This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Update this page

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

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

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

Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated copyright violations

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

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

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

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

If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

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

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

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

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

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

Suspected or complicated infringement

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

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

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

  • Go to today's section and add

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

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

Instructions for special cases

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

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

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

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

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

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

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

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

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

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

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

Obtaining/verifying permission

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

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

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

Rewriting content

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

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

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

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

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

Copyright problems board clerks

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

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

Copyright problems board administrators

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

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

Closing listings

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

For advice for resolving listings, see:

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

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 October 25:

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Yikes, Justlettersandnumbers! Do we still need to spot-check other edits? That one was pretty bad. If I had known how widespread it was, I might have stubbed it to begin with. :( I thinkI got it all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I haven't looked at this recently. But the quick off-the-top-of-my-head reply from what I recall is "yes, definitely". I'll try to dig a bit later today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Justlettersandnumbers, I've found copy-pasting in Ethnicity (album). That was an unsourced copy-paste, so we have plagiarism going on here as well. That means, sadly, that we can't rely on this user to identify where he copied his content from. :( I don't have time to look through it at the moment, but there's definitely copy-pasting in this edit (and close paraphrase) at least from [1] (the epiphany line and subsequent.) We may be heading towards a CCI here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a link to all contributions. I didn't immediately see other copyright violations but I didn't look thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via Can you provide a different link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [2]. That particular section was removed, though there is possibly more to be concerned about. MER-C 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 13:

  • Shake Hands Forever (history · last edit · rewrite) from []. I'm really not skilled enough to know who added this and when so I can't inform the original editor. I was (very nicely) requested to stop reporting copyvios until I learnt how to do this and so far I have. But... well... that seems weird to me. Trey Maturin (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. As Trey Maturin has said, the editor wasn't notified; but he/she has been indeffed since 2012, so I don't think that matters. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This editor, Barbara Osgood, may need looking at more carefully. She has text-copyvio warnings going back to 2008 (from Moonriddengirl) and 2011 (from Shirt58), and appears to have copied publisher's blurbs (or descriptions from Amazon or somewhere) as plot summaries in several articles, including the one above and The Killing Doll, partly from the book itself. I'm having some trouble seeing whether there's enough to justify a CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 20:

Looks as if there may be around 234 articles to be checked, Doc James. If you've already identified about five instances of infringement, the next step could be a WP:CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User says they will rewrit [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 21:

  • To complicate things, the official listings are now licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See e.g. [4]. The tentative listings do not have this license. MER-C 03:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

6 July 2018

According to the Wayback Machine, the source content predates the creation of the article. I couldn't find this earlier because the URL changed. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others, no remaining infringement. I've done a run through the other contributions of this editor, some of it in the footsteps of Harizotoh9 – see, e.g., Barbara Smith Conrad, listed under today's date. However, I'd appreciate it if someone else would take a quick look too in case I /we have missed something; Crow, might you have time for that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, this is a fairly broad set of parameters to start from – could you be a bit more specific? I looked at what you removed from In Through the Out Door, which as far as I can see consisted only of properly-quoted material (which I agree was not the subject of any discussion in the text, was probably excessive by our non-free content guidelines and certainly didn't improve the readability of the page, but was not a copyvio as such). The Blame tool shows that at least some of that material was added by Edelmand with this edit in April 2009; the same editor seems to have added quite a number of other quotations to other Led Zeppelin pages, and appears still to be active. Could discussion of those quotations with that editor be a way forward? But if you've come across any copying (as opposed to quoting) from copyright sources, please give some examples here. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers It's certainly not presented as one by clearly attributing the source and appearing as a quotation, but like you say, it's excessive. Since this report, I kick-started Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin to address this (and get some GAs out of it) and have addressed a bunch of close paraphrasing and excessive quotations, as has Ojorojo. I'm just beavering my way through the relevant articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that's not quite true. In this diff, the paragraph on the left (from "After preparing the material" to "a conventional studio") is a complete word-for-word lift from Dave Lewis' book. It's just not obvious because the source is offline. I think Edelmand needs to get into this discussion right now and explain himself before he runs the risk of being blocked for systematic copyright violations all over the place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: There is some close paraphrasing. For example, "Black Dog" included "In live performances, John Bonham eliminated the 5/4 variation so that Plant could perform his a cappella vocal interludes and then have the instruments return together synchronised", while the ref states "In live performance, Bonham eliminated the 5/4 variation so that Plant could perform his a capella vocal interludes and then have the instruments return together, properly synchronized". It was added by a since blocked sock puppet.[6] I think these type of edits need to be reviewed for copyvios. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Do you have a brick wall I can bang my head against? The problem is, since the plagiarism is predominantly in offline sources, it makes it a very slow and difficult activity to just gauge the size of how bad this problem is. However, it does seem to be widespread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Would it be OK to remove material added by blocked users that cannot be easily verified with online sources? It might speed up the process (and save my wall!). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Given we're uncovering blatant copyvios that have sat unaddressed for ten years, I would say "absolutely". If you get reverted, we'll revisit things then. I will get around to properly citing the album articles, but I tend to work at a glacial pace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, it seems that I had underestimated the seriousness of this – sorry about that! Ritchie333, Ojorojo, can you clarify: was all the copyvio you've found added by the same user? Could you give a handful of examples (four or five, say)? If so, I think the next step should be a WP:CCI, where all the user's contribs can be clearly listed and systematically reviewed. With almost 40000 edits to nearly 27000 pages, I don't think any other approach has any chance of success (not that I have any hope of the CCI backlog suddenly getting cleared either). Ritchie, could you handle that? Otherwise, if you give me a few examples of the problem, I can make the request and ask someone else to open it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The one I flagged above was added by a very prolific sockpuppeteer, with only a fraction of accounts identified. Good luck to whomever wishes to pursue this. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I ran this by Fram a week or so ago, and I think there's a general consensus we've got to file a CCI on at least the two editors identified here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: there's a rewrite of this, but it seems to have enough problems that it may be unusable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Temp page deleted — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Space fountain (history · last edit · rewrite) from [7] Substantial portions of this article are copied or closely paraphrased from the source (which is the text of a 1995 book), dating back to the original article. –dlthewave 22:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

8 October 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Replaced with clean. I always worry that stuff like this won't come back any time soon in a form we can keep. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

9 October 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. (tJosve05a (c) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The section 'Rules' was apparently copied to en.wikipedia from simple.wikipedia in 2009. It seems likely that copyrighted material was added to simple with this edit by an anonymous user back in 2005. Earwig's detector says copying is unlikely from ogden.basic-english, but it looks pretty similar to my human eye (e.g. Wikipedia: 'Make combined words (compounds) from two nouns (for example "milkman") or a noun and a directive ("sundown").' Ogden.basic: 'Compound words may be combined from two nouns (milkman) or a noun and a directive (sundown).') Also, since that site splits its content over many sub-pages, it's possible that the Wikipedia article contains little snippets from those various pages. Cnilep (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Please go forward with your proposal Talk:Basic_English/Temp. It's a wiki. Yug (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

11 October 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

16 October 2018

  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

21 October 2018

I have read the copyvio report and it appears to have marked such things as the names of organisations and a one or two direct quotes from legal judjements. I am far from convinced that there is any actual copyvio here. Can an Admin please undo this? - Nick Thorne talk 00:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Nick Thorne, as it happens I am an admin. There's little doubt about the copyvio – please see, for example, this useful tool. Unless someone rewrites the content, the page is likely to be reduced to a fairly brief version which may also be quite out-of-date. Might you be interested in doing something about that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I have already seen that and that is the reason why I do not accept this as a copyvio. Multiple instances of calling the same organisation by the same name are not copyvios. What do you expect to call ABC Corp, XYZ Corp? This is not a valid case of copyright violation. These automated tools are all very fine but you have to actually read what they say before you simply assume because two documents call the same thing by the same name that it is a violation. There are only so many ways you can present factual information. - Nick Thorne talk 03:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, Nick Thorne, you do indeed have to actually read the results the tool gives. A block of text such as "... underwriting books or papers, or often just paying universities to release professors from some teaching responsibilities so that they can ponder intelligent design. Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy", present both in the New York Times article and in revision 24506143 of our page, is not just the name of an organisation, it's a copyvio, plain and simple. It was added to the article in 2005, and – with minor alterations – is still there today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Nick Thorne and Justlettersandnumbers, I am trying to figure this out. The copyrighted text is in a version of the article from 2005, but it's not there in the article--in any form--today. So I'm confused why the copyright tag is on the article and how we can resolve this. Marquardtika (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please help me check whether the copyright laws are now satisfied relating to the article: Tokai Park? We followed wikipedia's instructions: "If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia. Click "Show" to see how."
Thanks in advance, Arebelo (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

31 October 2018

2 November 2018

  • This material first appeared on [11] between 12 May 2017 and 5 May 2017, when it was already in the article; it appears this content was added to these sites following Sharma's appointment as IIM-Rohtak Director in February 2017. Other sites containing this material tell a similar story; [12] has archives dating from 2017 and [13] has archives dating from late 2016.
Taking a look at the original version of this article from 2008, it appears that Sharma has used material very close to this when describing himself in this 2018 publication. It is possible that Sharma has been using this (fairly promotional) material in his bios for a number of years, and it may be that he was involved in some changes to Dheeraj Sharma (professor) (many of the IPs who have contributed to this page are assigned to the Indian Institute Of Management; Sharma is director of their Rohtak division), although I am unable to find any archives predating the addition of material to Wikipedia (for every version of the article I checked).
I will leave this open in case anyone can find something I may have missed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have place a rewrite, [], ready for review by a administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. Please let me know if you have any questions.

(Ptarry (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC))

15 November 2018

19 November 2018

27 November 2018

1 December 2018

2 December 2018

9 December 2018

13 December 2018

21 December 2018

22 December 2018

25 December 2018

Comment – I can't speak for the first URL, but the second URL is a page where the sentences were taken from (and credited to) Wikipedia, so not a copyright violation. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

26 December 2018

27 December 2018

28 December 2018

31 December 2018

1 January 2019

6 January 2019

7 January 2019

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Issue resolved. Content is now released under a compatible license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

10 January 2019

New listings

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

Older than 5 days

13 January 2019

  • Berkhamsted child rape network (history · last edit · rewrite) from [] and other cited sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have just noticed that you slipped in the text "and other cited sources" after the link to the Hertfordshire Constabulary press release, in such a way that it was barely noticeable. I did not notice that you added it until now. You did this without listing the other sources you were referring to which was most unhelpful. Please provide a comprehensive list of every source with which an issue will need to be resolved before the article can be restored. This small courtesy when you listed the article would have taken you very little time.
    • Most of the highlighted phrases in the Copyvio report are the names of criminal offences which are listed on the UK government website and reusable under the Open Government Licence v3.0. For example Simon Wintle's two crimes are both in the title of Section 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (except that "engaging" is instead "conspiracy to engage" in the second crime, which should not matter). Does the Open Government Licence v3.0 allow me to include these names of criminal offences in my article if I attribute their webpages in my article's Talk page?
    • Please provide me with a Copyvio report which does not treat criminal offences named in the Hertfordshire Constabulary press release as a copyright violation. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have rewritten the article. The copyright violation is resolved now. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft:Ives - Henry murders (history · last edit · rewrite) from [] []. Some has been removed, but there's more. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 14

Recent listings

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 15

16 January 2019

17 January 2019

  • Radisson Hotel Group (history · last edit · rewrite) from [18]. The article, which to be move back to proper and previous title Rezidor Hotel Group, had a copyright problem and COI problem. I rescued the article content from version Special:Permalink/379883756 (from year 2010), as the newer version of the article are in more COI promotional tone and unsourced and should belong to another to be created article Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson Hotel Group), a new hotel group after the merge of Carlson and Rezidor. However, after inspecting the ref, it seem the old content had copyvio problem as Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Despite the live version of the citation was dated 2011 as The Rezidor Hotel Group fact sheet 2011, it seem wikipedia editers are copy the content from the previous version of the factsheet, instead of other way around as circular referencing. So, the article now need rev deletion, from the date of the material was added, and until the date when the material was wiped by new COI content, and again rev dev is needed for my edit today by c&p content from page archive. Matthew hk (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit was added by The Rezidor Hotel Group Special:Diff/191110929 (from year 2008), as the fact sheet use the same tone as the content of wikipedia, it seem c&p of internal material and then the internal material became a publicly available fact sheet. Matthew hk (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
And inspecting more edit, this two reverts Special:Diff/176303259 and Special:Diff/176303658 (from 2007) seems indicate the article had more copvio problem, but did not have revdel. The citation that mentioned in the edit summary by the initial clean-up performer, was located here []. Matthew hk (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

18 January 2019

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 19 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 20


Wikipedia's current date is 20 January 2019. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 January 20. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.