Wikipedia:Copyrights isindefinitelyprotected from editing as it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported byconsensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit.

This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCopyrights page.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:CWT:C WT:COPYWT:COPY

Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16Auto-archiving period:30 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an officialpolicy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please reviewpolicy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember tokeep cool when editing, anddon't panic.

Related: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - ask all questions about whether you can use an image here Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Credit repair - case study relating to external links and attribution Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages WikiProject Copyright Cleanup –see how you can help Commons:Licensing – Related at Wikimedia Commons

What do you do when there's a potential unknownCitogenesis situation due to the point of reference being excluded from archive.org? The org's official website is excluded from archive.org

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=693335104&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Foutsidein.org%2Fabout-us%2Fhistory%2F

The source includes the article subject's official website, but some of the matching part was not sourced to the company website. The first paragraph in the organization's current website is pretty much the same as the Wikipedia's version 9 years ago. Looking through the edit history, the organization was heavily involved in messing with the article in the past, so they're quite aware of the page's existence.

This can make it look like Wikipedia ripped it from them, but it might be that their most recent page was in-part written from Wikipedia. Who knows. Since that part of Wikipedia was initially written by an establish user rather than company PR, it looks like part of Wikipedia page might have been used by the organization to write their current page. What should we do in cases like this? I reworded that part of the sentence, but maybe that was unnecessary.Graywalls (talk)04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be tricky. I have seen a case where a website seems to have copied from WP very shortly after the content first appeared on WP (fooled me for a while), a case where various changes to a web site and a WP article appear to have been copied back and forth, and a case where content on an academic website was apparently not created until a couple of years after the same content appeared in WP, but the website creator insisted that they had originated the content and owned the copyright. Even if you are very sure that someone has copied from WP, if they are insistent that they do own the copyright, it may not be worth fighting. After all, WP contents are not set in concrete.Donald Albury16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, nobody challenged anything on copyright ground, but I can see something like this triggering a copyvio detector.Graywalls (talk)02:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like 'be insistent' is a strategy to obfuscate ownership on every website ever. When WP legal calls to nudge them about our earliest version being older than theirs, they can insistently claim seniority, and say that their last CTO disallowed ia_archiver ever since the company was founded, and when the new CTO took over, he allowed it for the first time. And when did that happen? Oh, uh, um, just a couple of months after Wikipedia's first version of it in the history. Just coincidence; truly.Mathglot (talk)05:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls: I think you are describing a{{Backwards copy}}. In 15+ years it only has 1,900 usages, but it probably should have a million. --GreenC06:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Please merge version atUser:Matrix/sandbox4 for dark mode compatibility. —Matrix(!)_{ping one}^{when replying} {u -t? -_uselessc}17:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done* Pppery *_{it has begun...}05:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change: adjust the:|§ Reusers' rights and obligations

Diff:

waddie96 ★ (talk)22:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done* Pppery *_{it has begun...}01:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Use more helpful CC image license tags. —Matrix_{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? -c)09:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Fix perMOS:DOUBLEBOLD.

Also, the third shortcut should be removed perWP:2SC. It's not even a shortcut: typing the full page name (WP:Copyrights) is actuallyfaster than typing the supposed "shortcut"WP:COPYRIGHT, because it doesn't even require the use of CAPS-LOCK or holding theShift key.

FaviFake (talk)14:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneFaviFake (talk)19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Please append to the "Copyright violations" section an additional paragraph:

If you believe an external site or publication has abused the copyright of content you have contributed to Wikipedia, seeWikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process.

--Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done* Pppery *_{it has begun...}20:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits21:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1262#Dr. Emily Lazarou (Forensic Psychiatrist) has a statement aboutLarge language models being a violation of licensing since, if for example ChatGPT learned what to write, and that was used, the authors are unknown. I don't think this particular violation is included in the guidelines. I'm sure the concept is in guidelines somewhere but not this particular violation.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •21:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Link "fair use" in each section where it occurs:

§ Linking to copyrighted works

§ Non-free materials and special requirements

—W.andrea (talk)19:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done* Pppery *_{it has begun...}00:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isrequested that an edit be made to thefully protected project page atWikipedia:Copyrights.(edit ·history ·last ·links ·protection log) This template must be followed by acomplete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are eitheruncontroversial or supported byconsensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk pagebefore using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make aprotection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the|answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Please add this video near the top of the page; flush right in the big white space adjacent to the TOC would be a natural spot for it, imho.

TheWikipedia-produced YouTube video entitled, "Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation" has just been uploaded to Commons (seebackground). This 3 1/2 minute video is an ideal accompaniment to this project page. The still image that appears on it was apparently chosen by the upload software, and I am looking into how to pick a possibly better still, but I think it's worth making the video available as soon as possible as it does a really good job of explaining it.

[[File:Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation.webm|right|325px]]

Regarding image size: I think 300 or 325px would be ideal on this page because of the big white space by the ToC (and on mobile it will just be screen width so doesn't matter). You can see how it looks at 280px atWP:Plagiarism, where on that page, a slightly narrower image works better (and if consistency with banners above and below are desired, it will have to be reduced further anyway). However on this page, there is plenty of room, and at 300 or 325px the words become legible without too much strain, and the overall effect is more pleasing. The image shown here is 225px. Note that the video is currently in Commons categoryc:Category:License review needed as needing review, but since Wikipedia itself is the author and the video appears in the officialYouTube Wikipedia channel, I am assuming this needn't hold things up. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)23:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updated code to include a caption, and to set the still (thumbtime) image:

[[File:Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation.webm|thumb|right|325px|thumbtime=110|Wikipedia video on plagiarism and copyright violation]]

(gnerates second image above; size reduced here for Talk page display). Thanks,Mathglot (talk)22:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm writing an Olympian's Wikipedia page, and a lot of new facts that are available are verifiable via old images (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos). The athlete retired in 1990s so there's very little public record for most of her achievements. Despite that I've managed to find enough sources for significant additions (which I will include in references for editors to verify).

I am fully aware that everything I add has to be BLP safe and ChatGPT is helping me follow BLP to the T (in terms of writing tone and notability/reliability + verification of sources)!

My only obstacle that remains is verifying her awards and recognition credentials. I am not including many of these new awards as I can't find the proof to back them up. SOME OF THEM, however, do have credible IMAGES as proofs (including ceremony booklets, old newspapers, and actual trophy photos from the 1980s and 1990s). ChatGPT told me to add them as sources, there is separate process where the subject has to confirm the authenticity and copyright of these images to a ticket to Wikimedia (and release the copyright to public domain).FrustratedGamer0909 (talk)16:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked this question at The Teahouse please don't ask at multiple venues and I strongly suggest you STOP using ChatGPT now, you will likely be blocked if you continue to edit using LLM.Theroadislong (talk)17:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted it here by accident.

I will be mindful of my use. I don't want to disrespect any rules of Wikipedia, but it seems you are ready to judge before seeing what I produce. Maybe you have some pre-conceived notions about what AI produces, which seems fair... but threatening me with a ban before seeing what I write is not fair...

So I'm gonna proceed on this by my own and won't ask for help. It's strange that a place for help became so threatening and toxicFrustratedGamer0909 (talk)13:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion atTalk:No_Lives_Matter#Logo_Root.

The basic problem is that we currently use a scaled down version of their logo under fair use but the logo itself turns out to be just a police sketch (which should be public domain afaik) and two lines of text.

Does someone know whether that makes the work itself also public domain since it's so trivial?Laura240406 (talk)17:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia fully protected edit requests