Wikipedia talk:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Looking at this discussion it seems like we need some other immediate takedown mechanisms, most notably for defamation? --(talk)BozMo 10:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

No, because the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation are effectively immune from defamation claims and because defamation is easy to remove from any non-protected page by simply editing the page to remove it. Those with liability are only those who are inserting the defamation. You can find a brief overview of US liability issues at Online service provider law. Short version: the hosting place isn't liable, the contributor may be. Jamesday 09:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ILLEGAL PAGE ENTRIES[edit]

When a person finds their own name inserted onto a page without their knowledge or express permission this also constitures a violation. I have been the victim of such actions, namely because of someone posting a page in my name, mentining both my Rihannsu AND MY PERSONAL NAME illegally.

I have the right to demand that wikiPedia REMOVE the romath page for this reason alone.

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO PLACE, RETRIEVE, OR STORE ANY PAGE WITH MY REAL NAME, OR MY RIHANNSU NAME, EVER Tach'Ara Ch'Lan Romath, July 10,2005 0903 hours

Copyright law does not give you the right to restrict the use of your name. Furthermore, well-established United States law states that trademark cannot be used to prevent others from using your name to refer to you in public, and the United States does not have any privacy law that applies to this situation, especially given that you have in the past publicized both your "Rihannsu" and your personal names. Kelly Martin 13:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


Archiving this page[edit]

It would be better public image if this page were archived to include only unresolved reports, and reports from the past month. It automatically puts copyright holders in a combative state of mind if they view this page and go Holy shit...look at how much stuff these bastards try to get away with. So I'd suggest we just toss a [[Requests for immediate removal/archive1|Archive] link at the top of the page. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Great idea and a great point. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Boldly redirecting[edit]

I've been bold and redirected this page to the contact page for copyright problems. There are a number of reasons for this:

  • This page dated to a long-ago time when the Wiki was smaller. There was little discussion or consensus for it at the time of its creation but its presence was tolerated.
  • It duplicated the on-wiki process we already have at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
  • At the present time, most takedown requests made by non-editors get sent to the info-en@wikimedia.org address, where they are handled routinely by someone who lists them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or deletes them if they are speedy candidates.
  • Info-en has a means of tracking each request to closure and forwarding the matter to legal if necessary.
  • The problems outlined above with the presence of a long list of requests are, IMO, real.
  • In general, non-editors who attempt to use an on-wiki process to resolve an issue important to them frequently become upset because they inadvertently violate community norms (by blanking pages, writing in ALL CAPITALS, making legal threats) and provoke a backlash. Info-en's purpose is to serve as a mediator in these situations.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Double redirect needs fixing[edit]

Also could be unprotected. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Double redir Done, unprotection Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection., sorry Rich. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)