Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Biocrawler:Copyright problems

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

Deletion Tools

Articles {{vfd}}
Templates {{tfd}}
Images {{ifd}}
Categories {{cfd}} {{cfr}}
Stub types {{sfd-t}} {{sfd-c}}
Copyvios {{copyvio}}
Undeletion
Mergers

{{merge}}
{{mergefrom}}
{{mergeto}}
{{mergedisputed}}

Redirects {{rfd}}
Page moves {{move}}
Speedy {{delete}} {{db}}
Patent {{nonsense}}
Unfree images

{{pui}}
{{PUIdisputed}}
{{nonfreedelete}}
{{no source}}
{{unknown}}

{{Move to Wiktionary}}
{{Move to Wikisource}}
{{Move to Wikibooks}}
{{Move to Wikibooks Cookbook}}
{{Move to Wikiquote}}

Deletion policy
Deletion log
Deletion watchlist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Template%3ADeletiontools) | . (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Deletiontools&action=edit)

WP:CP does not stand for Biocrawler:Community Portal.

This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Biocrawler, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

For requesting copyright examination before including questionable content to a Biocrawler article use Biocrawler:Requested copyright examinations instead.

Notice to copyright owners: If you believe Biocrawler is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Biocrawler:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Biocrawler's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

On the other hand, if you see an article somewhere else which you believe was copied from the Biocrawler without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.


Contents
1 Instructions

1.1 Copyright infringement notice

1.1.1 Actions to take for text
1.1.2 Actions to take for images

1.2 In addition
1.3 Instructions for special cases

2 Listings of possible copyright problems

2.1 Older than 7 days

2.1.1 Poster claims to be the author or to have permission
2.1.2 Fair use claims needing a second opinion
2.1.3 Suspected copyright infringements without online source
2.1.4 Others

2.2 New listings

2.2.1 May 19
2.2.2 May 20
2.2.3 May 28
2.2.4 June 2
2.2.5 June 3
2.2.6 June 9
2.2.7 June 13
2.2.8 June 14
2.2.9 June 15
2.2.10 June 16
2.2.11 June 17
2.2.12 June 18
2.2.13 June 19
2.2.14 June 20
2.2.15 June 21
2.2.16 June 22
2.2.17 June 23

3 Footer
[edit]

Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made. Add new reports under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Pages where the most recent edit is a copyright violation, but the previous article was not, should not be deleted. They should be reverted. The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it.

See also: Biocrawler:Copyrights, Biocrawler talk:Copyright violations on history pages, Biocrawler:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Biocrawler:Confirmation of permission, Biocrawler:Sites that use Biocrawler for content, Biocrawler:Fair use

[edit]

Copyright infringement notice

[edit]

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following:

{{copyvio|url=place URL of allegedly copied material here}}

~~~~

Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example:

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.

[edit]

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page: 

{{imagevio|url=<place URL of allegedly copied image here>}}~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Finally, do not forget to add a note to the uploader's talk page to notify them that the image's copyright status is murky and it has been listed here.

[edit]

In addition

In addition to nominating potential copyright violations for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Biocrawler:Confirmation of permission
[edit]

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if they indeed are not available under a free license or a reasonable fairuse rationalle. Note that some of these may not actually be unfree images, but rather images which are released under multiple licenses.
These images are available for use on the Biocrawler web site, but are not released under the GFDL. According to Jimbo Wales, we cannot use images that are not GFDL and are not usable under a fair use rationale [1] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010713.html). Images from these categories may be listed here, but be sure that the image is not also available under a free license, and that a fair use claim cannot be made.
From the mailing list:
As of today, all *new* images which are *non commercial only* and *with permission only* should be deleted on sight. Older images should go through a process of VfD to liminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html), 19 May 2005 (UTC)
See also this followup: [2] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023789.html)
[edit]

Listings of possible copyright problems

[edit]

Older than 7 days

Below are articles and images that have been listed here for longer than a week old, but have not yet dealt with for specific reasons.
[edit]

Poster claims to be the author or to have permission

When you originally report a suspected copyright violation, do not add it here, but at the very bottom of this page (under the heading for today's date). Typically, the issue will be resolved within the usual seven days. This section is intended for cases where a second opinion is needed, or where someone should follow-up by e-mail, and which thus need a little more time.

  • GAP Project is asserted by some to be copyvio, while others dispute this. It is presently protected; this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GAP_Project&diff=15481546&oldid=15481489) should show the alleged copyvio. Could someone knowledgeable on the topic please investigate? Radiant_>|< 12:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    I've moved the above request up to this section because this article has already been through WP:CP (at least) once before. Relevant details are at Talk:GAP Project and Biocrawler:Votes_for_undeletion#GAP_Project. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Fair use claims needing a second opinion

Apparently the old Biocrawler:Fair use mechanism has fallen out of use. This section lists all cases (typically images) where a fair use claim was made during the initial seven days, and for which a second opinion is needed. Add your comments here, and when you remove an entry from here (and it is kept), copy the discussion to the (image) talk page.

  • Image:Columbia debris falling in the sky.jpg. Claimed as fair use on the grounds that we can't get a non-copyrighted image of the event. I have my doubts on this. --Carnildo 06:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see any difference between this image and the historical Hindenberg image discussed below. I think the rationale expressed on the image page indicates fair use based upon historical significance. 23skidoo 04:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg. The copyright for this photo is being asserted by the New Zealand National Front, who claim to have purchased it from the photographer for the purposes of suppressing the image. Talk:New_Zealand_National_Front#"nazi salute" image. Some editors, including me, think that this qualifies under fair use. This version of the photograph has been edited down to a lower resolution, it is directly relevant to the article, and there is no way of recreating it. Any opinions? -Willmcw 03:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a reasonable fairuse rational. But when I run it through the Biocrawler:Fair use decision tree I get a delete result, because the image was never intended for wide distribution. The decision tree there is a recent addition, and something I've never seen before. It's also somewhat subjective. --Duk 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The following was moved here from ifd:
    • Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the image posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2004 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) are the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transferred from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing. - Molloy
    • Molloy has provided no evidence that he is a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front (he's a teenager, so it's unlikely), and has offered no evidence that the New Zealand National Front is the copyright holder. This is an embarrassing photograph for them because it shows them making Nazi salutes, which is why Molloy, who is a member, would like to see it deleted. The photograph is widely available on the Web, a source has been provided on the image page, and we are claiming fair use under United States copyright law. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a legal notice from the New Zealand National Front [3] (http://www.nationalfront.org.nz/notice.html) - Molloy
        • This image is being used under the U.S. "Fair Use" and New Zealand "Fair Dealings" exemptions. Further, this is the wrong page to deal with this matter because it is a copyright dispute. It should be handled on the Biocrawler:Copyright problems page. -Willmcw 04:54, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
SHould this be deleted, or is it fair user?--nixie 13:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to think that this is fair use under the "Unique historical or newsworthy images which we cannot reproduce by other means" category. Besides i would like to see something more than a web page aparently created by himself indicating that Molloy is in fact a legal rep of the NZNF. Also what is th source of their clim to hold the copyright on this image? from whom did they buy or acquire the copyright, and when? who took the original pictures? DES 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Hindenburg.jpg is part of the Bettmann Collection and is copyright Bettmann/CORBIS[4] (http://pro.corbis.com/popup/Enlargement.aspx?mediauids={0e2a4adf-60e2-4041-9a99-cd8977e8b381}|{ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff}&qsPageNo=1&fdid=&Area=Search&TotalCount=225&CurrentPos=3&WinID={0e2a4adf-60e2-4041-9a99-cd8977e8b381}) I'm sceptical about a fair use claim. How think you? Kbh3rd 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a duplicate of lower quality at Image:HindenburgSenorAnderson.jpg, which is tagged as a US gov work, though I think that's just because it was found on a .gov site. Regarding the fair use claim, I'd like to think we could use a low res version, because how else can you illustrate such an event? There is no other way to get the visual information other than through that photograph, and our usage would not impact whatever commercial value it has. I'm leaning towards fair use on this. Postdlf 06:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Unique and unrecreatable images of newsworthy events such as this are broadly acknowledged to have fair use and fair dealing status for applications such as our own. Shouldn't be a problem. Fawcett5 16:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dispute: Its a mere system map, which I uploaded out of convenience. There is basically no creative effort in the map whatsoever, especially since its schematic, with no cartological precision. I could basically duplicate it on memory on a piece of paper or using gimp/mspaint/etc. and it would look just as good, except it would be tedious to duplicate all 50+ stations mentioned. Is a non creative work eligible for copyright? I hardly think its intellectual property. -- Natalinasmpf 20:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The LTA may well think otherwise! Transport for London charges quite handsomely for the rights to reproduce its system map... Physchim62 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Interesting information from Physchim62. I feel that fair use or fair dealing should apply here. The image is created for disseminating information. Fair use still protects the copyright holder, in case wikipedia go commercial in future, (hope not). Vsion 22:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. A schematic map does have creative effort put into it, more so than a more accurate map. As such, it is very definitely covered by copyright. --Carnildo 23:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
If it was a tourist map complete with illustrations, then yes. The LTA map is pretty simplistic, only tedious and repetitive - nothing creative. I could basically reproduce it manually myself, since its just the order of the stations, with my own colour scheme, except it would take say, 15-30 minutes to add every station. It becomes purely a mathematical thing, nothing creative. -- Natalinasmpf 18:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Carnildo that schematic maps have creative effort, but let's not forget that it only needs the slightest creative effort to trigger copyright. The system map in its present form could not just be created from a mathematical function of the positions of the stations. It's copyright, and if the LTA don't want to let us use it under GNU then there's nothing we can do. Physchim62 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, until someone contacts the LTA and clarifies the matter, the image should not be used. If someone wants to reproduce it (tediously) by hand, they're certainly welcome to. Alex.tan 02:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Suspected copyright infringements without online source

These need a thorough check for online sources, and if none are found, a check for offline sources.

  • Women's healthcare in 20th century China has that certain scent to it - it's the in-text citations and the slanted quotation marks around “China” that give it away for me... could be someone's paper for school. -- BDAbramson talk 04:14, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • Italian exports and Islam in Italy all smell like copyvios but I can't tell where from. They were all put up by User:82.43.213.217, and share the same writing style. Dave6 05:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No copyvio notices on these articles. -- Infrogmation 14:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that these are almost certainly copyright violations, although they might be school papers this guy wrote. I can't find the sources either. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:55, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listed by User:Denni on VfD: The articles Sardinian (horse), Salerno (horse), Pleven (horse), and Russian Trotter were all posted within seven minutes of one another. They show remarkable consistency in format, almost as if they had been taken from a book on horses. A Google search for copyvio does not turn up any hits, which shows only that if these are copyvios, they are not from web resources. - Mike Rosoft 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Others

  • FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2005 - this compilation of opinion is the property of FHM-US. RickK 06:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • How is this different than any other similar list, many of which are also the basis for a Biocrawler article? MK2 04:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this one. More opinions needed. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • FHM had creative input into the list, both in ordering and selection. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service#Implications. —Korath (IANAL) 12:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • FHM actually had no input on the ordering or selection. Both are the result of a reader poll. FHM's editorial content would be the selection of the pictures and text which accompanied the poll results and neither is included in the Biocrawler article. MK2 00:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a fascinating dillemma. On the one hand, I can't see why this list couldn't be copyrighted. On the other hand, we list the Oscar winners and runner-ups, and the Nobel Prize winners and nominees, which are essentially the same thing. I can't imagine it would be a problem to say "She was listed as one of FHM's sexiest women of 2005" in each woman's article, so why would it be a problem to list them in one article? I'd tend to vote keep, but if a lawyer wants to chime in, we'd all be obliged. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Greatest Cartoons - from [6] (http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/cartoons/results.html) - intellectual property of Channel 4. RickK 00:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I question that a straight list can be copyrighted Burgundavia 03:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • See above. —Korath (Talk) 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus here, I've raised this issue at the Village Pump. MK2 15:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Korath that the FHM list is copyright as the "creative input" of the author(s) is non-zero. The list would have sui generis protection in other jurisdictions even if it were not copyright in the US. Physchim62 18:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that a reader's poll (with just the result list, no pictures, writing, etc.) has "creative input" from the magazine. I don't understand how either of these lists are copyrightable, where is the creative work by FHM or Channel4? They are both just results of readers polls.--Duk 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The magazine chose to use to poll however. Superm401 | Talk 01:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think a list like this is not copyrightable. I ask you to consider the following analogy: Some organizers had a sort of a contest. The results were made known, along with a a lot of interesting detail concerning the contestants and the contest itself. Later, a second party posted the rankings of the contestants. Did the second party violate the first party's rights in any way?
ExampleOrganizersContestMethod2nd Party
1Major League BaseballBaseball team standingsPlayed a bunch of gamesNewspaper Sports page
2FHMSexiest women rankingsAsked a bunch of peopleBiocrawler
Why is example 2 any different than example 1?
However, that the New York Times disagrees with me. They have pursued action against other publications that have re-published their best-seller list. For example, they went after www.amazon.com [7] (http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/131661) for using the New York Times bestseller list as a basis for providing purchase incentives (books on the lsit were to be discounted). This was quickly settled [8] (http://www.senseient.com/bytesinbrief/bytes.asp?page=September_1999.htm) with Amazon agreeing to certain terms, including; listing the books alphabetically instead of in-order, and sharing sales information with the New York Times. Since this didn't make it to a legal ruling, it does not set a legal precedent. Maybe someone can find an example that did go to court? Johntex 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

New listings

[edit]

May 19

  • UTVA 75 from [9] (http://www.utvaaviation.co.yu/menu/utva75en.html) --Rlandmann 02:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This issue has not been resolved yet - the original contributor says he obtained permission for the photo to be used (by Biocrawler only). Last I heard, he was going to approach UTVA to ask if the material could be released under the GFDL. This was on May 19. --Rlandmann 02:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been over a month now, with no further contact. Article should be deleted. --Rlandmann 03:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

May 20

  • The Imperial March includes a full length(3:03 min) version as an .ogg file. I strongly doubt that this is PD in any way. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this) Fornadan 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I will contact uploader to ask them to upload a shorter version.--nixie 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

May 28

  • Mathmagic from [10] (http://mathforum.org/mathmagic/). Xcali 20:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Submitter claims in a note on the /Temp page to be the original author. Credible? --Delirium 04:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • did you ask for an email confirmation from the address that appears in the cited webpage? They almost always answer in under 24 hours if legitimate.--Duk 04:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow from [11] (http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/). Text cited the source and there were no copyright notices on said source, but still. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Submitter claims on the talk page to have permission. Credible? --Delirium 04:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

June 2

Note: this article has been previously deleted, there has been editwaring over inclusions of copyright violations.--Duk 17:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Difficut to tell what is going on here.--nixie 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

June 3

  • House Ordos from several places. It isn't a complete copy but sopme sections are direct copies from places like this (http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/dune-tw/) or this (http://www.westwoodi.net/read.php?Games/Dune3/Houses) and here (http://gamez.com/games/games.x?gid=7710). Content minus copyvio should be moved to temp and the article deleted to remove the vio from the history. This link is Broken 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Technetium.jpg in article Technetium. The source cited is online, but the picture looks to me like the one in the "Life Science Library" series book Matter. Either way, it is not clear to me that the fair use claim is justified. -- Dominus 12:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

June 9

  • Blur - the whole article (or a great deal of it) seems to be copied from Allmusic (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE57916DD4EA97120CE9E3441C7BA76EB29D94EFB87126E495AD1A93D47830979EF40A3C6C5AEF875B47CE3FE2EAE5A07D9CAED469CA1&sql=11:qau36j3h71e0~T1). john k 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Reccomended the copyvio be dealt with through editing since it occured in January and much work has been done to the article since.--nixie 02:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ningde Copy/paste and some translation from [13] (http://www.66163.com/Fujian_w/city/ningde/zdlm/lswh-e.htm) --Oneliner 13:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As above--nixie 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

June 13

Waiting for follow up on talk page, ie, where to send email with proof of copyright ownership. Also submitted NPOV version on /temp page, but that page appears to be gone now. Indigoskye
[edit]

June 14

[edit]

June 15

  • It looks like someone needs to check all 6 contributions made by this IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=159.134.168.117) ---User:Hottentot
  • Bardejov from [33] (http://www.unipo.sk/SARIS/BARDEJOV/indexa.html) "Copyright. © 1996: kniznica@gutgesel.sk" Eixo 06:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transcript traduceri from [34] (http://www.transcript.ro/english/index-en.html) "© 2004 All Rights Reserved. Transcript srl." Eixo 07:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Kitty Wu from [35] (http://www.skandinavian.dk/index2.asp)
  • Blended wing body from [36] (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200106/ai_n8956886) --FCYTravis 08:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Stephane Yelle This and the following 4 pages all taken from nhlpa.com. I have reverted a number of others.--Djsasso 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Colin White--Djsasso 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Boyd Devereaux--Djsasso 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Cheechoo--Djsasso 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Jason Krog--Djsasso 09:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bharti Infotel Ltd. from [37] (http://www.airtelenterprise.com/internet.html) --Rlandmann 11:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Soko G-4 from [38] (http://www.utvaaviation.co.yu/menu/g4_en.html). Copyright notice here (http://www.utvaaviation.co.yu/menu/index2.html) --Rlandmann 11:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • St. Isidore de Seville from [39] (http://www.scborromeo.org/saints/isidores.htm). Sarg 12:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The biography part of Ahmed Deedat from [40] (http://www.famousmuslims.com/Ahmed%20Deedat.htm). The introduction looks like original material. — JIP | Talk 13:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • John McGuinness from [41] (http://www.johnmcguinness.com). Brian017 14.42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica much of the content on this page is a drict copy of [42] (http://encyclopedia.classic-literature.co.uk). It looks like the first version of this page was a direct paste from the source, and subsequent edits have diverged from the online source. The online text has a copyright 2004 notice. However, at least some of the same text also appears at [43] (http://1911encyclopedia.org/) so it is possible that the online sources are copying from wikipedia. I would welcome other opnions on this. DES 16:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 1984 - George Orwell from various "free essay" sites [44] (http://www.freeforessays.com/show_essay/39947.html) [45] (http://www.allessays.com/essay/1984-by-george-orwell-this-report-includes-a-very-well-writen-summery-context-and-also-a-analisis-of-all-the-themes-included-in-this-book-12773.html). Essays are "Free for research and reference purposes only! You may not turn these papers in as your own! You must cite our web site as your source!" — Gwalla | Talk 17:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Steam shower a good amount of the article comes from [46] (http://homes.phillyburbs.com/articles/bath_steamshower.shtml). ErikNY 17:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ricky Craven from [47] (http://www.rickycraven.com/content/ricky.php?id=index), as noted on the article. ErikNY 17:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Legendary Rhythm & Blues Cruise from [48] (http://www.blues.org/about/news.php4?Id=136) --Gcashman 17:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Contessa Brewer from [49] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131291/). ErikNY 17:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Columbus College of Art and Design most of the article consists of [50] (http://www.ccad.edu/about-history.html). ErikNY 18:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Carphedon summary of a research paper from here [51] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10746314&dopt=Abstract) Leithp 18:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mumrah from [52] (http://home.fairadsl.co.uk/ellert.driessen/mumrah3/biography.html). Niteowlneils 19:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Permission granted by band members for use of website material. Reinstate original page. Any problems, contact mickeytbone{#AT#}mumrah{#DOT#}com

Please see the temp page and the talk page/ If it is copy vio please delete, if not please remove the tag. The talk page use now the quotes, same as the canadian site does http://bestiary.ca/institutes/institutedetail2254.htm. The mentioned site as copyright holder has taken the text from the library page http://www.bml.firenze.sbn.it/, see the posted links. The text regarding the access is an anouncement, I dont thik that can be copyrighted. But if it is, please delete the page.CristianChirita 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

June 16