Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

I want to 47.185.193.11 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sentence change?

I was wandering if changing the following sentence is appropriate? 'Administrators may at their discretion unilaterally revise or delete copyrighted content'.
Currently reads as: 'Administrators may at their discretion unilaterally revision delete copyrighted content'. Such-change47 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Any copyrighted content should be deleted per WP:RD1. Whether this is a full-page deletion, or just a few diffs from before the text was altered to avoid the copyright issue. Either way, the copyrighted content itself is RD'd and does not require discussion beforehand; it's not the act of revising that admins are "allowed" to do unilaterally, it's the act of hiding the text via RD1. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Can other language Wikipedias have different views of copyright violations?

I ask because at Meta:Requests for comment/Use of Spam blacklist for links to copyright violations an editor has said that "pan-wiki different judgements of copyvios make this proposal not really fair for every wikis, copyvios considered by a wiki can be however allowed by another wiki." If show, it's a shame. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary of one source?

An unauthorized summary of a work (under US copyright law, a "condensation" [1]) is a copyright violation, because the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to derivative works, and a summary of their work is a derivative work. That's why CliffsNotes gets licenses from copyright holders.

Anyone disagree with this statement and if so, why?

The implication for us is that if a Wikipedia article summarizes only one source, it's a copyvio. (It can't be fair use because WP:OR prevents us from adding any unique critical commentary.) Levivich 15:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That would technically make all plot summaries a copyright violation... which of course is not true. A very limited summary of a source is not a copyright violation, or at least falls within fair use allowances. --Masem (t) 19:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not all plot summaries; if an article was only a plot summary, with nothing else; if it only had one source (the work of fiction itself)... then yes, I think it'd be a copyvio. Don't you? Levivich 19:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

For sources describing facts, only a specific expression can be copyrighted, and not the underlying facts. Thus someone can learn about the facts from a source, and then write their own independent account of those facts.

For fictional creative works, under United States copyright law, I believe the key issue is if the Wikipedia article is a transformative use. If the new work's purpose is to "supersede the use of the original work", then it's a copyright violation (Folsom v. Marsh). From a Harvard Law Review article by Judge Leval, which was cited in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., "...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society." isaacl (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Abridging or condensing a work doesn't make the resulting work "a copyright violation". It makes it a Derivative work.

Note, too, that editors shouldn't be "condensing" a work (except perhaps for plot summaries). If the source question is Joe Film's autobiography, then writing something like "Joe Film was born in California" or "Joe Film wrote a book about his childhood and career", that is not actually a "condensation" of Joe Film's book. A condensation uses the same words, not merely the same facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Derivative work#United States: the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights ... to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. Not every unauthorized derivative work is a copyvio; some are fair use, etc., but even if a Wikipedia article with one source were a fair use derivative work, can we relicense it CC-BY-SA, if the entire article, rather than a portion of it, were fair use? Good point about restating the same facts, though. Trying to wrap my head around the notion that although Wikipedia articles summarize sources, an article that has one source is not necessarily a summary of that one source. Levivich 00:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Think about a time when someone told you about an event, and then you told someone else about it. Did you derive your words from the first person, or did you create your own original description based on the facts that you heard? In a similar manner, you could write an Wikipedia article that simply copies words from a source, or you can write a new passage that just draws upon the facts you learned from that source. isaacl (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding licensing fair use derivative works, they have an independent copyright from the original work, and so can be licensed as per the desires of the copyright owner of the derivative work. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that abridging or condensing a work is "a copyright violation"; I quoted the specific passage regarding what can cause a problem with copyright. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. But Levivich did, in his first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, since your response was indented as a response to me, I thought your quote was from my comment. isaacl (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR prohibits the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings. Levivich 00:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If you read the article I linked to on transformative use, there's text on how Google's search capability was ruled by the courts as a transformative use. New uses of existing material can be created without adding original information. An encyclopedia article can present information differently than in the original source, and thus in that presentation aid in new understanding. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "new aesthetics" means, so I can't tell whether I agree with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment. To put it a different way, the organization of an encyclopedia article and the selection of content to include can provide additional value to readers, which I feel qualifies as transformative. If it's just a detailed scene-by-scene breakdown of a movie, with no other content, for example, then I think it may not be transformative. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm confused about what @Levivich wrote: "WP:OR prohibits the creation of new information, new aesthetics..." What's a new aesthetic, and how would a Wikipedia editor create one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That was a reference to the language from the quote in Isaac's comment above. (I don't know what a new aesthetic is either.) Levivich 15:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that new aesthetics has anything to do with NOR. I think that Barack Obama "Hope" poster is an example of new aesthetics. Editors can't really do that, and even if they could do that with text, it wouldn't be a violation of NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors can really do that, thankfully NOR stops them from adding these new aesthetics to articles. Levivich 22:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Being able to make a single image is not really the same thing as changing the aesthetics of a whole encyclopedia article. For this "new aesthetics" clause to apply, I believe it has to be changed from something that is still protected by copyrighted. Both of the two images used to make that disputed image are in the public domain. This might involve turning a copyrighted book into a video, or "copying" a famous artwork in a different style (perhaps you turn one of Mozart's sonatas into a rock and roll piece). But I should add that Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith is still pending, so the rules might change.

Merely taking facts out of a book and writing entirely in your own words is not a derivative work. Facts cannot be copyrighted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I used the Wikipedia Library to access the Leval publication and didn't find any info based on searching for "aesthetic" (I did not read the paper though so do not know if more can be inferred from it). My layperson's interpretation is that design can also provide a new viewpoint for the reader. The examples that come immediately to mind are presenting data within tables, infographics, and timelines. Timelines can be graphical (such as E Street Band § Timeline) or a text list that orders information drawn from another sources chronologically. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Database of authors and publishers who approved quotes on Wikipedia?

Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?

== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia ==

If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.

All the best, Adam Hochschild

May1787 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

May1787, you might want to see WP:DONATETEXT. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac cu blocked as an LTA. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks man, and you taught me the {{u thing to. This is what I was envisioning:

Author and publishers permission to use copyrighted data

Author or publisher	Email address	Email content	Permission date
Adam Hochschild	adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net	If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia. All the best, Adam Hochschild	October 7 2022
Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example

May1787 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What percentage of similarity in Earwig or similar means copyvio?

I know it's a blurry line, but I am curious, what is the rule of thumb to call "foul"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think if you ask a dozen admins you'll get a dozen different answers. It's not just the percentage that matters, but how much (and more importantly what) is being matched. I've had 90% matches that were just matching to a list (the prose was fine) and I've had 50% matches that I G12'd because the non-offending text was something like a long AFC comment that wasn't part of the text of the draft (or a long list of items).

In other words, while the above examples are clearly outliers, I do not go only on percentage (and if anything, rarely notice anything other than the colour of the value), and so while I would make a rough statement that 80+ is likely to be deletable, I wouldn't go only on the number itself. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Thanks, that's very reasonable. This might be worth reformulating a bit and stating explicitly in the page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft space articles

Curious about whether the copyvio concerns should / are extended to articles in the Draft space. Such articles are not indexed by search engines and are explicitly not part of the encyclopedia in their draft form. CERTAINLY should flag up content in Draft articles that are copyvio; I'm just wondering about removing that content. I'm thinking about a good faith assumption that the copyvio is a holder for content revision that would not be a copyvio. Thoughts? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ceyockey I remove copyvios I find in draft space. The problem is that copyvio content in the draft space can be moved to the article space at really any time, so it's still an issue. While some editors will paste in content for various good faith reasons, at the end of the day it's still a copyvio. If they absolutely need to, they can use an offsite google doc or something. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

DC GAR/CCI

The mass messages for the Doug Coldwell Good article/CCI assessment will be going out later today. Please speak up (on the talk page there) if anything in that writeup, or any of the other linked messages at WP:DCGAR, needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Status of linking to works on the Internet Archive (and Google Books and HathiTrust)?

Moved from Special:PermaLink/1164172575#Status of linking to works on the Internet Archive (and Google Books and HathiTrust)?

@Czar, Xaosflux, WOSlinker, Hut 8.5, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Primefac, David Eppstein, Sloan80, Vchimpanzee, Sdkb, Frostly, Snowmanonahoe, Izno, TJRC, and PhotographyEdits: Greetings and felicitations. Regarding WP:ELNEVER, and in particular Hachette v. Internet Archive, where does the line currently stand, especially regarding references? Google Books has a magazine article I'd like to link to for a citation, and the Internet Archive has a 1930s book I'd like to submit for consideration as a reference template. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That discussion would be better placed on WT:EL, where in fact there may already have been discussion also (I don't know if there has been). It isn't pertinent to this page. Izno (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I apologize, and will do that. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Izno, if I'm understanding the question correctly, it is actually relevant here. ELNEVER prohibits linking to copyright violations, and the question is whether the Internet Archive links are copyvios per the case. I would say no — the case alleged that the National Emergency Library was a copyvio, but the Internet Archive has returned to normal controlled digital lending, from what I understand.

There's some risk that the judgement from the case will be so bad it'll bankrupt the archive, threatening the Wayback Machine, but that'll be a (really nasty) bridge to cross if it comes to that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This page is about the copyrights of users of Wikipedia, not the copyrights of anyone anywhere else. That is why it is offtopic here. Izno (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it to a more appropriate location. Primefac (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My 2c (with no special expertise in copyright law):

As far as I know the Hachette case is only about the Internet Archive's "virtual library" program in which works that they acknowledged were in-copyright were distributed under controls that the court determined were inadequate. My impression is that the Internet Archive, Google, and Hathitrust are all more careful in the works that they release freely, not under these controls, and that such freely-released works can generally be assumed to be out of copyright. I don't think there is a significant ELNEVER risk in links to those freely-released works.

Occasionally one encounters works on the Internet Archive or elsewhere that are freely-released but appear to be mistakenly released and still under copyright, but not yet subject to a takedown request, just as one occasionally encounters not-yet-suppressed copyvio in Wikipedia articles. I think that if you suspect that to be the case, you shouldn't link to it.

I was never much of a fan of linking to "virtual library" works on the Internet Archive and after Hachette that may be a moot point as these works should become or maybe already are unavailable. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The Hachette decision affects all books made available through the Internet Archive and still under copyright, that is, almost all books available from the Internet Archive published since 1928. Both parties are still negotiating and the Internet Archive has said it will appeal, so nothing has changed regarding the availability of any of these works. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. In addition, the Hachette case only concerns the method of viewing copyright books, in particular controlled digital lending (CDL), which allows one to view the entire book. If the method of access is limited preview, like how Google Books works, the Hachette case does not concern that. In fact the judgement specifically says such method of access is permissible (because Google already established it is legal). I would hazard a guess most Wikipedia editors are not relying on CDL anyway, it's for people who want to read/browse an entire book cover to cover. When verifying citations we only need to open to a page or two, which can be done without CDL. Here is an example of accessing a book without CDL, using limited preview:[2] .. this is typically how we do it on Wikipedia, giving a page number ("/page/100") and opening directly to that page for verification of a fact. -- GreenC 12:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@DocWatson42 (as I was pinged) - don't let this discussion prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. You say Google Books has a copy of a magazine that you want to reference -- a library may have a copy of that magazine, or it could be in your own collection. Cite the magazine itself, cite the book itself, you don't cite the library. So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books (from WP:SAYWHERE). — xaosflux ^Talk 08:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I was confused by our previous conversation and wanted clarification, especially since, as I mention above, I'd like to create a reference template similar to Template:Accents of English using a book in the Internet Archive. Only, now that I think of it, with likely a broader application—potentially used in more articles—and thus I wanted to check before undertook the project. —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Tagging in Nardog. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why I was pinged. My question was about the correct terminology to use for copyright on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I share GreenC's above read. The Google Books case reinforced that it's fair use to link to a digitized version as reference. The Internet Archive case concerns whether the whole work/book is made accessible. czar 03:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Czar: So linking to online facsimiles of books and articles, such as on the Internet Archive and Google Books, is fine? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, fine, for your purposes. Every day, across all wiki projects, there are over 10,000 new links to Google Books and Internet Archive, added by thousands of users. There are millions of such links added over the past 22+ years. The court case is specialized for certain scenarios, it is unlikely to impact your work on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 05:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Okay—thank you. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: You were, broadly speaking, a recent editor here, all of whom I pinged since I had not received a response. —DocWatson42 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I would still like an answer to my question since the Teahouse response I read indicates there is a significant issue with the terminology, which might require rewording some guidelines and rules.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably should link to that question, since I can't find it, and if I can't, someone else also might not be able to. (I found nothing on these pages ("Wikipedia:Copyright violations" and its talk), and three edits on the Wikipedia:Copyrights talk page.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to look here again, and I wasn't pinged. This is the question but this is what I linked to where someone made clear there is a difference between "Under copyright" and "Copyrighted", and the distinction should probably be made in any guidelines or rules.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay—thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@DocWatson42:— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, my first draft example of the custom citation template is:

{{Cite book |last1=Maerz |first1=A. |last2=Paul |first2=M. Rhea |year=1930 |chapter=Lavender, Lavender Blue, Grey |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofcolo0000aloy/page/162/mode/2up |title=A Dictionary of Color |url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofcolo0000aloy/ |url-access=registration |edition=1st |location=New York |publisher=McGraw-Hill Book Company |oclc=251332334}}

which yields:

Maerz, A.; Paul, M. Rhea (1930). "Lavender, Lavender Blue, Grey". A Dictionary of Color (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. p. 163. OCLC 251332334.

Fields that would need to be added:

• page no. with the optional label "(color sample of ___)", including an automatically generated link to the appropriate page in the Internet Archive copy of the book
• "plate [no. ]" (optional)
• "color sample [no.]" (optional)

Is linking to the IA copy of the book kosher in this case, both the link to the whole book, and the links to the text pages and the plates? —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's template generated you can always make changes later as needed. I'm of the opinion that it's overkill to link to the book + chapter + page number. Really all you need is a link to the page number IMO. Or possibly the chapter + page number. Or you could not link the page number, then make the chapter URL a link to a page number (in this case page 163). -- GreenC 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy text from 1906 book at project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg has the eBook Ancient and Modern Ships (1906) by George Holmes. A brief synopsis of Gutenberg's license is at the very top, with a full version at the end of the file, and also on this page. Some questions:

• can I copy word-for-word from the text, if it suits the WP article I'm developing?
• I assume there's no fair-use length limit, as this is no longer under copyright. (for this development, copying would likely be on the order of, "a paragraph here, and a paragraph there", but I'd also like to know for future reference if there's any limit at all.)
• It doesn't seem like copy attribution in the edit summary is required, but is it advisable to include a link to the source anyway? I'd be inclined to do so, unless there's preference not to.

I have a related question at Commons: c:COM:HD#Images at proj Gutenberg "Ancient and Modern Ships". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's 100% Public Domain, which Gutenberg is, you can do anything. It's ethical to attribute somewhere somehow but not required. Usually when a large amount of PD text is imported into an article the References section will indicate that some portion of the article is based on an external source. It's also typically a good idea to modify the text for modern readers, and to fact check everything. -- GreenC 03:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Source-attribution}} is good for indicating the text is in the public domain. Primefac (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Addressing Wikipedia references with broken links or copyright violations to my web site

I publish behavenet.com. I have discovered numerous references to pages on my site archived in violation of copyright. Links to "wayback" are now broken since I made them remove all copies of my content, but there are still references to pages at archive.ph, et al. I have demanded they also remove my content. I am willing to update the wikipedia references to current live URLs at behavenet.com. I would be grateful for assistance in properly formatting such updates. Thanks B Edwards, MD President Behavenet, LLC Plyingfig (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Plyingfig, are you referring to links or actual copied text? Primefac (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the links to behavenet content that appear in the references. Example from edit view: "Tourette's may be diagnosed when the other diagnostic criteria are met and symptoms cannot be attributed to another general medical condition."

Current live pages:

https://www.behavenet.com/diagnostic-criteria-30723-tourettes-disorder

https://www.behavenet.com/tourettes-disorder

Thanks

BE Plyingfig (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Linking to external media is not a copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Can we add translations to this page?

Can we add a brief note on this page to cover translations and link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation? I have seen multiple people mistakenly translate content without realizing they were creating a derivative work? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Study on copyright violations Smallick84 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)