said criteria. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per what I said in the section below - it's not a given such works will stay PD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The content is not really "public domain" in the United States; the US simply refuses to enforce an otherwise valid copyright -- but is willing to do so at any time in the future, if certain conditions are met. That fact doesn't make the content free for reuse without limits, and it's not really free content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. In general the other US-only tags are for situations where the other country's copyright has been respected as much as the Berne Convention mandates in the United States, at least (i.e. passed through the URAA). If works are simultaneously (within 30 days) published in a Berne country, then that country is the country of origin -- and "country of origin" published on the web get can very "interesting", so it can be dangerous to assume Iran etc. as the country of origin. I don't think we should respect terms from such countries beyond what the U.S. term would have been (i.e. before 1923), but anything still copyrighted in those countries is liable for retroactive restoration under the URAA when or if those countries join Berne (or the WTO), so there is a much higher risk we'd have to remove such works in the future than there is from works from any Berne country. I suppose we could qualify as a "reliance party" in that situation if we did have the works, but... that's not really the spirit of "free". I think it'd be OK to use the rule of the shorter term (since that is what the URAA will do if it becomes effective) but otherwise I think we should continue to respect such copyrights (i.e. keep the status quo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Soft Oppose. We could do this, and we could clean up the mess if/when the copyright status changes. I would soft-support doing that if it were just us cleaning up the mess. However we encourage people to reuse our content. I just don't think it's worth it to create this mess and drag other people into it, if/when it has to be cleaned up. Alsee (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose The idea is that Wikipedia should be free content everywhere in the world. It may not be an ideal we can live up to, it may even be an ideal we should abandon, but not by the back door. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
   
7. Oppose per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. tl;dr, it's not free (as in free beer) content. -FASTILY 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose In my opinion a lack of relations is a blanket no, in the same way as if a country decided that it would refuse any PD agreements with anyone. Basically operating under the assumption that the relation allows it, and a lack of relation, being the opposite, doesn't. (Metaethical argument over if an extreme needs to have an opposite impending). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose per User:Od Mishehu and User:Iazyges. John (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose. In addition to what others have said above: from my experience, in virtually all cases where I've seen editors pushing for the inclusion of such material, it has been in order to push poor-quality material – images that were either objectively so bad that we ought not to be wanting them in the first place, regardless of their legal status, or images that would have been easy to replace with properly licensed ones. This seems to be true in the present instance too: the initiator cites File:Isfahan Metro.jpg as the trigger for this dispute – a low-resolution, everyday shot of some random metro train in a large modern city. There are plenty of local Wikipedia editors in Iran, so it would be trivially easy to get properly licensed self-made pictures from there. We should continue to uphold our strategy that has been successful throughout the history of our project: make it hard to use less-than-perfectly free pictures, in order to provide an extra incentive for the creation of high-quality, genuinely self-made free ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose: My view on this hasn't changed in the past four years: we should host these images under the same rules as any other non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose: Hosting content that is not fully free (as defined in wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) worldwide, with limited exceptions, is fundamentally against the mission of Wikipedia as a global free encyclopedia. Exceptions should be kept to a minimum, and there is no compelling reason to exlucde works of this nature from the requirement of being free everywhere. Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights states that "Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world" and we are voicing that preference in this RfC.– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC) (modified by – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

    @Finnusertop: But ... they are free. They're fully free in the United States, just like many other images we host that are public domain in the United States but not the source country. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

    @BU Rob13: Apparently, if a work is free in Nauru and nowhere else in the world, it can be still used "by anyone, for any purpose" according to the Definition of Free Cultural Works. That "anyone" is just quite small in number. I've revised my reasoning above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

    @Finnusertop: In response to your updated reasoning, I just want to make clear that we're not voicing that preference in this RfC. This RfC does not change the fact that if a work from Mexico is copyrighted in Mexico but not in the United States, the English Wikipedia will gladly accept it as free content. It just carves out an odd exception for these few countries where we consider their country's copyright law, while we don't consider the copyright law of any other country with copyright relations to the United States. That's quite odd. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

    @BU Rob13: I know. What you consider an odd exception, many consider a step in the preferential direction. And judging by many comments here, there is nothing odd about it. Indeed, it closes a strange loophole. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

13. Oppose, it seems like that would be highly problematic if the copyright status changes. I'm not conviced that would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

Just wanted to add some background here. The photo that is the cause of this kerfuffle is here: File:Isfahan Metro.jpg. I originally tagged it as a copyright violation and then brought it to FFD after being informed of the whole "the US doesn't recognize Iranian copyright" issue. I withdrew the original FFD after about twenty minutes after thinking about the can of worms that it might open. The can of worms being the {{PD-USonly}} tag mentioned above and the sheer number of pages it is being used on. Not to mention the {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} tag which would increase that number exponentially and would require a review of each and every image that is tagged that way if the status quo was changed.

The case-by-case basis is what is in question here. I understand that the US does not recognize these images but I have a problem with the idea that anyone can grab any image they want that was produced in Iran (or any of those other countries) and use it freely to their heart's content. All that does is quash any desire for the legitimate release of images under a truly free license that can be used across all projects. Not to mention that the image that caused this whole RfC is only being used in a way that does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the article in any determinable way. Also, if we do allow such things there needs to be a category for these images. If the US ever does restore copyright relations with these countries, see URAA and bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, then every image that is hosted this way needs to be immediately deleted. --Majora (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That image reminded me of the issue, but I don't particularly care about that specific image. I'm more interested in the policy as a whole. And yes, there would need to be a category per country. There was much discussion in the last RfC about proposed templates and categories. Those never got used due to the result, but they can be looked at again if there is consensus. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And I disagree that it would quash a desire to release under a free license. There are other projects than the English Wikipedia, and English isn't the main language of any of those countries anyway. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest pinging WMF legal. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You can read their response at the previous RfA at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_14#Legal_team.27s_statement. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But yes, they should be informed of this RfC. I will e-mail them. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey JJMC89 and Ramaksoud2000 - I've sent them an email. Though it's not the end of the world if they receive two! :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• The policy on Commons is to consider the copyright in the original country for such items. Partly because it is possible that such works will end up under US copyright per URAA if any of these countries were to enter into copyright relationships in the future. My sense is that works in such countries should be considered fair game if they are PD in the country, and "fair use" (or "no use") if not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Copyright is defined by national laws; in most countries, foreign copyright is based on reciprocity. The countries that don't have copyright relations with the US don't have copyright relations with most (if any) other countries. Therefore, the works from those countries are free of copyright in most countries. This is similar to the situation with freedom of panorama. Most countries do not allow freedom of panorama (see Commons) and several only allow it for non-commercial purposes. However, since US law allows FoP for buildings, even for commercial purposes, we allow images of copyrighted buildings in countries without FoP (example). The copyright policy on Commons--that a work must be free in both the US and country of origin--is in contrast to the policy of considering only US copyright on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights).

I agree that images, such as the Isfahan metro photo (per Flagfox, the server hosting it is located in Iran), from countries without copyright relations with the US should be tagged with a copyright template that allows them to be identified and removed if they become copyrighted in the future if the country of publication joins the Berne Convention. No such copyright template presently exists for Iran. AHeneen (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I would need to spend time to look up where he suggested it, but Jimbo did say that we shoukd treat works from these non binding countries as if they were copyrighted, and thus subject to hosting and usage as any other copyrighted image as defined under NFC. --MASEM (t) 08:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The exact quote from 2005 is here. But I don't think that we should treat something that Jimbo wrote in an email 11 years as the ultimate authority. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

True, but it is also very conservative/worst case advice. We aren't letting the proverbial copyright cat out of the bag to respect non URAA copyright, should that change in the future. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: I notified everyone who participated in the 2012 RfC with the following message:

Extended content

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US Hello, There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. --signature

-AHeneen (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Another idea: Could we have some sort of policy where images that are fairly easy to obtain cannot be used in this way? This would encourage the creation of free content. I don't know what the cutoff would be. But something like a photo of the Ifsahan metro station cannot be used but a photo of Rouhani meeting with such-and-such foreign leader could be. This could be a good compromise -- food for thought... Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The WMF policy (wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy), mentioned among the oppose votes, reads in relevant part: All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above. (emphasis added). The Definition of Free Cultural Works includes: In order to be considered free, a work must be covered by a Free Culture License, or its legal status must provide the same essential freedoms enumerated above. (emphasis added). As I mention in previous comments, copyright for foreign works is based on reciprocity; as such, works first published in countries that are not a party to the Berne Convention and not published within a certain time (eg. 30 days under US copyright law) in a country that is a member are not copyrighted in Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states). Such content is free of copyright in the US and 7/8ths of the world and should not be considered non-free content, which several of the opposing voters mention.

All projects must adhere to U.S. laws (because of the location of WMF servers and the place of incorporation of the WMF), but the choice of other applicable law is a project-by-project decision. The current choice of applicable law is found in the lead at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries.

Concerns about the reusability of such content are misfounded. As I mention above, we already allow images of buildings that are copyrighted in the origin country but that are free of the building's copyright in the U.S. under the freedom of panorama copyright exception (see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama). But the even greater issue is the inclusion of non-free content, based on the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. While similar exceptions can be found in the copyright laws of other countries (see Fair dealing#By country and Fair use#Influence internationally), such exceptions are far from universal. In the EU, member states can pick among 22 permissible copyright exceptions, but many countries have very restrictive exceptions. So an image that meets our NFC criteria and satisfies US fair use and UK fair dealing standards probably won't be free to use in France (which has few exceptions). In this way, Wikipedia content already is limited in its reusability, much more so than content that is free of copyright because the origin country is not a Berne Convention member state. Concerns about the future usability of files from non-members join the Berne Convention and images become copyrighted can easily be addressed by creating appropriate copyright templates. AHeneen (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Add to "Copyright violations" if there is no other content present, tag the page with {{db-copyvio}} UpsandDowns1234 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new PD-US-1923 template

Currently, {{PD-US-1923}} redirects to {{PD-US}}, a generic template that usually means it was published before 1923, but not always. On Commons, they are separate templates, and {{PD-US}} is basically a disambiguation template. This helps ensure the rationale for why something is in the public domain is clear on the file description pages. Should we do the same here? This would involve splitting off {{PD-US-1923}} into its own template and then going through {{PD-US}} to determine what should be moved over (and also what should have a different licensing template or possibly be deleted). This can be expedited quite a bit by a bot searching for a "date" parameter that is before 1923. This would create something of a backlog, but it wouldn't be high-urgency and it would at least encourage better documentation going forward. Thoughts? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up on relevant Wikimania presentations

Here's a couple Wikimania presentations that are relevant to the file process on enwiki. They are currently proposals. If you may attend Wikimania and would be interested in attending these presentations, feel free to indicate as such on the proposal pages. If anyone wants more information about these, leave me a talk page message.

• OTRS/Email: Communicating with the broader community (relevant due to permissions queues, which will be a major focus of conversation)
• Copyright for Dummies (obviously relevant)

I'd also definitely appreciate feedback on the Copyright for Dummies slides; if you see something that could make them more effective or something missing, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Please add "WP:CONFIRMED" to the "WP:C redirects here" at the top of the page. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I can't see the relevance of "CONFIRMED" to this page which is about copyrights? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Two problems

On an iPhone, in portrait view, the important note is collapsed to the left. Also, there is a typo at "You may request the material be removed...you may request the page be immediately removed...". Please fix this. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Where is "You may request the material be removed" located? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Here. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: The word "material" does not appear in that paragraph. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Never mind, it felt awkward a while ago, but I realize there is no grammar error. However, there is still a problem, on an iPhone, in mobile view, on the mobile website, the important notice box collapses to the left. That still needs to be fixed. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Yes, that's an issue. I will post more about the "typo" on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on images

Hi - copyvio is not an area I am very familiar with, so please go easy with me if I am very off-piste. this image is of the crest of a house in Wilson's School#Houses. As you will see from the article, each of the 6 houses has a crest image in the article, in a rather ugly table. And each seems to have been contributed by the same editor Ricagambeda (talk · contribs) and are annotated to say he is the copyright holder. But they also seemed to have been designed by someone else - a J Shaw. I would have thought that such crest images would be owned by the school itself rather than an individual. Also most of these crests are likely to be quite old and therefore may be out of copyright? Are these copyvios or not? I ask the experts. CalzGuy (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My best bet would be for you to tag the image for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}}. Also, in the future, could you please not list copyright issues here, as this talk page is for discussing improvements to WP:Copyrights. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Where would I report them? CalzGuy (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, CalzGuy. Thanks for checking on the validity of those images -- they have been deleted. If you have future questions about the copyright status images, than Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is a good place to ask. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion at WT:NFC

I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:cc-by-sa

Template:cc-by-sa, currently a redirect to Template:cc-by-sa-1.0, has been nominated at RfD. The discussion would significantly benefit from the participation of those with knowledge of media copyrights and licensing issues. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation error

The box at the top currently says: "It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images; even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content."

Please change the incorrect semi-colon (marked) to a comma. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the semicolon was okay, since it more clearly separates the first clause from the second, heavily-comma'd clause; I would have used one there myself. No objection to changing it to a comma though. ansh666 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses. If you wanted a visual break, or to add emphasis, then a dash would have been appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable linking to LINKVIOs

What the policy says: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

In general, the absolutist approach to copyrights in this policy is (IMO) the correct choice. However, on this very narrow point, I think that this statement is wrong, because we accept links under two significant circumstances:

• {{backwardscopyvio}}
• Discussions about whether a URL is/isn't a copyright violation

I think we should consider clarifying this somehow (possibly not directly in this policy). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the policy as written (but hopefully not as intended) bans many of the links at WP:Mirrors and forks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• A backwards copy, as well as a compliant mirror, would not be in violation of the creator's copyright, so that portion of the policy would exempt those. If a user is unaware of the site's mirror status and avoids linking as a result, that is erring on the side of compliance which I see as a good thing. Crow^Caw 20:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

But, Crow, the whole point of {{backwardscopyvio}} is to tell other editors that a non-compliant website is plagiarizing a Wikipedia article, in violation of the Wikipedia editors' copyrights. "Some or all of one or more webpages are secretly copyright violations of this page" is not nearly as helpful to future editors as "This exact webpage is a copyvio of this Wikipedia article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, BackwardsCopy (BackwardsCopyVio is just a RD to it) doesn't actually say anything about a violation. It merely informs the page reader that the content of the WP article has been reproduced by an external source, so not to call the page a CV of that re-user's page. The template itself doesn't differentiate between a license-compliant copy and a non-compliant one. The instructions, however, are in dire need of copyedit: it says to use BackwardsCopyVio when the re-user is confirmed to be in violation, and NotACopyVio when it is not. But both of those are just RDs to BackwardsCopy with no hidden cats or anything... Crow^Caw 23:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of blocking threats - let's be nice

(Also posted in blocking) I recently created an article that in the opinion of another editor was a breach of copyright. Perhaps it was ... but I had a good reason in my own mind and felt it was fair use ... which is a separate point. Point is I did it in good faith, please take my word for it. Then one day I got this message, threatening blocking:

• Your addition to xxxyyyxxx has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — User:somexxxuseryyy] 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It felt unpleasant. If someone can give some thought to how we can be a bit more pleasant to each other would be good.Supcmd (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

With more specifics provided, you will get more specific feedback. I'm sure we all can look at the history of your talk page and see who said what when, and so then we can get to the why and how. Jclemens (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks ... point was not so much specifics of my case (as a side note I had copied the vision and objectives of an intergovernmental organisation that was in the treaty and published publically, technically copyright but intended for dissemination, so I thought, and it gave the reader an idea of what the org was about from the horse's mouth) but even if I was in error and had breached copyright... just the template response felt unpleasant and was wondering if it could be improved as a matter of principle as it felt negative and threatening and could discourage wikipedians from legitimate contributions.Supcmd (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of a full <=140 character Twitter message a copyvio?

At Milkshake Duck, a meme started by a Twitter message (as well-documented in sources), it would seem to make sense to include the attributable Twitter message in full since the joke is partially based on how the text message was given. Technically this is the "whole work" if we're talking fair use issues, but it's also a tiny work and one that makes no sense to try to quote only part of (we can paraphrase though). Is it reasonable that as long as we include all relevant citations to include the full <=140 character Twitter message? --MASEM (t) 16:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification please

This is a great article in its own right imho but could someone clarify two things, both under: Linking to copyrighted works please?

if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright

Should this read "or could reasonably suspect"?

linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use

If there is fair use, eg of a still from a movie, then isn't that a general position?

I am also confused as to why eg. citing words published in hard copy seems to be treated materially differently to citing eg. a clip from a movie. Are all creative works equal but some more equal than others? And should that for instance have been written with quotes and a citation reference approved by the author/publisher etc? I find it difficult to wrap my head around these apparent differences.

LookingGlass (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For the first issue, I don't think the word 'could' is needed in the sentence. Removing the first verb (know), the sentence reads "if you...reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." For the second issue, the entire paragraph is needed for context (no pun intended):

Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.

This paragraph can be confusing and should use a better example, but the answer to your question is that there isn't a difference between types of works (print vs. video). The difference that the paragraph is referring to is the difference between linking to this webpage (assume it has commentary about the following linked image) versus linking to this image if this image is copyrighted and used on the webpage without the permission of the copyright holder but the use is OK under fair use law. It is OK to link to the page because the page complies with copyright law (the film review in the quoted paragraph), but not OK to link directly to the image URL (the film screenshot). Keep in mind that most images on websites are actually have their own URL because of the way that servers handle files, but the images are used on webpages with other text/graphics/etc. You can view most images displayed on websites at a unique URL by right-clicking and selecting "View image" (which is how I got the image URL linked above). AHeneen (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom final decisions and copyright

Please see my thread at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#ArbCom cases and attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

please edit to insert a missing syntactical article

Either "an" or "the" is missing in the lead, after the pink box, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, in "Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license", before the penultimate word. License is a count noun, not a mass noun. I'm not an admin. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Important note" illegible on narrow screens

The "Important note" with a pink background has its style set with margin-right:20em but no min-width. On a narrow screen, such as a mobile phone in portrait mode, this squeezes the box into a single-character column, which is impossible to read. Please add min-width: 20em (or smaller, but not too small) to make it legible in such a situation. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extensive plagiarism of Wikipedia by an "academic journal" article - not sure how to deal with this

This journal article substantially duplicates a large amount of text from Wikipedia's amphetamine article without attribution, substantially duplicates 2 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia's Adderall article without attribution, and reused 2 images that I drew, uploaded to Commons ([22] [23]), and published under CC-BY-SA-3.0, also without attribution.

Just to illustrate the extent of this issue, I've highlighted all of the sentences from the Wikipedia article and this journal article that are virtually identical in these pdfs: Amphetamine article (March 5 revision); journal article (March 10 submission date) (NB: orange highlighted text is copied from amphetamine; light blue highlighted text is copied from Adderall#Mechanism of action). Alternatively, see the results from the Earwig copyvio detector.

I'm not really sure how to provide an appropriate notice of copyright infringement in this context since the OMICS Publishing Group doesn't have a webpage dedicated to copyright issues. As far as I can tell, this contact page and the emails/phone numbers listed on that page appear to be the only means of communication with the publisher. Also, none of the model letters listed in Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter seem to apply in this context because this was published in an academic journal. Anyone have any advice? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• They do have 2 links in the references section back to WP articles (Lisdexamfetamine and Substituted amphetamine)... if those were the only pages they re-used, then the hyperlinks in the page do seem to conform to the bare minimum attribution needed, per WP:REUSE. Your drawings being in those linked articles should fall under the umbrella cite of the pages. Crow^Caw 22:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually only recently decided to transclude {{Psychostimulant addiction}} into the lisdexamfetamine article (see Special:diff/797902889/797906870). When viewing older revisions of the lisdexamfetamine article, it will show that figure as being a part of the article because it's being transcluded in from the current revision of the amphetamine article. In other words, at the time the journal article was published, only 1 of my diagrams was displayed in the lisdexamfetamine article. Even so, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires that a content creator be attributed unless waived by the licensor/creator (see the Creative Commons FAQ for attribution) and the url where the content is hosted be specified if reasonable; consequently, citing the lisdexamfetamine article as an indirect citation to my figures isn't adequate at the very least because I didn't waive that right and I wasn't attributed. Moreover, several sections that were copied from the amphetamine and Adderall articles into the journal article are not transcluded into the lisdexamfetamine article (e.g., the text that was copied from Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, Amphetamine#Chemistry, and Adderall#Mechanism_of_action).

So, in a nutshell, even if a single in-text attribution to those 2 Wikipedia articles were adequate for CC-BY-SA-3.0-compliant attribution with respect to duplicating ~20 paragraphs of text from Wikipedia, it would still fail to satisfy the license's attribution requirements for the text copied from the aforementioned 3 sections.

Anyway, I'm about to send OMICS Publishing Group a copyright infringement notice using a variant of Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter#If you are a significant contributor to the text. I'll follow up here if/when I get a response. That paper is also hosted on ResearchGate, so I'm notifying them as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've sent the notices. Awaiting a response now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in hearing how they respond. If you get into a dialog, you may want to point out the irony of them listing a very specific way to attribute their journal if re-used. Crow^Caw 21:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Crow: Roughly 12 hours after I emailed copyright@researchgate.net, they responded to me via email notifying me that they'd removed the offending content which I had specified in my email to them. They removed the pdf and HTML versions of the full text article on their website and all of the images from the article's figure preview page, even though only 2 of the 4 images violated my copyright. This is the pdf file from ResearchGate (NB: I'm hosting this file externally) that used to be available for direct download through this link, which now simply redirects to the article abstract on ResearchGate. The abstract contains no material that infringes upon copyrighted content from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; I assume this is why they left that intact.

These are the urls that I indicated as containing material which violates my copyright in my email to ResearchGate

Full text of the article from the publication details page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314238671_Amphetamines_Potent_Recreational_Drug_of_Abuse Full text from the dedicated download link to the pdf file: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Sahab_Uddin/publication/314238671_Amphetamines_Potent_Recreational_Drug_of_Abuse/links/596f298baca272d5520290bc/Amphetamines-Potent-Recreational-Drug-of-Abuse.pdf Figures 2 and 3 from the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314238671_Amphetamines_Potent_Recreational_Drug_of_Abuse/figures Figures 2 and 3 from the full text in the following two links: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314238671_Amphetamines_Potent_Recreational_Drug_of_Abuse https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Sahab_Uddin/publication/314238671_Amphetamines_Potent_Recreational_Drug_of_Abuse/links/596f298baca272d5520290bc/Amphetamines-Potent-Recreational-Drug-of-Abuse.pdf Figure 2 download link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Sahab_Uddin/publication/314238671/figure/fig4/AS:507693249069057@1498054911658/Figure-2-The-mechanism-of-action-of-amphetamine-in-a-dopamine-neuron-Amphetamines-pass.png Figure 3 download link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Sahab_Uddin/publication/314238671/figure/fig3/AS:507693237977088@1498054908153/Figure-3-Signaling-cascade-in-the-nucleus-accumbens-of-brain%27s-reward-center-that-lead.png All of the copyright infringing material on these pages was promptly removed by ResearchGate.

I have yet to receive a response from OMICS. I'm going to wait a few days before sending a follow-up notice via email to contact.omics@omicsonline.org and request that they reply with information about how they intend to rectify the situation; if I receive no response to that email after exactly 1 week, I'm going to send a cease and desist notice. If even that doesn't elicit a response, I'm going to follow-up with a DMCA takedown notice roughly a week later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I found two email addresses for the editorial board of the journal in which the article was published – addiction@scholarlyjournals.org and editor.jart@omicsonline.net – listed on [24] and [25], respectively; so, I just sent them an email similar to the one I sent to contact.omics@omicsonline.org two days ago. I also asked them to let me know how they intend to address the issue. Hopefully they'll respond. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I received the following response from the journal's editorial staff:

Dear [redacted name]
We informed the mistakes in the pdf to author and he had done the corrections, once we receive the final corrected pdf we will update it online
Feel free to contact us for any further queries
With thanks,
Rezina

That was a very prompt reply. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent, seems like the best response we could get. Hopefully the authors will comply as well, but if not, it's out of publication. Crow^Caw 22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently working with the lead author to correct the issue. He seems eager to resolve the problem, so this issue should be resolved soon. I guess the lesson here is that when there's a copyright issue in an OMICS journal, the journal's editorial staff needs to be contacted directly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit late in following-up on this, but I sorted out all the copyright issues with the lead author about a week and a half ago. Their revised manuscript seems more-or-less acceptable now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Attribution

The educational blog at Jokpeme has plagiarised the Wikipedia article Habitat without attribution. I know this because I wrote most of the article and took it to GAN. I was alerted to the blog when yesterday somebody added some information to the article that they had copied verbatim from the blog. Can this blogger, William Watson, be encouraged to acknowledge the source of his material? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest contacting the blogger about the copyright violation and stating how it can be addressed/resolved. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to do anything about this copyright violation because I could find no way of getting in touch with the site. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sentence not making sense

This sentence: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely.", in "Using copyrighted works from others", does IMHO not make sense, but has still been there since at least 2010 (which is as far back as I looked). Reading an encyclopaedia is legal even if there are copyvios in it, it's adding the copyrighted material, and keeping it in the encyclopaedia, that isn't legal. So the text should, again IMHO, say that it is legal to write about ideas, and describe copyrighted works of art, as long as editors use their own words when doing it, and don't follow the source too closely. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's basically trying to summarize how people should use something they read online without just pasting it in. Essentially that sentence doesn't mean "It's legal to read, and also legal to write..." as much as "It is legal to use this process: read, reformulate, and then write." Perhaps is could be worded better, but it's a direct response to a question we see all the time: "I read X online, can I use it here?" Crow^Caw 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggested amendment

In Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, the paragraph "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time." has been interpreted in one case as meaning "If you can't link to a current page because it contains a copyright violation, you can link to an archived copy instead".

That's clearly wrong. so I propose adding to the second sentence so that it reads "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time (providing the original webpage does not itself contain a copyright violation)."

Any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Makes sense. You may want to clarify that you can link to a Waybacked site that contains copyrighted material (as in the site owns the copyright), such as when using it for a source, as long as that site isn't violating someone else's copyright. Crow^Caw 15:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Good point, thanks - I'll modify my suggested wording later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Good edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Upload request

Where can I request an upload? I had an account that I lost the password to, but have no desire to create a new account? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question. 146.229.240.200 (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Can we please add to WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER something like: "Non-open-access journals generally permit authors to make a pre-publication version of a paper available in many ways, sometimes with an embargo; many such journals do not give authors the right to make published versions of papers available anywhere - not even on their faculty websites. Linking to such published papers may be contributory copyright infringement and you should check the publisher's policy on authors' permission to post articles before linking."

Something like that. Folks have been using OAbot to add links to supposedly OA instances of published papers and I have been finding way too many links to published papers on academic websites, published by journals that do not allow this, as was done in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds fine to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• That sounds entirely reasonable. At the very least, we can't count on the stability of the target links, if they are themselves copyvios. bd2412 T 00:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think this kind of addition could be useful but it needs to be rescripted. Green OA is increasingly practiced, allowing the deposit of published manuscripts, or just preprints, on university repositories, author webpages, or subject repositories like ArXiv. Right now the weighting of this caution suggests it's an uncommon and likely infringing practice, but a whole bunch of University Scholarly Communication Librarians who invest in respository infrastructure would disagree. Depositing rights vary by author, contract, journal, institution, repository, date of publication, and version. Further, it's always possible for an author to have negotiated something other than the standard copyright agreement with the publisher. So, clearly editor discretion is needed. I think the addition needs to balance reasonable checks using sites like Sherpa/Romeo, which indexes which versions of a paper can or cannot be deposited, as well as a consideration of good faith on the part of the uploader when put in a legitimate academic website or repository. Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Restrictions on authors (or anybody else) making the final published version freely available in a publicly accessible archive are still very common and as we have seen people are being way too sloppy with posting links to final published papers. The language above is focused on final published papers. But sure, please propose something different and still concise.Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It also needs a note that the full published text papers published with funding from the US National Institutes ofHealth for 2009 and later are acceptable links , although the PMC link should be used,not just the publishers link or any other link

(and similarly for many other funders, many of them listed at [26], which are acceptable also , though the effective year of the policy varies.

Noting that they are still under copyright though, in almost all cases with an incompatible license, and cannot be copied into WP.

We also should have a link to the PMC journal list

I'mnot sure how to word this compactly DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In my view, this policy is not here to tell everybody what they can do, but rather to be clear about what they should not do in order to not harm the encyclopedia. The suggested edit is focused on being careful about posting links to the final actually-published version. That is where the risk is. Most every journal allows authors to post pre-prints with some conditions (like including a doi or other link to the final actually-published paper - the version of record on the pre-print). Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

perhaps word it as does not apply when. I think it will lturn out that about 1/3 to 1/2 links to items in medicine will have a valid link. I think the best way to avoid people doing it wrong is to tell them how to it right. At the very least, it is not necessary to investigate links to PMC--either it will show a legal text or it will have a message that it's abstract-only. And if it shows abstract only now, it will almost always show the full text a year from now. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Something brief sure, as long as it remains clear what does violate policy and is blockable. While the WMF movement is deeply aligned with the OA movement, we cannot have OA advocates putting the encyclopedia at risk or people trying to RGW by adding boatloads of COPYLINK violations to WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious about this. I think Jytdog's analysis of the problem is correct, but I'm not sure that putting these words in this policy is the right solution. We're talking about putting substantial additional burdens on the editor for links to academic papers ("you should check" the publisher's policy, every single time you want to add a link), but not even mentioning, e.g., music videos, which are notoriously pirated by people who have no plausible claim to copyright whatsoever, and that feels wrong. Maybe it'd make more sense to put something like this into the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on copyright and FfDs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

One month later, the discussion is closed as "no consensus for any action", including proposed policy changes, but as an agreement to disallow copyright violations, regardless of consensus. George Ho (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links to camera manuals from Butkus.org and Cameramanuals.org

• butkus.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.butkus.org
• cameramanuals.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cameramanuals.org
• User_talk:Butkusmi#Moving_forward_-_copyrights

I asked the owner of these websites about how he's handled copyrights. The response isn't remotely what I was expecting. He's definitely claiming he has the copyright for at least some of the manuals such as [27]. I'd like to have someone experienced with our copyright policy to ask him more specific questions so we can determine which, if any, of his manuals are appropriate as links. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The original publisher of each manual is the copyright holder of that material. Here at Wikipedia we don't base our copyright decisions on whether or not the copyright holder cares any more or whether or not we think we will get caught. Our policy is stricter than that. We're not permitted to violate copyright law, and we're not permitted to add external links that display material that violates someone's copyright in violation of copyright law. I have removed the links (circa 75 links). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In the WP:COPYLINK section Contributory infringement points to a disambiguation page, it should point to Contributory copyright infringement. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

? Looks okay to me (it's a piped link) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be the right target now! - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Copying text from other sources

Can we add a link to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources somewhere on this page? It explains a number of relevant copyright issues, and includes links to more detailed pages like Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia that readers of Wikipedia:Copyrights might be looking for. Daask (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Historic copyvios

By way of experiment, I put the article Sea urchin into Earwig's tool and it came up with a copyvio, a paragraph inserted in the article on 28 October 2008‎. Having found this violation, I thought I had better remove it and have now requested a rev-del, but that covers a vast number of revisions. If one searched diligently for copyvios, one might end up with large numbers of important articles being affected and needing rev-dels. Is that desirable? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it desirable? Yes and no. Yes, we must remove copyright violations when we find them. Period. That is 100% required. The problem with these old ones is that it is sometimes hard to determine who copied who. It does appear to have been copied from that source (not the other way around) per the 2008 archive of that article. Excellent job finding it. As for revdel. Well...it isn't just that revision. It is every revision since then that would have to be removed. We are talking thousands of revisions that need to be removed. That may not actually happen as it would utter destroy the history of the article. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, there is an obvious solution... REWRITE the offending paragraph. Present the information using different words... No more copyvio. I would actually say that rewriting should be the preferred solution for any paragraph sized (or smaller) Copyvio... Fix the problem with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite or remove. The point being that the violating material must be dealt with. The revdel'ing of said material is a different matter in this case as it would be thousands of revisions. --Majora (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you seem to agree with me that removing the copyvio, whether by cutting or rewriting, from the present and future versions of the article is the most important thing, and that rev-delling the hundreds of offending revisions is an undesirable and impractical solution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So... having identified a problematic paragraph (and agreeing that the best solution is a simple rewrite)... have you been proactive and fixed the problem yourself (or at least tagged it so someone else can fix it)? Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I removed the violation, which was the most important thing, and I have now removed the rev-del request. I thought the information pretty peripheral and not really needing replacement, but I did decide that improving the whole of the article would be my next main project. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Is a photograph of a public domain artwork also public domain?

File:Assault-on-Asilah.JPG asserts public domain because the tapestry is from 1471 (although, elsewhere on the page, it says 1852). But, this looks like a photograph of the original tapestry. Doesn't the photograph have its own copyright? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Long standing consensus along with comment by WMF-Legal state that you cannot recreate a copyright by taking a photo of artwork already in the public domain. This is fully outlined at c:COM:ART. It should be {{PD-Art}} but the fact stands that the photographer cannot recopyright material in this manner provided it is a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional, PD, artwork. --Majora (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was previously unaware of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

National anthems

A lot of articles about newer national anthems (e.g. National anthem of Mauritania, whose author is alive and well) have large quantities of copyrighted lyrics (and audio files), including multiple translations and unused verses. Is there some sort of exception for these or are they liberally abusing WP:NFCC? Jc86035 (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

They are liberally abusing NFCC to the point of a blatant copyright violation, Jc86035. There are literally dozens of examples of copyrighted anthems that have been deleted off of Commons. Same idea in this case. In this case the lyrics should be removed and the history revision deleted per WP:RD1 --Majora (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of statues

Assistance is requested at User_talk:Neuroforever#Photographs_of_wax_works, the talk page of a good-faith user who has added his photographs of statutes in wax museums. The user has posed a question there which would best be answered by someone from this project. Thank you. Kablammo (talk)

 Done. You are making this far more black and white than it actually is. --Majora (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 6#File:Not Half A Human 2018.webm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2018

For the redirect template for "C", I suggest that you should also list "C-class articles" as one of the options. I was trying to go there, and I got here. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 17:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

CC 4.0 By

Is the existence and notional use of Template:AHD-CC kosher? I was not under the impression that CC By SA 3.0 was compatible with CC By 4.0. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

(There are some others in Category:Creative_Commons_copyright_templates.) --Izno (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 3.0 content can be used under the terms of CC-BY-SA 4.0, but not the other way round [28]. I don't believe we allow CC-BY-SA 4.0 for text as all contributions have to be reusable under 3.0. Hut 8.5 19:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Correct, CC-BY-SA-4.0 requires all re-use be licensed under 4.0 or later, so text under that license cannot be used here. The AHD is licensed under CC-BY-4.0, with no Share-Alike clause, and so does not have compatibility issues with BY-SA-3.0. Crow^Caw 20:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2018

Per WP:ORDER hatnote should be placed above the tag policy notice. I think the shortcut in the hatnote is redundant, you can copy paste the source code for the hatnote below:

{{Redirect-for|WP:C|Wikipedia:Consensus|Wikipedia:Civility|Wikipedia:Categorization|Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries|Wikipedia:WikiProject Council|Wikipedia:C-class}}
{{Redirect-for|WP:COPY|Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Wikipedia:Basic copyediting|Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia}}

Hddty. (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

D&D images dispute

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)#Image use policy. I did not directly perform the cleanup I've called for, because it's conceivable there's a valid fair-use rationale. I'm not a US intellectual property attorney, after all, nor a copyright-policy-enforcement admin, so some consensus discussion might be in order before such a major change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A related TfD

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4#Template:Trademark (seems to have a dubious use case on this wiki, even if it may serve some purpose on Commons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Claim of copyright in draft article.

A new user, Artistscolony, has created a draft article on an American painter, Draft:John Thomas Andrew. The draft as created asserted a claim of copyright. I blanked that claim and the related text. I suppose Wikipedia could stand on the waiver in the edit box and strike the claim, but if the author would prefer not to have the text in the public domain the draft in the edit history could be oversighted. I will notify the new user of this discussion. Kablammo (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The advice that you gave the user on their talk page is not quite correct. The user retains copyright to the material, but by posting it in Wikipedia agrees to release it under a free license, per Wikipedia:Copyrights. - Donald Albury 03:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

Hello, I was wondering if a user is allowed to send a screenshot of an image on my user talk page in order to clarify a certain factual detail, or if that would violate the image use policy (which I am not too familiar with). You can take a look at the bottom of my talk page for specifics. Thank you. Hummerrocket (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy page at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy says "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." See also Wikipedia:User pages for further guidance on what can appear on your user pages. If the image is in the public domain or released under an appropriate free license, why not upload the image to Commons, where it can be inspected? - Donald Albury 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hummerrocket. As pointed out above, non-free content is not allowed on to be displayed user pages or talk pages per WP:NFCC#9. See WP:UP#Non-free files and WP:TPG#Non-free images for more information. You can, however, add a link to an existing non-free file to either page by using the "colon trick" if you want. Also, if your above post is in reference to User talk:Hummerrocket/Archive 2#Breaking Bad Season 6, then perhaps it would be better to suggest that the IP address provide a link to a website, etc. where the file can be seen instead of uploading the file to Wikipedia or Commons. Commons in particular does not accept any non-free content per c:COM:FAIR and any photo that the IP takes of the DVD box cover art is going to still be seen as copyright protected. The IP may own any copyright on the photo itself, but he/she would not own the copyright on the box cover imagery which means that at best it would be a WP:Derivative work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Andy Prada

Appears to have been resolved since post and reply were deleted.

Andy Prada Born in May 26, 1992 focused on innovation from the initial beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprada (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Hi Andyprada. It appears that you've posted the above on this page by mistake. This particular talk page is for discussing matters related to Wikipedia:Copyrights. Perhaps you were trying to create an article or a user page? If that's what you wanted to do, try asking for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Conception (video game)

I looked at a MoS info, at WP:Copy-paste. While reading there it says to raise a concern on here or else where. (I might of been running in circles in the past hour. Where to put the concern at.) So, on the page/ article, I saw the episode summaries that was copied from Crunchyroll at this; t.v. show's web-site as you press the individual episode, it was almost the same episode summary from that web-site. While on this edit I took the info out. Then the user has some history on my talk page about occasional messages about writting an episode summary. On here and this next edit. But my reasoning is that, I'll be late to a job. If I did. As I have some memory issues. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've hidden the infringing revisions. Thanks for the report, Tainted-wingsz. For future reference, you can use {{copyvio-revdel}} to request copyright violations be hidden. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I'll do that next time. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)