Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2015-04-11 Edit

  • @Justlettersandnumbers: I believe this content was copied from 2014–15 Football League Two which the source is a mirror of. That content appears closely in all the previous season articles too, so the whole league has some unattributed CWW in play. This case though, I can see that the author would have 2014-15 open as this season's starting lineup is based on last season's finish, so it logically flows. Just what to do about the other dozen... CrowCaw 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crow, that is my guess too. I just don't feel comfortable acting on a guess. The editor's steadfast refusal to respond is a common problem that I am clearly just not psychologically equipped to cope with. I'm really half-inclined to ask an admin to step in and explain a bit about collaboration and the consequences of standing mute. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping failed, Crow, but I saw your edit summary. I've now done what I could or should have done ages ago, which is (a) have confidence in your judgement here and (b) look at the various possible sources. As the comparison with 2013 shows much less similarity to the new page, I've convinced myself that it was, as you suggested, copied from last year's page. Attribution provided. The uncooperative behaviour of Celticbhoy97 is disappointing to say the least; I'll be asking for admin action if he ever does the same again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]
I think that even if you grant using one page with a list of verbs from a book is a copyvio, the purpose was obviously free-use. The image was hugely reduced, in no way infringed on the author's ability to make money of the work, and was, as a matter of discussion at the ref desks, the object of scholarly discussion, the strongest reason to allow fair use. I won't be restoring the link again myself. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bother pursuing this -- the link and usage of the work is fair use and the intention of WP:COPYLINK is to forbid linking to pirated content. MER-C 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]