| Revision as of 06:41, 10 August 2007 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive 10.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 10 August 2007 edit undoPalestineRemembered (talk | contribs)5,038 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Copyrightassistanceheader}} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| :''For image or media copyright questions, see ] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages copyright}} | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| <small>'''Related Discussions:''' ], ]</small> | |||
| See also: ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
| == here's another notice == | |||
| I know that it's hard to get copyright violations dealt with here, but I'm willing to give it another shot. If someone want's to deal with this persistent person, that's great. Image:Polishlancers garde.jpg is a typical example of this user's uploads. It was uploaded to WP, deleted from WP as a copyright violation, uploaded to the commons, deleted from the commons as a copyright violation, then uploaded back to[REDACTED] (all by the above user). Despite the fact that this user has repeatedly flaunted the policy, and repeatedly uploaded material that he knows is a copyright violation, no-one has had the balls to ban the user or delete the images. | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| My Name is Raj. I am the owner of www.pujyaya.org. This is a public website and what i am including is the brief history of this great person. | |||
| Please let me know if you have any questions. This is done in good faith. | |||
| Thanks | |||
| Raj | |||
| == Logos == | |||
| ] is a "fair use/used with permission" logo --- but the thing is nearly 300 years old. It's actually public domain (though possibly trademarked?) at this point, right? ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What's 300 years old, the GIF? :) That's what we have to consider. In this case, someone created that logo, so it is copyrighted. They cannot give permission just to use it on Misplaced Pages. Hence, it can be deleted under ]. --] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">]</font></small> 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The GIF isn't, but the logo is. The guy who created the ''logo'' died in 1716 - even if he drew it rather than photoshopped it ... the logo's fair use anyhow, with rationale, so there's no applicability of speedy-ing. But faithfully copying a logo doesn't renew an otherwise invalid copyright, right? Or do I have to produce an (identical) image for it to be copyright free? This seems bizarre to me. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The logo doesn't matter. What matters is that someone recreated it, and that recreation is copyrighted. We can use it if they release it under a free license. There is no valid fair use rationale because since the logo itself is in the public domain, someone could always take a picture of the logo or recreate it under a free license. --] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">]</font></small> 19:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This is an interesting case. Obviously the underlying design isn't copyrighted. Is the GIF? It depends on whether the creator of the GIF added any new "creative content" to the image, or merely copied it. If the GIF had a red image on a gradient blue background, there would certainly be new creative content. But if I convert a PD GIF into a JPG, I can't claim copyright on the JPG, because there's no new creative content. Similarly, if I scan the text from a PD paper document, I can't claim copyright on the scan. But if I convert it, somehow, adding my own creativity, then I can claim copyright. | |||
| So is this a case where the GIF's creator mere transfered the PD design from one medium to another? Or where the design holds new copyrightable content? I am reasonably sure that any well-informed judge would rule that the image does not have enough creative content to qualify for copyright protection. But just to be on the safe side, it would be better to recreate this logo yourself and upload that. It doesn't look like it would be too difficult. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for weighing in. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reproducing poems == | |||
| I've started copy editing this page: ], but would appreciate some guidance before I go on. This bloke's a poet, and the page reproduces three of his poems. Is this a potential copyvio problem? (It's probably fine, coz they've been there for ages and not been taken down, but I'm new and cautious so thought I'd better check.) ] 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Potential problem, yes. I don't have any information on Turkish copyright law, nor do we know when the poems were published. I would default to leaving them out of the article unless you want to use shorter excerpts for critical commentary. That would be the only possible fair use assuming they are under copyright. --] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">]</font></small> 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], Turkey protects copyright for 70 years after the death of the author. Rifat died in 1988, so these poems won't enter the public domain until January 1, 2059. It's definitely a copyvio to reprint even one entire poem on Misplaced Pages, much less three. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks very much for your help, Spike and Quadell. I'll remove the poems. ] 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But in general it is considered OK to reproduce one stanza of a long poem, or a few lines of a short one--and I would suggest doing so , in order for readers to have some idea what the subject has actually written.''']''' (]) 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question on possible copyright violation == | |||
| I've come across this issue before while working on the ], and I can't find how to handle it. | |||
| ] has long passages that are lifted from newspaper articles and reviews. At the very least they need quotes around them, but is there a template I can use to flag the article as needing a copyvio review? It's not a clear-cut enough case in my mind to let me simply delete the section, the whole article is not a copyvio issue, but I don't want to leave it unchecked. --] 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Actually, the whole article is a copyvio from http://www.edward-alderton.ukf.net/History.html. I will delete it. --] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">]</font></small> 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good catch -- thanks! Still, for future info, is there a process for getting a second opinion when needed? --] 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never mind, I found it at ]. --] 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, that's for reviewing cases where people are using copyrighted ''images'' on Misplaced Pages under "fair use". For articles, you want the project page for this Talk page, ]. There are instructions for placing a template on an article that is a "possible" copyvio for an admin to review. There are a few of us regularly working that page. If something is blatant, you can tag it for speedy deletion with {{tl|db-copyvio}}. --] <b><font color="#000000">♫</font></b> <small><font color="#6666FF">]</font></small> 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I got fooled by seeing a section titled "articles" there. *grin*. Thanks again for the help! --] 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is a Commons image listed as having been created by a Misplaced Pages user. But it is an exact copy of the ] logo (], being used quite properly '''''only''''' in the Colts article) and is being used all over the place in Userboxes to indicate that Users are Colts fans. This is surely an egregious copyright violation? ] 22:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't appear to be an exact copy. In fact, I can see a remarkable difference between the two images. The author of the work, ], has the following under source: "using the horseshoe from ]". If you view the source image, it is obvious that the user ] did in fact use ] as the original source, changing the colors. Please re-examine. -- ''Steven Williamson (])'' - ] 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't disagree that that's his source, but I am pretty sure that the purpose of the image is to get around the logo problem, and thus I'm pretty sure that the Colts could make a pretty good claim that it's a copyright violation. It would be different if it weren't being used by Colts fans. ] 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As below, when dealing with the "context" issues you are looking for ] rights not copyrights. Copyright is largely concerned only with the thing in itself. ] 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, I don't think it is a copyright violation. In order to assert copyright, one would have to come pretty close to saying that the Colts now have control over all blue horseshoes, which I believe is too broad a claim to be defensible. Under the merger doctrine, a copyright applies to a particular expression of an idea, but cannot be so broad as to encompass all expressions of that idea (i.e. you can't copyright all "blue horseshoes"). The two images are stylized differently, with different dimensions, different numbers of nail holes, different shades of blue, etc. According the image decription, the style used in the SVG is actually copied from a public domain source as well. So, in my opinion, it is not a copyright violation. That said, the Colts undoubtedly do have a defensible ] claim, which carries with it a different (and more restrictive) set of rights. Whether or not the usage in userboxes and like constitutes trademark infringment is unclear to me. ] 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that this is not a copyright violation. There is extra detail in the Blue horseshoe.svg version, there are more nail holes, the internal curvature is different, and the tips are angled differently and more detailed. ] 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It's not a copyright violation. It ''is'' a trademark violation. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have '''no idea''' why this image was deleted without discussion of the '''supposed''' ''trademark infringement''. A trademark is not infringed if it doesn't devalue the mark in question (see ], particularly the statement "Courts have recognized that ownership in the mark cannot prevent others from using the word or symbol in these other senses, such as if the trademark is a descriptive word or common symbol such as a pine tree. This means that the less distinctive or original the trademark, the less able the trademark owner will be to control how it is used." -- As a horseshoe is not a very distinctive mark, it would be covered under fair use under US trademark law.). As this image was being used for userboxes and to illustrate the Colts' article, I am led to believe it was deleted prematurely. As with most issues on Misplaced Pages, it should've been left up until there was a clear cut violation, which, IMO, didn't exist. If we set such a precedent on Misplaced Pages, it is clear that images such as ], ], ] and ] are all subject to deletion without question. Additionally, I believe that an image used in so many places on Misplaced Pages, such as the ] without first getting some sort of consensus is simply ludacris. NOTE: In the time it took me to write this statement, it has been replaced by ], an administrator on Misplaced Pages. -- ''Steven Williamson (])'' - ] 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it was deleted out-of-process. But back to the image's suitability: the trademark-holder could not stop you from using a blue horseshoe as a symbol of a horseshoe, or good luck, or even a soft drink, so long as there was no ''implied endorsement'' of your product by the Colts. But by using a blue horseshoe to refer to the Colts, there is an implied endorsement, and that's a violation of their trademark. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So wouldn't that be the same with the other images that I mentioned? What makes those any different? As long as the image doesn't take value away from the brand, using the trademark for a similar product, such as using the name Pepsi to sell cheap generic cola, there is no infringement. -- ''Steven Williamson (])'' - ] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those logos you mentioned are tagged as non-free, and are (as such) not allowed in infoboxes and the like. They can only be used in articles on the company. (Anything else would go against our policy at ].) That necessarily doesn't "dilute" the value of the logo, since it is used only to identify what the logo represents. A supposedly "free" blue horseshoe image, used to identify the user (in a userbox) with the product, ''does'' dilute the brand. Someone could, for example, use that logo in their signature and be rude to people, associating the Colt brand with rudeness. Yes, you could wear a Colts t-shirt and be rude to people, but that's a ''licensed use''. If you create your own "Simpsons" t-shirt, you aren't directly competing with Matt Graining, and you could argue that you are increasing the visibility and value of the brand -- but you would still be held in violation of trademark law by "diluting" the trademark, and Graining could still sue you. See ]. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :When was it deleted? It's still on Commons. ] 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It ''was'' deleted, but as I was typing my message regarding it being deleted, it was restored. -- ''Steven Williamson (])'' - ] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Confirmed permission == | |||
| In the case where a whole article is copied from a web site, and the editor has claimed permission from the author and submitted confirmation to OTRS, should the article be left in its fully copied form even if no OTRS ticket number is on the article? Or should the article be reverted to it's pre-copypaste state until the tag is placed? -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> ] ] ]</sup> 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If the copyright holder has actually sent permission to OTRS, then the text can remain, but the reason for sending permission in the first place is to confirm that the copyright holder has actually released the text under the GFDL, which may not be the case if the claimant on Misplaced Pages is just some random person with no authority over the text. —]→] • 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Similar case === | |||
| I listed an image of a porn actor taken from a commercial web site allegedly with appropriate licencing at ]. There is a double-digit number of other images who are covered by this matter (same original copyright holder, same licence, same uploader). The issue has apparently been resolved by ] who is an experienced administrator with particular experience in these matters both here and on Commons. But since I am unconvinced by the reason he has given I want a discussion of the case. Two issues in particular make his decision not sit well with me. The first being that the reply from the image(s)' copyright holder has not been submitted to OTRS and therefore is not available for verification. The second being the added clause, which I would think invalidates the given GFDL licence, of licence specifically being given to Misplaced Pages. Instead of concluding as Howcheng that a GFDL licence is a GFDL licence, I would argue that this shows that the original copyright holder has not been sufficiently informed about the conditions of a GFDL licence. This inconsistency also emphasizes the necessity of being able to check both sides of the correspondence between uploader and original copyright holder. __] 21:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know when OTRS was set up, but it's entirely possible that ] was unaware of its existence, so I'm taking his email posted at ] at face value. Unfortunately, he seems to have exercised his right to vanish and does not have an email address on file, so we can't have him forward any correspondence. You may be correct that hisxpress.com doesn't fully understand the implications of the GFDL, but that's not our problem. If they failed to get the opinion their legal counsel, that's negligence on their part. I have no opinion on these images and if they are to be deleted because we can't really confirm the email, I have no objection. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">''']''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was hoping to see the case resolved through the email request sent by user:Brianga on July 8 to HisExpress. I'm unsure who User:Rentaferret, whom you are mentioning, is as it was User:Chidom who posted the permission email and user:Brianga who has been doing follow-up on this correspndence. Now that the case has been closed and "blued out", I worry that Brianga isn't going to bother following up on the matter. __] 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyrights of dissolved Corporations == | |||
| The copyright of the logo of the ] was almost certainly owned by the party until it dissolved - but afterwards, clearly the (non-existant) party cannot own it. The party was ordered to liquidate all it's assets and turn them over to the Receiver General of Canada - but they refused, and the government didn't pursue the matter. So my ''guess'' is that the logo is either owned by the Queen of Canada, or by the (legally unincorporated, renegade) Rhinoceros Party of Canada. Any thoughts? ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Need clarification == | |||
| In the article (older version), the "Construction notes" section has been sourced from . While the copyright notice at the bottom of that '''specific''' page says | |||
| :''Copyright © 1979-2007 Himalayan Academy. All rights reserved.'', | |||
| when I click on the notice it takes me to this more . There, it says | |||
| :''Such image or text may be released for use on Misplaced Pages under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and when thus posted on Misplaced Pages follows the terms of the GFDL.'' | |||
| Is the original page acceptable to use as a source ? ] 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The question is whether the copyright holder did indeed place the text on Misplaced Pages. If they did, and the "Copyright and Permissions Guidelines" does explicitly admit the possibility, then there is no problem. Otherwise, the "Copyright and Permissions Guidelines" is restrictive such that they must specifically place the text on Misplaced Pages, rather than giving blanket permission for the contents of their website under the GFDL, which negates the purpose of having the notice in the first place, which is to indicate that the page itself is available under the GFDL without explicit permission from the copyright holder. —]→] • 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure they fully understand what the GFDL means, that there's no such thing as "GFDL for Misplaced Pages" only. At the very least, they should provide a comprehensive list of which of their materials they have been placed under the GFDL.--] 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. It seems very confusing to me, probably better to not include their material. ] 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Their verbiage indicates that text and images that they place on Misplaced Pages are thereby released under the GFDL, i.e. "when thus posted on Misplaced Pages follows the terms of the GFDL." Without a list though, we have no way of knowing what they, rather than a random reader, actually placed on Misplaced Pages. —]→] • 04:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, please write to them on this issue if possible, forwarding the concerns that have been expressed here.--] 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Offhand, I'd say that they're trying to comply with our rules and let anyone quote from their website. So I'd ask, but not delete contributions citing them. (note that GFDL doesn't free us from acknowledging sources!) --] 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The article ] is essentially just a list orginally published in '']'', but not in the same form. I would appreciate any guidance as to whether this would be a copyright infringement or not. Cheers --] 07:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it is. I tagged it as a copyvio. ] ] 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, the "list" in ''Dungeon'' is about 4 pages long, and contains scans of each entry's cover as well as additional text describing each adventure & why it was included. A simple list is a far cry from a copyvio.--] 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unreleased television pilot: public domain? == | |||
| Hi, folks. The article ], about a television pilot that never went to series, links to a containing said pilot. That page claims "The LOST IN OZ pilot is believed to be public domain as it was never released, and possibly unfinished, thus uncopyrighted." That sounds dubious to me, but IANAL, so I thought I'd ask for clarification here. I would have thought that an unfinished television pilot was analogous to an unpublished manuscript, and I know that even unpublished manuscripts have copyright. Can that article link to the YouTube page, or is it a copyvio that should be removed? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It is definitely not in the public domain merely because it was never released or unfinished but if it's old enough (which is doubtful) then it may have fallen into the public domain. --] 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nah, it was made in 2002. I figured it wasn't public domain — I'll remove the link. Thanks. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Citizendium == | |||
| Everybody's favorite topic, I'm sure... but I'd like to get some extra eyes on the issue I bring up at ] just to make sure my assessment is correct. --] 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems correct, Citizendium still hasn't decided on a license. There is still some discussion there to use a non-commercial license. So for now we can't copy their articles to Misplaced Pages. Unless of course they got the text from us in the first place (as you already mentioned). ] ] 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, additionally you can license your own material under both licenses (i.e. I could easily copy ] over to Citizendium). It might be worth asking the author about - since there's a lot of pillage of Wikipedians to their cause. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sequence of problematic edits from different but similar IP addresses == | |||
| I just reverted some links to copyright-violation material made by anonymous edits a few minutes apart from similar but not identical addresses. For example, ] from 59.92.87.195, ] from 59.92.21.42. In each case the link is to a page on www.netforu.org which is a (bad) copy of a Cisco copyrighted page. My question is this: is there a way to find other edits like this? I couldn't see a way to do it with the logs I can find. The "latest changes" log doesn't go back far enough, and the log by address doesn't do wildcards. I saw these three because of my watchlist. I checked a few others I could think of. Is there a systematic way to check for other contributions from "59.92.*.*"? ] 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] will at least let you find any pages which link to a given site. --] 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Awesome. That does the trick, and it says I got them all. Thanks much. ] 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | == Question == | ||
| Line 157: | Line 6: | ||
| ::Oh, and just so I know if I have to make that request, where would I do it? AN/I? ] 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Oh, and just so I know if I have to make that request, where would I do it? AN/I? ] 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::] or ] - depends on how clearcut it is, really. More clearcut is probably AIV, less so ANI. In practice, both are watched as if by ]s, so it doesn't matter much. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | :::] or ] - depends on how clearcut it is, really. More clearcut is probably AIV, less so ANI. In practice, both are watched as if by ]s, so it doesn't matter much. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I fear this is a gravely distorted report of the situation. This editor was treated in a collegiate and supportive fashion when he raised her objections, see . There was no display of AGF in the other direction. I was trapped into a 3RR block (lifted) by sloppy, misleadingly summarised reverts (I've never even been warned for this before). There's been no attempt to explain or discuss what the limits of "fair use" are, and this particular article is still in a very poor state. ] 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:01, 10 August 2007
Question
It seems that the preferred manner is to list an article for deletion, but that seems a bit far-reaching. What if an article contains some copyvio sections rather than the full article is a copyvio? For example, I've been trying to cleanup Battle of Jenin but have been having problems. I'm nearly to the breaking point and am considering taking the ultimate step, imho, of listing it for speedy-deletion due to copyvios due to the hard-headedness of editors who wish to keep their copyvio sections for POV reasons. Would that be the best move in this case? I'd rather not edit war over this, and unfortunately, others do not feel that way (and one editor has already been temp-blocked for his actions). Kyaa the Catlord 16:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- User who repeatedly violate copyrights after warnings can be blocked (and will be if you ask). WilyD 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really, really trying to avoid having to take it to that level. I'm a nice guy and really patient. :P I'm going to continue to try to reason with him. Kyaa the Catlord 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and just so I know if I have to make that request, where would I do it? AN/I? Kyaa the Catlord 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AIV or WP:ANI - depends on how clearcut it is, really. More clearcut is probably AIV, less so ANI. In practice, both are watched as if by hawks, so it doesn't matter much. WilyD 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I fear this is a gravely distorted report of the situation. This editor was treated in a collegiate and supportive fashion when he raised her objections, see here. There was no display of AGF in the other direction. I was trapped into a 3RR block (lifted) by sloppy, misleadingly summarised reverts (I've never even been warned for this before). There's been no attempt to explain or discuss what the limits of "fair use" are, and this particular article is still in a very poor state. PalestineRemembered 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:AIV or WP:ANI - depends on how clearcut it is, really. More clearcut is probably AIV, less so ANI. In practice, both are watched as if by hawks, so it doesn't matter much. WilyD 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)