This page 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. |
( William M. Connolley 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?
I would say: Public place, yes, private, no. Brianjd 11:52, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
In the "Image guidelines" section, it currently says:
Can I suggest we change that to read:
The meaning — as I understand it — would thus remain identical, but it would hopefully be slightly clearer.
Ropers 20:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why is the word libre included in the text after "free" in the fair use section. We don't carry translations of other words and there is nothing underneath the link or in the text to imply any special legal significance of the word? -- BozMo |talk 10:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There appear to be a number of images on pages relating to this years games that have been lifted directly from the official Athens 2004 website [1]. On reading their Media Guidelines & Contact Information it appears that we may be breaching their re-production guidelines.
Images that we may have problems with:
Scraggy4 23:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is no Foo page, just a redirect. Please would a sysop replace
- This article is licensed under the <a href=" http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href=" http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo">Wikipedia article "Foo"</a>.
("Foo" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on.
with
- This article is licensed under the <a href=" http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href=" http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_Pollard">Wikipedia article "Su Pollard"</a>.
("Su Pollard" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on.
Cheers. Dmn / Դմն 11:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know if GNU GPL text is compatible with the GNU FDL? Any requirements? Reason I'm asking is that I'd like to include some documentation licensed under the GNU GPL. -- Dittaeva 18:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightening discussion. I was thinking about a file describing USE flags in Gentoo Linux, its probably GPL because its in their CVS, and I don't think they will prioritize to change it GFDL anytime soon, but I probably wont find any good use for it here either. I was thinking (now) about something like List over USE flags in Gentoo Linux. But there are probably many much more useful GPL resources out there. -- Dittaeva 22:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would think that including the source code of a program in a GFDL text would count as providing the source. The problem is that the GPL requires derivative works to be released under the GPL. The only way I could see this being legitimate is if you consider the text to be "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium". If you keep the text clearly separated from the rest of the article, this might be OK. anthony (see warning) 00:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(-- Francis Schonken 23:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I suppose this discussion above was a bit more complex than it needed to be:
So, summarizing: for Dittaeva there is no impendiment whatsoever to start documenting and publishing examples of Gentoo USE flags under GFDL, and if it is of general importance, publish it in Wikipedia (and if not: publish it in one of Wikipedia's sister projects).
Just discovered this one: m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia: what I described above is another implementation of the principles described on that "meta" page. -- Francis Schonken 15:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do I misunderstand the GFDL? I thought that the GFDL requires attribution to the author(s). Afaik, Wikipedia caters for this by having the history function. However, are not all copy&paste edits (copy from one article and paste in another) violations if the original author/article is not mentioned? Also, I've come across a number of images stating from German Wikipedia as source. This is probably true, but should there not be a link (and credit to the contributor), too?
I there a project working on image licensing? (tough on images ;-) I mean making sure images are tagged accordingly or removed? (BTW, what do you think about this source: Image:Michel-foucault.jpg?)
Summa summarum, should we not take licensing a bit more serious? Kokiri 21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If they link to the wikipedia article, the edit history there. So no problem. As for images - I do think people should put a link in to the image description page on the other wiki [[User:Theresa knott| ]] 01:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we should advertise this to make wikipedians more aware of the need of attribution. It is therefore also important to remember to use the edit summary to attribute to someone else when copy-pasting, for example by writing "merged from Wikipedia:Village tap" when doing a merge, using the links-in-summary feature. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 17:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The history information isn't exported in the cur dump, so it's really hard to get the information without downloading and parsing a multi-gig file. If Wikipedia wants individual authors credited, they should make this information more readily available. anthony (see warning) 00:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(-- Francis Schonken 21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I just re-read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:copyrights, and found this as the third sentence:
I want to focus on the last part of this sentence (the part I put in bold), because I have some questions about it (and this is the only discussion I found that relates to some of these questions I have myself):
I may add a very concrete suggestion about this problem of authorship attribution ; I have been looking at the question today concerning Wikipedia clones (I posted comments on Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks, see under "GFDL compliance and author listing"). Indeed I am among the minority who think that Wikimedia Foundation does not do enough to respect paragraph 4B of the GPDL. Looking throughout clones, I saw that one and only one of them, that is http://www.knowlex.org (example page at http://www.knowlex.org/lang/en/lexikon/Landscape.html ) had the excellent idea to link to the history page on the wikipedia with a text clarifying clearly the meaning of the nick list that is to be found there : The list of all authors is available under this link. I would greatly appreciate a similar improvement from the Wikimedia Foundation, that is a sentence appearing on each page pointing clearly to a non-expert reader that the "history" link is the door to the author list. (Indeed my remark applies to every language version and I should have posted it on Wikimedia, but nobody would have read it there...) -- French Tourist 17:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How exactly an author of a text copied into wikipedia confirms the permission? (See, e.g., Talk:Florin Popentiu Vladicescu Is it enough?) Mikkalai 00:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That talk page looks rather crappy - for a better example (a non-controversial one at least) see WJRE. Brianjd 09:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I had an x-ray of my teeth a while ago, I need my wisdoms out :(
I was wondering who owns the copyright on the x-ray?
I know the guy who did the x-ray (although i don't know if it was him or a student who pushed the button), so he could give me GFDL permission if he had copyright. The problem is that it was done at a Dental School, so do they have copyright over everything their employees produce?
It's my health information, so I own the 'information' (whatever that is), but the film is owned by the Dent School.
I'd appreciate others thoughts/facts on this T 04:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. UK and European data protection laws say that you have some control over the image, but this is primarly what is *not* done with it, rather than what *is* done with it (for example, the person who took the x-ray couldn't post it on wikipedia without your permission - even if he owns the copyright). I'd contact the dental school and ask them for permission, just to be sure though. Darksun 10:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the U.S., for a work to be protected by copyright, there needs to be some creativity involved. A purely scientific photograph, that simply documents objectively is probably not elligible for copyright protection. Granted, not a lot is required for a work to be considered creative, but putting a piece of film at a fixed position in your mouth and pushing a button is almost certainly not enough. In my opinion, the x-ray is public domain. — David Remahl 19:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've asked my friend to make a copy for me, and i'll try to get a nice digital photo of it. I think the best bet is to ask the dental school, although I don't think they'll actually care. It's unlikely that they'll ever want to publish my boring x-ray in any other source.
In terms of privacy, I always thought a doctor/dentist/etc could use the photos without my permission, as long as I was not identifiable. It'll be quite cool to have my dental records on wikipedia, just in case i ever go missing. :-) I'll try to get a copy of the post-wisdom teeth removal if i can too. T 05:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although it states that they are PD http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm ,
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd77.htm
are these still PD if has e.g. "Courtesy of Donald M. McPherson, 1971"? I want one for smoke-screen. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 19:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume that it is ok to make quotations from copyrighted texts, as long as it is clear that it is a quote and a reference given to where it came from? What about long quotes, is there a limit on the length of quotes allowed before it infringes copyright?
Sure, I agree to your concerns. I'll post something in that forum a bit later. Although, my question is because I have about 9 other articles waiting to be posted, all along the same lines. PZFUN 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My question ist : Can the use of Images captured from TV - possibly in low res - be considered fair use ? The specific case I am talking about is the fact tham I am looking for pictures to counterbalance a questionable impression given by the usage of photos from militaryphotos.net on the Afghanistan-invasion page and in this case screen captures from for example Al Jazeera would be really handy. I have already tried to get pictures otherwise and even contacted the copyright holder of the publications of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan but the didn't want any of their pictures published on Wikipedia. I am grateful for any tips concerning alternative locations of usable images.
Surely, if these images were captured from a free-to-air broadcast, then their use is fair use. Brianjd 07:41, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
How to label images such as the one on the right which have artistic content, yet a large part of them includes a copyrighted work -- in this case the style of the nose of the train, which I think falls under fair use. Given proper attribution etc and notices, and not using it against the company concerned, this shouldn't be a problem. However, how should they be tagged? Dunc_Harris| ☺ 22:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm just curious why the GFDL was chosen, the pros and cons of it, why other possibilities weren't used, etc. Is there an archived debate on this subject? -- Golbez 16:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, it is an issue for some, and I am pretty sure that the discussion has been had many times, although I don't know where. It would be a major pain to switch over, but would be (at least partly) possible to change if there was enough interest. Probably the drawbacks of the GFDL do not warent the teethpullingly traumatic process of changing. Mark Richards 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Many of the problems with Wikipedia's use of the GFDL can be seen at Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL. I remember there being some talk of working with the FSF to fix some of the brokenness of the license, but it's been a long time. -- Cyrius| ✎ 03:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was one of the people who have proposed that the Wikipedia migrate to Creative Commons. One of the critics mentioned that the CVS that Wikipedia uses isn't fine-tuned enough to nail down exactly who contributed what. So there would be some difficulty in writing a script that decides at what point an article would be free of GFDL-only material. Of course, in theory, a flesh-and-bone person could manually go through the page histories and make the decision themselves. This might work if someone wants to reuse an article in some manner, such as in a CC-based wiki. However, this would too time consuming and the possibilites for mistake are too great for migrating the entire Wikipedia to CC. So, basically, yeah, migrating to CC is possible but very difficult.
I'm a moderator at the LQwiki, which is a Creative Commons based (by-sa variant to be exact) Linux documentation wiki. We'd like to use Wikipedia material, not to mention the gobs of Linux documentation available under the GFDL, but our licensing scheme prevents this. So far, we've been asking the original authors of GFDL material for permission to use it under the CC-by-sa, but this is simply not possible to do with Wikipedia articles - too many editors, too many of them are anons. So I've been following the situation pretty closely. We're thinking of lobbying the FSF ourselves on the issue. Does anybody have any suggestions on the best way to contact them or to argue our point?
In a way, this restriction is good thing. I've been incorporating the public domain Jargon File, and our wiki is small enough that I've been single-handedly causing a Rambot Effect. I'd hate to think what a flood of GFDL material might do. crazyeddie 07:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, if I choose to directly licence text and photos I created under PD, is this possible? Or must anything I write or take be simultaneously licence with the GFDL? -- DF08 (English) 17:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
see e.g. http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/useOnWeb.asp?npgNo=NPG+267&title=Five+Children+of+King+Charles+I+%28Mary%2C+Princess+of+Orange%3B+King+James+II%3B+King+Charles+II%3B+Princess+Elizabeth%3B+Princess+Anne%29 are claiming copyright on paintings. However, Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation would appear to indicate that they can't do this, atleast not under US copyright law, though UK copyright law might be different. Wikipedia operates under US copyright law, but would those from the UK who copy the work be then breaking copyright or are the NPG talking out of their arses? Dunc| ☺ 16:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But then http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html claims that reproduction is allowed if no changes are made. Does this violate the Holy Grail of the GFDL? Dunc| ☺ 16:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it okay to make an external link to a webpage that does not infringe copyright when some other webpages on the same website does break copyright? Thanks in advance. Andries 15:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought you could make an external link to any webpage; it doesn't matter whether or how that webpage breaks the law. Brianjd 07:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
How are the rules if I translate a Wikipedia article in some language to a Wikipedia artcicle in some other language, for example translations from English to Danish or inverse? Do I have to follow the normal rules of GFDL in such cases, and if so what exactly is required to do so? (The license text is hard to understand)? Byrial 00:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A number of people have chosen to dual license their own changes under the Creative Commons, public domain, or other license in order that it might be usable elsewhere. Should a note possibly be added on this page that individual users may place the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA}} message on their user page in order to release their own changes under a dual license? A number of users with large numbers of edits have done this already. I understand the pros and cons of dual licensing, but since a number of people have done so, might it at least be advantageous to mention it? (See meta:Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license and the discussion above). -- Ram-Man 20:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I am requesting a review of the Wikipedia:Multi-licensing page with the later possibly adding a link from the Wikipedia:Copyrights page to notify users of the potential for multi-licensing their contributions. I believe that many users would willingly multi-license their contributions if only they knew that such an option existed. -- Ram-Man 00:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
dear admin -- please add link pl:Prawa autorskie to interwiki. thanks! =} kocio 08:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would an admin please add it:Aiuto:Copyright to the Interwikis? TY, -- M7it 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WP:C redirects here; there should probably be a link pointing users to Wikipedia:Cleanup and any other WP: namespace pages with single-word C names. - Sean Curtin 04:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I have a snapshot of Rudolph from the old-time movie produced back in the '50s. More recently, I recieved the snapshot through my local CBS affiliate's broadcast of the movie. I was wondering if the snapshot from the movie would be violating copyright laws, or if it is in line for fair-use.
See Template:Screenshot and Template talk:Screenshot. Brianjd 08:53, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is even worth asking, since the Christopher Lee page has an Attack of the Clones screenshot and this is even more minor, but would it violate copyright law to add an image of biochemist Rupert Sheldrake to his Wikipedia page? I figure it's better that I should ask this and wait a few days rather than assume and be wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.
-- BDD 22:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you obtained the photograph - whoever took the photograph probably owns the copyright unless they release it into the public domain, the copyright expires or the photograph is too old (in which case whoever took the photograph would be dead anyway). Brianjd 08:39, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Of course, it's impossible for the photograph to be old in this case, unless time travel is possible! Brianjd 08:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I was wanting to use lines from a wikipedia in a Power Point presentation for a class room and I'm wondering how I would place the copyright info. 164.104.1.36 17:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You don't want to try to use anything licensed only under the GFDL in a PowerPoint presentation. Its requirements regarding the copyright info are ridiculous (Noone would came to Wikipedia if it complied with the GFDL. I think it only really works for books.). Brianjd 10:41, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors'_rights_and_obligations currently says:
which I read to mean that Wikipedia should not contain invariant sections. But then, it also says:
which is where it gets confusing. That could be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia articles can have invariant sections, but only if the text was licensed under the GFDL for some other purpose prior to being submitted to the wiki (preposterous, I think). I realize that the Wikipedia:Copyrights page is not legally binding, and Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License is what really matters. Can someone please clarify Wikipedia's policy on invariant sections? And if there are actually articles with invariant sections, can someone point out where they are and how they are preserved? ~ leif ☺ HELO 21:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
This doesn't make much sense to me. If it's your own material, you can license it to the public under the GFDL with any combination of invariant sections, front-cover texts or back-cover texts you like. Brianjd 10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
As for external content, this appears to be an error by the authors of this page, with the Wikimedia Foundation's (yes, as far as I know, there is no organisation called "Wikipedia") policy being: replace texts with invariant sections where possible, but otherwise, keep the invariant sections.
I think they are preserved simply by the idea that those who do modify them are breaking the law (questionable, since the Wikimedia Foundation is itself not complying with the GFDL). Brianjd 10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
It should also be noted that governments outside the US often do claim copyright over works produced by their employees (for example, Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom). It should also be noted that the US Government is free to claim copyright over works which are PD in the US. -- 134.130.68.65 14:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I thought public domain means noone can claim copyright. Brianjd 10:18, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Please add the following translation to "Other Languages": pt:Copyrights
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " GNU Free Documentation License".
Of course, that would normally be correct. But here, wouldn't that refer to the article called GNU Free Documentation License (despite what the link points to), which is about the license, and does not contain a copy of the license? Brianjd 06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: If you want to use content from Wikipedia, first read the Users' rights and obligations section. You should then read the GNU Free Documentation License.
Huh? Shouldn't we read the legally binding document first? Brianjd 06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
There are some edits which we normally would never mention but in this case can't do unless we're admins. One of them is to change "wikipedia:verbatim copying" to "Wikipedia:Verbatim copying" near the start of the first section, "User's rights and obligations". Also (not so minor), "section 2" (of the GFDL) -> " section two".
Please add [[esWikipedia:Copyrights]] es:Wikipedia:Copyrights
Image:Michelangelo.pieta.650pix.jpg
The site clearly doesn't own the copyright to any of its images but claims either public domain or fairuse. Since it probably isn't pd because its a picture of a statue, Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works, I'm thinking that it could also be fair use under wikipedia, but I can't be sure. Uploader wasn't able to provide any clarification. Thanks for any help. -- Aqua 09:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have a publicity photograph for an author which she has given permission to use but not for third-party use: her preferred label is {{ copyrighted}}. However when I go to upload the picture I am apparently required to tick a check-box stating that "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" which is obviously not the same. Should I just tick the box and go ahead, even though I'm aiming to add the more restrictive licence immediately afterwards? … And now I see from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that I shouldn't even upload the picture at all if I'm aiming to add that tag to it! What should I do? -- Phil | Talk 09:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Can someone change the "Government photographs" sub-title to "US governemnt photographs" please. -- SGBailey 10:52, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
I downloaded the above from http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org which says that all images there are believed to be in the public domain. I have added a "fairold" tag to it, since the photo is atleast 57 years old, used for informational purposes, and a photo of a famous personality.
Could someone please take a look at the above image and let me know if the rationale I provided at the image description page is ok? And can we go ahead with using it under vintage fair use? Thanks in advance. -- ashwatha 06:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've encountered a number of cases of images that have been ripped straight off of personal webpages and stuck into articles. So far, I've been dealing with these without much of a policy: I generally remind the offender (who is, nearly universally, a first-time Wikipedian) that any uploaded text needs to have copyright information added to the file, and that a good way to do this is to release the image under the GFLD if you're the copyright owner.
Unfortunately, I've never encountered a situation where the user then noted, "I'm the original owner and release this under the GFDL." In around half of the cases, the user will find the Public Domain or Fair Use tags and stash them into the image without any further commentary. In the other half, I never hear back and the images are left untagged. Occasionally, I'll see a user go and contact the copyright owner and post a proper release on the image page; but, this is quite rare.
It's pretty clear that these images have been ripped off—in most cases, they're among the first images to pop up under Google Images. The problem is that I've now got images that have incorrect licensing information on them.
Is there a policy for dealing with A) approaching new users about potentially embarrassing copyright infringements, and B) evaluating copyright tags that have been attached solely to cover someone's ass? This is the type of problem that new users get pretty upset about, and having a simplified policy page that says, "in most cases, you can't rip images off of other websites" would be a good deal more polite than what often amounts to a lecture on attribution. Users with a history of copyright infringement are unlikely to be making positive contributions to the Wikipedia, but I've seen some very talented writers get scared off because they got a stern talking-to after posting an image of uncertain origin.
Having some sort of policy in place would make my job a good deal easier, too—it's draining to have to inform users that they're doing something wrong. It makes me squirm to see new users scramble to put PD or fair-use tags in their images while deleting the discussion of copyright infringement from their talk pages. Does anyone have any hints for making this easier?
Thanks -- Milkmandan 06:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Are texts from Library of Congress websites in public domain, so are they free to copy them to Wikipedia? example: Myrtle Hill Cemetery Myrtle Hill Cemetery article was submitted to LOC by one Congressman, but its on public (.gov) site, so it should be free to use. Wikipedia is non-profit educational organization. Darwinek 15:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there a chance, that the American Civil War era photos are NOT in a public domain yet? Specificly, I'm thinking about these. The librarian wrote to me: we are unable to grant permission to individuals or groups wishing to mount images from our collections on their websites. Instead, we ask that links be created directing researchers to the site of the original images. Can we use them then? Pibwl 00:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an assumption (even implied by our image copyright tags) that works derived from U.S. government works are also in the public domain. It's not so, derivative rights and license requirements still work as normal.
17 USC 403 expressly recognizes that copyright is afforded to such derivatives, provided that the government and original contributions are identified. -- iMeowbot~ Mw 00:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted Sherry Shriner by email, asking for permission to use her image @ http://www.sherrytalkradio.com/ . She wrote back saying:
If you look near the bottom of the page, she also states
So anyhow, I want to make extra sure every thing is ok before I start uploading images from her websites. Also I'm wondering what to label the images, since I'm not very aware of the various copyright types. Advice please, thanks,
( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If anybody's interested, have a look @ Sherry Shriner. Cheers, ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The King's Cross St. Pancras tube station article is illustrated with Image:Tube map King's Cross.png which is obviously and explicitly a portion from the tube map and tagged as fair use. I was under the impression that Transport for London were pretty keen on their copyright, so I went to the site and found the following copyright statement:
Copyright The copyright in the material contained within the document you are about to view belongs to Transport for London. All rights reserved. Except solely for your own personal and non-commercial use, no part of this document may be copied or used without the prior written permission of Transport for London. By clicking on the links above to view maps, it is understood that you have read this copyright notice and accept these conditions. Maps last updated: September 2003.
Please could someone confirm whether this is actually fair use or not. Thanks. Thryduulf 17:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please add th:วิกิพีเดีย:ลิขสิทธิ์ into interwiki, thank you :-) PaePae 15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In section 3.3 the first occurence of the word "article" must be replaced with "content" and the second occurence must be replaced with "page", so that it takes care of images as well. -- Paddu 08:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not the first person to do this, but I scanned the cover and front page of my passport for the Passport Canada article. Who owns the copyright to this? Me or the Queen in right of Canada since they own the passport? -- Spinboy 03:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization ( NANDA) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for nursing diagnoses. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a list of nursing diagnoses? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? Matt 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the Otto Bettmann Archive images which were acquired by Corbis a few years ago and vaulted in a mine in PA? Does Corbis now own the copyright on all these images as they claim? They have claimed copyright to images in the past to which they certainly do NOT own rights....There are 11 MILLION pieces in the collection. It would be a tragic shame for the entire archive to be locked away under Corbis' thumb forever.-- Deglr6328 06:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As regards section 4 of the GFDL, "MODIFICATIONS", does the article history as available from the "history" link constitute a "section Entitled 'History'" ?
Andrew Rodland 19:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can a sysop please add the following interwiki link to the page, directly after the th: link:
[[vi:Wikipedia:Quyền tác giả]]
Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs, blog) 02:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, forgive me if this has been covered anywhere, but I can't find it. Does it still fall under free use for an album cover, book cover, etc. to edit it? For instance in an article on Joe Blow, can one provide a picture of Joe Blow cropped from the cover of the book the Life of Joe Blow, captioned as "picture of Joe Blow from cover of The Life of Joe Blow" under free use? Does it matter at all if the book is referenced in the article? Gzuckier 15:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From the article:
I'd be interested to know what portions of Wikipedia use such text. Is there a canonical list somewhere? There probably should be, to facilitate replacement with less-encumbered text.
The image Image:Branstock.jpg is taken from an Internet site. Since it is placed in a relevant article, I judged it to be fair use (such as images taken from movies). If I am wrong, please delete it. I just want to make sure.-- Wiglaf 10:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We need better coordination of pages which deal with people who use our articles without permission. Can someone please link to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance and perhaps meta:Non-compliant site coordination in a prominent way? All the relevant pages are hard to find in google, but I just put a link here from Copyright as a start. Lunkwill 03:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I have some photos that I took of the location of the monastry at Athelney (located on private land) while I was on a visit as part of my job with Defra. The photographs weren't taken for any official purposes, but as part of an informal record of a training event. The land owner had no objections to photographs being taken of his land, but I didn't think to ask about the photos being used on the Internet. The photographs do not show any people, and do not show anything that could lead to the landowner being penalised by Defra. In the normal course of events, I would upload the image to the commons with a creative commons liscence ({{cc-by-sa-2.0}}), but as offical works of the UK Government are Crown Copyright would I be allowed to do this?
If any of them are not possible for me to upload with a copyleft liscence, would it be allowable to upload them here as fair use or possibly copyright free use? Thryduulf 13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Crown copyright subsists when a work is made "by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties". If they were not taken for official purposes then I would interpret that as not being in the course of the duties of an officer or servant of the Crown. Therefore the person who took the photos would probably own the copyright, rather than the Crown. However, it would probably be best to consult a lawyer about this as it has the reek of one of those nasty situations where law can catch you out. David Newton 17:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I am confused by the text at the bottom of Special:Upload. If I have interpreted it correctly, the following is our policy for image uploads.
Is this correct? If so, then I have two questions:
I've been trying to find answers to these questions on MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext without much luck so far. Lupin 04:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs is somewhat misleading. Photographs on .mil and .gov websites are only generally PD if they are labeled as having been produced by the federal government. However if they have been produced by contractors of the federal government this is not necessarily true, i.e. Brookhaven National Laboratory has their own copyright policy separate from the fact that they are a DOE national laboratory, as does Sandia National Lab. Additionally, photographs on government websites may not have been produced by the federal government at all. I.e. Los Alamos has a photograph on their website without a credit given [3] which I happen to know was taken by wire-press photographers and is held under copyright [4]. Some more caution should be injected into this paragraph, because it incorrectly makes it seem that photos from .mil and .gov websites are always in the PD, which is unfortunately not true in a number of important circumstances worth highlighting. Something should be added which implies that you should 1. first check to see if the site has its own copyrights/permissions policy (they often do) which implies something other than it being in the public domain, and 2. one should try to verify as well as possible that the photograph itself was likely produced by the government agency in question (the Los Alamos one above is a pretty hard one to check as there was no obvious reason to suspect it was not produced by the government). -- Fastfission 17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This page 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. |
( William M. Connolley 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?
I would say: Public place, yes, private, no. Brianjd 11:52, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
In the "Image guidelines" section, it currently says:
Can I suggest we change that to read:
The meaning — as I understand it — would thus remain identical, but it would hopefully be slightly clearer.
Ropers 20:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why is the word libre included in the text after "free" in the fair use section. We don't carry translations of other words and there is nothing underneath the link or in the text to imply any special legal significance of the word? -- BozMo |talk 10:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There appear to be a number of images on pages relating to this years games that have been lifted directly from the official Athens 2004 website [1]. On reading their Media Guidelines & Contact Information it appears that we may be breaching their re-production guidelines.
Images that we may have problems with:
Scraggy4 23:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is no Foo page, just a redirect. Please would a sysop replace
- This article is licensed under the <a href=" http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href=" http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo">Wikipedia article "Foo"</a>.
("Foo" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on.
with
- This article is licensed under the <a href=" http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License</a>. It uses material from the <a href=" http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_Pollard">Wikipedia article "Su Pollard"</a>.
("Su Pollard" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on.
Cheers. Dmn / Դմն 11:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know if GNU GPL text is compatible with the GNU FDL? Any requirements? Reason I'm asking is that I'd like to include some documentation licensed under the GNU GPL. -- Dittaeva 18:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightening discussion. I was thinking about a file describing USE flags in Gentoo Linux, its probably GPL because its in their CVS, and I don't think they will prioritize to change it GFDL anytime soon, but I probably wont find any good use for it here either. I was thinking (now) about something like List over USE flags in Gentoo Linux. But there are probably many much more useful GPL resources out there. -- Dittaeva 22:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would think that including the source code of a program in a GFDL text would count as providing the source. The problem is that the GPL requires derivative works to be released under the GPL. The only way I could see this being legitimate is if you consider the text to be "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium". If you keep the text clearly separated from the rest of the article, this might be OK. anthony (see warning) 00:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(-- Francis Schonken 23:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I suppose this discussion above was a bit more complex than it needed to be:
So, summarizing: for Dittaeva there is no impendiment whatsoever to start documenting and publishing examples of Gentoo USE flags under GFDL, and if it is of general importance, publish it in Wikipedia (and if not: publish it in one of Wikipedia's sister projects).
Just discovered this one: m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia: what I described above is another implementation of the principles described on that "meta" page. -- Francis Schonken 15:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do I misunderstand the GFDL? I thought that the GFDL requires attribution to the author(s). Afaik, Wikipedia caters for this by having the history function. However, are not all copy&paste edits (copy from one article and paste in another) violations if the original author/article is not mentioned? Also, I've come across a number of images stating from German Wikipedia as source. This is probably true, but should there not be a link (and credit to the contributor), too?
I there a project working on image licensing? (tough on images ;-) I mean making sure images are tagged accordingly or removed? (BTW, what do you think about this source: Image:Michel-foucault.jpg?)
Summa summarum, should we not take licensing a bit more serious? Kokiri 21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If they link to the wikipedia article, the edit history there. So no problem. As for images - I do think people should put a link in to the image description page on the other wiki [[User:Theresa knott| ]] 01:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we should advertise this to make wikipedians more aware of the need of attribution. It is therefore also important to remember to use the edit summary to attribute to someone else when copy-pasting, for example by writing "merged from Wikipedia:Village tap" when doing a merge, using the links-in-summary feature. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 17:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The history information isn't exported in the cur dump, so it's really hard to get the information without downloading and parsing a multi-gig file. If Wikipedia wants individual authors credited, they should make this information more readily available. anthony (see warning) 00:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(-- Francis Schonken 21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I just re-read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:copyrights, and found this as the third sentence:
I want to focus on the last part of this sentence (the part I put in bold), because I have some questions about it (and this is the only discussion I found that relates to some of these questions I have myself):
I may add a very concrete suggestion about this problem of authorship attribution ; I have been looking at the question today concerning Wikipedia clones (I posted comments on Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks, see under "GFDL compliance and author listing"). Indeed I am among the minority who think that Wikimedia Foundation does not do enough to respect paragraph 4B of the GPDL. Looking throughout clones, I saw that one and only one of them, that is http://www.knowlex.org (example page at http://www.knowlex.org/lang/en/lexikon/Landscape.html ) had the excellent idea to link to the history page on the wikipedia with a text clarifying clearly the meaning of the nick list that is to be found there : The list of all authors is available under this link. I would greatly appreciate a similar improvement from the Wikimedia Foundation, that is a sentence appearing on each page pointing clearly to a non-expert reader that the "history" link is the door to the author list. (Indeed my remark applies to every language version and I should have posted it on Wikimedia, but nobody would have read it there...) -- French Tourist 17:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How exactly an author of a text copied into wikipedia confirms the permission? (See, e.g., Talk:Florin Popentiu Vladicescu Is it enough?) Mikkalai 00:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That talk page looks rather crappy - for a better example (a non-controversial one at least) see WJRE. Brianjd 09:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I had an x-ray of my teeth a while ago, I need my wisdoms out :(
I was wondering who owns the copyright on the x-ray?
I know the guy who did the x-ray (although i don't know if it was him or a student who pushed the button), so he could give me GFDL permission if he had copyright. The problem is that it was done at a Dental School, so do they have copyright over everything their employees produce?
It's my health information, so I own the 'information' (whatever that is), but the film is owned by the Dent School.
I'd appreciate others thoughts/facts on this T 04:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. UK and European data protection laws say that you have some control over the image, but this is primarly what is *not* done with it, rather than what *is* done with it (for example, the person who took the x-ray couldn't post it on wikipedia without your permission - even if he owns the copyright). I'd contact the dental school and ask them for permission, just to be sure though. Darksun 10:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the U.S., for a work to be protected by copyright, there needs to be some creativity involved. A purely scientific photograph, that simply documents objectively is probably not elligible for copyright protection. Granted, not a lot is required for a work to be considered creative, but putting a piece of film at a fixed position in your mouth and pushing a button is almost certainly not enough. In my opinion, the x-ray is public domain. — David Remahl 19:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've asked my friend to make a copy for me, and i'll try to get a nice digital photo of it. I think the best bet is to ask the dental school, although I don't think they'll actually care. It's unlikely that they'll ever want to publish my boring x-ray in any other source.
In terms of privacy, I always thought a doctor/dentist/etc could use the photos without my permission, as long as I was not identifiable. It'll be quite cool to have my dental records on wikipedia, just in case i ever go missing. :-) I'll try to get a copy of the post-wisdom teeth removal if i can too. T 05:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although it states that they are PD http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm ,
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd77.htm
are these still PD if has e.g. "Courtesy of Donald M. McPherson, 1971"? I want one for smoke-screen. Dunc_Harris| ☺ 19:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume that it is ok to make quotations from copyrighted texts, as long as it is clear that it is a quote and a reference given to where it came from? What about long quotes, is there a limit on the length of quotes allowed before it infringes copyright?
Sure, I agree to your concerns. I'll post something in that forum a bit later. Although, my question is because I have about 9 other articles waiting to be posted, all along the same lines. PZFUN 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My question ist : Can the use of Images captured from TV - possibly in low res - be considered fair use ? The specific case I am talking about is the fact tham I am looking for pictures to counterbalance a questionable impression given by the usage of photos from militaryphotos.net on the Afghanistan-invasion page and in this case screen captures from for example Al Jazeera would be really handy. I have already tried to get pictures otherwise and even contacted the copyright holder of the publications of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan but the didn't want any of their pictures published on Wikipedia. I am grateful for any tips concerning alternative locations of usable images.
Surely, if these images were captured from a free-to-air broadcast, then their use is fair use. Brianjd 07:41, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
How to label images such as the one on the right which have artistic content, yet a large part of them includes a copyrighted work -- in this case the style of the nose of the train, which I think falls under fair use. Given proper attribution etc and notices, and not using it against the company concerned, this shouldn't be a problem. However, how should they be tagged? Dunc_Harris| ☺ 22:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm just curious why the GFDL was chosen, the pros and cons of it, why other possibilities weren't used, etc. Is there an archived debate on this subject? -- Golbez 16:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, it is an issue for some, and I am pretty sure that the discussion has been had many times, although I don't know where. It would be a major pain to switch over, but would be (at least partly) possible to change if there was enough interest. Probably the drawbacks of the GFDL do not warent the teethpullingly traumatic process of changing. Mark Richards 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Many of the problems with Wikipedia's use of the GFDL can be seen at Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL. I remember there being some talk of working with the FSF to fix some of the brokenness of the license, but it's been a long time. -- Cyrius| ✎ 03:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was one of the people who have proposed that the Wikipedia migrate to Creative Commons. One of the critics mentioned that the CVS that Wikipedia uses isn't fine-tuned enough to nail down exactly who contributed what. So there would be some difficulty in writing a script that decides at what point an article would be free of GFDL-only material. Of course, in theory, a flesh-and-bone person could manually go through the page histories and make the decision themselves. This might work if someone wants to reuse an article in some manner, such as in a CC-based wiki. However, this would too time consuming and the possibilites for mistake are too great for migrating the entire Wikipedia to CC. So, basically, yeah, migrating to CC is possible but very difficult.
I'm a moderator at the LQwiki, which is a Creative Commons based (by-sa variant to be exact) Linux documentation wiki. We'd like to use Wikipedia material, not to mention the gobs of Linux documentation available under the GFDL, but our licensing scheme prevents this. So far, we've been asking the original authors of GFDL material for permission to use it under the CC-by-sa, but this is simply not possible to do with Wikipedia articles - too many editors, too many of them are anons. So I've been following the situation pretty closely. We're thinking of lobbying the FSF ourselves on the issue. Does anybody have any suggestions on the best way to contact them or to argue our point?
In a way, this restriction is good thing. I've been incorporating the public domain Jargon File, and our wiki is small enough that I've been single-handedly causing a Rambot Effect. I'd hate to think what a flood of GFDL material might do. crazyeddie 07:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, if I choose to directly licence text and photos I created under PD, is this possible? Or must anything I write or take be simultaneously licence with the GFDL? -- DF08 (English) 17:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
see e.g. http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/useOnWeb.asp?npgNo=NPG+267&title=Five+Children+of+King+Charles+I+%28Mary%2C+Princess+of+Orange%3B+King+James+II%3B+King+Charles+II%3B+Princess+Elizabeth%3B+Princess+Anne%29 are claiming copyright on paintings. However, Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation would appear to indicate that they can't do this, atleast not under US copyright law, though UK copyright law might be different. Wikipedia operates under US copyright law, but would those from the UK who copy the work be then breaking copyright or are the NPG talking out of their arses? Dunc| ☺ 16:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But then http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html claims that reproduction is allowed if no changes are made. Does this violate the Holy Grail of the GFDL? Dunc| ☺ 16:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it okay to make an external link to a webpage that does not infringe copyright when some other webpages on the same website does break copyright? Thanks in advance. Andries 15:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I thought you could make an external link to any webpage; it doesn't matter whether or how that webpage breaks the law. Brianjd 07:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
How are the rules if I translate a Wikipedia article in some language to a Wikipedia artcicle in some other language, for example translations from English to Danish or inverse? Do I have to follow the normal rules of GFDL in such cases, and if so what exactly is required to do so? (The license text is hard to understand)? Byrial 00:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A number of people have chosen to dual license their own changes under the Creative Commons, public domain, or other license in order that it might be usable elsewhere. Should a note possibly be added on this page that individual users may place the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA}} message on their user page in order to release their own changes under a dual license? A number of users with large numbers of edits have done this already. I understand the pros and cons of dual licensing, but since a number of people have done so, might it at least be advantageous to mention it? (See meta:Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license and the discussion above). -- Ram-Man 20:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I am requesting a review of the Wikipedia:Multi-licensing page with the later possibly adding a link from the Wikipedia:Copyrights page to notify users of the potential for multi-licensing their contributions. I believe that many users would willingly multi-license their contributions if only they knew that such an option existed. -- Ram-Man 00:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
dear admin -- please add link pl:Prawa autorskie to interwiki. thanks! =} kocio 08:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would an admin please add it:Aiuto:Copyright to the Interwikis? TY, -- M7it 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
WP:C redirects here; there should probably be a link pointing users to Wikipedia:Cleanup and any other WP: namespace pages with single-word C names. - Sean Curtin 04:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I have a snapshot of Rudolph from the old-time movie produced back in the '50s. More recently, I recieved the snapshot through my local CBS affiliate's broadcast of the movie. I was wondering if the snapshot from the movie would be violating copyright laws, or if it is in line for fair-use.
See Template:Screenshot and Template talk:Screenshot. Brianjd 08:53, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is even worth asking, since the Christopher Lee page has an Attack of the Clones screenshot and this is even more minor, but would it violate copyright law to add an image of biochemist Rupert Sheldrake to his Wikipedia page? I figure it's better that I should ask this and wait a few days rather than assume and be wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.
-- BDD 22:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it depends on how you obtained the photograph - whoever took the photograph probably owns the copyright unless they release it into the public domain, the copyright expires or the photograph is too old (in which case whoever took the photograph would be dead anyway). Brianjd 08:39, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Of course, it's impossible for the photograph to be old in this case, unless time travel is possible! Brianjd 08:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I was wanting to use lines from a wikipedia in a Power Point presentation for a class room and I'm wondering how I would place the copyright info. 164.104.1.36 17:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You don't want to try to use anything licensed only under the GFDL in a PowerPoint presentation. Its requirements regarding the copyright info are ridiculous (Noone would came to Wikipedia if it complied with the GFDL. I think it only really works for books.). Brianjd 10:41, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors'_rights_and_obligations currently says:
which I read to mean that Wikipedia should not contain invariant sections. But then, it also says:
which is where it gets confusing. That could be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia articles can have invariant sections, but only if the text was licensed under the GFDL for some other purpose prior to being submitted to the wiki (preposterous, I think). I realize that the Wikipedia:Copyrights page is not legally binding, and Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License is what really matters. Can someone please clarify Wikipedia's policy on invariant sections? And if there are actually articles with invariant sections, can someone point out where they are and how they are preserved? ~ leif ☺ HELO 21:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
This doesn't make much sense to me. If it's your own material, you can license it to the public under the GFDL with any combination of invariant sections, front-cover texts or back-cover texts you like. Brianjd 10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
As for external content, this appears to be an error by the authors of this page, with the Wikimedia Foundation's (yes, as far as I know, there is no organisation called "Wikipedia") policy being: replace texts with invariant sections where possible, but otherwise, keep the invariant sections.
I think they are preserved simply by the idea that those who do modify them are breaking the law (questionable, since the Wikimedia Foundation is itself not complying with the GFDL). Brianjd 10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
It should also be noted that governments outside the US often do claim copyright over works produced by their employees (for example, Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom). It should also be noted that the US Government is free to claim copyright over works which are PD in the US. -- 134.130.68.65 14:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I thought public domain means noone can claim copyright. Brianjd 10:18, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
Please add the following translation to "Other Languages": pt:Copyrights
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled " GNU Free Documentation License".
Of course, that would normally be correct. But here, wouldn't that refer to the article called GNU Free Documentation License (despite what the link points to), which is about the license, and does not contain a copy of the license? Brianjd 06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
IMPORTANT: If you want to use content from Wikipedia, first read the Users' rights and obligations section. You should then read the GNU Free Documentation License.
Huh? Shouldn't we read the legally binding document first? Brianjd 06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
There are some edits which we normally would never mention but in this case can't do unless we're admins. One of them is to change "wikipedia:verbatim copying" to "Wikipedia:Verbatim copying" near the start of the first section, "User's rights and obligations". Also (not so minor), "section 2" (of the GFDL) -> " section two".
Please add [[esWikipedia:Copyrights]] es:Wikipedia:Copyrights
Image:Michelangelo.pieta.650pix.jpg
The site clearly doesn't own the copyright to any of its images but claims either public domain or fairuse. Since it probably isn't pd because its a picture of a statue, Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works, I'm thinking that it could also be fair use under wikipedia, but I can't be sure. Uploader wasn't able to provide any clarification. Thanks for any help. -- Aqua 09:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have a publicity photograph for an author which she has given permission to use but not for third-party use: her preferred label is {{ copyrighted}}. However when I go to upload the picture I am apparently required to tick a check-box stating that "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" which is obviously not the same. Should I just tick the box and go ahead, even though I'm aiming to add the more restrictive licence immediately afterwards? … And now I see from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that I shouldn't even upload the picture at all if I'm aiming to add that tag to it! What should I do? -- Phil | Talk 09:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Can someone change the "Government photographs" sub-title to "US governemnt photographs" please. -- SGBailey 10:52, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
I downloaded the above from http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org which says that all images there are believed to be in the public domain. I have added a "fairold" tag to it, since the photo is atleast 57 years old, used for informational purposes, and a photo of a famous personality.
Could someone please take a look at the above image and let me know if the rationale I provided at the image description page is ok? And can we go ahead with using it under vintage fair use? Thanks in advance. -- ashwatha 06:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've encountered a number of cases of images that have been ripped straight off of personal webpages and stuck into articles. So far, I've been dealing with these without much of a policy: I generally remind the offender (who is, nearly universally, a first-time Wikipedian) that any uploaded text needs to have copyright information added to the file, and that a good way to do this is to release the image under the GFLD if you're the copyright owner.
Unfortunately, I've never encountered a situation where the user then noted, "I'm the original owner and release this under the GFDL." In around half of the cases, the user will find the Public Domain or Fair Use tags and stash them into the image without any further commentary. In the other half, I never hear back and the images are left untagged. Occasionally, I'll see a user go and contact the copyright owner and post a proper release on the image page; but, this is quite rare.
It's pretty clear that these images have been ripped off—in most cases, they're among the first images to pop up under Google Images. The problem is that I've now got images that have incorrect licensing information on them.
Is there a policy for dealing with A) approaching new users about potentially embarrassing copyright infringements, and B) evaluating copyright tags that have been attached solely to cover someone's ass? This is the type of problem that new users get pretty upset about, and having a simplified policy page that says, "in most cases, you can't rip images off of other websites" would be a good deal more polite than what often amounts to a lecture on attribution. Users with a history of copyright infringement are unlikely to be making positive contributions to the Wikipedia, but I've seen some very talented writers get scared off because they got a stern talking-to after posting an image of uncertain origin.
Having some sort of policy in place would make my job a good deal easier, too—it's draining to have to inform users that they're doing something wrong. It makes me squirm to see new users scramble to put PD or fair-use tags in their images while deleting the discussion of copyright infringement from their talk pages. Does anyone have any hints for making this easier?
Thanks -- Milkmandan 06:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Are texts from Library of Congress websites in public domain, so are they free to copy them to Wikipedia? example: Myrtle Hill Cemetery Myrtle Hill Cemetery article was submitted to LOC by one Congressman, but its on public (.gov) site, so it should be free to use. Wikipedia is non-profit educational organization. Darwinek 15:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there a chance, that the American Civil War era photos are NOT in a public domain yet? Specificly, I'm thinking about these. The librarian wrote to me: we are unable to grant permission to individuals or groups wishing to mount images from our collections on their websites. Instead, we ask that links be created directing researchers to the site of the original images. Can we use them then? Pibwl 00:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an assumption (even implied by our image copyright tags) that works derived from U.S. government works are also in the public domain. It's not so, derivative rights and license requirements still work as normal.
17 USC 403 expressly recognizes that copyright is afforded to such derivatives, provided that the government and original contributions are identified. -- iMeowbot~ Mw 00:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted Sherry Shriner by email, asking for permission to use her image @ http://www.sherrytalkradio.com/ . She wrote back saying:
If you look near the bottom of the page, she also states
So anyhow, I want to make extra sure every thing is ok before I start uploading images from her websites. Also I'm wondering what to label the images, since I'm not very aware of the various copyright types. Advice please, thanks,
( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If anybody's interested, have a look @ Sherry Shriner. Cheers, ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The King's Cross St. Pancras tube station article is illustrated with Image:Tube map King's Cross.png which is obviously and explicitly a portion from the tube map and tagged as fair use. I was under the impression that Transport for London were pretty keen on their copyright, so I went to the site and found the following copyright statement:
Copyright The copyright in the material contained within the document you are about to view belongs to Transport for London. All rights reserved. Except solely for your own personal and non-commercial use, no part of this document may be copied or used without the prior written permission of Transport for London. By clicking on the links above to view maps, it is understood that you have read this copyright notice and accept these conditions. Maps last updated: September 2003.
Please could someone confirm whether this is actually fair use or not. Thanks. Thryduulf 17:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please add th:วิกิพีเดีย:ลิขสิทธิ์ into interwiki, thank you :-) PaePae 15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In section 3.3 the first occurence of the word "article" must be replaced with "content" and the second occurence must be replaced with "page", so that it takes care of images as well. -- Paddu 08:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not the first person to do this, but I scanned the cover and front page of my passport for the Passport Canada article. Who owns the copyright to this? Me or the Queen in right of Canada since they own the passport? -- Spinboy 03:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization ( NANDA) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for nursing diagnoses. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a list of nursing diagnoses? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? Matt 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of the Otto Bettmann Archive images which were acquired by Corbis a few years ago and vaulted in a mine in PA? Does Corbis now own the copyright on all these images as they claim? They have claimed copyright to images in the past to which they certainly do NOT own rights....There are 11 MILLION pieces in the collection. It would be a tragic shame for the entire archive to be locked away under Corbis' thumb forever.-- Deglr6328 06:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As regards section 4 of the GFDL, "MODIFICATIONS", does the article history as available from the "history" link constitute a "section Entitled 'History'" ?
Andrew Rodland 19:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can a sysop please add the following interwiki link to the page, directly after the th: link:
[[vi:Wikipedia:Quyền tác giả]]
Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs, blog) 02:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, forgive me if this has been covered anywhere, but I can't find it. Does it still fall under free use for an album cover, book cover, etc. to edit it? For instance in an article on Joe Blow, can one provide a picture of Joe Blow cropped from the cover of the book the Life of Joe Blow, captioned as "picture of Joe Blow from cover of The Life of Joe Blow" under free use? Does it matter at all if the book is referenced in the article? Gzuckier 15:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From the article:
I'd be interested to know what portions of Wikipedia use such text. Is there a canonical list somewhere? There probably should be, to facilitate replacement with less-encumbered text.
The image Image:Branstock.jpg is taken from an Internet site. Since it is placed in a relevant article, I judged it to be fair use (such as images taken from movies). If I am wrong, please delete it. I just want to make sure.-- Wiglaf 10:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We need better coordination of pages which deal with people who use our articles without permission. Can someone please link to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance and perhaps meta:Non-compliant site coordination in a prominent way? All the relevant pages are hard to find in google, but I just put a link here from Copyright as a start. Lunkwill 03:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I have some photos that I took of the location of the monastry at Athelney (located on private land) while I was on a visit as part of my job with Defra. The photographs weren't taken for any official purposes, but as part of an informal record of a training event. The land owner had no objections to photographs being taken of his land, but I didn't think to ask about the photos being used on the Internet. The photographs do not show any people, and do not show anything that could lead to the landowner being penalised by Defra. In the normal course of events, I would upload the image to the commons with a creative commons liscence ({{cc-by-sa-2.0}}), but as offical works of the UK Government are Crown Copyright would I be allowed to do this?
If any of them are not possible for me to upload with a copyleft liscence, would it be allowable to upload them here as fair use or possibly copyright free use? Thryduulf 13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Crown copyright subsists when a work is made "by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties". If they were not taken for official purposes then I would interpret that as not being in the course of the duties of an officer or servant of the Crown. Therefore the person who took the photos would probably own the copyright, rather than the Crown. However, it would probably be best to consult a lawyer about this as it has the reek of one of those nasty situations where law can catch you out. David Newton 17:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I am confused by the text at the bottom of Special:Upload. If I have interpreted it correctly, the following is our policy for image uploads.
Is this correct? If so, then I have two questions:
I've been trying to find answers to these questions on MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext without much luck so far. Lupin 04:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs is somewhat misleading. Photographs on .mil and .gov websites are only generally PD if they are labeled as having been produced by the federal government. However if they have been produced by contractors of the federal government this is not necessarily true, i.e. Brookhaven National Laboratory has their own copyright policy separate from the fact that they are a DOE national laboratory, as does Sandia National Lab. Additionally, photographs on government websites may not have been produced by the federal government at all. I.e. Los Alamos has a photograph on their website without a credit given [3] which I happen to know was taken by wire-press photographers and is held under copyright [4]. Some more caution should be injected into this paragraph, because it incorrectly makes it seem that photos from .mil and .gov websites are always in the PD, which is unfortunately not true in a number of important circumstances worth highlighting. Something should be added which implies that you should 1. first check to see if the site has its own copyrights/permissions policy (they often do) which implies something other than it being in the public domain, and 2. one should try to verify as well as possible that the photograph itself was likely produced by the government agency in question (the Los Alamos one above is a pretty hard one to check as there was no obvious reason to suspect it was not produced by the government). -- Fastfission 17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)