Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 15 September 2005 (→September 15). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WP:CP does not stand for Wikipedia:Community Portal.

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

Note that if you suspect an article is violating a copyright, such as a copy of another web site, you can edit the article, and replace the text with the template {{copyvio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~, making sure you insert the URL where the copied text can be found. See Wikipedia:Copyright for more information.

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

Notice to copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia without attribution, visit the GFDL compliance page or meta:Non-compliant site coordination.

Please see the proposal to speedy delete patent copyright violation material.

Remember to drop a warning template into talk pages of users who submit copyvios. If we don't educate, the problems will only swell. Insert this code into a user talk page: {{nothanks|name of copyvio article}}.

Instructions

If you list a page or image here which you believe to be a copyright infringement, follow the instructions below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made.

I.
New page, existing page, or image?


If a new page, go to II.
If an existing page, go to III.
If an image, go to IV.

II.
Replace content with {{copyvio}}


Blank the page and replace the text with {{copyvio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~ .
Note that that is the "pipe", or vertical bar character between the words "copyvio" and "url", not the letter l.
Then go to today's section and list the page. The task is now finished.

III.
Revert the page


The violating text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. The task is now finished.

IV.
Add {{imagevio}} to the image page


Add the following to the image description page: {{imagevio|url=[insert URL here]}} ~~~~
Then go to today's section and list the image. The task is now finished.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

Optionally, add {{nothanks}} to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia. Use the format {{subst:nothanks|article title}}. For images optionally add {{idw-cp}} to the image uploader's talk page, using the format {{subst:idw-cp|Image:file name}}

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, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

Instructions for special cases

  • Category:Unfree images: These may be listed, if they indeed are not available under a free license or a reasonable fair use rationale. 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 Wikipedia 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]. 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 eliminate them in an orderly fashion, taking due account of "fair use". (Jimbo) :Full Email, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
See also this followup: [2]

Clearing copyvios

After being listed here for seven days, possible copyright violations should be checked and processed by admins. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins for some help.

See also

Older than 7 days

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

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.

  • Image:Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg from [3] with copyright notice at [4] The article attributes the source images to the US Navy. This is not correct, as they were taken by the Royal Australian Navy (the linked slideshow says "Photos and Mk-48 Torpedo information provided by Maritime Headquarters and DSTO Australia. Photos by PO Scott Connolly and AB Stuart Farrow"), which has the its copyright notice at [5], which states that you may "reproduce this material in unaltered form only". However, I don't know if this will require the image to be deleted and replaced with an original, or just deleted altogether, or whether because it was placed on the US Department of Defence sites, whether public domain then applies. A photo from the sequence is at [6], and I have also seen a video of the whole sequence (both on the Internet and at Defence Jobs displays) but I can't find the URL to it.--Nthnl 03:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The submitter is claiming that *he* is allowed to license the image simply because he pasted together other images he has no rights to? Taking images from elsewhere and putting them together does not mean you have a copyright that you can then choose to license out to people, that's not how things work at all. DreamGuy 04:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It seems I have mixed up the sources, and the images originate from the Australian Navy. In this case, the source images have not been in public domain. To DreamGuy: As I understand it, Images in the PD can be used, and if modified can be given another copyright. That is why there are CC and GFDL licenses, otherwise we could just use PD, and everybody else has to continue to use PD for the images and derivatives. The arranging of the images (cutting, adding lines, etc.) was not a huge job, but still took some time. Hence I added a free license so that the derivatives created by me would stay free. In any case, this is no longer a point for this image, since they were not PD to begin with. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've asked Chris to de-commons it again and upload it here with a legal copyright tag. Once that's done this discussion can be removed. --fvw* 00:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


Original author claims to be working for project and that text is released as PD (see Talk:Malian Peanut Sheller) - MPF 15:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the talk page says that "Tranquilmoney, Inc. holds the copyright to this page and has no objection to this article appearing here." RADICALBENDER★ 23:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Article creator says he's also the author of the blog post in question. See talk. RADICALBENDER★ 19:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use claims needing a second opinion


Comment Hopefully these images fall under fair use but I listed here because I am not sure and this and the following image seems to fall into a grey area. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 23:27 (UTC)
    • I think they should be deleted and replaced with the original national geographic cover.--nixie 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this listed here. There is no concept under fair use that allows you to copy an entire picture from a photographers website. This is a copyvio. Chuck 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I can't see any possible justification for this under fair use guidelines. DreamGuy 18:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • You cannot give or refuse permission for fair use, it's a right entirely unrelated to licencing, and nothing short of a contract can take it away. Given how famous the picture has become, I think we can claim fair use in articles about the photographer, the girl or national geographic. --fvw* 22:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have deleted both images as well as a duplicate image for copyright violations. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


  • Image:London2005Bus.jpg: The claim is that this is fair use, but it seems clear to me that it is not. This photo is copyright, all rights reserved, and used on the commercial BBC website on a page of photos. It's evident that they derive significant value from it. And we display this image on the Main Page! We're practically begging to be sued. Some photo related to this event would really be helpful for the article, though. Deco 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deco correctly observes that this image is copyright and all rights reserved. This does not, however, preclude a fair use claim on this image. Fair use is a legal concept used legitimately to reproduce such images which are copyrighted. This includes news reportage!
Furthermore, BBC News operates for the public good. The corporation is a public non-profit entity and is funded by license fees paid by British television users. The BBC news website is not "commercial" (as asserted above) - none of the pages carry advertising and the BBC does not generate revenue through its news website. The BBC derives no direct commercial value from this photo, as Deco has claimed on my talk page. The idea that the BBC would sue another non-profit entity is risible. Can someone please explain, with reference to the fair use criteria, why this is inelligble for fair use? TreveXtalk 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'm still unsure. Our non-profit status does give us some leeway. It is a low resolution image. I wasn't aware that the BBC was a non-profit organization - I always thought they were a corporation like the New York Times. However, the BBC may have purchased rights to use the image from a professional photographer or a commercial news corporation, in which case we'd still be in trouble. U.S. legislation about fair use of media for news may not apply, partly because the copyright owner may be in Britain and partly because we're not technically a news website. I suppose as long as we have OCILLA there's no real harm in leaving it up, but I'm not sure if this image is covered by the criteria on Wikipedia:Fair use (you reach #9, "Does the nature of the image and source (if known) suggest it is intended for wide distribution?" but I'm not sure if it fails this). It seems like a murky enough case that I wouldn't bet money that it's fair use, at least if I weren't a copyright lawyer. At this point I don't really care all that much though. Deco 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image page is still locked, as it was recently on the main page. I have added a fair use rationale to the discussion page instead]]. TreveXtalk 12:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that it is a current news event. The copyright holder (apparently the bbc) wants to benefit from the work. Our reproduction of the image harms them in that it makes their website slightly less useful compared to ours, reduces the number of BBC web site users and slightly lowers their reputation as a bearer of unique news information. While I think it unlikely that they would sue, I think a fair use claim would be hard to defend. Wikipedia is non-commercial and the use of the image is transformative (in making an encyclopedic article), but the image is not an historical record so the nature of the image detracts from a fair use claim. The work is entirly reproduced - although at web resolution. The third factor is partially fulfilled. And surely there is an effect on the potential market, although the BBC might not be intending to sell the image, they hope to benefit from it in other ways. The BBC has an unusual status, deriving much of it's revenue from the licence fee and with a public service charter. But it's not a non-profit in the same way that we are. They are probably unlikely to sue, but I don't think that should be a major consideration. I think based on the nature of this image, our use isn't fair, and the image should be deleted as a copyright violation. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 14:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Dispute Er... correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure that the image in question was from a London CCTV camera. As such, the BBC has no copyright claim on it. Cynical 13:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images from news websites which are tagged as fair use. The current events section articles and the main page image for current events rely heavily on such images. Can I ask on what basis may any images taken from news websites be used on wikipedia as fair use? I cannot distinguish between this image and inumerable other similiar images which have never been listed on this page. TreveXtalk 14:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If these images were fair use then other news organizations could use them without permission. Associated Press and UPI and BBC and everyone sells their content to other papers, or sometimes does exchanges for other content back. If the real news organizations can't just get away with taking them without permission, how can we be expected to? DreamGuy 18:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
May be possible to make a fair use claim? Left alone for now. --Ngb ?!? 06:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been submitted to disallow the Fair Use tag originally assigned when the image was uploaded, where original source and copyright have always been properly noted. It has been well over a week and this image has not been found to be violating copyright. Can we have a ruling please so we can return the image to the article it was removed from.--AladdinSE 22:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Even though no one has brought evidence to justify deletion, I went ahead and contacted the BBC to make sure that they did not think we misapplied the Fair Use tag in this instance. They replied, quote: "We are happy to allow Wikipedia to use the graphic of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza if it is still of use to you, so long as the BBC news website is acknowledged as the source." BBC source and copyright were noted form the earliest upload. This matter is closed. --AladdinSE 08:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The matter isn't closed. If the material is to be used under fair use, you need to provide a rationale (see Wikipedia:Fair_use). If the BBC are prepared for the material to be licensed under the GFDL, then that's fine, but that's not what you've declared. I've contacted them to follow up whether or not they're happy for the image to be licensed under the GFDL; if not, you will have to write a fair use rationale. --Ngb ?!? 07:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Additionally, the user responsible for this suspected copyvio is also behind a proven copyvio in the Manuel Marulanda / Manuel Marulanda Velez articles.Juancarlos2004 2 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Others

  • Crosstar3.gif - Nationalist image lifted from [30]. Crosstar 2 August 2005
    • I uploaded and added this image to the Nationalist Movement article under fair use guidelines. Please see image description page for details. Kaldari 01:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, limited permission was granted by a user purporting to represent the copyright owner, Crosstar. [31] "(Copyright (C) 2005 Skinheadz, PO Box 2008, Learned MS 39154 USA. Permission is granted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this licensed image, but changing it is not allowed.)" That user also consented to the GFDL by uploading it. -Willmcw 09:33, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • The copyright/trademark owner specifies that permission NOT granted for use of its image and places violators of its rights on notice accordingly. 10:56, August 2, 2005
      • The image was uploaded under Wikipedia:Fair use, and is thus allowed to be used in this context. The "copyright/trademark owner" may not stop a legitimate fair use claim on the image, and subesquent use thereof in an article. [[smoddy]] 13:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material..... When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." U.S. Copyright Office [32] 14:00 August 2, 2005
    • I doubt that this symbol, also called an arrow cross, can be copyrighted or trademarked and is therefore in the public domain. It is basically a copy of a popular fascist symbol used in Hungary before World War II and if anyone "owns" it this entity is defunct and could not now assert any rights against such claims [33] [34] [35]. It is a variation of a common symbol that is used for many purposes[36]. It is stated that this symbol has its origins with the Magyar tribes of circa 1000 A.D. [37] Just because someone is using a common symbol does not mean that they can then claim copyright ownership or trademark status of that symbol that has a well-documented prior history. — © Alex756 17:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I have replaced the original image with a new version that is not based on the specific image found on the crosstar website. It's still the same insignia, but a different version of it. Hopefully this will eliminate any copyright concerns raised by the proprietors of that site. Kaldari 22:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second copyright-violation notice posted after Kaldari tried to ignore/circumvent the first notice with a "different version" of the same image. [38] 9:31 August 4, 2005
      • Well I tried to replace it but then Crosstar reverted it. I'm not sure why he would want to revert it to the previous version since that's the one he's complaining about. Kaldari 22:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very impressive selective reading. The sentence continues, "... unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation". We argue that it does. A lawyer's advice confirms this. Fair use applies; we are allowed to use the image. [[smoddy]] 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Regardless -- why don't we just replace the one he's complaining about with one of the many other arrow-crosses freely available out there? Since there's nothing unique about this particular gang of racist thugs' use of the icon, there's no reason to waste any more time with this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea. Here are some depictions which might either be in the public domain or permission might be readily obtained. (smoddy appears to be 16-years-old, by the way). [39] [40]. 9:50, August 4, 2005.
                • Firstly, I cannot understand how that is in the remotest bit relevant. If it was in any way meant as a personal insult, I request you delete it immediately. My age has no bearing on my position in Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that using the logo of the Nationalist Movement to illustrate the page makes considerably more sense than an image that just happens to look a little bit like it. [[smoddy]] 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I have not been able to locate any trademark registration for such a symbol in the USPTO database. I still believe it would be fair use regardless of trademark status, however. Kaldari 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I doubt there is any trademark or copyright registration, and it probably would be rejected from any application for copyright registration as having no originality or creativity, see PrimeSource v. Personnel Resource, 48 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1940 (1998) and John Muller & Co., Inc. v. N.Y. Arrows Soccer Team, 802 F.2d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 1986) where a logo with four arrows was considered not original enough to be copyrightable. Regarding using uncopyrightable trademarks in an article identifying the trademark, this would not create any legal liability for the person posting it because such speech is protected by the First Amendment, something these Nationalist people know about. — © Alex756 14:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

August 27

August 28

Radiant_>|< 18:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cno Evil has downloaded numerous images onto Wikipedia that all are in copyright infringment. Starting on 14:32, 23 August 2005 at Image:Lancecade.jpg and ending at 03:47, 26 August 2005 with Image:Wrestlewar.jpg. To see the full list click here. And those are the ones he recently did. He has done more than that that are still on Wikipedia. SWD316 (talk to me)

August 29

  • Ritz process from [84] - Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Pattern analysis from [85] - FreplySpang (talk) 22:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    Withdrawn - article creator is author, permission is forthcoming. FreplySpang (talk) 00:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bold Ruler, self-admittedly from Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Horses of the 20th Century - Denni☯ 22:43, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
    • The article creator lists Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Horses of the 20th Century as a source, but that does not necessarily mean that the article is a copyright violation. If someone has access to the book, they should try to verify whether the article is just based on material from the book or has lifted text from it. -- DS1953 22:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

August 30

Original poster claims authorization, though I'm advising that present form reads like an ad. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:51:54, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

August 31

 I acquired the licence for entering the texts in "http://www.supertarot.co.uk/adept/fharris.htm" under the Entry: "Lady Frieda Harris".
 This is the e-mail of author of SuperTarot.co.uk to me:
 <phb@supertarot.co.uk> to me
 Date: Sep 4, 2005 1:54 PM
 Subject: Re: supertarot email
 Hi Sepand,
 You are very welcome to link to the Frieda Harris page.
 I am very pleased to be of service.
 And enter the contents of the page with a link as you suggest.
 Best wishes,
 Paul Hughes-Barlow

September 1

Nonreturner now redirects to Anagami. Is Anagami sufficiently different to not be a copyvio? -- RHaworth 17:31:32, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Hello - please be advised that as the copyright holder (Synergex), we authorize the duplication of this information on your web site. Please remove the infringement announcement. With any questions, contact synergy@synergex.com. Thanks

New Listings

September 2

I wouldn't be surprised if more copyvio summaries were on the way, and if there were other recent anon copyvios on this subject. Basically, I got these entries from the posting histories of [170] and [171], and I'm pretty sure that all of these summaries are copyvios. ErikNY 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the following articles have also been created:

I just left a note for the user to stop doing these copyvios.ErikNY 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

The "copyright" and "promotional" material (i.e., the text from the back cover) have been removed from the TEMP page. TEMP page can safely be made into main page now.

September 4

September 5

September 6

  • As this is an existing article, according to the above instructions this should have been reverted to a pre-copyvio version (16:29, 22 June 2005). I have just done so, but had already created a temporary subpage here (which can probably be deleted). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seizure (novel) - as above from [394] CambridgeBayWeather 07:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shock (novel) - as above from [395] CambridgeBayWeather 07:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

September 8

I'm having trouble verifying Copyrightholder's claim. I'm not accusing him, but for all I know he could've lifted the thing from Wikipedia. How should you check who had an image first? - Mgm|(talk) 19:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

From [486] -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per the image's talk page, perhaps permission to use the image is forthcoming?
      • The CrownCopyright does not apply see the image's talk page for the explanation. The permission granted is not enough for wikipedia, since it's for noncommercial and educational only (after jimbo wales' may 19h ruling) and that's why the red tags. This is not the place for the discussion, that's what the image talk is for. It seems that Rktect cannot understand we cannot use images "with permission only". -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permission has been granted, and listed and user drini has been aware of this but chooses to ignore it and to argue all manner of false claims including his speculation that the permission is a forgery. Since the permission includes both a phone number and email, verifying that the claims of drini are false and ill advised should be trivial.
The permission granted was for educational and non-profit, which is not free enough for wikipedia. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The permission is specifically for use on Wikipedia "no problem" meaning in compliance with whatever Wikipedia requires. Aside from that the image is a crown copyright, thr source has been public domain since 1645, the image is a screen capture and all appropriate tags have been attached.
The claims 1. It falls under crown copyright: false. Debunked at image's talk. 2. It's a screen capture. It's a zooming and cropping of a digital image, it is NOT a screen shot for it is not showing the contents of a screen. 3. "permission" is given for wikipedia as a nonprofit and educational. We cannot longer use images "with permission only", images must be licensed under a free license which is not being done. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 13:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is my original work J. Rock I am authorized to report on this group. The article in question was released by me to various newsgroups, music resources. Feel free to contact me at rxrock@lycos.com, or the group directly to verify this. The original article is located here [508] This is twice I have posted material on OUTTALINE and this infringing claim is total nonsense, and annoying. So as stated in the talk page for OUTTALINE I will not post material here anymore. I thought this was a reference source for accurate information. The first post was on the percussionist Lightning Strikes, which also ended up in a total fiasco here. People should actually check for original sources instead of just running rampant here????

Incorrect - The text and infromation came directly from a press release provided by EMI. Details of this article/document are avaiable for review at http://www.live8livedvd.com/. The information was provided by permission as EMI wants people to know of this upcoming DVD release, and there are NO copyrights placed on this material. It is avaiable to all in both text and PDF format.

September 9

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.
© Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise
Tonywalton  | Talk 15:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

I'm the original tagger. Since no copyright notice stating that the text was free (any acceptable free license) I had to tag it. If someone can contact pscap and confirm autorship, then no big deal, tag be removed. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 15:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

I have copyright permission for Demarest Hall, I live with Enon Avital, the creator of the webpage, it's fine, email him here: dewfather@gmail.com
Or sabrina.vargas@gmail.com and khennessey@echo.rutgers.edu who I both work with as Culture Studies leader of Demarest Hall.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizimm (talk • contribs) 21:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

September 12

The evidence is somewhat hidden, but I am satisfied that the repeated uploads of this stuff are being done with the full approval of the RGLE, probably by its founder Rui Gabirro himself. We will turn our attention now to the NPOV approach. -- RHaworth 10:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Paulthomas claims on the article talk page to represent the copyright holder. I've received e-mail confirmation. (That guy is fast in responding). Whitejay251 18:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listed in bad faith by a troll with a history of disruption. He listed it the very day I put it up and before I had a chance to put on the correct copyright notice. Unfortunately, this is the pattern with this editor. This kind of behavior really discourages others from working on Wiki. The fact that an editor minding their own business trying to improve articles, who has a history of uploading many many pictures and using them to improve articles, has to be disrupted because of a troll and vandal is very discouraging. --Noitall 01:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hohum. From the terms of use on the licence in question - "will not be copied or posted on any network computer." Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't on a network computer you vandal. They were specifically referring to "design or layout of this web site or any other site owned, operated, licensed, sponsored or controlled by the City." Quit your trolling and vandalizing. --Noitall 05:06, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Readers should see the terms of use themselves and determine if the section I quote refers to the design or layout of the web page. [705]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Permission obtained from copyright owner via email. FreplySpang (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

I have changed it to a redirect to Thrice. -- RHaworth 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 00:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's current date is November 12, 2024. Before appending new notices, please make sure that you are adding them under the right date header. If the header for today's date has not yet been created, please add it yourself. Re copyright problems on the J. W. Spear and Sons page I (Tim Spear) have permission on the writer of the text (my dad) on the spearsgamesarchive.org site to use it

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=23312172"