Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 September 10
- Supreme Audit Institution of Antigua and Barbuda (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://web.archive.org/web/20160910192614/https://ab.gov.ag/detail_page.php?page=27. Also visible at http://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cap-23.pdf. I can't find any evidence that copyright does not apply to government works in Antigua. — Diannaa (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I rewrote this myself. I'm having trouble understanding what copyright is being violated. This doesn't appear to be identical to the constitution. CROIXtalk 17:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I checked the copyvio report, and I now believe I understand the issue. I'll try to rewrite the text in the future in a less similar manner to the document. CROIXtalk 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have also contacted ABIPCO on the copyright status of government edicts. CROIXtalk 17:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I checked the copyvio report, and I now believe I understand the issue. I'll try to rewrite the text in the future in a less similar manner to the document. CROIXtalk 17:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
No copyright concern. Material is PD, license compatible, or ineligible for copyright protection. Per below, CROIX in the future please ensure you also tag public domain sources you have copied from with {{pd-notice}}. – Isochrone (T) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I rewrote this myself. I'm having trouble understanding what copyright is being violated. This doesn't appear to be identical to the constitution. CROIXtalk 17:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda (history · last edit · rewrite) also has the same problem: too closely paraphrased from the Constitution, which appears to be protected by copyright: from https://web.archive.org/web/20160910192614/https://ab.gov.ag/detail_page.php?page=27. Also visible at http://laws.gov.ag/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cap-23.pdf. — Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made similar edits on multiple articles yesterday assuming that the constitution was not copyrighted. I have contacted ABIPCO for further information on the copyright status, as the copyright status of government edicts is not specified anywhere. CROIXtalk 18:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I had also assumed that I had paraphrased the articles suitably enough. CROIXtalk 18:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to the official act, p19:
It seems that the constitution falls under this remit. – Isochrone (T) 20:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Copyright protection does not extend to [...]
any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature as well as any official translation thereof.
- According to the official act, p19:
- I had also assumed that I had paraphrased the articles suitably enough. CROIXtalk 18:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- No copyright concern. Material is PD, license compatible, or ineligible for copyright protection. – Isochrone (T) 20:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made similar edits on multiple articles yesterday assuming that the constitution was not copyrighted. I have contacted ABIPCO for further information on the copyright status, as the copyright status of government edicts is not specified anywhere. CROIXtalk 18:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Michael Bergmann (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://michaelbergmann.art/about-contact/. Close paraphrasing and likely copy-and-paste from website to article since the start of this article being created. Tails Wx 20:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this isn't copyvio (though it is promotional, so I won't restore it). Michael Bergmann's website didn't exist in 2009 (nor did its TLD, and the equivalent .com url was domain-squatted), and I can't find the article's content on Wayback archives of his wife's site. The user who created the article was Meredithebergmann, his wife. Even if the article was on her website in 2009, it wouldn't be considered copyvio due to WP:DCM.
- Backwardscopy. Tag placed at talk page. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 07:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)