Wikipedia talk:Requested copyright examinations

Is anyone doing anything about these requests? RJFJR 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any promises, but I'd start with moving the copyvio stuff into Wikipedia:Copyright problems. They are placed on this page too often. Maybe it should also be clarified that the answers to some of these questions may differ in law systems of distinct nations. --Easyas12c 13:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Started the work. Please help in moving the requests which don't belong here to better places. --Easyas12c 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we rename this page to avoid requests for content that has already been uploaded/placed in Wikipedia. --Easyas12c 20:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Using this page", specifically the template itself referenced in sub-section "Requesting examination", and the entire sub-section "Answering", are ungrammatical and nearly incomprehensible. (For example, When you are sure it is legal to include the examined target in Wikipedia. Do so yourself. It's the best way of showing you're sure about it., and When you think it is illegal to include the content. Use the talk page at the target article to dicus the case with others, until someone knows for sure, and is thus able to fulfill the request.) Several sentences have no verbs, etc.

Normally I'd just rewrite it instead of complaining about it, but really, I'm having trouble trying to understand it. My guess is that the author meant something along the lines of "If you're confident that the requested material is free of copyright issues, insert it in the article yourself, as a good-faith confirmation of your belief; if not, discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead."

I plan to reword "Using This Page" and the template to reflect better grammar and usage and make it easier to understand. MCB 06:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thats what I ment. --Easyas12c 09:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence states: This page is a forum for requesting co-examination of copyright and licensing of content with other Wikipedians before it is included in a Wikipedia article.

I had a question as to whether an image was copyrighted, as I intended to use it in an article. I did not post the image to the article due to the fact that there is currently a question about copyright. I did, however, upload the image. My thought was that the image, being freshly uploaded, would not be linked to any articles until the question as to its copyright was resolved, at which point I would include it in the article.

In response to my request for copyright examination, Easyas12c said, in part: Because the image is already posted to Wikipedia the case should be handled at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Copyright examination is for material not yet posted to Wikipedia. Further, Easyas12c continued, Also, if you have any suggestions how we can avoid other people doing the same mistake in future, please tell us at Wikipedia talk:Requested copyright examinations. This is a very common error and we are looking for solution.

I interpreted this to mean that merely uploading the image to Wikipedia, even if not linked to an article, before copyright issues were resolved was an error. To clarify this, I suggest revising as follows: This page is a forum for requesting co-examination of copyright and licensing of content with other Wikipedians before it is included in a Wikipedia article, or to request such co-examination of copyright and licensing of an image before the image is uploaded to Wikipedia.

I will move the request to Wikipedia:Copyright problems as instructed.

Tckma 19:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change the phrasing. This is a wiki afterall. If it is disliked it will get reformed again. Lets hope your request gets proper handling at copyvio. --80.221.54.251 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and done. --Tckma 01:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need a policy for closing answered/unanswered. Should we also have a policy for dealing with the stuff, that got to the page by accident? Other than just moving them to the bottom of the page. In future it might be a good idea to rapidly remove them from page and inform the poster. What do you think? --Easyas12c 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the many problems with Wikipedia. Wish such problems were handled in a more rapid fashion. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating a template that can be posted to talk pages of wikipedians who post requests which belong elsewhere.

See {{copyrightexaminationrejected}}.

• I'm planning to change the policy and template to be used for articles instead of users. I'll work on this as soon as I can find the time. Maybe tomorrow. --Easyas12c 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Easyas12c 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are requests here which are more than a year old. Why have they been ignored? -- Mikeblas 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as everything else in Wikipedia the requested copyright examinations project is volunteer driven. So it would not make sense to require the requests to be answered within a time limit, as the project doesn't have any paid experts. --Easyas12c 03:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people who have produced the intellectual property that might be violated aren't volunteers. If Wikipedia can't keep up with policing itself for theft, isn't it just increasing its liability? -- Mikeblas 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright examinations are for content which is not yet included in Wikipedia. The big problem in slow answers is that the content may disapear from the Internet (or become otherwise hardly reachable) and then it is not possible to include it anymore. --Easyas12c 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this page differ from Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... Seems like that page is actually active whereas this one never seems to get looked at. Ydam 04:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Can I use... is more general. Copyright examinations are always about some specific content that would make a good addition to Wikipedia. --Easyas12c 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use... seems more like a forum for asking questions before adding some content to Wikipedia. The target of copyright examinations is to answer the requestor by actually getting the content included, that is when the content is considered to have an apropriate copyright status. On a forum one can trick someone else to include material that violates copyright laws. For requested copyright examinations, the one who checks the content, also does the actual inclusion. Even a well-wishing person familiar with copyright law can mistakenly give bad advices to another Wikipedian who may e.g. live in another country. The act of including the discussed material may get the including person in trouble, regarding local laws in his country. The material could still be suitable for Wikipedia, which would make the situation of the includer even worse as he would not be able to get that content out of Wikpedia. --Easyas12c 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one article. I have tried this in various places, with no reply anywhere yet. It seems to me that Wikimapia, full as it is of Google Earth images, but be a copyright violation. (Yes, I've asked on Talk:Wikimapia, but I couldn't say there was a definitive reply.) The reason this is relevant is that there are thousands of pages linking to wikimapia.org, all of which are against the guidelines in WP:EL if the site is a copyvio. I removed one link before realising the scale of the problem. My own license for Google Earth gives me rights only in "home, personal or recreational use", and I think Wikimapia can't really be described as any of those. Anyway, I think this is an important point. If it was already discussed, a pointer on Talk:Wikimapia may save wasted energy in the future. Notinasnaid 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may try to revive this page. Would anybody object if I delete all requests older than 9 months without review? This should cut the list in half. I can then proceed to review the older requests and see if they are still applicable.↔NMajdan•talk 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understood what you're planning. Anyway, I don't think deleting examinations without conclusion is going to help anyone. --Easyas12c 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about requests that are over a year old. I would think they would be resolved by now. But, if you disagree, I will try to look through them all next week.↔NMajdan•talk 02:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that they have been standing untouched for a long while, doesn't really tell anything about their copyright status. It just shows lack of interest in these things. They might as well stand there until someone happens to stumble on them, or even an answer to them. Thanks for helping out with the project. I hope I won't scare you with all this bureaucracy. :-) --Easyas12c 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case of inclusion, copyright examinations do not end until the content is really physically included into the article. Study carefully the instructions under Closing a valid request in the project description. --Easyas12c 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a request for a copyright examination, and it was summarily removed, apparently because I didn't follow the instructions! I don't even know where to begin with this, it is so mindboggling stupid. I shall say no more now, because I'm too frustrated to be constructive. You guys figure it out. Hesperian 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not removed because you didn't follow some instructions, but because the issue should not have been filed on this page in the first place. Your request was about a picture that already exists in Wikipedia. While Requested copyright examinations is only used to find out whether or not content that 'is not yet in wikipedia can be used in an article. --Easyas12c 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]