Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing 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 listing 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 the infringing text 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)
  • Here is a list of contributions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2017 (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:

  • List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines (history · last edit · rewrite) from and other whc.unesco sites. I cut out a bunch of text in the previous edit, but some of it might be okay, and conversely there may be some copyrighted content remaining in the article. Would appreciate more eyes on this one as there is a lot of text. /wiae /tlk 12:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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

  • Coalburn (history · last edit · rewrite) from Potential backwards copy, as the content was added in 2006. According to [5], the potential source was last modified in 2008. This potential copyright violation was reported in ticket:2018070510006528 --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • Led Zeppelin-related articles, generally, including (not yet addressed) Presence (album), Robert Plant, Led Zeppelin III and probably more I haven't even found yet. Many such articles have large amounts of quotations and close paraphrasing on them which (in my personal opinion) makes the article very hard to read and skirt the line into becoming borderline copyvios. I've already cleaned up In Through the Out Door, Stairway to Heaven, Houses of the Holy and Physical Graffiti. I'm not naming specific editors because a) I don't know who put the close paraphrasing in and b) my priority is finding and fixing the content, not punishing whoever put it in (presumably in good faith) in the first place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 6 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)
  • 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)

7 July 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. Hut 8.5 21:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Purged. Copyright problem removed from history. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. In addition to the tagged passage another large section was copyvio, both were added by the same editor. I've removed all additions by that person. Hut 8.5 21:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Draft:Richard Moya (history · last edit · rewrite) from Foundational. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I came across a forked version of this through NPP and saw no issues of it in earwig. Even after reading source I disagree with Justlettersandnumbers that this is a foundational problem. It seems like proper paraphrasing is used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The early versions of this are very blatant copyvios, clearly just copy/pastes of the sources. There's been some effort to rewrite it, it'll need some work to establish how far the rewrites have gone from the original copyvios. Hut 8.5 21:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
        • And that would be a good deal easier if the various versions of the page had not been moved so many times – by me (mea culpa), IVORK, BrandonXLF, Kvng (twice), RHaworth and Barkeep49 at least – and then all (?) apparently merged into one by Anthony Appleyard. The most recent version seems to be derived from the earlier copyvio versions; it's not clear to me if there is any intervening "clean" revision. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
          • First the version I'm familiar with is still at Richard Moya. I don't know about any merging into Appleyard. I'm obviously missing something here because multiple editors are obviously seeing a copyright issue I don't see. I take copyright seriously both in real life and here (NPP) and so can I get more details on what the problem is? I see extensive paraphrasing of the obituary but it seems to be on what I would consider the clean side of it. If it makes sense to be on my talk page that's fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

25 July 2018

  • Article: History of Korean animation. Source doesn't have a copyright mark but content was copied and pasted a few times interspersed among added text, at least here, here, and here, which I removed and replaced with synthesis of source: Thinker78 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Each of these articles recently had copyright violations and I have removed them already. Diffs can be suppressed. Capitals00 (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

26 July 2018

9 August 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • USA Truck (history · last edit · rewrite) from among others including and Removal of copyvios have resulted in an unusable article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    I'm going to delete this one as I don't think it's salvageable from the history. It's been a mess of marketing text, which may have been copied from elsewhere, since day one. I am not confident the page has had substantial content free of copyvios. MER-C 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Draft:I-Sing World (history · last edit · rewrite) from — Newslinger talk 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

11 August 2018

  • African-American architects (history · last edit · rewrite) This is a complicated one with sections copied from multiple sources. The oldest available version from 2011 already has a copy-paste tag. I'm marking the violations in my Sandbox #3 so that they can be removed from the article in one swoop, but I could use some help checking the remaining sections and figuring out whether the article is salvageable. –dlthewave 16:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

18 August 2018

20 August 2018

I disagree. I think it is clear. The article appeared in October 2016. See this early snapshot, for example: It copies the lead from the Wikipedia article nearly verbatim. For reference, here is the August 2016 WP version:
I also think it was extreme to tar the entire WP article with the copyvio brush. Could you at least participate on the article's talk page, and describe which particular portions are a violation? (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think you all were able to find things I wasn't able to in terms of the timing of who copied what from where. This was the first time I reported a potential copyvio, so I did try to use what seemed to be the right template. I'm pretty convinced it was the other way around; that external sources copied the page and not the other way around. Limetom 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
And also, it seems, from Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

24 August 2018

  • Arab diaspora (history · last edit · rewrite) from numerous urls. User indef blocked for sock puppetry and prolific copyvios. The material was added between 18-21 December 2016. It came from this sandbox page. I started to try to clean it up, and deleted a bunch of material from the Europe and North America sections, but realized it's basically hopeless. The user had a very poor command of English, so you can assume that anything that reads well is a copyvio, which is the majority of it. The material sometimes comes from the citations given, sometimes not. A number of the citations are dead or inaccessible, so I can't check a lot of it. I think it's best to just blank the whole section to be sure. There doesn't seem to have been any significant new non-infringing material added since then. This user is likely to have added copyvios in a number of other articles, though I didn't check them. IamNotU (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Draft:Trollbeads (history · last edit · rewrite) from — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

31 August 2018

  • Bonny Norton (history · last edit · rewrite) from A journal article published in March 2015, co-authored by subject of the Wikipedia article, seems to contain many of the same phrases added to Wikipedia in November 2015. Cnilep (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Justin Schwartz (history · last edit · rewrite) from Foundational. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

1 September 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Apart from what is reported by the copyvio detector, the whole article (apart from the last section) is a very close paraphrase of the linked pdf. Section divisions are made in the same places (except for the added World War II division) and pretty much wherever you look, it is a close paraphrase, eg.:
The article reads:

In Autumn 1990 the works on the construction of the modern installation for ammonium sulphate were started. The new installation launched in 1992 not only increased the quality, but also the product effectiveness as well as the amount of sulphate carried away to sewage. In the same year, the production plant of window profiles made of polyvinylidene was launched, and in the next years - PVC windows. In 1993 the production of liquid carbon dioxide on the basis of CO2 released to the atmosphere from the installation of Methane Decomposing plant V was launched with the use of existing, free production resources for that purpose.
— #Plants_in_Tarnów_upon_the_political_transformation_in_1989

The source:

In autumn of 1990, the construction works of the modern ammonium sulphate installation started. It was designed by the Company’s Design Office at the plant and put to use in November 1992, delivering a product of high quality [80]. The new investment not only improved the quality, but also the effectiveness of the product and the amount of sulphate introduced to waste was reduced [81]. In the same year, the production plant of window profiles from polyvinyl chloride started, and a few years later - the production plant of windows from PVC was activated [82]. In 1993, the production of liquid carbon dioxide based on CO2 emitted from the methane synthesis plant V into the atmosphere began. The available production resources were used for that purpose [83].
— p. 1054

Interestingly, the last section (which appears to be original work) contains 50 references of the total 77 references in the article. — bieχχ (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

3 September 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

6 September 2018

  • Tiffany Abney (history · last edit · rewrite) from Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Greece#History (history · last edit · rewrite) I noticed this on an (unrelated) on-going dispute on the Greece talk page. Large parts of the history section are a word-for-word match from this. I tagged the section for copy-vio, and did some research. The problem is that I entered the Wikipedia version on 18 February 2012 while the first edition of the book was published by Routledge in April 2017. WP:BACKWARDSCOPY? I'm very confused and need guidance on how to proceed. It has been part of the Greece page since 2012 and has since been thoroughly referenced. --Michail (blah) 17:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Some more poking around also found copyright violations matching the words "The Roman Empire in the east, following the fall of the Empire in the West" after which the book preview ends. This wording was first added by a different user, as an amendment to my previous Wikipedia entry, on 20 April 2012. Even more confusion. --Michail (blah) 17:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The exact wording found in the book regarding the Roman Empire in the East was added by a third person in November 2012 and is identical to what the book contains, if we exclude the contents in the parentheses. --Michail (blah) 18:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A further edit by yet another user from 2013 is also found word-for-word in the book. --Michail (blah) 18:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

7 September 2018

  • Source of copied text was (follow the inline citations in the blanked section), sorry missed it above Albeetle (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

11 September 2018

12 September 2018

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 September 2018

Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 September 12: Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This belongs on 13 September but I can't start a new page: Portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan (history · last edit · rewrite) from (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've tried to fix the copyvio and paraphrase appropriately, but please do review and let me know whether that is sufficient. (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Well spotted,, and nicely cleaned up. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 September 14

Recent listings

15 September 2018

16 September 2018

17 September 2018

  • 1950 in baseball (history · last edit · rewrite) from — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 1948 in baseball (history · last edit · rewrite) from — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Road racing (history · last edit · rewrite) from,, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

18 September 2018

  • Cognitive apprenticeship (history · last edit · rewrite) from As noted at the bottom of Cognitive apprenticeship § Overview (permanent link) and on the talk page (permanent link), at least some of the article is excerpted from the doctoral dissertation linked above. Specifically, page 22 for the first paragraph and pages 20–21 for the second and third paragraphs of that section. I notice that the verbatim text has also since been modified slightly, probably due to copy editing from various editors passing through.
    My concern here is about compliance. The article is not compliant with the Manual of Style and that excerpt note in the prose is exemplary of that. That can be cleaned up. Is it legally compliant, though? Or will some major revision deletion be required here?
    The text is sourced from an open access dissertation released into the Digital Commons via Utah State University's institutional repository and the excerpt note specifies both the dissertation title and the author's name (that is how I found the source). The exact copyright license being used here is unclear to me, but if it is anything like CC BY-SA (some Digital Commons repositories require CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing), then the attribution, distribution, and modification conditions may technically be satisfied. The closest information I can find for this article is here, however, in which case someone may need to email them. I am willing to do so if necessary, but I am checking here first. Any input on how to proceed here is appreciated. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    As an addendum, it appears that this copyrighted content was added when the page was created at 00:02, 9 June 2005 (UTC) by (talk · contribs · WHOIS) without attribution. However, this may be because the text precedes the May 2006 publication date of the dissertation, in which case that IP user is very likely the author being "generous" enough to prepublish their work here on Wikipedia—or that text in their dissertation was lifted from an IP user's published original research here. Does this mean this is a case of Wikipedia having it first, thanks to that IP user, in which case copyright concerns do not apply? If so, then how should that be best documented? If it is still somehow a copyright violation, then we might as well delete and recreate the page because otherwise, we may be deleting every single revision in the page history thus far. Were it not for the fact that I cannot find any contact information for the author, I would consider contacting them. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the first addition of this excerpt note was on 27 August 2016, around three months after publication of the dissertation, by Rsedmo (talk · contribs). Four days later, on 31 August 2016, IP user (talk · contribs · WHOIS)—located at Utah State University—clarified the excerpt note by adding the dissertation title. Given the contribution histories of all three users, I suspect they are all the same (or at least the latter IP and Rsedmo) and that Rsedmo is the dissertation author. In fact, Rsedmo confirms as much by stating their identity on their talk page (permanent link). As a note, Tagishsimon's signature in the prior diff was reused by Rsedmo, likely due to their newbieness, though they corrected that two minutes later. Also, the unsigned signature of Tagishsimon at the talk page was mistakenly added by 24fan24; the original unsigned post was added, deleted, and readded by Rsedmo.
    With all this information, I strongly suspect this is a case of the author prepublishing on Wikipedia to promote their original research rather than a copyright violation, though the connection between Rsedmo and is weak and only behavioral (all three edited the Telepresence article, which was topically part of the dissertation's title and content). Given the decade that has passed since then, however, it appears that "cognitive apprenticeship" is a marginally notable concept now, in which case the article may be worth keeping. But how to document this? Again, further input here would be appreciated.
    Since they were tangentially involved by initially noticing something was up over a decade ago, I am pinging Tagishsimon and JamesR. Enjoy the blast from the past. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    Also, since Mailer diablo had, in February 2007, deleted the related article Rsedmo had created on the basis of unambiguous copyright infringement (G12), I will ping them, too. Enjoy your blast from the past, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rock N Roll McDonald's (history · last edit · rewrite) from [12] N.B. I have tried to delete these copyrighted lyrics and been reverted once.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

19 September 2018

  • Leonardo da Vinci (history · last edit · rewrite) from"Lionardo+di+ser+Piero+da+Vinci"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSlqCU1cndAhXGiywKHawwDnQQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q="Lionardo%20di%20ser%20Piero%20da%20Vinci"&f=false. Espoo (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia's current date is 20 September 2018. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 September 20. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Copyright problems"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA