Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

If you are the owner of content that is being used on Wikipedia without your permission, then you may request that the offending page (or page version) be immediately removed from Wikipedia.

To expedite this process you will need to provide some type of proof that you are the copyright holder. We certainly will not immediately remove anything without being reasonably sure that it is in fact a copyright violation.

All suspected copyright violations should be listed at Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Our policy page dealing with copyrights is at Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.


Page histories

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Post a message

Current requests

Issues which appear to have been resolved have been moved to Archive 1.

International Food Policy Resaerch Institute, Copyrighted Material

Recently I have observed that the material I added under the title of The International Food Policy Research Institute has been taged as violating the copy right. Please take note that I am responsible to add our institutes information in Wikipedia. There is not copyright infringement; the description posted is related to a boiler plate we have created for all our publictions. The content found at is a publication published jointly with IFPRi and World Fish Center. This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter. Please remove the copyright infringement as it obviously is our own material.Luza

Pictures on Bun Festival page

For details see talk page:

Historic list of members of the Privy Council

(Also daughter pages and possibly other pages?)

Transferred from User_talk:Andrew Yong:

Please explain to me and all other members of the Wikipedia community the reasons why you have flagrantly breached my copyright in the listings of Privy Counsellors since 1679. It is patently obvious to me (and anyone else who cares to look) that you have merely copied these listings from my web-page at Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page. You have not provided as far as I can see any attribution or credit for MY work and have attempted to pass these listings off as your own research. Please remove these pages immediately. Sea Lion]

Transferred from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage:

Members of the Wikipedia community (and especially those who contribute to this page) will be aware of my page at A number of people have been kind enough to say to me that they consider my page to be valuable to their work in this area. Although each of my pages has a copyright notice at the foot of the page, I am happy for the contents of my pages to be used,quoted or published by other people, PROVIDED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES PROPER ATTRIBUTION/CREDIT IS GIVEN TO ME FOR MY WORK. I am however not prepared to accept wholesale breaches of my copyright - I stumbled across such a case yesterday and I am more than a little p*ssed off that this has occurred. I have added a post to the individual's talk page demanding that the offending pages be removed immediately. If this person had asked my permission to use my research prior to posting the offending pages, it would have been freely given, subject to proper attribution.

Some of you may be familiar with a practice long used by certain industries (especially by publishers of maps and street directories) of including, for example, a non-existent geographical feature on a map or a non-existent street in a street directory so as to be able to tell whether another company in a similar industry is merely stealing their work and passing it off as their own. Be aware that my pages follow a similar practice - somewhere in each page there is a hidden pointer which enables me to tell at a glance whether someone has stolen my work. In the case in point, the tell-tale deliberate error appears on the offending pages, something that would not happen if the owner of that page had done their own research instead of simply stealing mine. [Sea Lion]

Comment from me: I'm not sure why Mr. Yong has been singled out here. Most of the work on this was done by me. As such, I'd defend by saying that, as far as I have been able to tell by cross-checking, Mr. Rayment's work is based on publicly available reference works such as Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage, and so forth (which are not, however, acknowledged), and takes the form of lists of officeholders. As such, I question the validity of the copyright claim. My understanding is that factual information cannot be copyrighted. At any rate, I would be happy to add credit to Mr. Rayment (although I'd be more comfortable with such a position if he himself gave credit to his own sources for the information he uses.) john k 03:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What you have and what we have are both lists of factual information presented in chronological order. Both are thus not protectable under copyright law (see Feist v. Rural). Our list is also formatted in a different way than yours so how in the world can you claim that we even used you as a reference, let alone the allegation that we copied your work? You therefore have no right to demand anything from us. John - if you did not use this guy's work as a reference, then please don't list him as one. List the references you actually used. --mav 05:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh, didn't mean to be unclear - I did use his page as a reference. (and you can probably find on talk pages various mentions by me, Lord Emsworth, and others that we have used the page as a reference). When I have checked against other sources, though, such as Complete Peerage, it's clear that his work is based on those sources. john k 05:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Facts are not covered by copyright. The only thing that may be copyrighted here is the list in the format it appears. The list of Privy Counsellors differs substantially from Mr Rayment's list in terms of format, and to a degree in terms of content (note, for instance, that only years, and not exact dates are listed, that there is no "age" column, that the peers' ordinal numbers are provided, and so forth). Neither has information been unlawfully taken, nor has the format been reproduced; therefore, I don't believe that there is a copyright issue here. Now, that said, I would definitely agree that a reference to Mr Rayment's site is in order, as Wikipedia Policy requires one to cite one's sources. -- 10:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

In short: it would be best practice to list Mr Rayment's page (and others that have been counter-checked, such as Burke's &c.) as a reference source on any and all pages for which it has been used, but this it by no means a legal requirement, it being an ordering of factual information.
James F. (talk) 11:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since it's claimed there are tell-tale errors in the list, it would be valuable for someone familiar with the subject to go through the list, comparing it to a second external source -- that way, not only would the information be correct, but the claims of copyright infringment would be made moot. -- Seth Ilys 15:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Notes on copyright and fact listings

Lists of facts cannot be copyrighted. Their organisation *may* be. The law requires some *creative* element in the organisation of such material. This is a low requirement - but an essential one. Some methods of listing eg alphabetical order are now regarded scene a faire - material one would reasonably expect to be present. Listing of personages by date is also one such method.
The alleged(?) author above claims that the presence of deliberate mistakes in his work makes it copyrightable. The inclusion of *minimal* erronous material in such data does not protect the copyrights of the original author(s). This is a common and false assumption. The law only protects copyright infringment where there is *substantial* copying. If the listing contains (say) 1000 names of whom 999 are correct and one is an error even copying the entire listing is highly unlikely to be considered a violation of copyright.
The reasoning here is that the names and titles of the persons in such a list are *facts* and hence cannot be protected by copyright. A listing in historial order is *not* protectable because this falls under the scene a faire doctrine. 1/1000 entries is extremely unlikely to satisfy the de minimis criterion of the law and it might well be judged as falling under the "fair use doctrine".
The *correct* treament of such material is for the author to request that the infringing copyrightable materal *and only that material* be removed. This has the side effect in the instant case of improving the accuracy of the remaining material. It is the requestor's obligation to show that s/he holds the relevent copyrights to the data and explcitly identifies the violating material - excluding any uncopyrightable data. The requestor is exceeding his/her rights if s/he asks for a single line of unprotected material to be removed. To falsely claim copyrights is a federal offense in the United States and carries a jail sentence.
Underlying these 'alleged' copyright infringments there is frequently an underlying assmption that is false. Copyright law was not designed to reward anyone for work carried out by the 'sweat of the brow'. Copyright exists exclusively to protect the creative and novel element(s) in works whether or not they have any economic value of not. Attribution is *not* necessary if the material is not copyrightable. Nonetheless it is good manners to do so.

1 pound notes

I have uploaded an image of the front and of the back of what I think is a Series C Bank of England £1 note, but have now discovered I need prior permission, I am currently applying for permission to use these images in wikipedia, but my existing versions don't meet the requirements, so I request that they be removed in the meantime. They are Image:1pound note-back.jpg and Image:1pound note-front.jpg.

I don't know whether these would be allowed under "fair use" or similar, but if someone else wants to claim fair use, they could reupload them, so I see no reason not to allow the uploader to remove their mistake in uploading these. Angela. 18:15, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • The Bank of England has very strict rules on the reproduction of their notes, we've been asked to take similar scans downin the past, one must ger prior permission to reproduce BoE notes. Boffy b 16:07, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
  • Regardless of their rules i dont think they have a valid claim here, pictures of money are most defenetly fair use whatever the BOE thinks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:41, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, but in this case, probably. Still safer to get permission; see my comment below. Rob Church Talk 13:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Images of paper notes are problematic because of the potential for forgery. If the image is of paper money currently in use it would be best to avoid posting it. The image itself is copyrighted by the Bank of England. Whether or not it can be enforced is another story. The laws of a country are copyrighted but the copyright cannot be enforced. This would certainly be an interesting case just to see the logic applied here: exactly who does own the money?
  • Surely they can't object so long as the scan is of low enough a resolution as to be useless for printing?
I believe that any kind of reproduction of any English banknotes without prior permission is illegal under English criminal law. Obviously this law is not directly binding on Wikipedia, but it's still a factor. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 22:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Point of interest- The Clash wanted to use images of pound notes on the cover of their "Cost of Living" EP back in 1978, but were prevented from doing so by the BoE, even though the reptroductions could clearly not be used for counterfieting purposes... Or maybe CBS' legal dept was just playing safe??? I clearly remember the minor furore that went on in the music press at the time... 00:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) Appologies, that was me quercus robur, I forgot I was signed out (using someone elses PC)
  • Considering £1 bank notes are not legal tender, does this really matter? The only place they could be redeemed, if at all, is the Bank of England itself. It's not like an image of a $1. GreenReaper 19:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all £1 notes are not legal tender; I've got a load of Bank of Scotland ones. I'm also reasonably sure currency is exempted from the usual copyright legislation due to fraud and forgery concerns. Md25 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Scottish banknotes are not legal tender, and the only bank that has been printing £1 notes recently has been the Royal Bank of Scotland, rather than the Bank of Scotland. The British banknotes page describes the difference. This doesn't really change the fact that the poster needed "permission", though. zootm
There used to be a good site at covering copying of currency, but now it's gone. There might be useful information in the wayback machine at [1]. silsor 20:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
In particular, contains guidelines which might be useful. Rob Church Talk 13:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material

To whom may concern:

Recently we were informed about a copyright violation committed against Welcome to Puerto Rico!

Content found at:

Original content found at:

Welcome to Puerto Rico! never received a request for permission of use from your part. Please remove such materials as soon as possible.

This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter.

Magaly Rivera

The article itself is not a copyright violation. However, one recently added paragraph, [2], is clearly taken from a paragraph of [3] (priority established by [4].) It should either be removed or quoted with attribution. - Mustafaa 19:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the text that seems to be copied from your site and one other site as well. silsor 20:41, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

No permission granted to lift work off

Dear Sir or Madam,

While browsing the internet, I came across the use of material off my website European Defence ( In particular, there is material lifted from for the page

While the sources have been acknowledged, I have at no time ever been asked permission for use of this material, which I would be willing to allow you to use for a fee. While European Defence is free to view at the present, IN NO TERMS is material allowed to be lifted without permission. I request that you immediately remove the above information. I hope that this request is honoured without me having to seek legal advice.

Michael Fishpool European Defence

As far as I can tell, you edited this article yourself to remove the information. Is there anything else that you would like done? silsor 00:35, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Silsor.
In reference to your comment regarding my rant over the use of material from the European Defence website. I wrote the piece before I worked out that it is possible to remove the material myself... for that I apologise. I then added a piece to the discussion forum on that page. It appears that "CeeGee" has now updated the Turkish military piece, having used listings taken from a German forum. There is no further action now that I want Wikipedia to take.
(copied from my talk page - silsor 19:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC))

Removal of personal name

I recently received the following message on my talk page from User: I'm not sure what he's referring to, but I thought I'd copy it here:

Hey, Can you contact me "m y s p a m a i l" please ? There is my personal name on one of your pages and I need it removed, thank you.

 – Jrdioko (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

So did you email him? silsor 20:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's been months since I put this here (sorry Silsor, didn't see your reply), but I thought I'd update it anyway. The above user replied to his post on my talk page and said it was on Indopedia (a fork of Wikipedia), not the main site. I replied to him on my talk, but didn't email as I don't feel comfortable sending email containing my address to people I don't personally know.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

removal of private picture

this picture is a private unreleased picture and should be deleted at once.

Okay, I noticed that you also removed this picture from Jason Saffer and removed the pd-release tag from the image. Could you demonstrate that you are the copyright holder? I will also ask User:Pacian, the contributor of the image and the person who linked it in Jason Saffer, to comment here. silsor 18:46, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've received personal email from the copyright holder, so I've deleted the image. silsor 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I found the picture in an advertisement placed by the person in question on under the "Men Seeking Men" section of the Washington, D.C. listings. Per craigslist's policies, photos that are posted there are released into the public domain, so the subject of the photo released that photo to the public. That being said, I couldn't care less if it is included here or not. Pacian 23:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Copyright image

Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the images posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2006 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) is the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transfered from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing.

To prove authenticity, here is a notice posted on the New Zealand National Front website: [5] - Molloy (added 06:19, 5 July 2005)


Hi, have put a page together, but didn't think about copyright. Please remove "Arantis" immediately, thanks!

This appears to have been done. Rob Church Talk | Desk 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted Materials

Recently we were informed about a copyright violation committed against Welcome to Puerto Rico! There is a considerable amount of copyrighted material placed on:

  Original content:


  Original content:

Welcome to Puerto Rico! never received a request for permission of use from your part. We have computer-based data to support our claim.

In addition, images are been posted as public domain, when no copyright release was issue for such images:

Please remove such materials as soon as possible.

This is our first notice.

We will appreciate your prompt response on this matter.

Magaly Rivera Welcome to Puerto Rico!

Guayama, Puerto Rico was reverted to the state it had before the text in question was inserted. Quebradillas, Puerto Rico was deleted, since the initial version already had the text in question and what had been added later was not enough for even a small article. The three images have been flagged for deletion and were removed from the articles where they were being used. --cesarb 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reproductions of baseball logos

The owner and publisher of the Negro League Baseball Dot Com website has sent us a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that several graphic images (emblems relating to Negro League Baseball teams) of which he is the creator and copyright owner have been posted to articles related to Negro League baseball teams on Wikipedia without permission.

The specific image URLs were [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Michael Snow wrote that he did not have any reason to doubt the claim to ownership and recommended that we remove these as requested. He doesn't think they're important enough to us to warrant claiming fair use, and if they're not exactly the original logos, thinks a claim of fair use is much less likely to prevail.

I've now deleted these. Angela. July 2, 2005 01:27 (UTC)

Second Notice on Copyright Violation!

To Whom It May Concern:

The article Moses Kalankaytuk has been pasted from I am an owner of the above page that is being used on Wikipedia without my permission. On June 24, 2005 I have requested that the above page be immediately removed from Wikipedia. To expedite this process I provided the proof that I am indeed the owner of this Web Site by publishing this same request at , at the same server, where the original article was published.

Since then the article Moses Kalankaytuk has been marked with the Copyright Violation tag, but its content is not deleted as it still can be viewed from the history pages. One week has passed already, but the article has not been deleted.

Please, remove this article now!

© 2001 - 2005, Библиотека «Вехи»,

Web Site Owner (preceding unsigned comment by

We cannot perform that action. Section 1 of this page, Page histories, states:

Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page.

Please contact Wikipedia's designated agent regarding the material you wish to have removed. — Dan Johnson TC July 7, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
Technically, we can remove infringing revisions - we can delete the article, then undelete only clean revisions. Rob Church Talk 13:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Breach of copyright

Wikipedia is hosting an image of Kyle Chapman former leader of The New Zealand National Front. I have removed this image several times, and replaced. This Image is my property and has been used without permission. This image has not been released into the public domain. As the copyright holder, and profesional photographer, I am requesting that this image be permantly removed immediatly.

If you have any further questions please contact me


Cameron Burnell

The image is claimed under fair use, it has been used on other websites such as Scoop, uploaded I presume by Cameron.[12] It has also been posted in various other location around the net. - Molloy
While I wish we could find a reason to keep it, I do not see how, under the fair use doctrine, that we can keep this image. It is a portrait, it does not depict an unreprodable event, we are not using it for critical comment, and it is reproducced full size. The copyright owner is apparently a young photographer who depends on his copyrights for income. For these reasons it seems a proper candidate for immediate removal. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 10:06 (UTC)
Ok, I spoke to the copyright holder on the phone, he has seeked legal advice and confirms he may be subject to profit loss. Contrary to my previous comment, I advise speedy deletion. Molloy
Nothing is simple. Now the photographer has posted a note apparently saying that he is willing to license it. User talk: Hopefully we can resolve this soon. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 01:05 (UTC) Nope, didn't work out. Please proceed with removal. Thanks, -Willmcw

Copyright Violation

Image:8th duke of wellington.JPG This above image has been created by User:John_Kenney from my previously uploaded image:-

Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg

Which is an official copyright image from the Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archives, where I am the Regimental Photo Archivist. The name and title was embedded into the image to prevent abuse. User:John_Kenney does not have permission to alter the Crown Copyright image I uploaded. Could you please delete the amended image from your database and replace the original image to the article it was uploaded for. I would also appreciate it if User:John_Kenney could be given a warning about altering images, simply because he doesn't like them. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it [personal attack removed]. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don't get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

I now appear to be getting personal abuse from user:John Kenny on my talk page and on the 8th Dukes discussion page IE:

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I assume that this user is a sysop and as such should not be allowed to act this way. Richard Harvey 7 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Use of European Defence material (Again)

Several months ago I complained about the use off material from the website, European Defence ( without permission. A satisfactory solution was found to the problem at that point. However, while browsing the Internet, I came across the page on the German Army:

What particularly angers me is that Wikipedia claims to offer some kind of "GNU Free Documentation license". So, I look in google and I find:

Which repeats everything on the Wikipedia page I'm complaining about!

While clearly, it is composed of various bits of information (or maybe lifted), I was alarmed to see that the editor of this page was actually lifting word-by word sections of:

For example: the Wikipedia version says:

"The German Army is presently divided...."

Under the command of Heeresführugskommando (Army Guidance Command) are 7 divisions ...."

So does European Defence.

Ironically, I recieved an e-mail recently pointing out that I'd actually got the translation of "Heeresführugskommando" which has since been corrected on my website. The Wikipedia version still uses my original translation mistake!

The Wikipedia piece then goes on.......

"Units from the 10th Armoured Division contribute ......."

And so does European Defence

Wikipedia then adds this useful piece of information:

"The German Army is equipped with about 2,560 MBTs........"

Guess what - so does European Defence

I'd advise you to read each section that I have referred to as I am not going to cut-and-paste the relevant pieces off European Defence onto this page.

With any intelligence, the "editor" or "author" of this page on Wikipedia would take what he reads, re-write it into his own words to make it sound different to the piece that he (or she) is writing to avoid possible copyright issues.

May I draw your attention to:

and in particular "Copyright issues"

I have stuck a Possible Copyright Violation on the above Wikipedia page and I would be grateful if your "editor" re-writes it, removes it or whatever. Obviously, I am getting pretty sick of this now. Do your own research and writing. Just stop lifting bits off my website! (preceding unsigned comment by (talkcontribs) 2005-07-08 17:42:40 CDT)

  • Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I agree that this material appears to be a copyright violation. I have removed it from the article (along with the {{copyvio}} templates). There will be a delay before this propagates to any mirrors of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's been mixed in with other valid edits The material was inserted by the anonymous user He seems to have contributed to a large number of millitary articles: French Army, Italian army, Special forces, French Navy, etc. We may have a much bigger job to sort out here. Bovlb 2005-07-09 14:38:54 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed most of the military pages edited by this user, and could only find a clear copyright violation in French Army, which I have removed. This change should percolate to Wikipedia's mirrors in a matter of days, or you can contact them directly for prompter action. Note that the violating material is still available via the articles' edit histories; please let us know if you require this to be purged, or if you have any other issues. Bovlb 01:29:02, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

violation of i18nguy copyright

violation of i18nguy copyright on shoe sizes

The page on shoe size has taken much of the material from my web page and the shoe size chart is clearly derived from my web page.

I do not give permission for this information to be copied.

Please remove it immediately.

I am also concerned that

and other sites now believe they can use this material under your copyright terms. Please see to it that this is addressed immediately.

The chart and other materials is the result of extensive and difficult research and I greatly resent the use of the materials on other sites. My page has been in existence for a number of years, and discussed at Unicode conferences where I presented papers on it a few years ago.

I can be reached at 781 789 1898 or

tex texin

  • I have removed the material that you believe to be a violation from the article you mention. is a mirror of Wikipedia and the removal will take a few days to filter down to that site, as well as other mirrors that may have used the material; if you want them to remove it quicker, you can contact them directly. If you would like us to further remove the material from the Page History, you should contact the Designated Agent for Wikipedia. Gwk 23:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Request from original uploader to delete copyright images

The following list of images were uploaded by myself and are all the property and copyright of The Duke of Wellington's Regimental Archives collection. Following a further reversion by User:Petesmiles of the image, see above, to the one deleted after a previous copy violation I have been, regrettably, instructed to request the images be immediately removed from your database. Please note a fee is payable for future use of the images. Richard Harvey 10:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:1DWR Colours & Guard.jpg
Image:2Lt Henry Kelly VC.jpg
Image:33rd Regiment.jpg
Image:76-0169C 1858 76th Regimental Sergeants.jpg
Image:ASgt Hanson Turner VC.jpg
Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:CSgt Wayne Mills02.jpg
Image:Dmr M Magnar VC.jpg
Image:Dukes 2004.jpg
Image:DWR 33rd Badge Small.jpg
Image:DWR 76th Badge Small.jpg
Image:DWR Anzio Plaque.jpg
Image:DWR Cap Badge small.jpg
Image:DWR Combined Badge small.jpg
Image:DWR Combined Badge.jpg
Image:DWR Regimental Colours.jpg
Image:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:Henry Valerian George Wellesley, 6th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:Lt JP Huffam VC.jpg
Image:LtColonel Gerald Wellesley KG 7th Duke of Wellington.jpg
Image:Maj General Sir Evelyn John Webb Carter.jpg
Image:Mike Campbell Lamerton OBE.jpg
Image:Pte Henry Tandey VC.jpg
Image:Pte J Bergin VC.jpg
Image:Pte Poulter VC.jpg
Image:Pte RH Burton VC.jpg
Image:Sgt A Loosemoore VC.jpg
Image:Sgt W Firth VC.jpg
Image:The Hook Korea July 1953.jpg
Image:The Wellesley.ogg
Image:Victoria Cross Pte Poulter.jpg

See also #Copyright Violation above and the discussion at Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington. --cesarb 23:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Note, many of these don't have copyright information, but the ones that do state no comercial use, so they'll have to go anyway. --Duk 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

All images have been deleted except Image:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg (might be PD). I hope this puts an end to the pissing matches. --Duk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement:

The text at the above link has been lifted directly from pages at and

The text is almost word-for-word with minor modification made to fit it onto Wikipedia. Please remove all text immediately as this is a clear breach of my copyright. No permission has ever been given to ANYONE to use the text from these links for their own purposes.

Posted Wednesday 10th August.

Page tagged as a copyvio and listed at WP:CP. The first two or three edits might be ok.--Duk 01:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

This image is used without permission. Although the header of the gallery it is taken from does say images can be 'taken', it does not give permission for them to be uploaded and displayed on other servers or used for other than personal purposes. Original image. I would like this image to be deleted from your servers. A DMCA notification has been sent to the designated agent email.

The wording of the original license terms on Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg is (from [13]) «C9 Las Vegas April 24-27 2003. Feel free to take these pictures if you'd like. Please make sure to give a link back to my site when you do though"». The image was used with proper attribution and is therefore fully compliant; furthermore in the original context (it appears only in the article promoting your site Encyclopædia Dramatica here on Wikipedia) it also qualifies under the doctrine of fair use. Your repeated vandalism of the article by unlinking the image is therefore uncalled for. See Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica, Image talk:Sherrod degrippo.jpg. --carlb 00:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Image [14] uploaded and displayed without permission of copyright-holder. Ripped off from [15] - clearly labeled copyrighted, per policy/notice [16]. Immediate and complete removal from server demanded. 18 August 2005

See discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Others for more details on this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal Society Fellows

This page: [17] and its child pages appear to contain data taken from the Royal Society Fellowship database at [18], in violation of our copyright.

Your assistance in removing this material promptly will be greatly appreciated.

Hang on a minute, correct me if I'm wrong but I think that raw data such as those are uncopyrightable. I was just trying to obtain a definitive list of fellows in order that the public be educated, which is the aim of both Wikipedia and the Royal Society. I'll email you anyway, if I can. Dunc| 23:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Raw facts and figures cannot be copyrighted. Rob Church Talk 14:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I have been contacted and informed that an image as to which I represent the copyright holders is posted in Wikipedia Commons without permission. Please remove the following image immediately: [Wintu_Women_circa_1900.jpg].

The source of the image is listed as the website of the College of the Siskiyous, where the image appears with permission; the image on that website clearly contains the copyright statement: © 2001 Masson-Gomez Family.

I have read the statement of the person who originally posted the image, and it appears that he was under the mistaken impression that the copyright had expired - that impression is incorrect. While the image was created some time ago, it remained privately held by the family, and was not published or registered for copyright until recently. Under the Copyright Act, this image is clearly currently copyright protected.

Under 17 U.S.C. sec. 303, as a work created before 1978 but not theretofore in the public domain, which was then first published in 2001, the copyright remains active until December 31, 2047. There is a very useful chart published on the Cornell University website that sets out these complex rules in a simple way Copyright Protection Chart.

If you have any questions please contact the administrator of the College of the Siskiyous website directly, and he will confirm the copyright status of the image.

Again, please remove this protected image immediately.

CopyrightProtection 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


copied from WP:HD by Bovlb 00:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

To whom it may concern You are using a personal photpgraph of my gt.uncle on your Anthony M Ludovici page without my or my family's permission. Please have it taken off immediately and contact us as to who gave you the authority to copy it onto your site.We have had it taken off the Anthony M Ludovici site for the same reasons,and I presume that is where you copied it from. Thank you Caroline Ludovici Jones (preceding unsigned comment by (talkcontribs) 2005-09-23 16:15:08 PDT)

I assume you are refering to Image:Amludovici.jpg - the user who uploaded that image, User:Dionysus83, stated when uploading it that the photo is licensed under the GNU General Public License. (I have removed Caroline's email address, as per the instructions at the top of this page; I have also emailed a copy of this response.) -- AJR 23:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Kindly remove the following pages immediately as they are blatant copyright violations: [[19]] [[20]]

This is a claim of copyright infringement that is being made.

The term IIPM and the term Indian Institute of Planning and Management are protected by the Indian copyright laws and can be used only after explicit permission in a written format has been granted.

Wikipedia's policy clearly enunciates that only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable. And none of these has been given ever to the authors.

Moreover, according to Wikipedia policy, copyrighted material not licensed for Wikipedia (with very limited fair-use exception) is not welcome on Wikipedia.

IIPM should clarify that no such permission has been obtained by any of the authors of the above mentioned pages. Interested parties may kindly visit [[21]] and visit the legal terms of use section to understand the scope of the copyright and why it is applicable to Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia's policy also clarifies that slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.

We respect Wikipedia's policy and should mention that the above mentioned pages are also clearly full of slander, libel and defamation of character. IIPM wishes to utilize the pertinent forums available on Wikipedia to request that these pages be removed immediately.

Are you claiming that the article text is copyrighted or that the names "IIPM" and "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" are trade marked? If the former, could you please provide a reference to the publication (website, folder, etc.) it was copied from. If the latter, trade mark protection does not extend to allowing the institute to forbid the use of the name in an article about I'm afraid, see trade mark for more information. --fvw* 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Metalmaverick is acting on behalf of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). Metalmaverick claims that usage of the abbreviation "IIPM" and phrase "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" on Wikipedia is a violation of some copyright statute in India. See Special:Contributions/Metalmaverick. While outside the focus of this page, the activities of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management in Wikipedia deserve serious administrative oversight. Adraeus 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I am Jin Wicked, I own the copyright to [22] which has been posted to Wikipedia without my permission at [23]. Please remove this copyright violation from the page's history. Thank you. Jinwicked 14:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I quote from earlier in the page.
"Note that Wikipedians do not have the ability to remove copyright infringements from an article's page history. Therefore, if you believe that material in an article's page history infringes your copyright, you should contact Wikipedia's designated agent, rather than using this page."
Please contact Wikipedia's Designated agent regarding this matter. 20:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Done --Duk 16:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools
In other languages