Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

For image or media copyright questions, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

See also: m:copyright, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:GFDL, m:GFDL Workshop, and m:non-free content

New passage comparison tool

https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/compare.jsp

This compares two passages of arbitrary plain text (no wikitext). I consider this to be a minimum viable product - some time I'll probably get around to using the CCI wikitext "parsing" functions (for the purposes of culling) instead of an internal API module to generate the plain text. It probably won't incorporate searching for a long time.

Please let me know what you think, here, my talk page or on Codeberg. MER-C 14:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems interesting. One thing, could the radio buttons stick with the same option they were before after pressing the compare button? Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Tenshi Hinanawi: - I've pushed a fix, try now? MER-C 19:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

That seems to have fixed that issue, although I noticed another, that comparing seems to add more whitespace to the end of the compared text. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, but I think I've fixed this one too. MER-C 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be still adding whitespace when I tested it now. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I may have forgotten to deploy the code. Would you mind trying again? MER-C 17:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It works now. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Copyright on images from Philippines House of Representatives

A user has been making new articles using official portraits from the Philippines House of Representatives (here). Am I right in thinking this is a copyvio? Boynamedsue (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

See c:COM:GVT Philippines. If these are the work of a government employee then they are PD. Nthep (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a relief, thanks.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Review request: Francis Greenaway

User @thejiujiangdragon has deleted large parts of Francis Greenway and requested revdel citing a copyvio from this page. However there doesn't seem to be a large dump of text from that page anywhere in the history; it has been built up over time, suggesting that the Wikipedia text came first. Please could someone review this? -- rbrwr^± 10:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, the user accepted my arguments and restored the status quo ante.The status quo ante has been restored pending this review (sorry, I didn't take in thejiujiangdragon's edit comments) -- rbrwr^± 05:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rbrwr; it does copy from , which I have removed a bit of content from. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Halimah Yacob

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused removed a large chunk of text from Halimah Yacob and tagged it as a copyvio. The purported source has a date of 2021, while the first diff linked is from 1 November 2023. However, the source website makes me suspect that this is still somehow a backwards copy. The clearly Wikipedia-style formatting and the section heading "Reactions[edit]" are suspicious, as well as the fact the page was first archived in August 2024 , even though the website's main page has archives going back years earlier. Not sure what to do, so I'm leaving this here. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I offered at the GAR to stop the process and mark the purported source as a copyright violation against Wikipedia; perhaps we can implement that idea? (I already suspected a reverse copyvio while considering whether to remove the ton of text lol) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: Yep, that's a backwards copy — the source is dated 14 July 2021, and its text is identical to what was in the Wikipedia article in the revision as of 13 July 2021 . I checked a couple of other posts on the site and they're backwards copy of the associated Wikipedia articles as well (e.g. ). MCE89 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

How about we sue them for copyright violations against Wikipedia? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the article contributors want to do that, they can use Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. We can't do it on behalf of them without their permission, nor can the WMF, as they're the licencees. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; for specificity, since Wikipedia is not attributed there, the appropriate boilerplate would be § Letter for website that does not acknowledge Wikipedia as a source. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks MCE!! I'm glad there was a simple answer after all. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

:) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

CP editnotice

The editnotice for copyright problems links to sections which have since been changed/removed, as well as mentioning how to list images. Since I'm the only active-ish clerk who can edit it, I'm proposing my changes here rather than editing it directly in case anyone spots any issues I missed. I'm proposing changing the edit notice to be this, based on the text we're using at #What not to list here as well as with section links fixed:

Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The contrast on the box is atrocious even when looking at the default link colors and not my custom CSS; we should lighten the shade of orange if possible.

Instructions for listing items can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. -> "Instructions for listing items can be found [[#How to list an article|above]]." or something similar since it's fairly repetitive and only appears on the main CP page. Otherwise, it looks good, thank you for handling this! Sennecaster (Chat) 18:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be above, shouldn't it be below as the edit notice is on top and the text is on the bottom? Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I do like this version better than the current one, agree with Senne on the contrast though, maybe #FFFBDC   instead? Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

A slightly darker version of that might be better than as is, since that's pretty light and might be skipped over. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi@Sophisticatedevening; FFEBA8  , and if possible we could add a border? This meets the WCAG AA test, but not the AAA test unless we bold the links. color contrast using the the main link colors (#36c   and #6a60b0  ). Sennecaster (Chat) 03:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The colour seems okay, though I'm not able to get any match for AAA with the unbolded link colours at all. What border width and colour then? See below.

3px width, no specified colour.

5px width, black.

Tenshi! (Talk page) 09:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that there was an edit request for the CP editnotice yesterday by Star walker which was referred here, see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I don't see any issues with it if the latter sentence is replaced with what I proposed above. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the demo editnotice with the correction Sennecaster mentioned above, not sure about the colour or the part of the edit request changing the external link to Special:Edit/. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi; sorry, slipped my mind. My preference is black border, 5px works fine, and if we need to lighten the background yellow the black border will help it stick out a bit more. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)