WikiQueer:Copyright problems/Advice for clerks

This is a guide for clerks and trainee clerks working through WikiQueer:Copyright problems. The main WQ:CP page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main WQ:CP page. There are also some suggestions at the bottom of the page for addressing image violations. Although these are no longer listed at WQ:CP, image use violations can possibly be found in articles with text-based violations.

Admins, see WikiQueer:Copyright problems/Advice for admins

Investigation process
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before removing any copyvio-related tags and/or text. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the talk page; remember to check for these.

Identifying the source
Sometimes articles are tagged with copyvio without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for Close paraphrasing or Copy-paste do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a simple Google search or a run-through with The Earwig's tool can help. If you cannot find a source, consider who placed the tag. If it looks like disruption, remove the tag. Check the article's history as well, the text may have been removed by another editor. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
 * Copy-paste tags are frequently used when people have a sense that something is off, but no evidence. If no source is given or found, remove the Copy-paste tag from the article and place on the talk page, replacing the usual  with the username or IP of the contributor who tagged the article.
 * Close paraphrasing tags are not generally used for "fishing", but if no source can be found and no examples are given, we cannot process them. Remove the tag with a note at the talk page requesting more information if it is restored.
 * Copyvio tags also are not generally used for "fishing." If the tag seems to have been placed in good faith by a registered contributor or active IP, ask for the source. If the tagger is not available for comment and you cannnot find the source, the tag may be removed and the content may be restored, though it is a good idea to place cv-unsure on the talk page, as above. This will invite further scrutiny.

If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.

Evaluating the issue
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the image's or article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.


 * Is the article the same as or similar to the suspected source?
 * Compare the article with the text of the suspected source. If the suspected source is not online (Google books and Amazon book previews can sometimes assist), you may need to seek help in comparing at the talk page of a related WikiQueer:WikiProject.
 * Superficial alterations to copyrighted text are insufficient to avoid copyright infringement. Close paraphrasing may also be infringement. (Likewise, images that incorporate major elements of other images may constitute derivative works, even if some material is original.)
 * An unauthorized translation from a foreign language can also be a copyright violation, if the original remains copyrighted.
 * Extensive quotations may also be a copyright infringement, even when clearly marked. Fair use considers how substantial is the quantity of text used compared to the whole of the source and the new work. (See WQ:NFC)


 * Did the suspected source publish the content before WikiQueer?
 * There are many WikiQueer mirrors and forks, and WikiQueer articles may also be copied to personal or commercial websites (in accordance with GFDL and CC-By-SA requirements). If substantial similarity exists,
 * Which came first? If it is unclear, compare the date of the webpage with the WikiQueer article's history.
 * The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine can help determine the age of a particular page or text.
 * If you cannot verify age, examine the introduction of text. Large chunks of unwikified text added in one revision are usually copied from another website, a book, or other material. If the text seems to have evolved naturally at WikiQueer, particularly if it was gradually edited to become more like the suspected source, then it probably is not a copyright violation.
 * Consider the history of the contributor who added the text. Does he or she have a history of copyright violations? Are there changes in tone from article to article more dramatic than might be expected in a simple change of subject, such that the user may be using somebody else's words?
 * Consider the history of the source. Official or reputable sources are less likely to have mirrored WikiQueer's content without attribution, although it sometimes does happen.
 * If you confirm that another source is duplicating a WikiQueer article without obvious credit, consider tagging the article's talk page with Backwardscopy.


 * Is copyright on the suspected source reserved?
 * Check the copyright status of the suspected source to see if the content is public domain or already licensed under a compatible license. (See license compatibility table)
 * WikiQueer:Public domain offers some guidance on what is and is not copyrighted. Wikisource:Help:Public domain can also offer guidance.
 * Statements like 'all rights reserved', 'Copyright 2000-2008', 'non-commercial use only', 'educational use only' or 'permission granted to WikiQueer' are not compliant with our licensing requirements.
 * If the copyright status is unclear from the URL itself, check the 'About this site' or 'Terms of use' sections of the site, if available.
 * Copyright is presumed unless it can be verified otherwise.

Checking for permission
When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, he or she should be given notice of how to proceed under WikiQueer:Donating copyrighted materials or WikiQueer:Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification. (It may sometimes be appropriate to revert to the last clean version in history while awaiting verification if the text was introduced recently, but this approach may have problems, since it opens the article to editing during the verification process and new contributors may object to the loss of their contributions once permission is verified.)

To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not notified of the process for verification at least five days ago, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.

Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, he or she may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, he or she does not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.

No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, mark the listing with the appropriate notation template. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with Cup.


 * OTRS: Permission that is stored in Foundation's Open Source Ticket Request System is logged at the article's talk page by an OTRS volunteer, usually with ConfirmationOTRS. The OTRS agent who responds should remove any copyright warnings from the article's face and add any required attribution. OTRS pending and OTRS received are not verifications of permission. However, if the article's talk has been tagged OTRS received, you may wish to check with the OTRS agent who tagged it for an update before deleting the article as unverified (see below). If the article has been tagged OTRS pending for five days, it may be considered unverified. OTRS agents can restore deleted articles if the OTRS permission clears past deadline.
 * External website: If no OTRS verification has been provided, check to see if a link has been provided to a licensing statement somewhere on the article's source. (You will have presumably already checked the obvious locations during the investigation process.) If it has, check the provided link to see if it holds a usable licensing statement which specifies that the material is licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA. If you verify that a usable licensing statement exists, log your confirmation at the article's talk and provide attribution if needed in the article. (If the article's creator has verified at the external source that he is also the source copyright owner, no attribution is needed, as he is bound by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use just as all other contributors are).

Handling copyright violations
If a copyright violation is substantiated (that is: if the text is the same as or too similar to that of a source that has or may have been previously published, and that source cannot be verified to be public domain or compatibly licensed) and there is either no credible assertion of permission or an assertion has not been verified in due time, the text will need to be removed.
 * If new, clean text has been proposed: Always investigate first to see if new content has been proposed at the temporary subpage /Temp linked on the copyvio notice or at the article's talk page. If so,
 * Check to be sure that contributors to the new version have not violated the attribution rights of earlier creators, but have properly attributed,
 * Make sure that all copyright infringement has been removed and that there are not new issues with close paraphrasing,
 * If the new content is clear of licensing violations or copyright concerns, it may be used by an administrator to replace the original article (when the original article does not have salvageable content or history) or history merged into it (if the original does have usable content). On the article entry at CP, mark that the new content is clean.
 * If you find a copyright infringement, always be sure to check an article's images as well. If the text was a violation, it is likely that the images lack permission as well.


 * If the article is a copyright violation without salvageable content or history: Tag it for speedy deletion if it meets the current criteria of WQ:CSD. If you are uncertain, make a note at the article's CP entry and an administrator will decide.
 * If there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page: Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. Leave a note at the article's talk page explaining the removal (the template cclean may be used).

Closing your review

 * If there was no copyright violation, than remove the copyvio notice from the article or revert to the last version prior to insertion of the template. A short explanation on the article talk page will help prevent future reports for the same copyright problems.
 * If the page was not tagged for deletion (i.e. there was no violation, an uncertain violation or material rewritten, etc.), than leave a brief explanation of your actions threaded below the article's WQ:CP listing. The template CPC may be used for this purpose. It is always good to provide a diff from when the infringing text was inserted within your comment. This will help an administrator later when performing revision deletion.
 * If you have confirmed copyright violation, consider checking the contributor's talk page and history to see if additional steps should be advised to prevent future copyright problems or to clean up previously existing ones. See WikiQueer:Copyright violations and WikiQueer:Contributor copyright investigations.

Old daily log pages can be found at ''' WikiQueer:Copyright problems/year month day/Articles or WikiQueer:Copyright problems/year month day/Images. '''

Notation templates
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.

Images
WikiQueer:Non-free_content is the policy governing non-free images. Images that are blatant copyright infringement should be tagged for speedy deletion with db-i9. Images that are less clear should be listed for investigation at possibly unfree images or WikiQueer:Non-free content review. Blatant copyright violations of images on Commons can be tagged for speedy deletion or requested for deletion there.

Images tagged with db-i9 should be blatant image copyright infringements, images for which the source is known and which cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine. Examples include derivative works of copyrighted images and images for which free alternatives exist.