Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom of information requests[edit]

I noticed several good faith edits by user:IndependentSchoolsMonitor which include information from, and link to, an emailed UK Freedom of Information report.[1] The articles and edits are Ardingly College [2], Farnborough Hill [3], Millfield [4], Dauntsey's School [5], The Oratory School [6], and Sherfield School [7]. The FOI report contain the following copyright notice:

The information supplied to you continues to be protected by copyright. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including for private study and non-commercial research, and for any other purpose authorised by an exception in current copyright law. Documents (except photographs) can be also used in the UK without requiring permission for the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example commercial publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder.

Is this copyright compatible with this use on Wikipedia? Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Meters (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not compatible, since it doesn't allow commercial re-use. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Non-commercial licenses. DanCherek (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except it is being used as a reference, nobody is proposing to upload the document. We use copyrighted materials and links to them as references all the time. Nthep (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the link that has me concerned. It's the fact the information is in a personal response to a freedom of information request. The information is allowed to be used for the requestor's "own purposes", which include "private study and non-commercial research" and unspecified exemptions to copyright law. So, can this information be used on Wikipedia, where anyone can use it, including for commercial purposes? Meters (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright does not cover facts, just the creative part of a work. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, where it says Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, concur with Nthep and StarryGrandma. DanCherek (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine copyright-wise, but I'd be shocked if it were WP:DUE without secondary coverage. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing date[edit]

Why is Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 January 26 not showing on this page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a 26 thing? Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 February 26 is gone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???[edit]


Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talkcontribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)

@HridoyKundu: The use of non-free images such as the Bangladesh Football Federation logo must comply with policy. The use of this logo for identification on the article about the federation is acceptable, but uses on team articles which are considered child entities of the federation are not. See Non-free Content examples of unacceptable image use, and specifically item 17 which states that the use of the parent entitiy's logo is not acceptable for use as identification in the child entity's article. In this case, the child entities are the men's and women's national squads. As for the usage on the Bangladesh wiki, each wiki has its own policies. I do not know if the usage on that wiki complies with their policies or not, but that is irrelevant with respect to its usage here on the English wiki, the use in articles aside from the federation article does not comply with non-free content policy. For ffuture refeences, this type of question would be btter posted at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using? Aren't they
violating copyrights?
My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams.
Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same thing is being discussed at WP:MCQ#Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???. So, it's probably best to keep all relevant discussion there to avoid redundancy and confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despair not :)[edit]

Wizardman (and MER-C and Justlettersandnumbers), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP. I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days. At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic. Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this, SandyGeorgia, I know how mind-numbing CCI can be (and just don't know how Wizardman manages to keep at it so tirelessly!). Just a thought: as I understand it, if a CCI subject was not the first editor of a page (i.e., it was created by someone else), then any editor in good standing is completely free to revert to the last revision before the first edit by the CCI editor. There's no need need to blank or list it, just revert, stick a {{cclean}} on the talk-page, and request revdel if that seems appropriate. Anyway, thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is also the understanding I have been working under, and I have only been sending to WP:CP those that were a) created by DC, and b) almost all DC content still. So I do hope I have by now listed all of those, so that as you work through the next six days, we should be mostly done with that side of things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second JLAN's thanks emphatically. What I do is many times easier than the tedium of cleaning it up via ordinary editing - it's just my time was short last week. MER-C 20:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me, was actually just about to ask what the ETA was (I've found some more foundational cv I wanted to send here to be safe but I've been holding off to avoid blowing this up too much). Thanks for all the help, making that significant a dent in what would've otherwise been a painful CCI to sift through makes things so much easier going forward. Honestly I'm just thankful that people are generally ok with just scrapping the edits of the worst offenders, if we actually had to manually check every single ref on some of these I wouldn't even bother trying. Wizardman 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, there are still boatloads of pages to be checked and still many more diffs to be processed; I fear the easiest work (identifying those created by DC that could be deleted) is done, and the hard part is ahead on the CCI, but at least we should be off of this page for now, if that makes it feel less overwhelming. Now it's back to page by page, diff by diff, and reverting to the last version before DC may be the best option for many. Thanks to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Faraday[edit]

Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the passage in question. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can not login to CopyPatrol[edit]

I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fine to me. Hut 8.5 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still does not work for me. When I press the login button the page gets reloaded but I am still not logged in. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Unable to login to tools?. I still cannot log in. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, trying several times worked indeed for me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Caldwell (Michigan representative)[edit]

Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and

How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the page was started at John Caldwell (Michigan state representative) (or at least that's where the page has ended up) and the history merge missed some of the edits. The first version was by Doug Coldwell. There isn't any meaningful deleted history, John Caldwell (Michigan representative) has one deleted edit and it's a redirect. I've checked Doug Coldwell's deleted edits, I can only see two on any variation of this title, one's a redirect and the other's a page move. Hut 8.5 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]