Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix per MOS:DOUBLEBOLD.

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

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

 Done FaviFake (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no 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, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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

 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 edits 21:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1262#Dr. Emily Lazarou (Forensic Psychiatrist) has a statement about Large 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no 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)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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.

The Wikipedia-produced YouTube video entitled, "Wikipedia editing basics- Plagiarism and copyright violation" has just been uploaded to Commons (see background). 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 at WP: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 category c:Category:License review needed as needing review, but since Wikipedia itself is the author and the video appears in the official YouTube Wikipedia channel, I am assuming this needn't hold things up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

@Mathglot  Done – robertsky (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated!  Resolved. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 toxic FrustratedGamer0909 (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk: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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove "WP:COPYLINKS" shortcut per WP:2SHORTCUTS guideline.

Diff:

Absolutiva 14:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The work on Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has revealed that some people may have been using "archive" websites to get around a WP:PAYWALL.

I suggest the following change:

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I honestly thought this was widely known. I've always assumed the widespread paywall bypassing was the whole reason Archive Today became popular in the first place among editors...

The issue with your proposed change lies in the wide variability of what a "reasonable reviewer" might see as the purpose of a web archive. If an article is paywalled, it cannot be properly archived in a public, rules-abiding archive like Wayback Machine without permission from the publisher. But it can be archived by sites like Archive Today, which uses crowdsourced log-ins and technical tricks to get past paywalls. I imagine there are many people who would argue that archiving a paywalled source via Archive Today is inherently justified because it archives content that cannot be reasonably archived via standard methods. I would also imagine that there are many people who would see that exact situation and read it as an attempt to just bypass paywalls and avoid paying publishers to read their content. Those are essentially irreconcilable viewpoints. (To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I can see exactly where the "pain point" is going to be here, so to speak). 19h00s (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - paywalled content is unarchivable if you don't circumvent the paywall. sapphaline (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's universally true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What would be the status of a link to an archived copy of a page that is now behind a paywall, but apparently was not paywalled when it was archived? Would it make any difference if a citation to the page was added before the paywall went up? I have seen this happen, although I cannot recall any specifics offhand. Donald Albury 16:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If you explained to a Reasonable person that the archive link was added during a non-PAYWALL time, I would expect them to conclude that you didn't post an archive link for the purpose of getting around a non-existent paywall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I came to this discussion late and apologize if I have misunderstood anything. Good public libraries provide a means to get access to quality sources that have a paywall. For example, because I can visit the Brooklyn Public Library, I obtain access to major newspapers and other high-quality news sources that have a paywall, including articles published years ago. Thus individuals who visit a good public library can get access to archival material. The library (to which I personally donate money) pays for the access it provides me and other library-users. I don't think the use of sources that have a paywall is disqualifying. Source quality is what counts. Reliance on low-quality sources (e.g., National Enquirer, New York Post) whether or not they have a paywall is disqualifying.

I add that if a WP editor lives near a college or university, the institution often permits local residents to use its libraries. University libraries also provide access to a wealth of archival material.

The "Wayback Machine" was mentioned on this page. It abides by the rules of the road. Of course, I endorse the crediting of authors a WP editor paraphrases and the proper use of quotation marks with attribution to the source. I also recognize that because WP editors are human, they occasionally but unintentionally slip up. Iss246 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I assume you're familiar with sites like Anna's Archive and Sci-Hub. We don't link to those because the primary purpose of those sites is to bypass paywalls. We can sympathize with impoverished students in under-resourced schools and still say that it's wrong for editors to link to such sites.

I'm proposing something very similar here: Adding an archive link in general is a good thing and consistent with our legitimate educational purposes. However, systematically adding archive links that (appear to) have been selected for the purpose of bypassing the paywall is not a good thing. Editors should not do that.

We can accept this:

• Alice adds a dozen links to archive.org
• Bob says "Hey, did you notice that one of those links shows the whole article, whereas if you go to the website, it's paywalled?"
• Alice says "No, I never noticed that. I read this via my university's subscription, so I didn't even notice that it was paywalled."

What we don't want is this:

• Eve adds a dozen links to archive.org, plus one to PirateArchive.com
• Bob says "Hey, did you notice that the PirateArchive.com shows the whole article, whereas if you go to the website, it's paywalled?"
• Eve says "Yes, that's exactly why I chose PirateArchive.com for that link. Think of the readers! They might not be able to afford to pay for it. Wikipedia needs to make all sources free-as-in-beer to all readers, even if that means violating copyrights and hacking through paywalls!"

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Paste Check is a type of Edit Check that will appear when editors who are using VisualEditor paste longer strings of text into an article, if the feature detects that they are likely not to have written the content themselves.

Why Paste Check?

Paste Check benefits two audiences:

• Newcomers: Many new editors are unaware of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright violations. Some mistakenly believe that pasting from what they consider reliable sources is the way to edit.
• Experienced editors: Paste Check aims to make it easier to identify and patrol edits that may contain pasted content (which can be either legit or copyright violations), helping us save time, whilst also resulting in fewer copyright violations being made in the first place.

How it works

By default, Paste Check will be shown to editors who have published 100 or fewer edits locally. This can be changed via Special:EditChecks.

When an editor matching this requirement pastes at least 50 characters of text from somewhere else, Paste Check will ask them to confirm if they wrote the content. Two options are then available:

• Keep the text – the user is then asked to explain why.
• Remove the text – the text is removed.

In both cases, edits will be tagged so that experienced editors can identify edits in which Paste Check was shown. The tag will be visible even if the final edit didn’t include any pasted text.

Paste Check will trigger when text is pasted from a source it doesn't recognize as another editing environment. It won't show up if the editor has pasted text which we can technically recognize is coming from another MediaWiki visual editor instance, MS Office, Libre Office, or Google Docs, or is plain text.

This feature was tested at 22 other Wikipedias last year, and our research found that it resulted in an 18% decrease in revert rate relative to edits in the control group where Paste Check would have been shown.

Sidenote: In the future, it may become possible to expand Paste Check to become more specific about identifying where pastes are coming from (e.g. popular LLMs). For now, we learned the HTML they output is not stable enough to configure the feature off of. We will revisit this investigation in T382608.

Paste Check will become available at all Wikipedias next week. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)