Wikipedia:Copyright problems

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:CP)

Update this page

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback about the problem at the relevant talk page, to propose revisions to the material, or to request copyright permission. After the listing period, a copyright problems board clerk or administrator will review the listing and take what further action may be necessary.

Pages listed for copyright review appear in the bottom section of the page. The top includes information for people who have copyright concerns about pages or images, for those whose pages have been tagged for concerns, for community volunteers who'd like to help resolve concerns and for the clerks and administrators who volunteer here.

To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for dealing with copyright concerns can be found at Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns.

Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality (such as Copyright-free logos); or

C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This is not only a matter of respecting local custom. When content is under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's license, proper attribution may be required. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first

In some instances, it is clear that two pieces of text (one on Wikipedia, and one elsewhere) are copies of each other, but not clear which piece is the original and which is the copy. "Compliant" sites that copy Wikipedia text note that they have done so, but not all of our re-users are compliant.

If you've found such a case, you might first check the discussion page to see if a note has been added to the top of the talk page to allay people's concerns. If not, you can look for clues. Do other pages in the other website copy other Wikipedia articles? Did the content show up on Wikipedia all in one piece, placed by a single editor? If you don't see good evidence that Wikipedia had it first, it's a good idea to bring it up for investigation. You might follow the Instructions for listing below or tag the article {{copy-paste|url=possible source}} so that others can evaluate.

If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know. If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. There are well-documented cases of plagiarism from Wikipedia by external publications.

Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation by emailing us at Please provide the address or title of the page, and evidence to show that you are the legitimate copyright holder. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

  • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the content was copied from that source to Wikipedia and not the other way around (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors);
  • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

Suspected or complicated infringement

If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

  • Remove or rewrite the infringing text avoiding violations of copyright or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons (allowing evaluation by non-administrative editors) unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. After determination that it is a copyvio, it should be tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated:
  • Replace the text with one of the following:

    {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}{{subst:copyvio|identify non-web source here}}

  • Go to today's section and add

    * {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add a header to the top of the page using the page for another date as an example.
  • Advise the contributor of the material at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
  • Instances where one contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; otherwise list at Files for Discussion. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles.

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

Articles are listed for copyright investigation because contributors have reason to suspect they constitute a copyright concern, but not every article listed here is actually a copyright problem. Sometimes, the content was on Wikipedia first. Sometimes, the article is public domain or compatibly licensed and can be easily fixed by supplying attribution (e.g. through a dummy edit). Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.

If you can provide information to prove license or public domain status of the article, please do. It doesn't matter if you do it under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article; a link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. (As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before a response is provided.)

If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

Obtaining/verifying permission

Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

Rewriting content

Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, this is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea – and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book – to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note at the talk page of the article to alert the administrator or clerk who addresses the listing. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

Information about the people who process copyright problems listed on the board

Copyright problems board clerks

For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

Copyright problems board clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's approach to non-free text and its processes for dealing with them. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings, although their closures may sometimes require completion by administrators, when use of administrative tools is required. Clerks are periodically reviewed by the administrators who work in copyright areas on Wikipedia.

Copyright problems board administrators

For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

Closing listings

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators, who close the daily listings. OTRS agents who verify images may close listings at any time.

For advice for resolving listings, see:

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for administrators, clerks and OTRS agents noting resolution.

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 21:

  • To complicate things, the official listings are now licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See e.g. [1]. The tentative listings do not have this license. MER-C 03:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 July 1:

We have over 400 pages of Meanings of minor planet names that may have the same issue, so I picked the 100001–101000 example at random. For most of the entries, the description in the This minor planet was named for... column was copied or very closely paraphrased from the "JPL" source linked in the Ref · Catalog column. This was previously discussed at a tangentially related AfD where some editors felt it was a copyright violation while others argued that the data was "freely available from NASA" and not subject to copyright. JPL's copyright statements [2] [3] may be of use. –dlthewave 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Simple phrases such as "This minor planet was named for <name>" cannot be copyrighted. I don't know how many entries fall outside this "simple" phrasing, but it's something to consider. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
A random selection indicates to me that we have to either (a) determine that the "Discovery Circumstances" prose within the JPL Small-Body Database Browser is not subject to copyright; or (b) check and possibly re-phrase a huge number of pages. It's not as simple as "This is named for <name>. We perhaps should say that in a lot of the entries. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

13 January 2020

Is the use of File:El grafico 3902 romario.jpg in 1994 FIFA World Cup Final a copyright violation on the English project? The file is flagged as a copyright vio in commons within the US, it has expired in Argentina. I have tried to keep it out but Fma12 (talk · contribs) has edit warred to keep it in, and he has threatened to report me (where? I don't know because a WP:BOOMERANG would apply. See Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: reverted my edit twice 1, 2 on 1994 FIFA World Cup Final.
His reasons were (as he statedd) "bad spelling and copyright violation in the US", which I consider not only harsh (a bad spelling can be improved) but falacious so the URAA issue was already discussed on Commons and closed in 2014 as "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". Moreover, I don't know any rule that forbid the use of non-PD-US images on this project. In fact, other articles such as Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup) or 1986 FIFA World Cup Final have files with the same licenses.
I contacted him to request a valid reason for his reversions, but he also reverted the discussion showing a non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all. - Fma12 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You've once again completely missed the point. Is the file under copyright in the US? If so, can it be used on the English project?
Since you've found that I moved the discussion to Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup Final are you still going to lie and say that I am showing a non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all? Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You talking to me of "lies"? Another time, you being harsh. Where is the "non-written" rule that states a non-PD-US file can't be used in the English Wikipedia? What consensus tried you to reach when your only attitude has been reverting my edits and blanking your talk page? Is this polite? I don't think so. – Fma12 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's focus on the questions we need to discuss here: Is the file under copyright in the US? If so, can it be used on the English project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder the same, and I'll await for a proper answer so this issue can be solved. Fma12 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So basically what you're saying is that you do not know if it is under copyright in the US? The fact that the image is tagged in Commons as still being under copyright should answer that question, but I do want you to acknowledge that copyright laws vary from location to location. So again, is the image still under copyright in the US? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I need to know whether the image (or any URAA-tagged files) can be used in this project or not. In fact, many URAA images are used in other projects (such as the Spanish wiki, where rationale use is not allowed, which is apparently a contradiction). - Fma12 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
No. Copyrighted images may not be used on English Wikipedia. That's been what I've been saying from the outset. That's what the polcies clearly state as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} explains the issue clearly enough. The image can't be used in the English Wikipedia unless a non-free use rationale is provided. It is my guess that there isn't a strong enough case for non-free use, so the image should be excluded from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Any chance you'd like to remove it as a copy vio. With the threat of a visit to 3RN, I'd rather not do it, even thought it's clear that it should be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually enforce copyright, so I hope we can get a response first from User:Fma12 before I consider further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Having cleared the point, I've just removed the Romario photo from the article although it could be used in other projects, as you stated. I don't consider to go further with this discussion, this is closed for me. Regards. Fma12 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

14 January 2020

19 January 2020

3 February 2020

5 February 2020

14 February 2020

15 February 2020

  • Nezahualcoyotl (tlatoani) Specifically, the text in the Poetry section attributed to the 100 peso note in Spanish and an English translation; source given: Miguel León=Portilla (1967). Trece poetas del mundo azteca [Thirteen poets of the Aztec world] (in Spanish) (2nd, 1972 ed.). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. pp. 39–75. The English translation also appeared briefly at Northern mockingbird, reverted for lack of source. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • HITRAP (history · last edit · rewrite) from Foundational. I found this through the random article feature. I'm going to look through the user's other contribs. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 10:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • CRYSIS (history · last edit · rewrite) from Foundational. From the same contributor as above. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 00:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 10:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

17 February 2020

Author is attempting a rewrite at SSAE No. 18/Temp. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Author is concerned that there has been No progress in review and final decision in several months. Author intends to learn the rules of the review and approval process and begin participating, as there must be a terrible backlog and shortage of volunteers. I know this stuff isn’t much fun. Thanks to all participating in this process. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Anon lynx: I don't think there's any rule stopping you from moving the rewrite to mainspace. If it is a copyright violation then it is liable to be deleted again but there's nothing saying you can't rewrite stuff which was deleted as a copyright violation. I should point out that the listings on this page can only be reviewed by admins or approved clerks. Hut 8.5 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

28 February 2020

The other three look a bit fishy but if they were copy/pasted, I couldn't find the source. Note the big thalidomide addition has references numbers in it because the text was added to Grünenthal with refs, then copy/pasted from that article into Thalidomide. Ajpolino (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

7 March 2020

19 April 2020

2020 May 1

2020 May 12

14 June 2020

  • As an afterthough from an edit to the Juillard School article (diff) a web search on the anterior sentence L&M was Schuman's reaction against more formal theory and ear training, and as a result did not have a formal structure is leading me to the evidence of possible copypasting: Juilliard+report+on+teaching+the+literature+and+materials+of+music is named Juilliard report on teaching the literature and materials of music. The second other match on the sentence ([7]) links to the institution's website. I do not know how to date those two occurrences. --Askedonty (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Draft:Ohio Tuition Trust Authority (history · last edit · rewrite) from Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
      Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 17:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

24 June 2020

7 July 2020

Do you have access to the Telegraph, Crookesmoor? If so, would kindly either email me the text or quote the copied part of it here or on the talk-page of the article? That'd be a big help, thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

9 July 2020

I did the section on education, so I am comfortable with that. John NH (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

12 July 2020

If you run Wards of Kolkata Municipal Corporation through Earwig you’ll see it contains a copyvio. The curation tool and Twinkle won’t let me send this to G12 because the external link is in a spam blacklist, and I can’t post the source link here for the same reason. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Urgh sorry about the formatting. I posted this to July 12 but it’s showing as 11 for some reason. I got a bit lost with the other formatting. A bit fiddly with an iPad. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
This was copied from Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The text was added in 2008 with line break formatting typically associated with copyvio. But it comes back clean. I'm leaving this up for a second opinion. MER-C 09:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks it comes up clean for me now too. Possibly the other page (I don’t remember what it was) was a mirror of Wikipedia and had scraped to content from our article on the corporation. Anyway it’s vanished. Mccapra (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

16 July 2020

26 July 2020

Per notes on the talkpage, this looks like a backwards copy, albeit a very old one - it was lifted from Wikipedia in early 2007, sometime between this edit in January and this edit in August, based on the wording. A version of it was originally posted to WP in late 2006. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. MER-C 17:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

13 August 2020

22 August 2020

Hi, I've cleaned it before I finished the editing. I can delete more from the article if you see it's a Copyright problems, thanks. -Imad_J (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
TomStar81 For how long the article will stay closed. ? --Imad_J (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

24 August 2020

A number of articles were tagged with {{copypaste}} (not by me) in 2014, and have yet to be resolved:

and in 2015:

-- Beland (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

28 August 2020

30 August 2020

"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-04-13. Retrieved 2014-03-29.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
As you can see the source is dead but the page shows that the text is ~identical and has a copyright annotation. Some of the content survives on this page from the same website. The copyvio was added in these three edits in March 2014. I would normally simply tag for revdel, but since it's hundreds of revisions, the source is dead, and the chances of anybody caring about the copyright on what is basically a tourist leaflet seems minimal, I'm bringing it here to check what the best approach is. Wham2001 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree - this copyvio isn't large enough to revdel given many revisions it is in. MER-C 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ascension Parish Burial Ground (history · last edit · rewrite) from Goldie, Mark (2000). A Cambridge Necropolis.. This is a new problem, highlighted by the removal of unreliably-sourced and unsourced items. The list seems to be taken from Goldie's text, which was a selective list of famous people buried in the Ascension Parish Burial Ground so the criteria for inclusion are his - given the overlap, there's a risk that we could be violating WP:Copyright in lists. Unfortunately I can't find an online copy of the source to give you, but you will see the references in the list. The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

1 September 2020

2 September 2020

  Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 08:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
See in talk page Talk:Stanisław Michalkiewicz#Career_in_PRL, The content that I removed appeared to be word-for-word translation of and is thus a copyvio. In addition, it's unclear how reliable this source is. from K.e.coffman
Gbear605 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
See User_talk:Kvng#The_artist_has_agreed_to_the_CC_BY-SA_4.0._(Draft:Hu_Zhiying) for possible resolution. ~Kvng (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The website has claimed "These works (text, images and videos) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." And it's been tagged with this copyright mark. See here. Thank you.--Jujiang (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

5 September 2020

15 September 2020

21 September 2020

24 September 2020

25 September 2020

26 September 2020

29 September 2020

30 September 2020

@AmandaNP: both appears to be spam-reverse copyvio sites, with parts of the text originally coming from here (first link) and here (second link). Pinging the article's primary editor @BlackShadowG just in case, too. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 14:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@FMecha: That helps, but then would they still not be copyvios as those articles were published in way before the August and September revisions I noticed? (I think when it got copied over from zhwiki) This isn't the first round of copyvios. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a copyvio to me - girlsgilmore appears to be a site that allows people to illegally view episodes of the show and was only registered in August 2020. Wikipedia's text has been there since at least 2017. I very much hope this is a mistake by @Opalzukor: and not an attempt to promote an illegal streaming site Cavie78 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cavie78: Thank you very much for checking the link. I was just reverting vandalism and I thought I might, per chance, run a toolforge copyvio check. The check came up with a high accuaracy, so I was rash and added the template. I will try and avoid this in the future. Do you have any advice on how to proceed from here? Opalzukor (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reinstated the content - yes this is a reverse copyvio. Opalzukor - automated checking tools like that are at best an aid to manual checking, the fact that one of them flags up an article doesn't necessarily mean it's copyvio without further checking. There are an awful lot of sites on the internet which copy Wikipedia content. Hut 8.5 12:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

6 October 2020

9 October 2020

I've blanked the affected articles for now and directed interested editors to comment here. Ajpolino (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

10 October 2020

13 October 2020

Two others (1, 2) have another major content contributor so I'll check those separately and get in touch with the other contributor if something is salvageable. Ajpolino (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 08:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

14 October 2020

New listings

New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

Older than 5 days

19 October 2020

Recent listings

22 October 2020

23 October 2020

Bogo, Cebu (history · last edit · rewrite)

24 October 2020

25 October 2020

  • On what grounds do you assert this as under copyright protection? There is no copyright notice on this work, and it appears to be a reproduction of a work centuries old. It is possible that this work can not have a copyright associated with it at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: Copying any translations which are less than 80 years old without permission is a violation. Pinging User:MER-C who is actively patrolling copyright infringements. He can confirm too. Wareon (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Wareon: I agree with you that it seems clear it's a modern translation, both from the details on, as well as the fact Hariprasad Shastri is I think the author and I assume they didn't complete it by the age of 6. If it's a human translation the it would probably be eligible for copyright protection in the US [30] [31] and UK [32] [33]. (This comes up a lot with bible translations of course [34].) Indian law sounds complicated on the matter [35], but the work seems to have been published in the UK so I don't think Indian law matters, no matter that the original untranslated work was I assume published in the UK. The lack of copyright notice could be relevant. As I understand it, if it was first published with the permission of the copyright holder in the US in 1957 or 1952, the lack of a copyright notice would mean it would be in the Wikipedia:Public domain in the US. But since it appears to have been published in the UK and I don't think copyright notices were required in the UK it gets more complicated [36]. Unless it were public domain in the UK by 1 January 1996, it's probably still protected in the US. Whether the authors have released all right I have no idea, but I think we need greater evidence it's fully released or in the public domain than it being present on Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

26 October 2020


Wikipedia's current date is 26 October 2020. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 October 26. Files should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.