Listing of articles that need investigation for copyright issues
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages 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, propose revisions, or request copyright permission.
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 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; 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 in respect of local customs and attribution requirements of compatible licenses. 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 text or images may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to ensure the removal from the project of all copyright infringement. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.
Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns
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 was not copied from a mirror source.
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.
Remove or rewrite the infringing text avoiding copyright violationsorrevert the page to before the text was added.
The infringing text will remain in the page history, and it may be tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Administrators hold discretion on the appropriateness of revision deletion for each case. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). Please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem, unless advised not to. 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, reversion/removal is otherwise complicated, or the article is eligible for presumptive deletion:
Place one of the following above the infringing text:
{{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 listing 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.)
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 VRT (formerly OTRS) agents 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 or removing infringing text (without removing {{copyvio}}).
Supplying evidence of non-infringement
Articles listed here are suspect of copyright concern, but not every article contains infringement. The content may be on Wikipedia first, in the public domain, compatibly licensed, or falls below threshold of originality for copyright. Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.
Information can be provided to prove compatible licensing or public domain status under the listing of 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, rewriting 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 on the listing to alert the administrator or clerk who review the rewrite. 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:
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.
Clerks and patrolling administrators
Copyright 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 clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who are familiar with copyright and non-free content policies and its enforcement. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings and request administrative actions when necessary. Clerks are periodically reviewed by other clerks and patrolling administrators.
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 can be processed at any time by anyone, but are not formally closed until a clerk or administrator verifies that all problems are resolved. Pages listed for presumptive deletion stay open for a minimum of 7 days before being processed. VRT agents may close listings at any times.
{{CPC}} may be used to denote resolutions of listings by administrators, clerks and VRT agents.
Listings of possible copyright problems
Older than 7 days
Below are articles that have been listed here for longer than 7 days. They will be processed at any time by clerks or administrators (see WP:CPAA). When every issue on a day is clear, the day may be removed.
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. — Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Pearson Stewart(history · last edit · rewrite) from [ISBN 0931682215]. This article references the a book by Bennet (ISBN0931682215) normally, as far as I can tell. But it also contains the text "Permission to use material from Bennett's book was obtained from the head of the Purdue Musical Organizations." which must mean that it contains a lot more than just academic references, requiring permission from the publishing organization. But where (and how) is that re-use permission obtained, released, and recorded? Mikeblas (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VRT pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. Not relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between "relisting" and "not relisting"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template automatically has "Relisting" in it, but I think the ticket will clear up soon and we're not in a massive rush so I chose to not put a new entry under the current day. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the Albert Pearson Stewart to be in conformance with copyright restrictions. I posted the rewrite in a link that was originally provided. CusterDome (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arab archery(history · last edit · rewrite) from [aramcoworld.com/en-US/Articles/July-2017/Hadrian-s-Syrians-1]. I don't see any mention of a publication date, but it does cite commons at some point. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Citing commons isn't an indicator because it's required for most licenses (CC-BY-SA). Sennecaster (Chat) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster I'm quite busy so I can't do a lot here, but it seems that the copyright holder was slightly confused on the copyright status themselves (even though they wrote it). WP:CV#Contributor is copyright holder says that they have the right to republish their own work here, but is very confusingly worded about whether VRT is a requisite. If so, basically everything in the article sans the lead is an issue. – Isochrone (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Debaters radio episodes(history · last edit · rewrite) from Apple Music and CBC website; see individual entries for each individual source. The Apple Music website doesn't seem to have plot descriptions but they do look like copyvio to me. Sorry, this is a big job, as there's hundreds of episodes. I have notified the most recent contributor. — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
specifically, I removed the material copied from the Aviation Herald but found foundational copyvio. see 29 april's CP. – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher 17:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pentathlon (film)(history · last edit · rewrite): Plot summary might be a copy-paste violation from an external website (possibly the movie's official website) given the in-article copyright statement at the very bottom of the section. For reference, the copyright statement was added by an IP account with this edit on February 8, 2024, and it could just mean nothing since the plot summary was for the most part added much earlier. The last stable version of the plot section appears to be the one right before this edit made by another IP in August 2023; so, if there's a problem, maybe it only goes back that far. Anyway, it would be good if someone else could check this out since I'm unable to find any official site for the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed to be safe. MER-C 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vicente Albán(history · last edit · rewrite) from Presumptive deletion over copyright concerns, please see: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vvven. (Uncited, attempted to find the source for over an hour in both English and Spanish language publications. I didn't know if I was meant to revert to the last clean revision & then add the template, or just add the template) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. MER-C 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian: I think in this case the former. I list presumptive removals here if deletion or stubbing is required. MER-C 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not enough to justify the tag, and User:Skitash made changes to the article. I removed the tag. I hope you don't add it back. Also as I noted on the RPP, further investigation into your claim is welcome. Until you can prove extensive copy/paste that justifies the tag please don't add it back. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the examples provided on the talk page (all of which have been addressed by Skitash), it seems that the copied passages are short and have been cited. Since the copied material is properly attributed and linked to its original sources, it does not constitute a copyright violation. I do not think it's justified to tag the article with a copyvio. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, copyvio tool indicates that there's a less than 5% similarity and I've already changed and reworded content the IP hopper showed concern about, so their argument lacks merit. They are either deliberately pretending to not see it or refusing to acknowledge it by continuing to edit war. It's perplexing that they opted for a full copyright investigation over a few similar-sounding sentences rather than trying to improve the article. My best guess is that this is just another petty excuse the IP hopper is using to continue harassing me as they have done on my talk page.[3][4]Skitash (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Bruner(history · last edit · rewrite) (Apologies for this unskilled messy entry, based only on some manual searching for phrases.) The article seems to be copied from a CC-BY-SA fandom.com article created the day before[5], with very light paraphrasing and without attribution. The fandom.com article may be copied from a gamespot.com one[6] - I can't see which is first - and ours might have been. The two sentences that make the second paragraph of our article are very lightly paraphrased from a 2022 cbr.com article.[7] I don't know if some sort of retro-attribution to fandom.com would be proper, or if the whole article should go as plagiarising that and/or gamespot.com - if that's the original. The only citations are to one issue of a comic. NebY (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple entries on this iist sourced to copyrighted Digital Booklets uploaded to Scribd and DocDroid. Their self-publishing platforms violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate the WP:COPYVIOEL guideline and the WP:COPYVIO policy. Removing the URLs from the citations is easy enough, but unsure about rev/del since they have apparently been in the article since 2017Isaidnoway(talk) 20:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Titles(history · last edit · rewrite) from [8]. Flagged by copypatrol, see [9]. Source link is dead, with no archive available on archive.org. See iThenticate report for source text. Sending to CP since I'm not familiar with Korean ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Economy of Tamil Nadu(history · last edit · rewrite) from 1. A. K, M. V. The Dravidian Model: Interpreting the Political Economy of Tamil Nadu. Cambridge University Press; 2021.
Nordweststadt (Karlsruhe)(history · last edit · rewrite) So, our new page appears to be translated from the German article de:Nordweststadt (Karlsruhe), which is simple enough to deal with, but (in what I'm like, 90% sure is a BACKWARDSCOPY) that German article closely matches part of some random locksmith's website [11]. My German is truly atrocious though, so I was hoping someone else could verify that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backwardscopy. Tag placed at talk page. – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely spam, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't from Wikibusines. MER-C 17:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Induced stem cells(history · last edit · rewrite) presumptive deletion from 20240516. Nearly all material has been added by 20240516, and they were the creator. Article cites over 300 sources, incl, paywalled, and they regularly copied from news reports they didn't cite, cited material to the wrong source, and just made stuff up. Sorry for turning it over here, but this thing just needs stubbed or deleted. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 11:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material is PD, license compatible, or ineligible for copyright protection. The overlapping material is compatibly licensed; as far as I can tell there was no overlap with the Burlington webpages. 02:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Diannaa (talk)
There are two main element to this article. The first is the contents of the memorandum itself. The second is how the memorandum was discovered and brought to the attention of the public. The memorandum was pubished by the Center for Security Policy and made commercially available to the public on Amazon. It is my understanding that, if nothing else, this places the memorandum in the pubic domain. Secondly, the memorandum was made public by the FBI in 2007 as an exhibit to the court during a trial against the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity indicted in 2007 on charges of serving as a fund-raising front on behalf of Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1997. The story of how the memorandum was discovered has been covered by various respected new organizations including the New York Times and NBC. Given this information, I hope you will remove the block on my article. Thank you. Resignation793 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mujdin Aliu(history · last edit · rewrite) presumptive deletion from Tetovario. No other significant contributors, one source heavily cited is permanently dead and the other is an uncaptioned Youtube video in Albanian. (Tetovario has, on at least one other occasion, typed out the audio of a Youtube video) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Josif Bageri(history · last edit · rewrite) presumptive deletion from Tetovario. Most content is cited to "A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History", which is not available online. There's about a paragraph written by other users, half of which is unsourced. Foundational. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted due to copyright concerns. MER-C 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrigdhoun GAA(history · last edit · rewrite) from [15]. Possible backwards copy. Archive.org doesn't stretch that far back, and we had majority of the text in 2008/2009, years before their website was first registered in 2014 (per ICANN lookup) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New listings
Some issues may not be displayed on this page due to template transclusion limits. This can be alleviated by clearing the backlog.
New listings are made on daily reports transcluded on this page and are not directly added to it. 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. Editors may resolve issues within listings by removing the copyrighted content or rewriting content on the temporary pages at any time, save for presumptive deletion. See the section on responding for more information.
Jhallari(history · last edit · rewrite) presumptive deletion from Opus88888. Cited to a biography that doesn't mention half the cited facts. Given the pre-established pattern of falsifying sources and the lack of any other significant contributors, I am flagging this for presumptive deletion GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]