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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hey all, sometime in the past, the entire article was duplicated in itself, with headings and discussions repeated. I just trimmed it down by removing the top half, in the theory that people prefer to reply to the part on the bottom. My apologies for any lossage involving people who were talking in the upper parts. -- Improv 19:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am creating a new image tag, Template:Unknownsource. It should be used in the case where the license of an image is assumed or suspected to be usable with another tag (perhaps Fairuse, Promophoto, etc.) but the actual original location and copyright status is not known for certain. This differs from Template:Unverified which is used when the license is totally uknown. An example of an image where I think this tag is justified is Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, where fair use promotional photo is assumed, but the image does not have a known source or credits for its creators.
The text of the notice currently is:
Comments welcomed. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This has been replaced with {{ fairuseunknownsource}}, shortened to {{ fuus}}. -- ChrisRuvolo 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When I am adding images I can never remember the tags. Invariably I have to open another window, navigate to the tags page, and look them up.
What I would recommend is a pop-up containing all of the tags and a short description. When selected, they would insert that tag into the text at the current cursor location. Yes, I realize this would only work on 95% or more of the browsers out there, and I'm sorry about the other 5%, but I think this would make tagging dramatically easier, and as a result, more widely used.
Maury 13:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Census Bureau is a great source of pictures, could someone clever make a template for tagging these images? Incidently we also have no tag for the US Department of Commerce-- nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Have tried looking around to see if the BBC permits its images to be used online, their site policy says you can use its media for personal non-profit use, which I guess makes it not permitted on Wikipedia? Does anyone know if the BBC have permitted their images to be used? -- PopUpPirate 22:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed an image copied here from fr:Wikipedia, where it was tagged with the template "ArtLibre". This is apparenly some type of free licence, but I don't know the en equivilent, and fr:Catégorie:Image Art Libre has no interwiki. Can someone clarify this, is this equivelent to an existing en category, or is it something different that we can/or can't use? Wondering, -- Infrogmation
I've been using this image ( [1]) for a while on my user page and it's only recently occurred to me that this might be copyrighted.
The image itself is based on fairly poor-res version of a piece of Microsoft Word clip art. I traced over everything again to clean it up and then changed the colors. But is this enough to distinguish it from the original? And if not, could the original be copyrighted? Can someone shed some light on this? IKato 08:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Been getting no reply to this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy - anyone here any ideas? or at least know where to ask to get an answer?
There's a huge collection of tree and forestry photos at http://www.forestryimages.org/. Most are taken by private individuals and copyrighted, with (usually) a non-commercial licence note attached; fair enough.
However, some are marked as taken by United States Forest Service personnel - these photos carry the same non-commercial license restrictions on the page (typical example: this one). Yet surely as US Government photos, these are in the public domain and free of copyright? Can I ignore the stated restrictions as being incorrect, and use these USFS photos with the tag {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}? - thanks, MPF 11:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lately I've become concerned about works on Wikipedia supposedly granted into the public domain by their authors, including a number of my own. According to an e-mail I recently received from the U.S. Copyright Office:
In other words, it's currently impossible to grant one's own work into the public domain, and a statement willing it into the public domain has no legal effect. This suggests that such works currently put us in some danger, since the owner still retains full copyright despite what we or they might think (although you might argue in court about their intent).
It would seem we need some kind of statement that authors can apply instead — a sort of "public-domain-equivalent" license that irrevocably releases all rights to the work. Although it might seem like there's no harm in also saying it's granted into the public domain, I'm concerned that, like a contract, there exists the possibility that one unenforcable stipulation might render the entire license void. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I'd like to hear a real lawyer's opinion on all this. In any case it seems like some action needs to be taken. Deco 18:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who needs a new tag for this? Just {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}} should do the trick. dbenbenn | talk 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{ MultiLicenseMinorPD}} and {{ MultiLicensePD}} are also in trouble, then. — msh210 15:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just pinging this for people's watchlists — if there is no complaint in the next several hours, I will proceed to deprecate the tags that claim that an author has released their work into the public domain and inform the necessary users about the change. I've created a project page explaining this here: Wikipedia: You can't grant your work into the public domain. I will deprecate the text-licensing tags later on after I've warned them properly. Deco 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've become interested in taking photographs to illustrate articles. If I take a picture of, say, a Coca-Cola can, can I release that into the public domain or under the GFDL? Or since it is a photograph of a presumably trademarked design, can I not do that? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Text in Template:PD-USSR is incorrect:
It's incorrect. These works were protected by copyright in USSR (and they are protected in Russia now), but until May 27 it was not recognized internationaly. So it's not worldwide public domain! See ru:Википедия обсуждение:Источники информации/БСЭ (in Russian). -- ajvol 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All works published in the Soviet Union between July 28, 1954, and May 27, 1973, are not protected by international copyright conventions and are thus in the public domain in many countries. (In Russia and other former Soviet republics, some of these works may still be protected by copyright.)
I cannot verify that anything written here is correct. If we have no extensive translation of the Russian legal position we cannot assert that the facts are as assumed in our template. Please do not ignore the following links:
Copyright term in Russia: 50 years post mortem auctoris: http://www.fips.ru/avpen/docs.htm (Copyright Act 1993, engl.)
We should avoid wishful thinking and if there is a doubt we should avoid claiming one opinion for a fact. -- 172.180.228.181 21:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (de:Historiograf)
From here (PDF) This may help to clarify things:
Each of the following Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (but not the CIS countries Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) is a successor state to the Soviet Union’s copyright treaty obligations, in particular, the obligations under the UCC Geneva, and accordingly is a member of the UCC Geneva effective May 27, 1973, the date the Soviet Union became a party. The successor status in each case was confirmed in a bilateral trade agreement between each of these countries and the United States, effective in each case on the date set forth below. Note that the successor status is consistent with the treatment by UNESCO (secretariat for the UCC) of these countries. The effective dates of the bilateral agreements with the United States confirming the successor status are as follows:
and
Russia:
ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing the template icon from Image:Hammer and sickle.png to the more discrete and correct Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.png. Salleman 19:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Every template's talk page should link back to here or something:
"See Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags"
- Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think commons templates for PD and stuff are prettier. Can we copy them? - Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've been having a long conversation at User talk:Dbenbenn#M1911 Pistol image about what kinds of restrictions are allowed on the {{ CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag. My position is that since the tag places its images in a subcategory of Category:Free images, certain restrictions are not allowed, such as disallowing modification. User:Twthmoses disagrees, and tags all his images, such as Image:P38 AC44.jpg, with
Opinions? What restrictions exactly are allowed with that problematic tag? dbenbenn | talk 05:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After a painful and unpleasant discussion on Wikipedia talk:Granting work into the public domain, the lack-of-consensus seems to be that we should ignore the legal problems with granting one's own work into the public domain. Fair enough. But I want to release all rights to my work unambiguously. The current recommendation is {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but that license makes me nervous: I'm not convinced people who use it realize how broadly we interpret "free use" (i.e., including modification and commercial use without credit). Of course, once a tag has been slapped on an image, we can't change the tag (we should perhaps be using subst) without consulting the author.
So I propose (sigh) a new tag that unambiguously releases all rights to an image. Here's my suggestion:
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. |
It could become {{ NoRightsReserved}} (or something else if a better name is available). There could also be corresponding {{ NoRightsReservedUser}} and {{ NoRightsReservedSelf}} if they're useful.
Note that I am not suggesting some sort of giant project to replace all PD-release tags with this; I just want a good tag for my own work, and I personally am not comfortable with the uncertainty involved with PD-release or CopyrightedFreeUse. -- Andrew 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author. |
Is this clearer? When someone uses the image for something, they can't legally claim their own copyright on it (although they can claim copyright on any expressive changes they make) but they are not required to attach attribution or indicate in any way what the original copyright permissions were. -- Andrew 23:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Currently, it seems like you have to accept current, and future, versions of the GDFL when uploading your own works. I have always found it strange to release something under a licence you have never seen, so I wonder why it shouldn't be possible to specify the version which should be applied. Jonas Olson 22:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Twice now, I've tried to fix minor wording errors in copyright tags only to find them protected. Questions on the talk page have not elicited responses. Protected pages include {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-User}} (but not {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}), {{ CrownCopyright}}, {{ NationalAuditOfficeCopyright}}, {{ NHSCopyright}} (but not {{ CanadaCopyright}}), {{ Cc-by}}, {{ Fairuse}}, and so on.
Why were they protected? Wouldn't some discussion, or at least, an explanation have been nice? And can someone unprotect them please so I can fix (for example) the wording of {{ CrownCopyright}} to indicate that it's specifically for UK government material? -- Andrew 23:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
This table is helpful [4] - fills incomplete holes in this artice's explanation. Any objections to importing it under publicdomain? Lotsofissues 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have used a chart from the PDF of a UN report on HIV for the AIDS in Africa article (Image:UNAIDS 2004 HIVAfrica85-03.png).
I cannot conceivably imagine they would object to the dissemination of this information and have put a {{fairuse}} tag on it. However, the copyright blerb reads:
Should someone email them and ask permission to reproduce graphs? Or does fair use cover this? It would probably be useful for the future to have their permission. UN material probably merits its own category and template notice too. TreveX 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to know what's in the public domain and what's not, you might be interested in User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 21:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
thumb|50px|Ann CoulterFor a screenshot to qualify as fair use, does it need to include the entire screen, or can it be siginificantly edited down? I've seen some images which have had all the identifying marks removed that have still been listed as screenshots. thumb|50px|Tidus. Here are two examples I've run across. Thanks of any input. - Willmcw 03:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Fair use does not require the entire image to be used. (For instance, one of the classic fair uses is to use a brief quote from a book - this is essentially the same as cropping an image.) – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 13:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to label an image Image:Bahai.jpg which was uploaded by someone else however I'm struggling. I found a page which specifies the copyright and its certainly legal to use, even available for making profit with etc, but I can't find a tag that matches. I contacted the original uploader and he didn't get permission but thats not required according to the copyright page ( http://www.bahai.org/copyright).
I've left the details in the description page.
Any help would be nice. -- Tomhab 15:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Under the section General non-free licenses it says: "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies." This includes both the copyrighted tag and the permission tag. So if we're not supposed to upload images we have permission to use, then what images are we supposed to use? And why did someone go through the trouble to create tags that can't be used anyway since we're not allowed to upload such images? This seems confusing, and therefor my guess is that I have completely misunderstood these instructions. I would appreciate if anyone could clear this up for me. Maver1ck 09:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
A few pics from here have been uploaded for an article on fish parasites. The pics were donated by the maker to the US Fish and Wildlife service. {{ Attribution}} was the best tag I could think of, can someone suggest something better? -- nixie 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
What is to be done with all the pictures that have been tagged with non-free licenses? There are hundred and hundreds of images tagged {{ copyrighted}} and in the Non-commercial use only images category. I'm sure that this has all been discussed before, but are these images allowed to remain? — Asbestos | Talk 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What is our stance on licenses that do not allow derivatives. On the one hand, Creative Commons No-Derivs is banned. Yet, Crown Copyright is allowed, despite requiring "accurate reproduction." Clarification requested. Superm401- Talk 17:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've uploaded some short (30-second) audio clips of songs for The Supremes for some music articles I have worked on. The moderator I worked on the page with informed me that featured music articles should have sound samples. How do I go about properly tagging the sound samples? -- FuriousFreddy 03:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can one of yall tell me what is the image tag if you want an image to be requested to be renamed? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've made a template for the Indian public domain images. Indian copyright info can be read here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Someone familiar with legalese terms may want to fully decode it. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 18:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason why there is PD-user but not GFDL-user or just noone needed it so far? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Does the fair use rationale behind the "logo" and "coatofarms" tags apply to the arms or logo as a conceptual idea; or to the specific artwork inherent in them; or both? Obviously the "conceptual idea" is in most cases governed under some sort of trademark law (or heraldic law in the UK) while the artwork is presumably regular copyright. If the rationale only extends to the idea, then that would mean that we'd have to redraw many logos/coats-of-arms from scratch ourselves; if only to the artwork — well, that would be pretty pointless & we'd really be up the creek!; and if to both, then we're OK and all the thousands of arms and logos can stand as they are. Thanks, oh legal experts, for your help. Doops 21:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The University of Virginia is posting these on the Web at ... http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/MassHist/ ... and they are all original documents.
As I understand, all court documents – be they either from the present Government or a former "overthrown" government that has been amalgamated into the present – are public domain UNLESS they have been officially labeled: classified, confidential, secret, or top secret.
If this is not so, please explain else-wise. I have already uploaded one of the images to a webpage that I started entitled Mary Walcott.
WB2 07:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am curious what tag you would use for photo's off of Associated Press? -- ZeWrestler 01:00, 23 Jun 2005 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hey all, sometime in the past, the entire article was duplicated in itself, with headings and discussions repeated. I just trimmed it down by removing the top half, in the theory that people prefer to reply to the part on the bottom. My apologies for any lossage involving people who were talking in the upper parts. -- Improv 19:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am creating a new image tag, Template:Unknownsource. It should be used in the case where the license of an image is assumed or suspected to be usable with another tag (perhaps Fairuse, Promophoto, etc.) but the actual original location and copyright status is not known for certain. This differs from Template:Unverified which is used when the license is totally uknown. An example of an image where I think this tag is justified is Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, where fair use promotional photo is assumed, but the image does not have a known source or credits for its creators.
The text of the notice currently is:
Comments welcomed. Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This has been replaced with {{ fairuseunknownsource}}, shortened to {{ fuus}}. -- ChrisRuvolo 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When I am adding images I can never remember the tags. Invariably I have to open another window, navigate to the tags page, and look them up.
What I would recommend is a pop-up containing all of the tags and a short description. When selected, they would insert that tag into the text at the current cursor location. Yes, I realize this would only work on 95% or more of the browsers out there, and I'm sorry about the other 5%, but I think this would make tagging dramatically easier, and as a result, more widely used.
Maury 13:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Census Bureau is a great source of pictures, could someone clever make a template for tagging these images? Incidently we also have no tag for the US Department of Commerce-- nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Have tried looking around to see if the BBC permits its images to be used online, their site policy says you can use its media for personal non-profit use, which I guess makes it not permitted on Wikipedia? Does anyone know if the BBC have permitted their images to be used? -- PopUpPirate 22:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed an image copied here from fr:Wikipedia, where it was tagged with the template "ArtLibre". This is apparenly some type of free licence, but I don't know the en equivilent, and fr:Catégorie:Image Art Libre has no interwiki. Can someone clarify this, is this equivelent to an existing en category, or is it something different that we can/or can't use? Wondering, -- Infrogmation
I've been using this image ( [1]) for a while on my user page and it's only recently occurred to me that this might be copyrighted.
The image itself is based on fairly poor-res version of a piece of Microsoft Word clip art. I traced over everything again to clean it up and then changed the colors. But is this enough to distinguish it from the original? And if not, could the original be copyrighted? Can someone shed some light on this? IKato 08:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Been getting no reply to this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy - anyone here any ideas? or at least know where to ask to get an answer?
There's a huge collection of tree and forestry photos at http://www.forestryimages.org/. Most are taken by private individuals and copyrighted, with (usually) a non-commercial licence note attached; fair enough.
However, some are marked as taken by United States Forest Service personnel - these photos carry the same non-commercial license restrictions on the page (typical example: this one). Yet surely as US Government photos, these are in the public domain and free of copyright? Can I ignore the stated restrictions as being incorrect, and use these USFS photos with the tag {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}? - thanks, MPF 11:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lately I've become concerned about works on Wikipedia supposedly granted into the public domain by their authors, including a number of my own. According to an e-mail I recently received from the U.S. Copyright Office:
In other words, it's currently impossible to grant one's own work into the public domain, and a statement willing it into the public domain has no legal effect. This suggests that such works currently put us in some danger, since the owner still retains full copyright despite what we or they might think (although you might argue in court about their intent).
It would seem we need some kind of statement that authors can apply instead — a sort of "public-domain-equivalent" license that irrevocably releases all rights to the work. Although it might seem like there's no harm in also saying it's granted into the public domain, I'm concerned that, like a contract, there exists the possibility that one unenforcable stipulation might render the entire license void. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I'd like to hear a real lawyer's opinion on all this. In any case it seems like some action needs to be taken. Deco 18:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who needs a new tag for this? Just {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}} should do the trick. dbenbenn | talk 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{ MultiLicenseMinorPD}} and {{ MultiLicensePD}} are also in trouble, then. — msh210 15:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just pinging this for people's watchlists — if there is no complaint in the next several hours, I will proceed to deprecate the tags that claim that an author has released their work into the public domain and inform the necessary users about the change. I've created a project page explaining this here: Wikipedia: You can't grant your work into the public domain. I will deprecate the text-licensing tags later on after I've warned them properly. Deco 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've become interested in taking photographs to illustrate articles. If I take a picture of, say, a Coca-Cola can, can I release that into the public domain or under the GFDL? Or since it is a photograph of a presumably trademarked design, can I not do that? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Text in Template:PD-USSR is incorrect:
It's incorrect. These works were protected by copyright in USSR (and they are protected in Russia now), but until May 27 it was not recognized internationaly. So it's not worldwide public domain! See ru:Википедия обсуждение:Источники информации/БСЭ (in Russian). -- ajvol 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All works published in the Soviet Union between July 28, 1954, and May 27, 1973, are not protected by international copyright conventions and are thus in the public domain in many countries. (In Russia and other former Soviet republics, some of these works may still be protected by copyright.)
I cannot verify that anything written here is correct. If we have no extensive translation of the Russian legal position we cannot assert that the facts are as assumed in our template. Please do not ignore the following links:
Copyright term in Russia: 50 years post mortem auctoris: http://www.fips.ru/avpen/docs.htm (Copyright Act 1993, engl.)
We should avoid wishful thinking and if there is a doubt we should avoid claiming one opinion for a fact. -- 172.180.228.181 21:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (de:Historiograf)
From here (PDF) This may help to clarify things:
Each of the following Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (but not the CIS countries Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) is a successor state to the Soviet Union’s copyright treaty obligations, in particular, the obligations under the UCC Geneva, and accordingly is a member of the UCC Geneva effective May 27, 1973, the date the Soviet Union became a party. The successor status in each case was confirmed in a bilateral trade agreement between each of these countries and the United States, effective in each case on the date set forth below. Note that the successor status is consistent with the treatment by UNESCO (secretariat for the UCC) of these countries. The effective dates of the bilateral agreements with the United States confirming the successor status are as follows:
and
Russia:
ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of changing the template icon from Image:Hammer and sickle.png to the more discrete and correct Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.png. Salleman 19:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Every template's talk page should link back to here or something:
"See Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags"
- Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think commons templates for PD and stuff are prettier. Can we copy them? - Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've been having a long conversation at User talk:Dbenbenn#M1911 Pistol image about what kinds of restrictions are allowed on the {{ CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag. My position is that since the tag places its images in a subcategory of Category:Free images, certain restrictions are not allowed, such as disallowing modification. User:Twthmoses disagrees, and tags all his images, such as Image:P38 AC44.jpg, with
Opinions? What restrictions exactly are allowed with that problematic tag? dbenbenn | talk 05:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After a painful and unpleasant discussion on Wikipedia talk:Granting work into the public domain, the lack-of-consensus seems to be that we should ignore the legal problems with granting one's own work into the public domain. Fair enough. But I want to release all rights to my work unambiguously. The current recommendation is {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but that license makes me nervous: I'm not convinced people who use it realize how broadly we interpret "free use" (i.e., including modification and commercial use without credit). Of course, once a tag has been slapped on an image, we can't change the tag (we should perhaps be using subst) without consulting the author.
So I propose (sigh) a new tag that unambiguously releases all rights to an image. Here's my suggestion:
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. |
It could become {{ NoRightsReserved}} (or something else if a better name is available). There could also be corresponding {{ NoRightsReservedUser}} and {{ NoRightsReservedSelf}} if they're useful.
Note that I am not suggesting some sort of giant project to replace all PD-release tags with this; I just want a good tag for my own work, and I personally am not comfortable with the uncertainty involved with PD-release or CopyrightedFreeUse. -- Andrew 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
© | This image is copyrighted. However, the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author. |
Is this clearer? When someone uses the image for something, they can't legally claim their own copyright on it (although they can claim copyright on any expressive changes they make) but they are not required to attach attribution or indicate in any way what the original copyright permissions were. -- Andrew 23:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Currently, it seems like you have to accept current, and future, versions of the GDFL when uploading your own works. I have always found it strange to release something under a licence you have never seen, so I wonder why it shouldn't be possible to specify the version which should be applied. Jonas Olson 22:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Twice now, I've tried to fix minor wording errors in copyright tags only to find them protected. Questions on the talk page have not elicited responses. Protected pages include {{ CopyrightedFreeUse}}, {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-User}} (but not {{ CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}), {{ CrownCopyright}}, {{ NationalAuditOfficeCopyright}}, {{ NHSCopyright}} (but not {{ CanadaCopyright}}), {{ Cc-by}}, {{ Fairuse}}, and so on.
Why were they protected? Wouldn't some discussion, or at least, an explanation have been nice? And can someone unprotect them please so I can fix (for example) the wording of {{ CrownCopyright}} to indicate that it's specifically for UK government material? -- Andrew 23:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
This table is helpful [4] - fills incomplete holes in this artice's explanation. Any objections to importing it under publicdomain? Lotsofissues 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have used a chart from the PDF of a UN report on HIV for the AIDS in Africa article (Image:UNAIDS 2004 HIVAfrica85-03.png).
I cannot conceivably imagine they would object to the dissemination of this information and have put a {{fairuse}} tag on it. However, the copyright blerb reads:
Should someone email them and ask permission to reproduce graphs? Or does fair use cover this? It would probably be useful for the future to have their permission. UN material probably merits its own category and template notice too. TreveX 20:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to know what's in the public domain and what's not, you might be interested in User:Quadell/copyright. – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 21:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
thumb|50px|Ann CoulterFor a screenshot to qualify as fair use, does it need to include the entire screen, or can it be siginificantly edited down? I've seen some images which have had all the identifying marks removed that have still been listed as screenshots. thumb|50px|Tidus. Here are two examples I've run across. Thanks of any input. - Willmcw 03:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Fair use does not require the entire image to be used. (For instance, one of the classic fair uses is to use a brief quote from a book - this is essentially the same as cropping an image.) – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 13:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to label an image Image:Bahai.jpg which was uploaded by someone else however I'm struggling. I found a page which specifies the copyright and its certainly legal to use, even available for making profit with etc, but I can't find a tag that matches. I contacted the original uploader and he didn't get permission but thats not required according to the copyright page ( http://www.bahai.org/copyright).
I've left the details in the description page.
Any help would be nice. -- Tomhab 15:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Under the section General non-free licenses it says: "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies." This includes both the copyrighted tag and the permission tag. So if we're not supposed to upload images we have permission to use, then what images are we supposed to use? And why did someone go through the trouble to create tags that can't be used anyway since we're not allowed to upload such images? This seems confusing, and therefor my guess is that I have completely misunderstood these instructions. I would appreciate if anyone could clear this up for me. Maver1ck 09:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
A few pics from here have been uploaded for an article on fish parasites. The pics were donated by the maker to the US Fish and Wildlife service. {{ Attribution}} was the best tag I could think of, can someone suggest something better? -- nixie 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
What is to be done with all the pictures that have been tagged with non-free licenses? There are hundred and hundreds of images tagged {{ copyrighted}} and in the Non-commercial use only images category. I'm sure that this has all been discussed before, but are these images allowed to remain? — Asbestos | Talk 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What is our stance on licenses that do not allow derivatives. On the one hand, Creative Commons No-Derivs is banned. Yet, Crown Copyright is allowed, despite requiring "accurate reproduction." Clarification requested. Superm401- Talk 17:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've uploaded some short (30-second) audio clips of songs for The Supremes for some music articles I have worked on. The moderator I worked on the page with informed me that featured music articles should have sound samples. How do I go about properly tagging the sound samples? -- FuriousFreddy 03:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can one of yall tell me what is the image tag if you want an image to be requested to be renamed? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've made a template for the Indian public domain images. Indian copyright info can be read here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Someone familiar with legalese terms may want to fully decode it. = Nichalp ( Talk)= 18:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Is there a reason why there is PD-user but not GFDL-user or just noone needed it so far? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Does the fair use rationale behind the "logo" and "coatofarms" tags apply to the arms or logo as a conceptual idea; or to the specific artwork inherent in them; or both? Obviously the "conceptual idea" is in most cases governed under some sort of trademark law (or heraldic law in the UK) while the artwork is presumably regular copyright. If the rationale only extends to the idea, then that would mean that we'd have to redraw many logos/coats-of-arms from scratch ourselves; if only to the artwork — well, that would be pretty pointless & we'd really be up the creek!; and if to both, then we're OK and all the thousands of arms and logos can stand as they are. Thanks, oh legal experts, for your help. Doops 21:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The University of Virginia is posting these on the Web at ... http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/archives/MassHist/ ... and they are all original documents.
As I understand, all court documents – be they either from the present Government or a former "overthrown" government that has been amalgamated into the present – are public domain UNLESS they have been officially labeled: classified, confidential, secret, or top secret.
If this is not so, please explain else-wise. I have already uploaded one of the images to a webpage that I started entitled Mary Walcott.
WB2 07:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am curious what tag you would use for photo's off of Associated Press? -- ZeWrestler 01:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)