Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

14 November 2009[edit]

Suspected Copyright Violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2009-11-14 Edit

2009-11-14 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Redirected. MER-C 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article redirected to non-infringing article. Theleftorium 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Theleftorium 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Theleftorium 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. I can't find anywhere from whence the new text has been infringed. – Toon 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. – Toon 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten by author. MER-C 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten by author. MER-C 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS pending but not yet verified, relisting under today's entry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged a week ago, but not blanked. Remedied, notified contributor. Relisting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Notwithstanding the copyright notice, you're very right to have doubts that it was a copyvio. :) It's PD by age. Restored & attributed, to meet WP:Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kawasaki KDX200 (history · last edit) from [5] and [6]. It's obviously copied and pasted, but it's a list of technical data - every source about those motorcycles will of course give the same data. Does that count as a copyright violation? Huon (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, yes, quite likely. While this kind of information may be common, the creative presentation is copyrightable, even if it isn't very creative. The list was copied in all its particulars--same order, same structure, same language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]