Category talk:Copyright violations/Archive 1

comment

A major problem in this category still appears to be those images which were once tagged as free, but overtime we discovered the tag was not free and changed it to a copyvio tag. eg. {{PD-IndiaGov}}, {{PD-CAGov}}, {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} (? not sure about that one). The images tend to still be used and I feel quite bad about deleting them...

yeah, the other problem is that some of these images are used in dozens of pages. :/ pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Perhaps, we should create a category, along the lines of "recently discovered copyvios", into which files tagged by once-thought-to-be-legitemate license tags would be placed. The separation would hopefully not complicate administrative matters by too much — I don't think it would — but it would reserve COM:SD-AP for the pure copyvios [heh]. Meanwhile, this other category would collect all newly-problematic pics, which are, as you've stated, often widely-used and valuable; hence, working from this "pool", all projects using them could be notified (on their "Village Pumps") in advance (say, a month in advance), to browse through the category, check usage, and unlink offending files. When all projects unlink an image in this category, it would be deleted. Surely, it does sound like a lot of work, but unfortunately, it's work that — however reluctant we are — needs to be done, preferably in some orderly manner. —UED77 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh...how about no. :P We're down to less than 200. It doesn't happen very often that we have to change license tags wholesale. I think we just have to bite the bullet and delete the current ones. Like the IndiaGov ones are mostly only used on en.wp I think. So... I think if you can keep a cat under 200 items, it doesn't really need splitting. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

APOD infringements

I have just placed all APOD images into this category which were PD-USgov but are not credited to US government employees on the APOD pages. This usually results from people mistakenly thinking that everything on a NASA website must have been created by NASA (which isn't true of course). Hope these copyvio tags are all correct. Rnt20 12:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed "{{Delete assist}} "

Using the tool

Admins: Please consider using the Bad Old Ones tool to assist deletion. (purge)

might take a lot longer than required from a speedy delete.

Fred Chess 08:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It would make more sense to change the template, yo. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Hey! Let's merge these 4 categories. Copyvios are copyvios. We don't need this much separation. →Rocket°°° 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was bold and merged them. - Rocket000 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

URL not showing

I think I used the template as it shoud in this image, and the url does not display, nor the violation reason: Image:Mercat_torner.jpeg, may anybody hekp?--Paco ✉ 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is common, when there is a '=' in the URL. Make a {{copyvio|1=URL}} instead. That way it will not interpret the part in front of the '=' as parameter. -- Cecil (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help me.

I found a copyright violation image, but I don't know what to do. Can you help me? I've written my opinion here: User_talk:YHYH11, at the bottom. הגמל התימני (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello, I have labelled three images I uploaded myself for speedy deletion:

Image:Roloff Funnix 01.JPG and Image:Roloff Funnix 02.JPG and Image:Roloff Funnix 03.JPG this morning. Can you inform me whether I followed the right procedure and when the deletion will take place. Regards--Gerardus (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup E map

Its already been deleted as a copyright violation see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Haplogroup_E.png for evidence but one of the original uploaders sock puppets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi has restored it The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons violation

I am sure this this is the wrong place to complain, but I am quite sure that this picture http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-51416-10.html is a derived work from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg . --85.181.132.145 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if these images are properly tagged, license-wise...

File:Modem_icon.png and File:Modem_icon_1.png look awfully close to a real D-Link router:

Could this cause any trouble, maybe because D-Link might have some sort of copyright or trademark on the design of the case? -- 78.43.71.155 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

UAE - copyvio?

Someone has nominated lots of photoes of street scenes from the United Arab Emirates, for deletion. Since this is obviously done under reference to some legal aspects, the user who wants all these files deleted should immdiatelt explain this wish in a more thorough way. The only thing s/he has done yet is to nominate a lot of users' files without good explanation. It would be much less of a vaste of people's time if s/he instead posted a comprehensive explanation, so that the nomination could be discussed. If s/he fails to do se, all the nomination tags should rather be removed. Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for these deletion-requests is found at Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Arab Emirates. In countries without a FOP provision in its copyright law, photos of modern buildings (usually covered by FOP) cannot legally be used and therefore are not allowed on Commons. Sadly, this does not only affect UAE, but also Italy, Belgium and several other countries. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope the explanation by Túrelio is satisfied the user..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 10:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone images

Please refer to here. --Hydrox (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to delete

Files 5907.jpg, 35 брКИК.jpg, Спасск-Чумикан.jpg belong to me and refer to my site.000 IMG Information under licenses has corrected АнатолийШ 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort order

After a little discussion at the village pump, I've changed the sort order from alphabetical to chronological. I hope this helps to not overlook some files. See village pump for details. --Rosenzweig τ 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

Hi there, I don't really know my way around Commons processes. So rather than do a lot of reading, I thought I'd point out here that the four files uploaded by Jlewart appear to be copyright violations, as they look like they come from the taradaleonline website. Schwede66 23:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have tagged them with {{No permission since}}. --whym (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Split NC and CopyVio

Hi, I think the various NC-tags ending up at {{Noncommercial}} should get their own Category:Noncommercial instead of sharing their last minutes on Commons with copyvios. "Illegal" (copyvio) is not the same as "verboten" (non-commercial). CC-BY-NC or similar licenses explicitly permit copy and reuse for non-commercial purposes. The uploader is no thief, even where "assume good faith" is not more applicable. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading files for which commercial use is not allowed is a violation of our copyright policy, Commons:Licensing. I don't really see the benefit of creating a separate category. The more speedy deletion categories admins have to process, the less speedy the deletions will be. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Including meta-cats and counting only once I found 68 direct or indirect sub-categories of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, one more shouldn't make it much worse for admins. But for users getting their uploads flagged as a "copyright violation" when it's only not allowed here is insulting. Free for personal/educational use (example) could be good enough for their purposes, that this is not good enough for Wikimedia projects is, as you said, a policy, not a law or a copyvio. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed way too many speedy deletion categories as it is, and most of the other ones aren't processed as speedily as they should be. People who can't be bothered to familiarise themselves with the basic principles of the project they're participating in or read the instructions provided throughout the upload process aren't likely to even notice the categories that their uploads are placed in before being speedily deleted, so I wouldn't worry too much about them being insulted. Besides, a violation of copyright policy is still a copyright violation even if it's not copyright infringement, so the shoe fits. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of them apparently know that something can't be as it should be, and ask at the Help desk or on similar pages. I felt rather bad when I added the missing curly braces for a CC-BY-NC, after a user asked what to do, and that tagged the image automagically as a copyvio speedy. The speedy part was no surprise for me, but I won't do copyvio again for NC. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded dozens of copyrighted maps

User:Великий Антон Васильович seems to have uploaded dozens of copyrighted maps. The maps still have the name of the author and when you visit his website (http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml) he clearly states that these are not for commercial use without permission. I'm not sure how to flag all of these uploads so from here on I leave it to the experts.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploads from this user needs to be nuked, asap. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hidden file

File:Mr Melanie.jpg

Look at this file. For anybody having show hidden categories enabled this category (Copyright violations) is visible from the file page. But not vice versa – the category page doesn’t see the file. What þ^e f⋯? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)