Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Update this page

This page is for listing and discussing possible copyright problems involving text on Wikipedia, including pages which are suspected to be copyright violations. Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure by a copyright problems clerk or administrator. During this time, interested contributors are invited to offer feedback about the problem at the relevant talk page, to propose revisions to the material, or to request copyright permission. After the listing period, a copyright problems board clerk or administrator will review the listing and take what further action may be necessary.

Pages listed for copyright review appear in the bottom section of the page. The top includes information for people who have copyright concerns about pages or images, for those whose pages have been tagged for concerns, for community volunteers who'd like to help resolve concerns and for the clerks and administrators who volunteer here.

To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for dealing with copyright concerns can be found at Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns.

Handling previously published text on Wikipedia

Under the United States law that governs Wikipedia, copyright is automatically assumed as soon as any content (text or other media) is created in a physical form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright, for a copyright to exist.

Only one of the following allows works to be reused in Wikimedia projects:

A) Explicit Statement. An explicit statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is either:

B) Public Domain. If the work is inherently in the public domain, due to its age, source or lack of originality (such as Copyright-free logos); or

C) Fair Use. United States law allows for fair use of copyrighted content, and (within limits) Wikipedia does as well. Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only if clearly marked and with full attribution.

Even if a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, material should be properly attributed in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. This is not only a matter of respecting local custom. When content is under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's license, proper attribution may be required. If the terms of the compatible license are not met, use of the content can constitute a violation of copyright even if the license is compatible.

Repeated copyright violations

Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material (text or images) may be subject to contributor copyright investigations, to help ensure the removal from the project of all copyrighted material posted in contravention of policy. Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings will be blocked from editing, to protect the project; see 17 United States Code § 512.

Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first

In some instances, it is clear that two pieces of text (one on Wikipedia, and one elsewhere) are copies of each other, but not clear which piece is the original and which is the copy. "Compliant" sites that copy Wikipedia text note that they have done so, but not all of our re-users are compliant.

If you've found such a case, you might first check the discussion page to see if a note has been added to the top of the talk page to allay people's concerns. If not, you can look for clues. Do other pages in the other website copy other Wikipedia articles? Did the content show up on Wikipedia all in once piece, placed by a single editor? If you don't see good evidence that Wikipedia had it first, it's a good idea to bring it up for investigation. You might follow the Instructions for listing below or tag the article {{copy-paste|url=possible source}} so that others can evaluate.

If you confirm definitely that the content was on Wikipedia first, please consider adding {{backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of how you know. If you see an article somewhere else which was copied from Wikipedia without attribution, you might visit the CC-BY-SA compliance page or Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. There are well documented cases of plagiarism from Wikipedia by external publications.

Instructions for dealing with text-based copyright concerns

Copyright owners: If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may request immediate removal of the copyright violation by emailing us at info-en-c@wikimedia.org. Please provide the address or title of the page, and evidence to show that you are the legitimate copyright holder. Alternatively, you may contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. You are also welcome to follow the procedures here. See the copyright policy for more information.

Blatant infringement

Pages exhibiting blatant copyright infringements may be speedily deleted if:

  • Content was copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the content was copied from that source to Wikipedia and not the other way around (Wikipedia has numerous mirrors);
  • The page can neither be restored to a previous revision without infringing content, nor would the page be viable if the infringing content were removed.
  • There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.

To nominate an article for speedy deletion for copyright concerns, add one of these to the page:

Both of these templates will generate a notice that you should give the contributor of the content. This is important to help ensure that they do not continue to add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to delete it or not. You should not blank the page in this instance.

Suspected or complicated infringement

If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

  • Remove or rewrite the infringing text avoiding violations of copyright or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.
    The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons (allowing evaluation by non-administrative editors) unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. After determination that it is a copyvio, it should be tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{subst:cclean}}). When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem. The template {{Uw-copyright}} may be used for this purpose.
  • However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated:
  • Replace the text with one of the following:

    {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}}{{subst:copyvio|identify non-web source here}}

  • Go to today's section and add

    * {{subst:article-cv|PageName}} from [insert URL or identify non-web source here] ~~~~

    to the bottom of the list. Put the page's name in place of "PageName". If you do not have a URL, enter a description of the source. (This text can be copied from the top of the template after substituting it and the page name and url will be filled for you.) If there is not already a page for the day, as yours would be the first listing, please add a header to the top of the page using the page for another date as an example.
  • Advise the contributor of the material at their talk page. The template on the now blanked page supplies a notice you may use for that purpose.

Instructions for special cases

  • Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)
  • Instances where one contributor has verifiably introduced copyright problems into multiple pages or files and assistance is needed in further review: See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Instructions for handling image copyright concerns

Image copyright concerns are not handled on this board. For images that are clear copyright violations, follow the procedure for speedy deletion; otherwise list at Files for Discussion. To request assistance with contributors who have infringed copyright in multiple articles or files, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations.

Responding to articles listed for copyright investigation

Copyright owners and people editing on their behalf or with their permission, please see below.

Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags and mark listings resolved.

Assistance might include supplying evidence of non-infringement (or, conversely, of infringement) or obtaining and verifying permission of license. You might also help by rewriting problematic articles.

Supplying evidence of non-infringement

Articles are listed for copyright investigation because contributors have reason to suspect they constitute a copyright concern, but not every article listed here is actually a copyright problem. Sometimes, the content was on Wikipedia first. Sometimes, the article is public domain or compatibly licensed and can be easily fixed by supplying attribution (e.g. through a dummy edit). Sometimes, the person who placed it here is the copyright owner of freely-licensed material and this simply needs to be verified.

If you can provide information to prove license or public domain status of the article, please do. It doesn't matter if you do it under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article; a link or a clear explanation can be very helpful when a clerk or administrator evaluates the matter. (As listings are not immediately addressed on the board, it may take a few days after you make your note before a response is provided.)

If the article is tagged for {{copyvio}}, you should allow an administrator or copyright problems clerk to remove the tag. If the article is tagged for {{copy-paste}} or {{close paraphrasing}}, you may remove the tag from the article when the problem is addressed (or disproven), but please do not close the listing on the copyright problems board itself.

Obtaining/verifying permission

Sometimes material was placed on Wikipedia with the permission of the copyright owner. Sometimes copyright owners are willing to give permission (and proper license!) even if it was not.

Any contributor can write to the owner of copyright and check whether they gave or will give permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!). See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. In either case, unless a statement authorizing the material under compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, permission will need to be confirmed through e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission. If a compatible license is placed online at the point of original publication, please provide a link to that under the listing for the article on the copyright problems board or on the talk page of the article.

Please note that it may take a few days for letters to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged.

Rewriting content

Any contributor may rewrite articles that are or seem to be copyight problems to exclude duplicated or closely paraphrased text. When articles or sections of articles are blanked as copyright problems, this is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the new material can be copied over the old. (The template blanking the article will link to the specific temporary page.)

Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first. Other content from the article can be used, if there is no reason to believe that it may be a copyright issue as well. It is often a good idea – and essential when the content is copied from an inaccessible source such as a book – to locate the point where the material entered the article and eliminate all text added by that contributor. This will help avoid inadvertently continuing the copyright issues in your rewrite. If you use any text at all from the earlier version of the article, please leave a note at the talk page of the article to alert the administrator or clerk who addresses the listing. The history of the old article will then have to be retained. (If the original turns out to be non-infringing, the two versions of the article can be merged.)

Rewrites can be done directly in articles that have been tagged for {{close paraphrasing}} and {{copy-paste}}, with those tags removed after the rewrite is complete.

Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste and the linked guidelines and policies within it if necessary to review Wikipedia's practices for handling non-free text. Reviewing Wikipedia:Plagiarism is also helpful, particularly where content is compatibly licensed or public domain. Repairing these issues can sometimes be as simple as supplying proper attribution.

Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)

If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, then stating on the article's talk page that you are the copyright holder of the work (or acting as his or her agent), while not likely to prevent deletion, helps. To completely resolve copyright concerns, it is sufficient to either:

See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

Please note that it may take a bit of time for letters and e-mails to clear once they are sent. Do not worry if the content is deleted prematurely; it can be restored at any point usable permission is logged. Your e-mail will receive a response whether the permission is usable or not. If you have not received a response to your letter within two weeks, it is a good idea to follow up.

One other factor you should consider, however, is that content that has been previously published elsewhere may not meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with these policies and guidelines, please review especially the core policies that govern the project. This may help prepare you to deal with any other issues with the text that may arise.

Should you choose to rewrite the content rather than release it under the requisite license, please see above.

Information about the people who process copyright problems listed on the board

Copyright problems board clerks

For a more complete description of clerks and their duties, as well as a list of active clerks, please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks.

Copyright problems board clerks are experienced editors on Wikipedia who have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's approach to non-free text and its processes for dealing with them. They are trusted to evaluate and close listings, although their closures may sometimes require completion by administrators, when use of administrative tools is required. Clerks are periodically reviewed by the administrators who work in copyright areas on Wikipedia.

Copyright problems board administrators

For a more complete description of administrators on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Administrators.

Any administrator may work the copyright problems board. Working the copyright problems board may involve evaluating listings personally or using tools as necessary to complete closures by clerks. Clerks have been evaluated in their work, and their recommendations may be implemented without double-checking, although any administrator is welcome to review recommendations and discuss them with the clerks in question.

Closing listings

Pages should stay listed for a minimum of 5 days before they are checked and processed by copyright problems board clerks, 7 days before they are checked or processed by administrators, who close the daily listings. OTRS agents who verify images may close listings at any time.

For advice for resolving listings, see:

The templates collected at Template:CPC may be useful for administrators, clerks and OTRS agents noting resolution.

Listings of possible copyright problems

Very old issues

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 October 25:

  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Yikes, Justlettersandnumbers! Do we still need to spot-check other edits? That one was pretty bad. If I had known how widespread it was, I might have stubbed it to begin with. :( I thinkI got it all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I haven't looked at this recently. But the quick off-the-top-of-my-head reply from what I recall is "yes, definitely". I'll try to dig a bit later today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Justlettersandnumbers, I've found copy-pasting in Ethnicity (album). That was an unsourced copy-paste, so we have plagiarism going on here as well. That means, sadly, that we can't rely on this user to identify where he copied his content from. :( I don't have time to look through it at the moment, but there's definitely copy-pasting in this edit (and close paraphrase) at least from [1] (the epiphany line and subsequent.) We may be heading towards a CCI here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a link to all contributions. I didn't immediately see other copyright violations but I didn't look thoroughly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • So is there anything left to do here? It's been a few years, and pretty much nothing remains of the original thing. I just flushed more of it. Maybe this one can be retired from this grand list? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 November 28:

  • Psychonaut, I'm not managing to access that page, either directly or via archive.org. Can you provide a different link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • [2]. That particular section was removed, though there is possibly more to be concerned about. MER-C 12:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 20:

Looks as if there may be around 234 articles to be checked, Doc James. If you've already identified about five instances of infringement, the next step could be a WP:CCI request. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User says they will rewrit [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: This got cleaned up, right? I'm just working at tidying this page a bit. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 July 21:

  • To complicate things, the official listings are now licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-IGO. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • See e.g. [4]. The tentative listings do not have this license. MER-C 03:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 July 1:

We have over 400 pages of Meanings of minor planet names that may have the same issue, so I picked the 100001–101000 example at random. For most of the entries, the description in the This minor planet was named for... column was copied or very closely paraphrased from the "JPL" source linked in the Ref · Catalog column. This was previously discussed at a tangentially related AfD where some editors felt it was a copyright violation while others argued that the data was "freely available from NASA" and not subject to copyright. JPL's copyright statements [5] [6] may be of use. –dlthewave 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Simple phrases such as "This minor planet was named for <name>" cannot be copyrighted. I don't know how many entries fall outside this "simple" phrasing, but it's something to consider. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
A random selection indicates to me that we have to either (a) determine that the "Discovery Circumstances" prose within the JPL Small-Body Database Browser is not subject to copyright; or (b) check and possibly re-phrase a huge number of pages. It's not as simple as "This is named for <name>. We perhaps should say that in a lot of the entries. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 March 15:

  • This looks like a backwards copy. The section in the article seems to have evolved fairly organically before it matched the content on the school site. See these versions over 18 months or so: [7], [8]. and this where it was copyedited to come close (but still not matching) the content on the school page: [9]. CrowCaw 21:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Relisting this as Dual enrollment is still tagged as CV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Older than 7 days

3 October 2019

Definitely massive copyvio for almost the entire Cast section, and chunks of the Acts section. It seems at least some of that was added by User:A1 Federation in 2014 with this edit. Waggie (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

11 October 2019

24 October 2019

28 October 2019

1 November 2019

See also (and possibly delete) Talk:Developmentally appropriate practice. Daask (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

3 November 2019

5 November 2019

The author, Ylevental has licensed this content for use on Wikipedia. See User_talk:Kvng#The_copyright_violation_was_from_a_book_review_that_I_wrote. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Source website has CC BY-SA 3.0 tag. I'll remove the copyvio tag from the draft. Huon (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

21 November 2019

I have found three instances of extensive cut-and-paste by Dhollm (talk · contribs), and am concerned that their work dating years may be copyvio. I do not have time to continue looking, but suggest that a copyright investigation may need to be opened to check every edit from this editor.

  1. Harlem River (created in 2010, acknowledging text from gsapp.org,[11], a site which was webarchived in 2011 [12]).
  2. Pineywoods cattle since its creation (much of the article was mirrored later, but some of the article was taken from the same org that later mirrored Wikipedia); not sure what revdel may be needed because of the mix.
  3. Electrostatic fluid accelerator was moved from draft space with what looks like it might be cut-and-paste from a journal article, with citations filled in later with other edits.[13] Access to books and journals needed, but citations from the article infringed at Harlem River, and acknowledged in edit summary, were copied in verbatim as in this instance. (According to responses on Dhollm's talk page, these may be student papers that do not have copyright releases. [14] Independently, reliability is not established if they are student papers.)
  4. Convection https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=379862963 should be checked as well, versus journals, if warranted based on what is found elsewhere.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, does this fall under copyright violation? European Association for Artificial Intelligence#Fellowship, [[15]] ZaaraTE (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

23 November 2019

See note from Alex 21 at Draft_talk:Titans_(season_1). ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

26 November 2019

27 November 2019

2 December 2019

4 December 2019

14 December 2019

5 January 2020

13 January 2020

Is the use of File:El grafico 3902 romario.jpg in 1994 FIFA World Cup Final a copyright violation on the English project? The file is flagged as a copyright vio in commons within the US, it has expired in Argentina. I have tried to keep it out but Fma12 (talk · contribs) has edit warred to keep it in, and he has threatened to report me (where? I don't know because a WP:BOOMERANG would apply. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1994_FIFA_World_Cup_Final&oldid=prev&diff=935508850 Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: reverted my edit twice 1, 2 on 1994 FIFA World Cup Final.
His reasons were (as he statedd) "bad spelling and copyright violation in the US", which I consider not only harsh (a bad spelling can be improved) but falacious so the URAA issue was already discussed on Commons and closed in 2014 as "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion". Moreover, I don't know any rule that forbid the use of non-PD-US images on this project. In fact, other articles such as Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup) or 1986 FIFA World Cup Final have files with the same licenses.
I contacted him to request a valid reason for his reversions, but he also reverted the discussion showing a non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all. - Fma12 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You've once again completely missed the point. Is the file under copyright in the US? If so, can it be used on the English project?
Since you've found that I moved the discussion to Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup Final are you still going to lie and say that I am showing a non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all? Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You talking to me of "lies"? Another time, you being harsh. Where is the "non-written" rule that states a non-PD-US file can't be used in the English Wikipedia? What consensus tried you to reach when your only attitude has been reverting my edits and blanking your talk page? Is this polite? I don't think so. – Fma12 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's focus on the questions we need to discuss here: Is the file under copyright in the US? If so, can it be used on the English project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder the same, and I'll await for a proper answer so this issue can be solved. Fma12 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So basically what you're saying is that you do not know if it is under copyright in the US? The fact that the image is tagged in Commons as still being under copyright should answer that question, but I do want you to acknowledge that copyright laws vary from location to location. So again, is the image still under copyright in the US? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I need to know whether the image (or any URAA-tagged files) can be used in this project or not. In fact, many URAA images are used in other projects (such as the Spanish wiki, where rationale use is not allowed, which is apparently a contradiction). - Fma12 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
No. Copyrighted images may not be used on English Wikipedia. That's been what I've been saying from the outset. That's what the polcies clearly state as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} explains the issue clearly enough. The image can't be used in the English Wikipedia unless a non-free use rationale is provided. It is my guess that there isn't a strong enough case for non-free use, so the image should be excluded from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Any chance you'd like to remove it as a copy vio. With the threat of a visit to 3RN, I'd rather not do it, even thought it's clear that it should be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually enforce copyright, so I hope we can get a response first from User:Fma12 before I consider further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Having cleared the point, I've just removed the Romario photo from the article although it could be used in other projects, as you stated. I don't consider to go further with this discussion, this is closed for me. Regards. Fma12 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

14 January 2020

17 January 2020

18 January 2020

19 January 2020

22 January 2020

  • C-ImmSim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)—previous version included content copied from here. Based on the article style, some of the rest may be copied from various offline sources given as references. However, since the article is written by Fcasti (talk · contribs), who may be the same person as Filippo Castiglione, one of the main researchers (who is the author of the majority of the sources), possibly OTRS permission can be obtained. buidhe 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

30 January 2020

3 February 2020

5 February 2020

13 February 2020

14 February 2020

15 February 2020

17 February 2020

Author is attempting a rewrite at SSAE No. 18/Temp. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

28 February 2020

2 March 2020

List of U.S. states ranked per five-factor model personality trait - the substantive content of this article comes from a single source which is a paywalled journal I can't access. My current thinking is that either this article is OR/SYNTH of material drawn from that source, or it may be a COPYVIO of a table published in it. Any advice much appreciated. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Litchfield, Ohio - The majority of the history in this article appears to be directly lifted from this page from the township's webpage. Please see this Duplication Detector report. The Internet Archive shows that this content existed on that webpage prior to the contribution that added it to the wiki article. Phuzion (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

7 March 2020

9 March 2020

10 March 2020

13 March 2020

14 March 2020

Mathglot identified a potential copyright violation at Meme, but earwig's copyvio detector seems to be nonfunctional currently. Can someone check this out? Sdkb (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

16 March 2020

17 March 2020

22 March 2020

23 March 2020

New listings

New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports. To add a new listing, please go to today's section. Instructions for adding new listings can be found at Instructions for listing text-based copyright concerns. Entries may not be reviewed and are not closed for at least 7 days to give the original authors of the article time to deal with the problem.

Older than 5 days

30 March 2020

Busey Bank (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://ir.busey.com/. Dates back to 2015 and repeatedly updated by copy-paste from company's own corporate investor marketing by conflict-of-interest accounts. Closeapple (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 March 31

Recent listings

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 1 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 2 Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 3

4 April 2020

Update: I reverted the flagging of copyvio in the noted article, as review via Wayback Machine plus original citations when content was added indicate that the city website has used content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

5 April 2020

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 6

Footer

Wikipedia's current date is 6 April 2020. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 April 6. Files should be handled by speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.