Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:CP

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 30 days

Solidifying the request review timeframe[edit]

It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".

Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We get around to it when we get around to it, except for presumptive deletion which is 7 days. See WT:Copyright problems/Archive 23#5 day minimum. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Archive 22: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 22#5 day minimum. Boud (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Any chance of cleaning up Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024‎ to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Next time, simply removing the paragraph and using an RD1 request may be more efficient. Thanks for raising it for attention. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba: thanks! Next time I'll use {{Copyvio-revdel}} if in my judgment the case is simple enough. From a random sampling of a few of Category:Requested RD1 redactions, it looks like these get handled quickly - all the ones I checked are dated today. This would also reduce the number of versions of a given article that are revdel'd. Boud (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 20+ year old copyvios[edit]

Resolved

– I have found 48 articles created more than 20 years ago that each contain content that exactly matches a website that was created a couple years later (see User:Donald Albury/Desk articles). The website content may have originally been in a printed catalog before being uploaded. If the content in the WP articles is copyvio, it will mean revdeling 20+ years of later edits. I figured I needed a sanity check on this. Donald Albury 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People also copy from us. If the source appeared later it's likely they copied/mirrored us. Secretlondon (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The archived copy of the putative source literally says "WIKIPEDIA" at the bottom. I'd take that as fairly strong evidence that they copied from us. rbrwr ^± 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should came back to this sooner. I had concluded last night that the WP articles came first. Donald Albury 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not appearing on the main page?[edit]

Draft:Qefweqf (history · last edit · [[Talk:Draft:Qefweqf/Temp|rewrite]]) from [1]. I wasn't able to find their license. Both articles are clearly promotional. I see I've broken the syntax somehow, sorry. Why isn't there a template? Doug Weller talk 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also [2] Doug Weller talk 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are large quotes from studies fair use?[edit]

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Bernese_Mountain_Dog&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig just for ease of viewing. Do these particular quotes qualify as fair use or lean into copyright concerns? I'm unsure but leaning towards them being problematic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{u| Traumnovelle}} No this far beyond OK and I would reject this anywhere it showed up—AfC, NPP, DYK etc. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been removed, should I request revdel? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would. (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying an entire sentence from a source without attribution or quotation marks[edit]

Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software&oldid=prev&diff=1230471608 ok? I thought the limit was more like 3 words before you have to use quotation marks. (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much can an article match a public domain source?[edit]

I came across the article Autobiographic Sketches tonight, and noticed that the language seemed a bit unusual/formal ("reminiscent articles"), which made me suspect potential machine translation or copyright violation.

The sole reference on the article is the entry on the book from the 1920 Encyclopedia Americana, which is in the public domain. If you look at the entry in wikisource (linked from the article), you can see that large chunks of it are repeated verbatim in the article (and have been since the very first version of the article). I am aware that we can "incorporate text" from a public domain source, but I hadn't seen an article before that hews so closely to the source. It seems like this is probably okay with the acknowledgement, but I do not have much experience with the public domain, so I figured I'd check here to see if this is okay or if the content needs to be changed.

Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CleancutkidPretty much as much as you like, as long as its attributed! In the early days of Wikipedia, it was really common for people to create articles by copying from old, out of copyright editions of various encyclopedias. This has fallen out of fashion as of late, since a lot of public domain text isn't suitable for inclusion to Wikipedia on non-copyright grounds. (Typically it presents original research in Wikivoice, doesn't maintain neutrality, or is simply too outdated to be of any use. If dealing with a non-European/American topic, sometimes they're overtly racist). But if something is public domain, that means it cannot be protected by copyright laws anymore and can freely be uploaded to Wikisource, Commons, or even Wikipedia. I hope that's an okay answer? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]