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

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by this clear warning, "© Vernacular Architecture Group 2021 These files may be copied for personal use, but should not be published or further distributed without written permission from the Vernacular Architecture Group."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]

Indeed, that is quite compelling. Thanks. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 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]

Sure, no problem. Feel free to ping me on the article's talk page or drop a note on my user talk page when you're ready for me to RD. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian and Crazycomputers: Thanks to you both for volunteering to take up your respective rolls in improving that article! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]