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

How much can an article match a public domain source?

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 (Typically it presents original research in Wikivoice, doesn't maintain neutrality, or is simply too outdated to be of any use.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]

I still do this frequently. I write a lot of articles about 19th-century judicial figures, and there are often contemporaneous public domain biographies of these persons that contain material that requires only a little language tweaking to fit into our modern encyclopedia. Our purpose here is to provide information to our readers, not to engage in an academic exercise in original thinking. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian@BD2412 Thanks, this was quite helpful! I knew that whole public domain sources can be uploaded, but I wasn't 100% sure about articles which are mostly a source but also partially original. Cleancutkid (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adapting table of example words

Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples (the table uses 3 × 4 = 12 examples total), but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense诉 02:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from US government source

Hello, I'd like a second opinion to check whether I ended up in the right place. I was reviewing Draft:ATPIII and found that a large section is copied from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/atglance.pdf. I deleted that section and request revision deletion. Then I realised that the document copied from is by the US government / Department of Health and Human Services, so I have restored it as not copyright-protected in the United States. But I still feel uneasy about it. Any advice appreciated. Thanks Mgp28 (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-notice}} was what I was looking for. DanCherek kindly added it to the article. Mgp28 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query about copyright

I'd be grateful for advice on the possible use of this. I would like to cite it in this new article, Scethrog Tower. However, it is headed by this clear warning, "© Vernacular Architecture Group 2021 These files may be copied for personal use, but should not be published or further distributed without written permission from the Vernacular Architecture Group." I would like to reference it, and then link it as a cite, but am concerned that this may infringe the VAG's warning. I'd be grateful for advice. Obviously, if the advice is that it's not usable, then I will delete the link from this page. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1 I don't see any problem with your proposed use. You're not publishing or further distributing the document, just linking to it. Nthep (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that is most helpful. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication is now required for search engine checks on Earwig's Copyvio Tool

Hello! As of right now, Earwig's Copyvio Tool will now require logging in with your Wikimedia account for search engine checks. This is an attempted solution at trying to curb bot scraping of the site, which rapidly depletes the available quota we have for Google searches. New checks will require you to log in first prior to running. You will also still keep getting "429: Too Many Requests" errors until the quota resets, around midnight Pacific Time, as we've run out of search engine checks for the day. If this broke something for you or if you're having issues in trying to authenticate, please let The Earwig or me know. Thanks! Chlod (say hi!) 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about non-free in periods of uncertainty

Right now, the image at 1990 Plainfield tornado has an unclear attribution and is under a license review, and the hosting party, NWS Chicago, is unsure whether the image falls under public domain. If the image gets deleted, is it fair to use another, non-free image from the site? I know that non-free images can't be used if a free image in its place can illustrate the same content, but how does this apply if nobody knows whether or not free images could exist because of unclear copyright status? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baselios Thomas I

I'm looking into an RD1 request on this article, and the oldest archive I can find is from 2014, which is 8 years after this article was created with the copied content. I'm therefore uncertain whether Wikipedia contains content copied from this site, or if this site copied content from Wikipedia. What's the best way to go about resolving this situation? Do we assume Wikipedia copied the content, or do we leave it alone until more evidence is obtained? --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Comments are copied from the article's talk page] The smoking gun is how the initials of his name are rendered. On the church website and the original version of this article, the initials are rendered as C M (no periods, spaces between initials). By the end of 2007, the article on Wikipedia had swapped in C.M. (periods, no spaces). This suggests that, barring strong evidence to the contrary, the church website came first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a bizarre request, but if we do confirm the copyvio, would you mind holding off revdelling it for a day or so? Modern day/ post removal version was mostly written by an editor called Werldwayd. (As in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd). I'll have a go at trying to clean their additions tomorrow, but it'll be much easier if I have access to the previous revisions. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]