This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can we talk here about the Free Art License ? http://artlibre.org/ http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html It is a copyleft license for art. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyco ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 August 2002 (UTC)
FREE AS IN BEER?! Come on now! There must be a better way to decribe something that has no cost. As a new user, I was utterly astounded by this word use. By the way, the whole page should be shortened and clarified--I stopped reading about 1/4 of the way into it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.106.29 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Given this is one of the first links from the front page, and newcomers may have no idea what free content is, this page could do with a lot more explaining, but I'm not an expert on the subject and am busy what with it being Dec 25th and all. Let's try and make this entry a bit clearer.
-- Vodex 23:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
A 'public domain' work does not have a current license (e.g., a work is in the public domain because its original copyright has expired), but many definitions would include some public domain works as free-content - what definitions? This could do with tightening-up. Dan100 15:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Would it be worth pointing out that while the content might be Public Domain - a particular copy of it might not be. For example - all of Rembrant's paintings are in the public domain - but a photograph of it is actually owned by the photographer and a postcard or print of it might be owned by a gallery or a publisher or both. In the same way the text of Shakespeare plays are in the public domain but a book of his plays, printed in the last 75 years cannot simply be scanned and reprinted by anyone.-- 172.212.30.52 11:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's written "Free content" not "Free-content" right? — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:19, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Am i the only one that thinks that this version of the article is still the best one? Since then it has seen two rewrites which IMO are progressively worse, the current one gets the concept wrong as well as its very definition, makes a self reference ( "at the bottom of this page." ) and this new section on libre and gratis is redundant, especially after linking to free software.
Earlier on this talk page there is a call for the expansion of this article, well it doesn't need expanding, even if it's linked from the main page, it was long enough as it was (longer != better; less is more ...), it deals with a *very* simple concept which can be effectively explained within three paragraphs. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:24, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I cut it down even more, could probably use some copyediting. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:50, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure why my edits on the source requirements of free content licenses were automatically deleted. I've edit them back working on the basis they were accidently deleted when reverting someone else's edits. -- Axon 09:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
These two statements appear to contradict one another:
A derivative of a public domain work can be held proprietary by the creator of the derivative work, and never see the light of day again. These are certainly "more restrictive terms than the original", but it's not "legally distributable". Any distribution by anyone other than the author would violate the author's copyright, by which they may retain all rights. In short, public domain is not copyleft.
Which needs to be fixed? The first one, I believe — I'm not too familiar with how this term is used in practice, but due to my personal biases I don't believe a work needs to be copyleft to be free content. Deco 10:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
... is that it can easily be reversed to content-free. :) - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't quite grasp what this is supposed to convey. That one has to be allowed to change content to put the "free content" label on it? -- Dittaeva 10:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have changed it to "For content to be free, it must be allowed to change it" for now, although I do not find it much better. -- Dittaeva 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In a communist society such as in Red China, Free Content is limited --Comm College Professor of IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.168.115.5 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 February 2005 (UTC)
The introduction states that copyright gives you monopolistic control. Copyright does not give you a monopoly right. All it gives you is an exclusive right. For example, if someone in a different part of your city comes up with the same poem as you did a month ago, but did so independent of you, you haven't any right to stop that person from publishing the poem. A patent on the other hand gives you a monopolistic right. sol 02:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided. For example, a free content publisher should make the source document (f.ex. InDesign or word-processor file) available along with a PDF, which in this case would be considered the "object" copy of the creative work. Some free content licenses have stronger requirements. For example, the GNU Free Documentation License not only requires that a "source" copy of the content is provided, but that the source copy should be in an "transparent" format, i.e., in an open format whose specification is freely available to everybody.
I am perplex about this whole paragraph. It does not seem to fit with the definition of what open and free are. I find it at worse false, at best confusing. Could possibly someone help me here ? Anthere 11:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph reads:
Isn't less meant instead of more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.238.239 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I am a new use / contributor, and I came to this page to get directions how to upload a picture for use in a biography. The picture is on the website I make for my organization; we would be happy to let the world see it, to let Wikipedia use it etc. It has no restrictions. But the more I read your instructions, the more confused I am. I have NO IDEA now how to upload it correctly and label it as free or .... well ... or whatever. I am going to go ahead and upload the picture, but I suppose I will do it wrong ... my apologies, but the more you explained, the worse it got - help?! Shulae —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It is written that "the IANG license doesn't comply with the definition of free content given here since it put many restrictions on the way you can redistribute the product". I think on the contrary that these are not restrictions, but additional freedoms for users and customers, since they are free to access the bookkeeping, and to participate in economic decisions, including selling prices. These are restrictions in the same sense as copyleft is a restriction to give the source code and to let people change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.246.124.116 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still new at this. I was just wondering what was wrong with the listed change. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joer80 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Is an image that is under a free copyright license considered free for WP:FUC purposes if it contains a trademark? -- CTho 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Free content licenses generally differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided.
The Libre knowledge article seems to discuss the same idea as this article. Thus the two should be merged and the intro should explain that there are two terms in use for this concept. Gronky 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is linked from the main page. ff m 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little curious about the first sentence on this page: "Riyaz Zameer Uddin is an Indian Citizen.He works into Bollywood as an Executive Producer". I wanted to remove it because I feel it makes absolutely no sense here, but I didn't know if maybe it had some other, strange, purpose... lol - NsTaGaTr ( Talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
my account is blocked an i cannot upload a copyrighted bmp. who can put up an infrigment word for user:tide rolls to deblock me ? 188.25.53.192 ( talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploud Cimot nielie ( talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
A very big problem Kissaw Abdulai ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This page has too many self-references, in my opinion. One at the top of the page is acceptable, one for every major section is not. I think all the self-refs should be removed and replaced by a single reference to Wikipedia:Copyrights, or another page (which could be created anew). Superm401 - Talk 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
God talks about Free use v Fair use, and 'Free use' links to this page. I'm trying to discern whether this (later reverted) edit of mine was appropriate. ISTM that court documents such as transcripts, depositions, exhibits, discovery, and briefs are usable as a right that is at least in some cases both stronger than 'fair use', and weaker than 'free use', e.g. transcripts are probably most free, and discovery the least free of the set. FYI: This distinct but related edit has been allowed to stand, thus far. Relevant. I'm actually leaning toward thinking my edit was erroneous, and generally, such court documents are usable simply under fair use. And yet there is a movement toward having wikipedia, or forks thereof, include only material available for free use, i.e. exclude materiable usable only under fair use doctrine, and I feel that such projects would want to include the public court documents I'm concerned about, if only they could identify it, such as by use of a tag disparate from the fair use tag.
With respect to public records, Florida must allow access pursuant to Florida law, without further restriction; Florida "has no authority to assert copyright protection" over public records (with a few narrow exceptions), per Florida's public records law, section 119.07, Florida Statutes, but NY law is different. (Cited/Supported [ http://www.2dca.org/opinion/December%2001,%202004/2D03-3346.pdf here].) (Wikipedia is still based in FL?) -- Elvey ( talk) 10 February 2009
What is difference between free content and open content? Saqib talk 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum ( talk • contribs)
Libre has been used synonymously with Free as in freedom (the meaning of free which applies in this article on free content). Some would prefer to say "libre content" [1] to distinguish it from content that is available for free (gratis). Please consider adding the word "libre" to the text of this article (e.g. "Free/libre content, or free/libre information ..."). Thanks. - Kim Tucker ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
References
Any source of Free content abbreviation?-- Saqib talk 08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This section requires significant improvement with less "e-government focus" and a greater historical context. Also, ironically, many of the journals discussing free content are inaccessible, one particularly is "Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful", Brookings Press, Prof. Beth Noveck". If someone can expand this (it is not my area of expertise) that would be great. User A1 ( talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Has Wikis that not is of Free need payments,more so's bad. Knuckles The Echidna ( talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What on earth does a freebox have to do with free content -- can someone delete this image? 129.67.86.189 ( talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just edited this page mercilessly. Edit my own edits mercilessly. If you must tell me how, do so on my talk page. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article, for example, EVER tell you HOW to actually find out if an image is copyrighted or not? Or if an image is fair-use or free? Or if an image is free or non-copyrighted? These pages NEVER tell you that. It's maddening.
OK-- so now I know what I can and can't use-- but HOW do I tell whether or not an Internet image is copyrighted, or has any other designation or is just free?!!
And WHY doesn't this, or any other Wikipedia image article, just spell this out clearly in an easy-to find manner?
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
As far as I knew, in ordered for a content to be considered free, it must abide to 4 rules ( http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ). This article only lists three of them. Am I missing something?-- Strainu ( talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The Usage section is currently confusing. It has subsections Media, Software, Engineering and technology, Academia and Governance. Although media and software and perhaps engineering and technology can be considered as types of content which may be free, academia and governance are not types of content. They may be "users" or "producers" of free content. Perhaps the section should be split in 2. -- Chealer ( talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If the idea ever takes off, then Wikipedia should document it then.
Now, I think Wikipedia is being abused as a stage to promote a new idea. Gronky ( talk) 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A clearly-misplaced Wikipedia policy issue - discuss at a more appropriate location |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it the case that "only United States copyright ultimately matters on the English Wikipedia" or do we "generally respect the copyrights of other countries as best we can"? The latter statement is derived from Jimbo's answer to a question here Background to my question can be found here: Template talk:Non-free architectural work Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 28#Template:Non-free_architectural_work Wikipedia is defined as 'the free encyclopedia', and the definition of free mandated by the WMF includes the requirement that there must be no limit on where the information can be copied. If this rule were rigidly applied we would have the huge burden of needing to consider whether a work is free from copyright restriction in all of the 190-plus states on the planet. Of course the answer is to use common sense, but what does that mean in practice? On Wikimedia Commons the official standard is generally that content should be free from copyright restriction in both the country of origin and the US but neither this nor any other common sense test for free-content appears to be written into policy on Engish Wikipedia. Some users who take the view that only US law matters do so on the basis of WP:Non-US copyrights which includes the statement:
While the meaning of this statement is not entirely clear, for example: it doesn't contradict the common sense test for free-content used on Commons, the text quoted was added in replacement of the statement "we should generally respect the copyrights of other countries as best we can" and the edit summary does suggest that the editor's intention was to signify respect for US law only. I have seen no discussion by the community regarding this change. So what is the common sense test for free on the free encyclopedia? US law only? The same as on Commons? Something else? |
Agreed, unnecessary to put it in a RfC. Some tries at answering the question can be found here. 9carney ( talk) 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Free content. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikiphiles. I have two questions about free content: I want to add a photo to a prominent legal professor Herbert Hovenkamp from the law school I attend. His photo is available on the law school website that (presumably anyone with a computer) can access [1]. Is this free content that can be used on his Wikipedia page? I don't believe so since I don't own the rights to the photograph but I wondered because it's publicly available online. My second question is related in that, if I cannot use his photo online, can I take a picture of an oil painting of him hanging in our law building (we're a public land-grant institution) and use that since it's on public display? I would ask to take his photo for Wikipedia but I don't want to be a weirdo. Thanks! (Also, sorry if I asked this in the wrong place -- I'm a pretty unsophisticated page editor) RedDarling ( talk) 02:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free content. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The concept of Free content and Open content have huge overlap (as do the current articles on each). I suggest merging the two pages, retaining a section that describes the distinction between the two and the historical links between them. Otherwise we mainly end up with duplicated pages that mention each other only to say how the concepts are "legally very similar, if not like an identical twin" or essentially the same but "with no clear threshold", which, when split between the two separate current pages makes them more confusing when there then listing many of the same concepts, examples and licenses. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I need the answer Kissaw Abdulai ( talk) 09:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Free knowledge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Free knowledge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 ( talk) 21:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can we talk here about the Free Art License ? http://artlibre.org/ http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html It is a copyleft license for art. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nyco ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 August 2002 (UTC)
FREE AS IN BEER?! Come on now! There must be a better way to decribe something that has no cost. As a new user, I was utterly astounded by this word use. By the way, the whole page should be shortened and clarified--I stopped reading about 1/4 of the way into it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.106.29 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Given this is one of the first links from the front page, and newcomers may have no idea what free content is, this page could do with a lot more explaining, but I'm not an expert on the subject and am busy what with it being Dec 25th and all. Let's try and make this entry a bit clearer.
-- Vodex 23:17, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
A 'public domain' work does not have a current license (e.g., a work is in the public domain because its original copyright has expired), but many definitions would include some public domain works as free-content - what definitions? This could do with tightening-up. Dan100 15:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Would it be worth pointing out that while the content might be Public Domain - a particular copy of it might not be. For example - all of Rembrant's paintings are in the public domain - but a photograph of it is actually owned by the photographer and a postcard or print of it might be owned by a gallery or a publisher or both. In the same way the text of Shakespeare plays are in the public domain but a book of his plays, printed in the last 75 years cannot simply be scanned and reprinted by anyone.-- 172.212.30.52 11:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's written "Free content" not "Free-content" right? — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:19, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
Am i the only one that thinks that this version of the article is still the best one? Since then it has seen two rewrites which IMO are progressively worse, the current one gets the concept wrong as well as its very definition, makes a self reference ( "at the bottom of this page." ) and this new section on libre and gratis is redundant, especially after linking to free software.
Earlier on this talk page there is a call for the expansion of this article, well it doesn't need expanding, even if it's linked from the main page, it was long enough as it was (longer != better; less is more ...), it deals with a *very* simple concept which can be effectively explained within three paragraphs. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:24, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I cut it down even more, could probably use some copyediting. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:50, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure why my edits on the source requirements of free content licenses were automatically deleted. I've edit them back working on the basis they were accidently deleted when reverting someone else's edits. -- Axon 09:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
These two statements appear to contradict one another:
A derivative of a public domain work can be held proprietary by the creator of the derivative work, and never see the light of day again. These are certainly "more restrictive terms than the original", but it's not "legally distributable". Any distribution by anyone other than the author would violate the author's copyright, by which they may retain all rights. In short, public domain is not copyleft.
Which needs to be fixed? The first one, I believe — I'm not too familiar with how this term is used in practice, but due to my personal biases I don't believe a work needs to be copyleft to be free content. Deco 10:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
... is that it can easily be reversed to content-free. :) - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't quite grasp what this is supposed to convey. That one has to be allowed to change content to put the "free content" label on it? -- Dittaeva 10:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have changed it to "For content to be free, it must be allowed to change it" for now, although I do not find it much better. -- Dittaeva 10:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In a communist society such as in Red China, Free Content is limited --Comm College Professor of IT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.168.115.5 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 February 2005 (UTC)
The introduction states that copyright gives you monopolistic control. Copyright does not give you a monopoly right. All it gives you is an exclusive right. For example, if someone in a different part of your city comes up with the same poem as you did a month ago, but did so independent of you, you haven't any right to stop that person from publishing the poem. A patent on the other hand gives you a monopolistic right. sol 02:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Free content licenses differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided. For example, a free content publisher should make the source document (f.ex. InDesign or word-processor file) available along with a PDF, which in this case would be considered the "object" copy of the creative work. Some free content licenses have stronger requirements. For example, the GNU Free Documentation License not only requires that a "source" copy of the content is provided, but that the source copy should be in an "transparent" format, i.e., in an open format whose specification is freely available to everybody.
I am perplex about this whole paragraph. It does not seem to fit with the definition of what open and free are. I find it at worse false, at best confusing. Could possibly someone help me here ? Anthere 11:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph reads:
Isn't less meant instead of more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.238.239 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I am a new use / contributor, and I came to this page to get directions how to upload a picture for use in a biography. The picture is on the website I make for my organization; we would be happy to let the world see it, to let Wikipedia use it etc. It has no restrictions. But the more I read your instructions, the more confused I am. I have NO IDEA now how to upload it correctly and label it as free or .... well ... or whatever. I am going to go ahead and upload the picture, but I suppose I will do it wrong ... my apologies, but the more you explained, the worse it got - help?! Shulae —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It is written that "the IANG license doesn't comply with the definition of free content given here since it put many restrictions on the way you can redistribute the product". I think on the contrary that these are not restrictions, but additional freedoms for users and customers, since they are free to access the bookkeeping, and to participate in economic decisions, including selling prices. These are restrictions in the same sense as copyleft is a restriction to give the source code and to let people change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.246.124.116 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still new at this. I was just wondering what was wrong with the listed change. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joer80 ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Is an image that is under a free copyright license considered free for WP:FUC purposes if it contains a trademark? -- CTho 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Free content licenses generally differ from open content licenses in that they require a "source" copy of the content to be provided.
The Libre knowledge article seems to discuss the same idea as this article. Thus the two should be merged and the intro should explain that there are two terms in use for this concept. Gronky 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is linked from the main page. ff m 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little curious about the first sentence on this page: "Riyaz Zameer Uddin is an Indian Citizen.He works into Bollywood as an Executive Producer". I wanted to remove it because I feel it makes absolutely no sense here, but I didn't know if maybe it had some other, strange, purpose... lol - NsTaGaTr ( Talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
my account is blocked an i cannot upload a copyrighted bmp. who can put up an infrigment word for user:tide rolls to deblock me ? 188.25.53.192 ( talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploud Cimot nielie ( talk) 18:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
A very big problem Kissaw Abdulai ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This page has too many self-references, in my opinion. One at the top of the page is acceptable, one for every major section is not. I think all the self-refs should be removed and replaced by a single reference to Wikipedia:Copyrights, or another page (which could be created anew). Superm401 - Talk 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
God talks about Free use v Fair use, and 'Free use' links to this page. I'm trying to discern whether this (later reverted) edit of mine was appropriate. ISTM that court documents such as transcripts, depositions, exhibits, discovery, and briefs are usable as a right that is at least in some cases both stronger than 'fair use', and weaker than 'free use', e.g. transcripts are probably most free, and discovery the least free of the set. FYI: This distinct but related edit has been allowed to stand, thus far. Relevant. I'm actually leaning toward thinking my edit was erroneous, and generally, such court documents are usable simply under fair use. And yet there is a movement toward having wikipedia, or forks thereof, include only material available for free use, i.e. exclude materiable usable only under fair use doctrine, and I feel that such projects would want to include the public court documents I'm concerned about, if only they could identify it, such as by use of a tag disparate from the fair use tag.
With respect to public records, Florida must allow access pursuant to Florida law, without further restriction; Florida "has no authority to assert copyright protection" over public records (with a few narrow exceptions), per Florida's public records law, section 119.07, Florida Statutes, but NY law is different. (Cited/Supported [ http://www.2dca.org/opinion/December%2001,%202004/2D03-3346.pdf here].) (Wikipedia is still based in FL?) -- Elvey ( talk) 10 February 2009
What is difference between free content and open content? Saqib talk 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib Qayyum ( talk • contribs)
Libre has been used synonymously with Free as in freedom (the meaning of free which applies in this article on free content). Some would prefer to say "libre content" [1] to distinguish it from content that is available for free (gratis). Please consider adding the word "libre" to the text of this article (e.g. "Free/libre content, or free/libre information ..."). Thanks. - Kim Tucker ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
References
Any source of Free content abbreviation?-- Saqib talk 08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This section requires significant improvement with less "e-government focus" and a greater historical context. Also, ironically, many of the journals discussing free content are inaccessible, one particularly is "Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful", Brookings Press, Prof. Beth Noveck". If someone can expand this (it is not my area of expertise) that would be great. User A1 ( talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Has Wikis that not is of Free need payments,more so's bad. Knuckles The Echidna ( talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What on earth does a freebox have to do with free content -- can someone delete this image? 129.67.86.189 ( talk) 20:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just edited this page mercilessly. Edit my own edits mercilessly. If you must tell me how, do so on my talk page. -- I dream of horses ( T) @ 03:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article, for example, EVER tell you HOW to actually find out if an image is copyrighted or not? Or if an image is fair-use or free? Or if an image is free or non-copyrighted? These pages NEVER tell you that. It's maddening.
OK-- so now I know what I can and can't use-- but HOW do I tell whether or not an Internet image is copyrighted, or has any other designation or is just free?!!
And WHY doesn't this, or any other Wikipedia image article, just spell this out clearly in an easy-to find manner?
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
As far as I knew, in ordered for a content to be considered free, it must abide to 4 rules ( http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ). This article only lists three of them. Am I missing something?-- Strainu ( talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The Usage section is currently confusing. It has subsections Media, Software, Engineering and technology, Academia and Governance. Although media and software and perhaps engineering and technology can be considered as types of content which may be free, academia and governance are not types of content. They may be "users" or "producers" of free content. Perhaps the section should be split in 2. -- Chealer ( talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If the idea ever takes off, then Wikipedia should document it then.
Now, I think Wikipedia is being abused as a stage to promote a new idea. Gronky ( talk) 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A clearly-misplaced Wikipedia policy issue - discuss at a more appropriate location |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is it the case that "only United States copyright ultimately matters on the English Wikipedia" or do we "generally respect the copyrights of other countries as best we can"? The latter statement is derived from Jimbo's answer to a question here Background to my question can be found here: Template talk:Non-free architectural work Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 28#Template:Non-free_architectural_work Wikipedia is defined as 'the free encyclopedia', and the definition of free mandated by the WMF includes the requirement that there must be no limit on where the information can be copied. If this rule were rigidly applied we would have the huge burden of needing to consider whether a work is free from copyright restriction in all of the 190-plus states on the planet. Of course the answer is to use common sense, but what does that mean in practice? On Wikimedia Commons the official standard is generally that content should be free from copyright restriction in both the country of origin and the US but neither this nor any other common sense test for free-content appears to be written into policy on Engish Wikipedia. Some users who take the view that only US law matters do so on the basis of WP:Non-US copyrights which includes the statement:
While the meaning of this statement is not entirely clear, for example: it doesn't contradict the common sense test for free-content used on Commons, the text quoted was added in replacement of the statement "we should generally respect the copyrights of other countries as best we can" and the edit summary does suggest that the editor's intention was to signify respect for US law only. I have seen no discussion by the community regarding this change. So what is the common sense test for free on the free encyclopedia? US law only? The same as on Commons? Something else? |
Agreed, unnecessary to put it in a RfC. Some tries at answering the question can be found here. 9carney ( talk) 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Free content. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikiphiles. I have two questions about free content: I want to add a photo to a prominent legal professor Herbert Hovenkamp from the law school I attend. His photo is available on the law school website that (presumably anyone with a computer) can access [1]. Is this free content that can be used on his Wikipedia page? I don't believe so since I don't own the rights to the photograph but I wondered because it's publicly available online. My second question is related in that, if I cannot use his photo online, can I take a picture of an oil painting of him hanging in our law building (we're a public land-grant institution) and use that since it's on public display? I would ask to take his photo for Wikipedia but I don't want to be a weirdo. Thanks! (Also, sorry if I asked this in the wrong place -- I'm a pretty unsophisticated page editor) RedDarling ( talk) 02:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Free content. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The concept of Free content and Open content have huge overlap (as do the current articles on each). I suggest merging the two pages, retaining a section that describes the distinction between the two and the historical links between them. Otherwise we mainly end up with duplicated pages that mention each other only to say how the concepts are "legally very similar, if not like an identical twin" or essentially the same but "with no clear threshold", which, when split between the two separate current pages makes them more confusing when there then listing many of the same concepts, examples and licenses. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I need the answer Kissaw Abdulai ( talk) 09:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Free knowledge. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Free knowledge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 ( talk) 21:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)