WikiSlasher (talk | contribs) →Licencing query: I fixed it |
Jesse Viviano (talk | contribs) Should we add a message on all free-image tags requesting that the image be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here? |
||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
:{{tl|web-screenshot}}. Don't forget to include a [[WP:FURG|fair use rationale]], and don't forget a website screenshot can only be used in a discussion of the specific website in question (not in a generic way to show an example of a certain kind of website). —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
:{{tl|web-screenshot}}. Don't forget to include a [[WP:FURG|fair use rationale]], and don't forget a website screenshot can only be used in a discussion of the specific website in question (not in a generic way to show an example of a certain kind of website). —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
::I fixed it. --[[User:WikiSlasher|WikiSlasher]] 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
::I fixed it. --[[User:WikiSlasher|WikiSlasher]] 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Should we add a message on all free-image tags requesting that the image be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here? == |
|||
I have seen that in some foreign language Wikipedias while searching for interwikis that some Wikipedias apparently have a request that the uploader please upload such images to the Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia on their free image use tags. Should we add them to our templates here? I do not know how to do this myself, as I do not know how to use CSS or make message boxes using Wikipedia syntax. [[User:Jesse Viviano|Jesse Viviano]] 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:24, 16 February 2007
Please place new topics at the bottom of the page.
No disclaimers GFDL template
Can someone explain the reasoning behind {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}? Will this still be an issue under GFDL v2? I'm worried that we may be jumping the gun by doing this migration when all GFDL images are soon going to be switched to GFDL 2 anyway (or so I assume, since our GFDL templates says "or any later version". Kaldari 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The latest draft version of GFDL version 2 still requires people to preserve any disclaimers. I figured that someone might want to have a disclaimer-free version like {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} like how the German Wikipedia has no disclaimers. See section 4 of the latest draft version of the GFDL v2. Jesse Viviano 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- A couple questions:
- It appears all the disclaimers are related to articles anyway. Since the GFDL template is only used for images (and maybe audio/video) does it even make sense to have the disclaimers in the main GFDL template anyway? Rather than creating a new template (and more licensing confusion) perhaps we should consider changing the existing template.
- It may be worth trying to get images added to the GFDL definition of "excerpts" so that this is not an issue. See section 6a. They already list "up to a minute of audio or video" but no mention of images. I have brought up this issue on the comment version. Please feel free to add more comments there.
- Kaldari 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- For concern 1, no, it does not make much sense. However, we are required to preserve any warranty disclaimers. This is the motivation for the no-disclaimers tags' creation. For concern 2, contracts are tricky stuff. We do not want to expose anyone to the fear of a lawsuit. Therefore, implying things like that are dangerous. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- 1. We are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable? 2. I don't understand what you're saying here. What contracts and lawsuits are you talking about? Are you saying that if we modify the GFDL to not require attaching disclaimers to images someone is going to sue Wikipedia? Kaldari 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- For question 1, yes, we are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable. For question 2, because the GFDL is a license contract, the person who released the image under the GFDL technically gets the ability to sue if the disclaimers are not preserved, because violating even the tiniest portion of any contract allows someone to get sued and lose the case. Therefore, if someone takes an image off of the English Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL with disclaimers and distributes it with or without modifications under the GFDL without disclaimers, the GFDL is violated, and therefore the original author of the image can take the distributor will be able to win a court case against the other person. If Wikipedia removes disclaimers from an image submitted by someone who later becomes an ED troll, that troll will be able to sue the user for copyright infringement on the basis of the GFDL violation. If Wikipedia decides to remove all disclaimers from GFDL images, it will violate the GFDL, and Wikipedians who became ED trolls will then sue to try to destroy Wikipedia, which is one of their main goals. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but what happens when someone agrees to a license contract under terms that can change, i.e. they agree to a license and "any future versions of the license"? Isn't that inherently agreeing to multi-license the content (under different versions of the same license)? In that case the redistributor has the priviledge of choosing which version of the license to distribute under. Obviously, if the terms of the license changed dramatically, this sort of blind agreement wouldn't stand up legally, but I really don't see changing the disclaimer requirements as being that dramatic. They are already changing the disclaimer requirements for small amounts of text, audio, and video, so why not for images as well? Perhaps it should only be for images up to a certain resolution, but even if we said up to 500K that would cover most of the images on Wikipedia, and save us the trouble of having to manually get them all relicensed by the uploaders. Kaldari 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am just trying to help. If images are not excluded in that list of exclusions, then they are not excluded. If you wish to change this, go to the discussion pages at [1] and join the discussion there to add images to the list of exclusions. Remember, good contracts must be written assuming that all the parties involved could become your worst enemy. Contracts written without that assumption give a lot of undesirable wiggle room that causes messes and lawsuits due to someone misinterpreting the contract, and the other party therefore believes that the contract is breached, leading to an unclear situation on whether or not a contract is breached. Removing as much of the wiggle room in contracts is therefore good practice and reduces the risk of needing to sue or of getting sued in the first place. Jesse Viviano 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- All good points indeed. I just think that migrating all GFDL images to GFDL without disclaimers may be something of an impossible task. If we can avoid the problem entirely by modifying the GFDL, I would prefer to take that route first. If it doesn't pan out, I imagine your solution would be the way to go. I would just hate to see all the effort wasted if it might not be needed anyway. Why don't we see what happens with GFDLv2 first. Or if you would really prefer to start a migration now, feel free to re-add the template. I have no serious objections to it, I just wanted to discuss it first. Kaldari 23:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am just trying to help. If images are not excluded in that list of exclusions, then they are not excluded. If you wish to change this, go to the discussion pages at [1] and join the discussion there to add images to the list of exclusions. Remember, good contracts must be written assuming that all the parties involved could become your worst enemy. Contracts written without that assumption give a lot of undesirable wiggle room that causes messes and lawsuits due to someone misinterpreting the contract, and the other party therefore believes that the contract is breached, leading to an unclear situation on whether or not a contract is breached. Removing as much of the wiggle room in contracts is therefore good practice and reduces the risk of needing to sue or of getting sued in the first place. Jesse Viviano 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but what happens when someone agrees to a license contract under terms that can change, i.e. they agree to a license and "any future versions of the license"? Isn't that inherently agreeing to multi-license the content (under different versions of the same license)? In that case the redistributor has the priviledge of choosing which version of the license to distribute under. Obviously, if the terms of the license changed dramatically, this sort of blind agreement wouldn't stand up legally, but I really don't see changing the disclaimer requirements as being that dramatic. They are already changing the disclaimer requirements for small amounts of text, audio, and video, so why not for images as well? Perhaps it should only be for images up to a certain resolution, but even if we said up to 500K that would cover most of the images on Wikipedia, and save us the trouble of having to manually get them all relicensed by the uploaders. Kaldari 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- For question 1, yes, we are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable. For question 2, because the GFDL is a license contract, the person who released the image under the GFDL technically gets the ability to sue if the disclaimers are not preserved, because violating even the tiniest portion of any contract allows someone to get sued and lose the case. Therefore, if someone takes an image off of the English Wikipedia licensed under the GFDL with disclaimers and distributes it with or without modifications under the GFDL without disclaimers, the GFDL is violated, and therefore the original author of the image can take the distributor will be able to win a court case against the other person. If Wikipedia removes disclaimers from an image submitted by someone who later becomes an ED troll, that troll will be able to sue the user for copyright infringement on the basis of the GFDL violation. If Wikipedia decides to remove all disclaimers from GFDL images, it will violate the GFDL, and Wikipedians who became ED trolls will then sue to try to destroy Wikipedia, which is one of their main goals. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- 1. We are required to preserve disclaimers even if they are not applicable? 2. I don't understand what you're saying here. What contracts and lawsuits are you talking about? Are you saying that if we modify the GFDL to not require attaching disclaimers to images someone is going to sue Wikipedia? Kaldari 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- For concern 1, no, it does not make much sense. However, we are required to preserve any warranty disclaimers. This is the motivation for the no-disclaimers tags' creation. For concern 2, contracts are tricky stuff. We do not want to expose anyone to the fear of a lawsuit. Therefore, implying things like that are dangerous. Jesse Viviano 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- A couple questions:
1905 Italian letter
Hi all. I have a scanning of a letter written in 1905 where it is explained why the U.S. Città di Palermo colours were changed to the current pink and black. I would like to upload it for the Palermo football club article, mainly because I think it would be a great adding for its historical section. So, I would like to know if this letter could be considered in the public domain (I have no information about the year in which its author died, by the way). The letter can be also seen here. Thank you. --Angelo 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the letter was originally published in the United States prior to 1923, it is public domain. Kaldari 23:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
GFDL-presumed
User:Geni edited {{GFDL-presumed}} to indicate that it's not to be used for images uploaded after 2006-01-01 but I am certainly unaware of any such change in policy and there's no discussion on Template talk:GFDL-presumed that would indicate why this is true. So my question is, should this template be deprecated? howcheng {chat} 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because we should not base licensing information on guessing what kind of terms someone intended to place on theyr images. I've used the tag a couple of times in the past myself, but I've come to agree that it is not a very good practice. People frequently upload theyr own prohots under the speedy deletable "non-commercial only" type tags, so there is not rely any basis for asuming that anyone who upload material copyrighted by themselves have by default agreed to use the very spesific terms of the GFDL license. If someone can not fulfill the very basic requirement providing some kind of copyright info (even after beeingn prompted for it) then the image gets deleted, this is long standing policy. --Sherool (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think deleting obviously self-made images rather than GFDL-presuming them is newbie-biting, and it is newbies who will be most affected if {{GFDL-presumed}} is deprecated. I use it frequently when it's clear an image is self-made but uploaded by a newcomer who hasn't grasped that pre-tagging an image during upload as "fair use image of a living person" is tagging it for speedy deletion. —Angr 07:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, so the uploader claims the image is fair use and you think it's a good idea to guess that they actualy meant to say that that "permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License has been granted". Why not CC-BY-SA or some other arbitrary free license? They are not all the same you know. Sorry but I don't agree. A lot of people upload "self made" images without intending to release it as free content, or even knowing what free content is. If you think they are confused feel free to notify them and explain what the GFDL/free content is all about, but unless they themselves change the tagging to GFDL (or tell you it's ok to do so) I don't see what possible basis we have for claiming that the images are probably GFDL licensed. The only cases where it might be apropriate is if someone uploads a whole series of GFDL licensed images and then one untagged that is clearly part of the same series, that's probably due to an oversight. But on the whole guessing what license you think something has based purely on the fact that someone saw fit to upload it here but totaly failed to follow even the most basic instructions on the upload page is not a good idea. Unlike for text there is no asumption that user created images are released under any spesific license. Hence the speedy deletion criterea for untagged stuff. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- When they write "I made this image myself" and it's large resolution and metadata are present and it's being used only on their user page, I think deleting it as a "replaceable fair use image" is absurd. Every time you edit Wikipedia "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." —Angr 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I used to use this template too, but agree with Sherool that it's not good practice, and that the template probably should be deprecated. In any case, though, I really do not think the template should ever be applied when the uploader is still active on the project and available for questions. When images are apparently self-made, a polite request to the uploader to confirm its status is much preferable to grabbing rights that they never intended to give, isn't it? There are manners of communicating that are far less biting than template messages, so why resort to this assumption when we don't have to? ×Meegs 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess my opinion here comes from my experiences dealing with neophyte uploaders, which tend to go like this:
- Them: "Why can't I use this image? I made it myself!"
- Me: "You can, you just have to license it correctly. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators and pick one."
- Them: "I don't understand. Which tag should I use?"
- Me: "Whichever reflects the way you want your image to be made available for others to use." (explanation of what ramifications picking GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and PD-user will have)
- Them: "Okay. But how do I add a license to an image? I can't find the drop-down menu I had when I first uploaded the image."
- Me (trying valiantly to remain polite and avoid sarcasm): "Just edit the image description page like any other page and type
{{GFDL-self}}
[or whatever license they chose] to it."
- I trust you understand why after half a dozen or so similar exchanges I prefer to just slap a {{GFDL-presumed}} on images like this and move on. —Angr 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've had that conversation many times too. I know you don't need my advice, but when you're not interested in educating them about wp processes, it's a lot easier to just present one license and ask them if they'll agree to its terms; if they say yes, slap the tag on for them. If the GFDL is too much, give them a link to the CC-by deed, which is about as straightforward as it gets. It amounts to two edits instead of one, but at least the exchange confirms that they're aware that they're giving up rights beyond allowing the work to appear on the Wikipedia web site. ×Meegs 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since the uploads page does not include any mention of the GFDL outside the selections box we have no legal case whatsoever for assumeing GFDL.Geni 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've had that conversation many times too. I know you don't need my advice, but when you're not interested in educating them about wp processes, it's a lot easier to just present one license and ask them if they'll agree to its terms; if they say yes, slap the tag on for them. If the GFDL is too much, give them a link to the CC-by deed, which is about as straightforward as it gets. It amounts to two edits instead of one, but at least the exchange confirms that they're aware that they're giving up rights beyond allowing the work to appear on the Wikipedia web site. ×Meegs 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I guess my opinion here comes from my experiences dealing with neophyte uploaders, which tend to go like this:
- I used to use this template too, but agree with Sherool that it's not good practice, and that the template probably should be deprecated. In any case, though, I really do not think the template should ever be applied when the uploader is still active on the project and available for questions. When images are apparently self-made, a polite request to the uploader to confirm its status is much preferable to grabbing rights that they never intended to give, isn't it? There are manners of communicating that are far less biting than template messages, so why resort to this assumption when we don't have to? ×Meegs 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- When they write "I made this image myself" and it's large resolution and metadata are present and it's being used only on their user page, I think deleting it as a "replaceable fair use image" is absurd. Every time you edit Wikipedia "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." —Angr 09:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, so the uploader claims the image is fair use and you think it's a good idea to guess that they actualy meant to say that that "permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License has been granted". Why not CC-BY-SA or some other arbitrary free license? They are not all the same you know. Sorry but I don't agree. A lot of people upload "self made" images without intending to release it as free content, or even knowing what free content is. If you think they are confused feel free to notify them and explain what the GFDL/free content is all about, but unless they themselves change the tagging to GFDL (or tell you it's ok to do so) I don't see what possible basis we have for claiming that the images are probably GFDL licensed. The only cases where it might be apropriate is if someone uploads a whole series of GFDL licensed images and then one untagged that is clearly part of the same series, that's probably due to an oversight. But on the whole guessing what license you think something has based purely on the fact that someone saw fit to upload it here but totaly failed to follow even the most basic instructions on the upload page is not a good idea. Unlike for text there is no asumption that user created images are released under any spesific license. Hence the speedy deletion criterea for untagged stuff. --Sherool (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
← Okay, I'm starting to go through the images I tagged with GFDL-presumed and replacing it with subst:nld. I'm notifying the uploaders with a modified template (found at User:Angr/Presumed) giving specific instructions on what to do if the uploader is also the creator (since I assume they are). —Angr 13:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. Let's take one of the few simple image tags we have and just declare it invalid, and then add a whole bunch of instruction creep and discourage users from uploading their own images. What a great idea. /sarcasm. --Fang Aili talk 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright isn't simple. In any case this tag does nothing other than time shift the problem.Geni 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't think you have the right to just declare the tag invalid. As you say, copyright isn't simple, and I don't consider your one opinion the word of law. --Fang Aili talk 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rights? the only rights on wikipedia are to leave and to fork. In this case the copyright situation is fairly simple. Someone has uploaded an image without releaseing it under a free lisence. You come along with this tag and say that you think they have. However since there is no real basis for this assumption you should not be makeing it.Geni 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about some middle ground here? Why not create a {{GFDL-presumed-notify}} template that can be used to notify the user that an image has been tagged and requesting that they come and fix the problem and provide an alternate tag if they so choose or ask that the image be deleted if they don't want to release it under a free license? I'm extremely conservative in using GFDL-presumed, as we all should be ... but if it's obvious that it is a user-created image, I don't see a huge problem with it. I have created {{GFDL-presumed-notify}} to use to notify the user. Please feel free to improve the template. If it is agreeable, we can add a note to the bottom of {{GFDL-presumed}} asking users to notify the uploader with this template. Thanks. --BigDT 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rights? the only rights on wikipedia are to leave and to fork. In this case the copyright situation is fairly simple. Someone has uploaded an image without releaseing it under a free lisence. You come along with this tag and say that you think they have. However since there is no real basis for this assumption you should not be makeing it.Geni 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I still don't think you have the right to just declare the tag invalid. As you say, copyright isn't simple, and I don't consider your one opinion the word of law. --Fang Aili talk 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I do have a basis for using it when I do: if it is obvious that it is a user creation (as well as being a useful addition to the encyclopedia), I tag it GFDL-presumed. This is reasonable because we cannot expect every single person to familiarize him or herself with pages and pages of Wikipedia image policy. The user can always remove the tag or request the image's deletion if he or she chooses; we're not talking about anything set in stone here. I agree with BigDT's suggestion above to notify the user whenever GFDL-presumed is used. Previously I just assumed the user would be looking at his/her own images and notice the change, but an additional notification can't hurt. I would also like the big red "legacy images" line on {{GFDL-presumed}} to be removed or changed to indicate that it can be used now. (I am also very conservative with this tag.) --Fang Aili talk 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the tag for those situations is template:untagged.Geni 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I do have a basis for using it when I do: if it is obvious that it is a user creation (as well as being a useful addition to the encyclopedia), I tag it GFDL-presumed. This is reasonable because we cannot expect every single person to familiarize him or herself with pages and pages of Wikipedia image policy. The user can always remove the tag or request the image's deletion if he or she chooses; we're not talking about anything set in stone here. I agree with BigDT's suggestion above to notify the user whenever GFDL-presumed is used. Previously I just assumed the user would be looking at his/her own images and notice the change, but an additional notification can't hurt. I would also like the big red "legacy images" line on {{GFDL-presumed}} to be removed or changed to indicate that it can be used now. (I am also very conservative with this tag.) --Fang Aili talk 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now that Geni has pointed-out that we don't even have a licensing agreement on the upload page, I don't see that we have even a flimsy excuse to assume the uploaders have given-up any of their rights, let alone agreed to the GFDL. Many editors do not realize they're contributing to anything beyond this one website. It might be somewhat safe to assume that they're giving permission for Wikipedia to display their image (intact), but of course we don't allow that kind of license. Notification of our assumption is not enough either, as many uploaders will never log-in again, or may not know how to respond. I hate to say it, but while we wait to hear from uploaders, {{Untagged}} (or similar) is really the only tag for these. ×Meegs 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, that satisfies me. I just wanted to bring up the discussion because it kind of seemed like a unilateral move, but I'm happy with not using it anymore. howcheng {chat} 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with not using this anymore, for the many reasons detailed by others above. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has some examples to use to ask users if they are willing to accept the terms of one of the licenses we accept. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
A Navon letter is a letter made of letters. Roughly like this:
TTTT TT TT TT TT TTT TTT TT TT TT TTTT
I would assume that an image of this would be pd-ineligible due to the fact that it was simply a letter made up of letters? Thoughts? IronGargoyle 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- This would be considered a piece of artwork, and therefore gets copyright protection. Jesse Viviano 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, I think it would be ineligible. It's far too easily replicated to count for copyright for protection in my opinion. For example, I think it would be impossible to prove that IronGargoyle is the creator of the above Navon letter. If I was to type it up myself, I don't think he could claim it as a derivative work.--SeizureDog 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the complexity of the Navon letter. Copyright jurisprudence says that a work must entail some degree of creativity to qualify for copyright protection. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp is a good case to look at. The Justices in that case determined that the work had to have "some identifiable original contribution" in order to receive copyright protection. I could certainly imagine a Navon letter to which that applied, although I seriously doubt the example above would qualify. Kaldari 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a type of ASCII art to me. It's quite possibly copyrightable. --Carnildo 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I side with Kaldari on this one. A more complex kind of ASCII art certainly has originality, but not this rendering of a letter.--Jeff 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the complexity of the Navon letter. Copyright jurisprudence says that a work must entail some degree of creativity to qualify for copyright protection. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp is a good case to look at. The Justices in that case determined that the work had to have "some identifiable original contribution" in order to receive copyright protection. I could certainly imagine a Navon letter to which that applied, although I seriously doubt the example above would qualify. Kaldari 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, I think it would be ineligible. It's far too easily replicated to count for copyright for protection in my opinion. For example, I think it would be impossible to prove that IronGargoyle is the creator of the above Navon letter. If I was to type it up myself, I don't think he could claim it as a derivative work.--SeizureDog 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
CAnkawa
{{CAnkawa}} claims to be a public domain-type licence, but also imposes non-commercial restrictions. Should images tagged with this be listed for deletion? --Cherry blossom tree 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- They usually get approved before people do these i think this should stay meaning, permission to use on wikipedia etc. Nareklm 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Images which have permission simply to be used on Wikipedia are usually deleted, however, due to not being free for reuse. --Cherry blossom tree 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've redirected it to {{Noncommercial}} and deleted everything so tagged. That's for pointing this out. Jkelly 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for sorting that out. --Cherry blossom tree 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Armenica.org
Can i get a license for this? images from Armenica.org, these images have been approved by administrators and wikipedia, under the GDFL license, but i need some help creating a license for them. There's already a category made, [2] Nareklm 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Their terms are not compatible with the GFDL, specifically "Material taken from Armenica.org must not be altered or modified without permission from Armenica.org". Thanks/wangi 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like i said its already been approved by administrators and wikipedia, they sent an email to them and they can use it here on GDFL. Nareklm 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, so they're happy with any content on their site being used to make derivative works? Specifically against what their terms state? If that is the case (do you have a pointer to the discussion) then just use {{gfdl}}. Thanks/wangi 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright issue has been solved before with admins etc, i was just wondering if i can get a new license that states it with armenica etc, without the confirmed tag, like a new license for armenica. Nareklm 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming that OTRS ticket number is valid for all content, not just a single map, then check out {{GFDL-Armenica}}. Ta/wangi 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, im sure its valid, i received it from the permissions email, Thanks! Nareklm 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just made a mod to the template to clear things up. Also made the Armenica images category a sub-cat of GFDL and "Images with permission confirmed". /wangi 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming that OTRS ticket number is valid for all content, not just a single map, then check out {{GFDL-Armenica}}. Ta/wangi 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright issue has been solved before with admins etc, i was just wondering if i can get a new license that states it with armenica etc, without the confirmed tag, like a new license for armenica. Nareklm 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, so they're happy with any content on their site being used to make derivative works? Specifically against what their terms state? If that is the case (do you have a pointer to the discussion) then just use {{gfdl}}. Thanks/wangi 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Like i said its already been approved by administrators and wikipedia, they sent an email to them and they can use it here on GDFL. Nareklm 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
City and State Tags?
Is there a tag for images created by a city government? The copyright policy page only indicates federal/military tags. What does one use for state or municipal government images? There are a couple that I uploaded for use in articles. Can one be created for states and cities? Nightscream 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that state and local governments have different copyright policies, and they don't all release images into the public domain like the federal government, so a blanket tag for states and/or cities wouldn't make sense. I would just go with whatever the copyright notice on the page says, and when in doubt, assume that it's all rights reserved. Ytny (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:PD-LOC should be deprecated
This template was deprecated on the commons (see commons:Template:PD-LOC) for understandable reasons. Much of the works in the Library of Congress are not PD, and the Library has admitted that its copyright screening process is not the best. This may encourage the tagging of images which are not really PD simply because they come from the LOC and say "no known restrictions on publication". I believe this template should be deprecated here as well, and replaced by more accurate PD templates (i.e. PD-old, PD-US, etc.). --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Author-requested deletion of free-license images
I was alerted on my talk page to an author-requested deletion of the following images: Image:Clint mathis.jpg Image:Tim howard.jpg Image:Youri Djorkaeff.jpg Image:Jeff Agoos.jpg Image:Mo Johnston.jpg, which were all tagged with {{Attribution}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided|author credit is given}} (he didn't want them used on Wikipedia anymore). These images were all being used in articles, so we don't have easy replacements. If they had been PD, NoRightsReserved, or CC-BY, I would restore them, but is there any consensus of "revocability" of these other licensing terms? Your input is appreciated. howcheng {chat} 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The licenses are probably not revocable, but I'd rather not test it for images that could reasonably be replaced. --Carnildo 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- If we were talking about photos of a car or a tree, that would be one thing, but these are photos of celebrities that we're not going to come across every day. I don't really like at all the precedent of allowing someone to have their photos deleted, particularly if they are in use.--BigDT 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO any license that can be considered free must be irrevokable, otherwise it would be no better than a basic {{permission}} to use. We can not have users running around revoking the rights to use theyr contributions whenever they get theyr feathers ruffled a bit. That said I'm a bit hesitant to restore them seeing as the uploader claims he took them on behalf of some sports website. If that was in a professional capacity he may well not actualy hold the rights to those photos, and judging by the state of his talk page I doubht he's in a mood to clearify... --Sherool (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about {{TNA-photo}} - I tagged Image:StinggoodbyeTNA.jpg as replaceable, but the response received was "Read the use template. TNA Wrestling permits its images to be used in Wikipedia."
But because the license says, "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling recognizes and accepts the use of their pictures on Wikipedia, as long as they are credited as the source of said photos. However, the terms of the permission do not include third party use.", it seems that standard fair use criteria apply.
What's confusing to me is that, because Wikipedia is published with a GFDL template, anything that doesn't permit third party use isn't compatible, so I don't get the point of this license. Mosmof 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, the permission granted to Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. I've left a note at Image talk:StinggoodbyeTNA.jpg to this effect. —Angr 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My next question is, is it a valid/useful fair use tag? {{magazine}} and other non-generic fair use tags have common uses where the built-in fair use rationales apply and generally suffice. But these photographs are non-iconic photographs of living people who appear in public on a weekly basis, so they are almost always going to be replaceable, and therefore not valid fair use. Mosmof 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it could be used for photographs of wrestlers who have died? —Angr 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
License for Tor Book Covers?
I'm trying to work out how to categorise the general license offered by Tor Books for reproducing their covers. The details are here, but essentially allows any use that isn't just blatantly ripping them off for profit. Note that this isn't a "no commercial use" licence, because it explicitly allows some commercial uses, e.g. as illustrations for discussions about the books. Any suggestions? Just leave them as fair use perhaps? JulesH 14:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- The policy explicitly prohibits any deritative works: "Our slightly unofficial policy is that you can reproduce our covers as long as you don't strip out the type or crop, digitally retouch, or otherwise meddle with the image as it stands" which is a big no-no for us. Of course, they say "unofficial policy" but I think fair use should be claimed anway. Hbdragon88 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- The statement "However, printing them onto coffee mugs or T-shirts to sell on the street is Right Out; likewise, comparable appropriations not involving mugs or shirts" also suggests that not any commercial use is allowed, only commercial uses they approve of. It's nowhere near a free license. —Angr 07:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Licensing issue
A certain image was licensed as public domain for almost 2 years but was just recently changed to GFDL+Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Should it be reverted or just left alone? It says on the project page that public domain release is permanent but I'm just checking. --WikiSlasher 06:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was it {{PD-user}}? I'm pretty sure that's nonrevocable. It could already be being used somewhere else. —Angr 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, it was Image:010105 fireworks2.jpg to be exact. --WikiSlasher 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Promotional films
I'm presently working on adding copyright notices for a series of images added to the Real Ghostbusters wiki entry, the images came from a promo film/animation and as there was no tag I figured I'd bring it up as a possible new tag to create. -Kingpin1055 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Licencing query
I think my tag is wrong for this image HotorNot. What is the correct one? --Sadi Carnot 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- {{web-screenshot}}. Don't forget to include a fair use rationale, and don't forget a website screenshot can only be used in a discussion of the specific website in question (not in a generic way to show an example of a certain kind of website). —Angr 16:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed it. --WikiSlasher 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we add a message on all free-image tags requesting that the image be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here?
I have seen that in some foreign language Wikipedias while searching for interwikis that some Wikipedias apparently have a request that the uploader please upload such images to the Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia on their free image use tags. Should we add them to our templates here? I do not know how to do this myself, as I do not know how to use CSS or make message boxes using Wikipedia syntax. Jesse Viviano 06:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)