Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Copyright issues)
Jump to: navigation, 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 unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is 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:

  • 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)

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)

Older than 7 days

21 July 2017

  • 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)

29 September 2017

  • @Lin linao: It appears to me that this article is an unattributed translation from Is this what you were alerting us to? I don't see any obvious copying from external sites. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1:, compare the text of this article and . In my opinion, this article and sr.wp article were taken from there. The first edition in sr.wp already had a link to and that page has pictures and more information. It seems more probable a copyvio in Wikipedia than a complete Serbian webpage with pictures and extra information copying from Wikipedia. Regards. Lin linao (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Lin linao: It looks to me that the article was likely a copyright violation (in part), and that the English article was translated from there. Here is the Earwig comparison for the for when it was created by its initial author[5], and here is the Earwig comparison for today[6]. Here is the Earwig comparison for the article [7]. I'm guessing it's actually a better translation of the Serbian content than the English on the external website and that is why it doesn't match up well per Earwig. My plan would be to identify what was translated from and delete it, and then leave a notification of some sort on so they can deal with the problem on their end. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

4 October 2017

8 October 2017

25 November 2017

I was uncertain whether to list this here or G12 it, if I did the wrong thing please let me know! Reviewing the article creator's other contributions I am finding numerous problems with close paraphrasing and have tagged some of them. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. I haven't checked any of this editor's other contributions, it may be worth listing at WP:CCI if there are lots of copyright violations there. Hut 8.5 21:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Contribs for Allylehman
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

2 December 2017

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

4 December 2017

5 December 2017

11 December 2017

Content at the url was created 2011 and is (C) 2017 by KCETLink; the entire text content of the KCET page was copied to the #Overview section in December 2015, placed between double quote marks, and credited to this url with a <ref> tag. Since then, the section has been considerably expanded with multiple H3 sections under it. I have replaced just the copied content with the most recent section text authored by a different user that preceded the copy, leaving the remainder of the article intact. (Note that this leaves a "dangling ref" added by the original copier which was added by them and not part of the copied page; perhaps it should be hidden ore removed, as it looks a little weird referencing nothing.) Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit identified above as the source of the copy-paste was one edit of a series of two dozen edits[a] performed over a six-hour period, which affected text all over the article. The report (thus far) includes only that one edit; I have not examined any of the others in that series to see what they might be, or whether there is any copy-paste issue with any of them. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ This diff includes 25 edits by the user in question, and includes one edit each by two other users which are trivial and don't involve the Overview section. Thus, the 25-edit diff can be viewed as the overall changes by the one user in question during the brief period which includes the one problematic edit for the purposes of this report.
The user Kriswarry has repeatedly published copyrighted content and was hammered for it in Field Spaniel, which is why I've checked his previous edits. "Wartenberg’s sensory neuritis often retains its spotty, exclusively sensory characteristics after long term follow-up." is copied from source; "This is a benign relapsing and remitting condition in which pain and subsequent loss of sensation in the distribution of individual cutaneous nerves is induced by movement of the limbs inducing stretch." is directly copied from source and the link to source 2 no longer works, but following from the rest of the page, that too is likely a copyvio. Other issues include parts simply not making sense (e.g., "Pathology: Biopsy of affected nerve in typical cases with a clinical history and neurological and electrophysiological findings consistent with Wartenberg’s sensory neuritis, a nerve biopsy can reasonably be omitted from the diagnostic work-up" — while the last bit makes sense and is copied directly from Stork's work (, the former bit doesn't. Stui (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

18 December 2017

These sort of lists are everywhere pretty much for every show e.g List of Last_Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes with guests etc. So while that doesn't mean it can't be a copyvio, I assume it isn't..or else there's a far bigger problem. Not sure how all this works tho Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) If it is a copyvio note that the articles for other seasons by the same author will also have to be deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. It's a chronological list of guests and contains no creative content. Therefore it's not copyrightable. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Also found out some other parts were copied from George Ho (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Previously deleted as a copyvio by an IP, but today the material was reinserted; see discussion at WP:TH. David Biddulph (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

19 December 2017

23 December 2017

See the lead paragraph of William Lever, 1st Viscount Leverhulme. It has been claimed that it is copied verbatim from this work: Jolly, W. P. (1976). Lord Leverhulme: A Biography. Constable & Co. ISBN 978-0-09-461070-5. It has also been claimed that the paragraph starting from: "The Lever family were Congregationalists and James Lever applied its principles in his business life ..." and ending with "... they were married at the Church of St Andrew and St George (then Congregational, now United Reformed) on St Georges Road, Bolton.." Unfortunately, the work is not available online, except in a snippet view, so I have not been able to verify the claim myself. The book is at gBooks here: <>. Geoff | Who, me? 19:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

2 January 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait red.svg Admin assistance needed. Article cleaned, but still needs a history purge to remove original copyvio. The page has been deleted, re-created, and the previous history restored; revdel-request was declined once (don't ask me why!), I've now added it for a second time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks like the required revision deletion was completed a few hours after your second request was filed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg No copyright concern. List material, essentially no creative content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • List of members of the Forbes 400 (history · last edit · rewrite)
    • Some editors would like to include the entire Forbes 400 list in this article (I previously removed this content in October). I believe that this raises serious copyright concerns. Although Wikipedia is free to independently assemble its own list of wealthiest people, there are always judgment calls to be made in calculating the present net wealth of any person, and in identifying and describing vital statistics for that person. I don't think this is something that we can do. bd2412 T 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I can only agree, BD2412this page says something about the methods used to compile the ranking. Clearly that is not publicly-available data that would enable any ordinary person to compile the same list, and so we cannot host the ranking here. I would dearly like to see a definitive consensus on this question, which has been dragging on for years in relation to other similar creatively-compiled lists – see, e.g., the history of Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women at the end of 2015/start of 2016. But I don't think this is the place to discuss it. Perhaps WT:Copyright problems? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

7 January 2018

Done on behalf of an anon. Sakura CarteletTalk 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

9 January 2018

  • Har Gobind Khorana (history · last edit · rewrite) from two different sources, both observed today by two different contributors, who have either rewritten or removed the offending content. I'm posting here because one of the offending sections has been visible in the article since 2005 (!) but is not the entire history of the article, and I'm not sure if it's proper procedure to revdelete more than 500 edits (or even if it's possible).
  1. This edit made just today, supposedly copied from this source, identified by Peter K Burian here. This seems obvious and should be revdeleted but I'm not sure how much of the subsequent cleanup editing still contains text from the source.
  2. This edit from all the way back in 2005 was identified as being copied verbatim from this source by Amorymeltzer ([12]). However, note that according to the link this source was published in 2014, 9 years after the content was added to Wikipedia.
Thanks for taking a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

13 January 2018

  • I haven't investigated fully but according to your link the article and the link were written by the same person. The text has been in the article since 2007 and the site in your link only goes back to 2015. I don't think this is a copyvio. Hut 8.5 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

15 January 2018

16 January 2018

I'm curious if there's any precedent for reaching out directly to the authors of the paper that's copied from. As experts in the field, they would be ideal candidates for a re-write. Or would there be conflict of interest concerns, since they were the authors of the original material? = paul2520 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

18 January 2018

20 January 2018

  • Ag-gag (history · last edit · rewrite) My attention was drawn by this IP edit: [14], note the edit summary. There was a lot of text that may have come from the Mercy for Animals organization, that speaks in a promotional way ("broke the news") about investigations by Will Potter and lists legislators in a way that looks like "contact these people", and it looks like some amount of this may have been copied without attribution from such a source, although I'm not sure what the source was. I've deleted what looks likely to have been copied: [15], but I may not have gotten all of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

25 January 2018

A lot of the content is copied from two sources available online: and — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I found and removed some content copied from IMDb. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

28 January 2018

30 January 2018

3 February 2018

The first source might be public domain, but some text is duplicated between the two sites. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Virtually all the article's content was taken from "The Music of ONCE: Perpetual Innovation" by Emily Weingarten. This was very likely added by the original author of the book, from the username (EGWeing) and the fact that it was added at about the same time as the book was published. However as we don't have any actual proof of this I've removed it. Hut 8.5 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

4 February 2018

Found another news article that seems to have passages copied and pasted to another section of the page [19]. Shinerunner (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Hut 8.5 22:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

7 February 2018

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Hut 8.5 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

8 February 2018

That addition i've noticed is just straight copy of ~two sentences; other contributions by Deisenbe are close paraphrasing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Article deleted due to copyright concerns. There was a paragraph about his guitar which I couldn't prove was copyrighted but given that it was added by the same editor at the same time it looks likely. Everything else was from [21] and [22]. Hut 8.5 21:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

9 February 2018

  • Yavatmal_district (history · last edit · rewrite) from Original is in Bengali?, but if you run it through google translate it's a word for word copy/paste. Several pages from the site appear to have been dumped into the article on 8 August 2017- at least the user thoughtfully provided cites for each page used under refs. Curdle (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

11 February 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

15 February 2018

16 February 2018

Recent listings

17 February 2018

18 February 2018

19 February 2018

20 February 2018

22 February 2018

Dreadbot, see Dreadbot on tfwiki and Dreadbot on villains wikia --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia's current date is 22 February 2018. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 February 22. Images should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.