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

Biocrawler talk:Copyright problems

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

See also:

Changes to copyvio template

I've re-worked the current template. Why? It conveyed all of the essential information, but in a reader-unfriendly format. The same information is presented in a better format here: User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT.

The current, live template also confuses editors who flag articles as copyvios... the current text makes it seem that the pages are automatically added to WP:CP. This is not the case! I added a notice at the top of my draft template to make it clear that copyvios must be manually added to WP:CP.

In a perfect world, there would be a mechanism that automatically adds new copyvios to the WP:CP. I don't know if that's possible, but I tried to design my tempate to capture the necessary data that could be auto-added to WP:CP.

Also, I'm not sure about some of the date-stamp functionality if/when this template is transferred from my user space to the template space. Someone with more knowledge of wiki coding might need to tweak/add/delete to correct any mistakes I've made. Feco 21:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feco, I've reworked the template a bit in my user space (here). Mostly I abandoned the numbered list (I thought it was a bit confusing) and reordered some of the text for (I hope) added clarity. I can't comment on (and didn't mess with) the wiki coding—anything that was broken before is still broken now. :) Feel free to edit my copy, or steal any good bits for your template. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How to proceed with undeletable articles when a rewrite exists

Our standard procedure for dealing with blockcompressed articles that cannot be deleted seems to be to blank and protect the article, but what do we do if a rewrite exists (as is the case on Rock carvings at Alta)? Would it be acceptable to turn the article into a redirect to the temp page, or do we just have to wait until blockcompressed articles can finally be deleted? -- Ferkelparade π 07:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you move the copyvio elsewhere and then delete the newly formed redirect? --SPUI (talk) 07:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an idea...I'll try if it works -- Ferkelparade π 08:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you know, it works :P Thanks for the suggestion -- Ferkelparade π 08:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alerting users

In some cases, users dump text on a new page and forget about it. If they never return to that page for further editing, they will not know of their copyright violation and may do the same thing again. Adding a boilerplate to a user's talk page accomplishes two important things.

Lets the user know directly of their violation.
Lets future editors more easily determine if a user has committed a copyvio before.

There is no universal boilerplate for this so I made a helpful one here User:Oo64eva/Template:copyvio. For copyrighted images, Quadell has made this boilerplate, {{idw-cp}}.

I personally feel it's the responsibility of the person reporting the copyvio to alert the user in question. Does anyone think that this should be covered in the main project page? — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 22:54, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, most people won't think to do so unless it's mentioned there (although I suppose there's no guarantee that mentioning it will help either). I know I haven't been doing that because I didn't realize I should.

If it's something we want people to do, then yeah, we should probably discuss it on the main project page. Even if it isn't adopted universally, it can't hurt. Boilerplate text (ideally mentioned as part of the explanation on the project page) would make it easier to do and encourage such alerts too. Avocado 03:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures) from Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner_abuse. The history for the article shows the identity of the censors, not the authors of the text. This is, unfortunately, a clear violation of the GFDL. On a positive note, deleting this text causes no information loss for wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 04:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. "{{:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse|suppress image=-5px|mWf={|mWb=}</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border:..." does not violate the GFDL... no more violated the GFDL than any other template. Reverting. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WP:POINT. This is no more a violation of the GFDL than Gmaxwell's user page, which does not credit its original author on the title page, as required by a reading of the GFDL sufficiently strict enough to implicate Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). Shall I {{copyvio}} that, too? —Korath (Talk) 12:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
No more a violation of GFDL than merging one article into another, as is frequently done on WP:VFD. In those cases, the history on the original article is enough for GFDL. In this case, the history of the original article, which is linked to at the top of the censored article, is enough for GFDL. Don't disrupt Biocrawler to illustrate a point. — Asbestos | Talk 12:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I would have been disrupting wikipedia to prove a point had I contributed to the orignal article and then issued a DMCA immediate takedown notice. I am now going to contact one of one of the substantial contributors and suggest they do as much. There is a real copyright violation going on here, this is not the same as making (no pictures) versions of every article to prove a point. Every wikipedia page has it's history attached in a way that is appropriate for that resource, for example on regular pages it's via the history tab. This is analgous to having a page at the back of a book listing its authors and is prefectly acceptable, and this is why my userpage is fine. In this case the (no pictures) article has a list of authors, but rather than listing the real authors it lists the people responsible for the censored version, this is dishonest. I am going to put the warning back up once more, this action is in good faith because there is a real copyright violation happening here, and I intend to contact one of the victims and bring it to their attention. I have not been involved in the abu ghraib issue (beyond once editing a template that I didn't know it used), and I think this would be sufficently solved by adding a feature to media wiki which would allow you to see the correct history. --Gmaxwell 16:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From reading the archived VfD and talk pages, it seems like the no pictures page is just a mirror, so the edit history of the underlying content can be found at the original article. Since that's the caes, I don't see how this violates GFDL. Feco 20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- In my opinion this is not a violation of GFDL any more than inclusion into an article of an image which is governed by the GFDL. A more transparent implementation of this technique would provide an edit link in the article with instructions to use that link to edit content, and the normal edit method to edit the bowdlerization page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - If you try to edit the article (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse_%28no_pictures%29&action=edit), you see a line of nigh incomprehensible template gibberish (which is bad), and a comment with clear instructions on how to actually edit the underlying text (which is good). I'm not sure that that the benefits provided by including links either to edit the main page or get its history (as Gmaxwell suggested on my talk page) outweigh the harm caused by being self references, but if you do, they should be added just before the second </div> at the end of the first line. —Korath (Talk) 20:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, we can add any additional message we want to the "no pictures" version. I'm not sure of the benefit because the link to the original is so prominent, but this is certainly a reasonable suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

copyvios replacing homegrown text?

What's the proper course to take when someone replaces the entirety of the text of a page with a copyvio? We had a stub article on David Miscavige that got "expanded" into a much larger text -- a much large text that turned out to be taken wholly from a copyrighted source. I'm not sure how we should handle this. If we simply revert to the previous version before the copyvio, we still have the copyvio in the page history; if we torpedo the page because of the copyvio, we lose a perfectly well-written (if short) article -- and set a bad precedent for how to eliminate articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The usual procedure is to revert the article to the non-copyvio version. If the copyright holder complains about the violation in the history, we can delete it and retain the good text using the selective undeletion feature, which I believe was designed to handle just this sort of thing. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. Good to know we have a way to handle that situation... I've gone ahead and reverted to the non-copyvio text. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvios from the online Britannica

I have twice in the last few days found articles where somebody had used the introductory part of the EB article available on the web without subscription. I bet there are a few more of those around. Would it be possible to use a bot to systematically check and compare entries from the current EB with the corresponding articles from Biocrawler? -- Tupsharru 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was there anything systematic in the cases you spotted? Same user for example? Pcb21| Pete 11:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, but stealing from the EB is hardly a very original idea. A problem with these are that they don't look like the typical copyvios: large unwikified pieces of text. Since only a few introductory sentences of the EB articles are available to most people, something taken from there just looks like a half-decent stub and may well go undetected and soon be swallowed by other text. I don't know how big a deal it is legally if such a copyvio becomes the seed of a larger article. Tupsharru 12:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rats I imagined if it was just one user we could deal with it more easily. I can see why in an ideal world auto-scanning new articles to see if they match various other sources (inc. Britannica) would be very desirable. Sadly can't see it happening any time soon. Pcb21| Pete 12:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copying point form lists

Hi, I'm not sure how to handle the article at Danny Way. Each sentence in the article is pretty clearly a simple restatement of the list of biographical points at [1] (http://www.computing.dcu.ie/computety/2005/kconno-cty/tricks.html) (scroll down a page or two to get to the Danny Way section.) It sure seems like a derivative work, even though it's not a direct copy-paste. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that the information was derived from that source or a very similar source. But it seesm, on a quick read to mave been reworked, with points combined and restated, and some new info added. Facts aren't copyrighted, text (and other forms of expression) is. Creating new text using the facts from a source isn't copyright infringment, it is research (altough the source should be cited, but thst is a different matter.) On a quick scan this doesn't look like a copyvio to me, although it is uncited single-source research, which is not a good idea.DES 17:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suspected copyvios?

What should be done with articles that are clearly copy and paste from somewhere (and therefore potential copyvios) but you can't find a source? An example of what I am talking about would be Hathigumpha. The WP:CP page seems to imply that I should add it to the list, but I just wanted to get confirmation. --TheParanoidOne 22:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone offer any advice on this? --TheParanoidOne 15:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles usually don't get deleted just because they look like copyvios. I maintain a scratchpad in my user space where I keep track of suspicious pages. Sometimes the search engines find the source a week or two later. You can also add a note to the talk page of articles and warn other editors, or ask them for help finding the source. Of course that is not a solution, only an attempt at mitigating the damage. HTH. Rl 15:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess those are doable. The source of my slight confusion is that in the "older than 7 days" section of the copyvio page there is a section entitled "Suspected copyright infringements without online source". This seems to imply that some items have in the past been added to the list, without online links, and then moved to this section. Is this the case? --TheParanoidOne 18:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This would seem to be a very odd copyvio: the spelling and grammar (including spelling grammar as grammer) make it seem more likely to be a student paper pasted in whole. Even this hypothesis, though, is difficult to reconcile with the appearance of wiki links in the article. Perhaps it is a machine translation, partially (and badly) cleaned up? If so, its source could be another wiki. Note also that there is an author's name, address and telephone no. at the end. Do we have anyone from India reading this?

I assumed that the "Suspected copyright infringements without online source" section was for copyright violations with a known sourcce, but that source is not online. If soemone scans a book and dumps the text in, and you spot it, this would be the place for it, right? or have i misunderstood? DES 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Question: can fair use be asserted for an orphan image?

I have been assuming no, since each use needs a specific rationale along the lines of Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale and Biocrawler:Copyrights#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements. So if the image is unused, a rationale isn't possible.

Is this right? --Duk 04:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Abuse

I would be grateful if a neutral third party would look at the comments under my additions of 16 May; and on Talk:Birmingham. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 19:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Query

Infectious salmon anemia has been listed as a copyvio, see talk:Infectious salmon anemia, the text in question is covered by this provision from the MRC FoI publication scheme,

MRC material protected by copyright may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context [2] (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/help/privacy_policy/help-mrc_publication_scheme.htm#txt-help-mrc_publication_scheme-Anchor6)

If referenced correctly is there any reason why this page should be deleted?--nixie 00:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not worth it. Let's just nuke the copyvio section and rewrite it. Ambush Commander 01:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its not worth listing as a copyvio?--nixie 01:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the GFDL has a no-misleading-contexts clause, so that license isn't GFDL compatible. Too bad. --W(t) 00:17, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Shush Castle

Seem to be problems going on with some Iranian articles. The Talk:Shush Castle page lists some of it. User:Zereshk wrote to my talk page for help as an admin, but I don't know enough about copyright issues to make the judgement call. Help would be much appreciated! Grutness...wha? 05:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the user does not have a good copyright record with other articles of his (see Takht-e Soleyman for example), so we shouldn't automatically assume that his claim about him having written the article himself is right. roozbeh 11:27, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not automatically assuming anything - that's why I brought this here. If he does have a claim, then it's worth upholding. If not, then the copyright violation stands. Grutness...wha? 13:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If Iran is not a signatory of the Berne convention, and the source web sites were written/published in Iran, then where is the copyright violation? Can someone spell out the facts of these matters (were they actually published in Iran, etc.)? URLs for source data? More information is needed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The source is an Iranian travel site [3] (http://www.sogol.com/). The server is in Iran, [4] (http://www.rasaneh.com/). Looks like it could be OK. -- Mwanner 16:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

www.sogol.com is not hosted in Iran, it looks to be hosted by Shanje.com, hosted in Iowa. It looks like the domain is registered via Rasaneh.com, which does appear to be in Iran. Going only by the location of sogol.com, the text could be written by an Iranian-American and subject to copyright. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that gets interesting, doesn't it? Does the citizenship of the author have anything to do with it? The About link on sogol.com, [5] (http://www.sogol.com/WHP/Welcome%20to%20Sogol.htm), lists an address in Tehran as their main office address, and www.sogol.com claims that their server is http://www.rasaneh.com/, which says it is located in Tehran, so I'm not sure where you're getting Shanje.com in Iowa. But, assuming you're right, which address rules for copyright law? Is this a settled issue in U.S. or international law? If the text was written by an Iranian citizen in Iran for a site registered in Iran but on a server located in the U.S., then what? -- Mwanner 23:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly gets sticky, and there likely no or limited precident set for this kind of thing. If that is the case, I suggest erring on the side of caution and removing the material. The following is how I get Iowa. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

> host www.sogol.com
www.sogol.com has address 216.51.232.102
> whois 216.51.232.102
[...]
Shanje.com NET-SHANJE-COLO-BLK (NET-216-51-232-0-1) 
                                  216.51.232.0 - 216.51.232.255
> whois NET-SHANJE-COLO-BLK
OrgName:    Shanje.com 
OrgID:      SHANJ
Address:    3323 Riverside Dr. NE
City:       cedar Rapids
StateProv:  IA
PostalCode: 52411
Country:    US
[...]
> ping -c 1 www.sogol.com
64 bytes from ns102.fastdnsservers.com (216.51.232.102): icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=52.7 ms

Ping time is from California. It takes 90ms to get to NYC, so europe and points east are higher. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. No one reading this has any idea where to turn for a legal reading on this? What about bouncing it to Jimbo Wales? -- Mwanner 23:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why not just rewrite it? I'll give it a once-over. However, since Zereshk and I aren't getting along, he may revert it. Zora 00:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

copyvio in section

How should a copyvio in a particular section of an otherwise okay article be handled? Most of Freed-Hardeman University: Student Expectations appear to be copied verbatim from the student handbook. --Chiacomo 00:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as it's an adddition to the original text, just delete or rewrite the section--nixie 01:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So having the copyvio in the edit history is okay? --Chiacomo 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the whole page only needs to be deleted if it started life as a copyvio, there'd be endless deletion and recreation if we had to delete every copyvio added subsequently. Its kind of covered in here Biocrawler talk:Copyright violations on history pages in the section on GFDL & Deletion of Article History and here Biocrawler:Copyrights--nixie 02:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you, again! --Chiacomo 02:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not fair use?

Been looking around for a while, not really sure where I'm supposed to report this so forgive me if this is the wrong place. I'm sure Image:Loop.jpg, Image:Arch.jpg, Image:Whorl.jpg (as used on Fingerprint) aren't fair use... Tjwood 17:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

They may actually be public domain. See: http://www.nist.gov/srd/fing_img.htm --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Business (band)

copy vio's are not my area, but there is a claim in Talk:The Business (band) that the article is a copyvio. I removed a odd note at the bottom of the article page, which said "Matthew Isaac Kantor, All Music Guide", so maybe thats where it comes from. Sam Spade 21:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did a moments research, and found this: [6] (http://music.yahoo.com/ar-292399-bio--The-Business). It looks like it is indeed a copyvio. Sam Spade 21:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More visible warning?

Can we get a fat, red warning box like the German WP? I keep running into editors who seem to have never heard of copyright. If a better warning prevented only a small percentage of copyvios, that would be worth quite an effort. For comparison, check out the text below the submit button English (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolai_Yaroshenko&action=edit) German (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolai_Alexandrowitsch_Jaroschenko&action=edit). Rl 14:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It would be even better if we could have it flashing, but even if it isn't possible we need something that is not easily ignored. Copyvios aren't easy to catch. Sarg 14:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that would annoy the heck out of regular users! Unless you could have it turn off after some "probation period" of membership length... hmmm... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 14:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Easy: Put it in a div class, so that users can hide it with their own CSS files. smoddy 15:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What you say?" Seriously, I've never heard of using CSS in Biocrawler... Sarg 15:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot of Main Page with smoddy's skin
Every user can modify their own skin. For instance, I use monobook (the default) but I have modified it quite a bit. Using User:Smoddy/monobook.css I can make WP load whatever styles I want for me alone. There is a screenshot on the right. smoddy 15:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't know that. However, it might be too much to ask for people who don't know CSS. Unless we make a tutorial saying how to do it. Certainly, ayone editing a CSS to hide a copyright notice will know that it exists... Sarg 16:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's very simple. There would need to be this line at the beginning of the section: <div class="copyrightwarning">, then </div> at the end. The user would then need to put this line into their user css: .copyrightwarning { display:none }. I don't think that line would be too complicated. smoddy 16:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggested a new version at MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning. Please go and have a look. Rl 13:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How Does this Work?

user:Xcali flagged the page Dive into Python as a copyright violation. I have responded to this on the talk:Dive into Python page, as well as on the Copyright problems list. I have left a message for Xcali on his talk page.

I own the material - I originally wrote it. I modified the material and posted it as an Amazon review. I revised the original essay and posted it to the Dive into Python page - thus, it is a derivative work (derived by me) from an original work to which I own the rights. I have pointed this out to Xcali, on the Copyright problems page, and on the talk:Dive into Python page.

Then I rewrote the article, making it more appropriate for Biocrawler (as suggested by another user), and posted the rewritten article to the Dive into Python/Temp page.

What I want to know is how does this play out? Will somebody take the article off the cpvio list? Will somebody delete the page? Am I supposed to remove it from the list? Who does what now? All I want now is to change the Dive into Python/Temp article into the Dive into Python article. Am I supposed to do this? Will an admin?

John Elder 19:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Implementing the Jimbo declaration

Should there be a systematic effort to notify uploaders of non-commercial and permission-only images? It seems likely that many authors would be willing to re-license their images as GFDL or PD. The options for these images seem to be relicense, replace, or rationalize fair use. -- Beland 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template for Permission

Is there a standard template that exists for indicating that an article is--in whole or in part--derived from another source, with permission? It would be nice if something could go at the bottom of a page, so that Biocrawlerns could know at a glance if a suspected copyvio has been permission-ified by the copyright holder under GFDL or GNU or whatever the appropriate initials are. Something along the same lines as the 1911 template:

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.

Maybe something along the lines of

This article incorporates text from the website "URL" under the terms of "GFDL (or whatever)".

or something like that? func(talk) 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, I've started a template, Template:Gnuweb. I would appreciate any comments any one has, on its talk page. func(talk) 23:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Copyrightproblem

Template:Copyrightproblem, which User:Jpgordon was using to help place notifications of copyright violations onto the WP:CP page, is currently up for deletion at Templates for deletion. If any of the habitues of WP:CP think that this template will help them, they should vote to retain this template. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image status

We have a problem here, and I would like legal experts wrangle this out. Image:Indian Railways Map.gif ([Source: http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/maps/all_india.htm]) is uploaded by a user under a Indian Govt. Public Domain: {{PD-IndiaGov}}. Now the Indian government maintains copyrights on its works for 60 years [7] (http://www.naukri.com/lls/copyright/section5.htm). The Indian Railways site (a Govt. of Ind. undertaking) disclaimer says (http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railway/disclaimer.htm): The documents and information displayed in this website are for reference purposes only and does not purport to be a legal document. What licence should be used if it is not a copyvio? =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

No Copyright Violation

the Hal Safi article can be displayed since it is not in breach of any copyright violations (visit http://www.lcsafi.org/copyright.htm)

As long as the site of the author is indicated one can copy the information.

From that page: "the reproduced material is a true copy of the original". Given the nature of this place (a wiki) it is highly probable that the article may be modified. Doesn't this then conflict with the conditions of that copyright notice? --TheParanoidOne 21:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Biocrawler_talk:Copyright_problems"

Views

Personal tools

Create account / log in

Navigation

Google Search

Search

Toolbox