![]() | 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 5 |
Impressive marathon tagging effort! Logical next step? Include some form of boilerplate instructions at the top of Special:Watchlist so that User knows what to do with all the [[Image:...]] files that have suddenly sprung up – instructions at the very least for indicating that User took the photo last year on his/her holidays and User does license it under the GFDL. Doable? –Hajor 00:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I just realized a potentially big problem with marking these images. When the image is replaced, the image description doesn't change. Anthony DiPierro 18:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've tagged every "large" (over 300kb) image. -- Imran 19:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What is the msg:CopyrightedFreeUse supposed to be used for? Would the GPL apply? If not, can we make a tag for free non-GFDL licenses? Anthony DiPierro 14:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Anthony DiPierro 15:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd say we don't need some of those cc licenses:
Hi.
I'm working on Wikipedia, where we're trying to get to grips with our huge array of images, and working on tagging them appropriately, both in human-readable and machine-readable forms. You can see how we're doing at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags
One problem we've run into is for public domain images: both images that have fallen into the public domain, and images that have been explicitly dedicated to the public domain.
Your site is clear enough about what I should do if I personally want to certify or dedicate an image to the public domain. However, I face the situation where *someone else* is claiming that an image is public domain. Should I direct them to use your "Public Domain Dedication" service?
My second question is for metadata: What metadata should I use to indicate that:
Your site won't display the meta-data unless I personally dedicate something to the public domain, and it's not clear if I need different metadata for the three categories above.
Thanks, -Martin
Does anyone have any objections to my changing the format of the CC tags so that they read like this? Basically, a stack with the logo on top, followed by the two lines of text. Looks a bit neater, in my view, but I don't know if CC has specific rules for displaying its licenses. –Hajor 16:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; duly read. What I want to do appears to be well within their guidelines, so I'll get cracking. –Hajor 21:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Could someone come up with some standard text explaining tagging and asking users to do it, so that we can we just copy/paste it to uploader userpages if they aren't marking. -- Imran 02:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Could someone indicate on the page what message should accompany a picture taken from a web site of the US government? My belief is that all such material is really put into the public domain, but I'm not positive. Tempshill 21:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The GFDL-compatibility issue is more complex. Firstly, none of the CC licenses are directly GFDL compatible, secondly, all of them are GFDL compatible in "aggregation" mode. So the issues is one of freeness, not GFDL compatibility. Martin 19:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Do I have to add every image which is fair use to the Wikipedia:Fair_use page? The images I'm uploading are from another web site and I've gotten his permission and am attributing the images to him. But every image that I add in this manner I still have to add to the Fair Use page? — Frecklefoot 22:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I didn't see that other one ({{msg:PermissionAndFairUse}}). I think that fits it. That wasn't exactly my question, though. I just wanted to know if I have to list every image I upload to the Fair Use page. I can understand adding it there if the status of the image is in question. But all these images are clearly fair use plus I've obtained permission from the source. It just seems like a waste of everyone's time to add such images. — Frecklefoot 16:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Which tag should Image:Isaac.jpg get? I got permission to use it, so I thought about adding {{msg:PermissionAndFairUse}}, but as it is a photograph from pre-1923, doesn't that make it {{msg:PD-US}}? Do I need a new {{msg:PermissionAndPD-US}} tag? Angela . 23:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
If it is PD only in the US, and needs permission here, then add both. Secretlondon 23:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
French Wikipedia has just started a similar (perhaps bolder) project: fr:Wikipédia:Projet, Chasse aux images. On their rc they are also talking about the suppression d'images non décrites (ie, deletion of pics without descriptions). –Hajor 16:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Two completely separate things:
1) I notice that {{msg:WorldCoin}} is not listed here, probably because it is created before this initiative; also, at MediaWiki custom messages it is listed under "Sources of articles" while it should be under "Image description namespace". I didn't want to list and move it myself, maybe there is something I don't know.
2) I have just uploaded two images ( this and that) for which I couldn't find appropriate tag. I recall seing more images and sites with somewhat similar policies, so I suggest a new message, named perhaps {{msg:SpecificCopyright}}, {{msg:SpecificPermission}} or {{msg:SpecificTerms}}, with contents of, say:
This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. Terms of the permission are given below:
Perhaps not very useful, except to identify such images.
04:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
While Jimbo has said that we should avoid images that are used with permission only, he's also said that we shouldn't go on a mass deletion binge, but proceed slowly and respectfully. During this slow and respectful period, there will be images used with permission on Wikipedia, and it is better that such images are tagged accurately than not tagged at all. Further, some images will be used with permission and fair use, and in these cases a dual tag will always be appropriate, even years from now. Martin 00:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
[ http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012142.html We're not going to do anything radical and sudden and frightening, but at some point in the possibly distant future, we hope to have our image-tagging sophistication to the point that we'll just delete stuff that doesn't suit our needs for freedom and transparency.] - right back at ya.
Giving people the option promotes clarity, so we can see what we have, and fix any problems. It also aids downstream users, who can clearly see which images are not available for them to use. If you think it's misleading, fix that by editing, not by removing the option. If I see an image that has been uploaded (perhaps months ago) with Wikipedia-specific permission, I want a way to clearly tag it as such - that's what the "used with permission" tag is for. Martin 01:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to have the tag, if for no other reason than to mark the images for eventual deletion. anthony (see warning)
Although I agree with not going on deletion rampage any time soon, where is the policy of uploading new images that are likely to be tagged with a "non-commerical only" tag. I am considering approaching this guy who has fantastic photos. He already allows non_commercial_reuse_provided_credit_given. (see http://www.galenfrysinger.com/faq.htm) but I would like to try and get a bit more free-ness for his low-res photos. If this is not possible, should I bother copying and loading under the restricted licence, or is the expectation that the wikipedia website will be made unambigiously GFDL-free soon? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I just read an article on the Lunette begging for an illustration. Since it came from an esteemed editor and the image seemed to be within my limited abilities and tools, I took some time to make a rough but representative sketch. When I went to upload the sketch I found that things had radically changed in the months since I had last uploaded images. Everything seemed very reasonable and I could understand why those changes were needed but I could not see what to do. Yes, OK place a tag, but which one? All I wanted was to give away my sketch, with no strings attached, as I had done previously for all my sketches ( Armoire desk, Bureau a gradin, Bureau Mazarin, Pedestal desk, Rolltop desk, Spinet desk). This talk page and its original page were very interesting but they were of no help for my problem. At first I thought the logical thing to do would be just to place (how to place it is another question I have not started to figure out) that GNU tag since I have noticed that the Wikipedia content is covered by it. But then I read that you had to identify the creator for this, and I am not willing to reveal my identity. Other tags seemed likely but they were all shot down in the discussion in the talk page. All I want is to give it away so that anybody can do anything with it. What should I do? AlainV 06:30, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
Which becomes
* '''Photo credit:''' [User:username] {{msg:PD}}
I'm not asking anyone to pay me for my work. I'm not even going to get too pushy about my name appearing under or beside an image I create. But I work hard on my stuff. I don't see any reason I cannot request two simple things: first, that credit be given somewhere when my work is used, even if it's the bibliography, and second, that my work be protected from commercial use. I'm not making money on my work, and I would be profoundly distressed to see it used to promote a commercial site or product with which I had some political or philosophical difference (as a vegan, do I want my sunrise picture promoting a nice breakfast of bacon and eggs? I think not!) So please help me understand why, if I don't agree to what amounts to a flat-out surrender of my work, it's ineligible for Featured Illustration or other Wiki goodies. Denni 02:18, 2004 May 15 (UTC)
Have we looked closely from a legal standpoint and gotten a definitive answer on whether or how the CC licenses are compatible with the GFDL? I have a feeling that we may need to get professional legal consultation on this matter. -- Seth Ilys 23:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that all of the image copyright tags be styled like the creative commons tags.
I think this makes the copyright info more clear, and also separates it from the other image info. Thoughts?
I have worked on your suggestion, and also added a top line of text which is the same as in CC tags. I'd also like to point out how ugly it is when an image is licensed under two licenses:
{{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} {{cc-by-sa}}
versus:
{{GFDL/temp}} {{cc-by-sa}}
Nikola 06:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are press release images considered "public domain" (or otherwise covered under fair use)? I'm referring specifically to this image (of the PlayStation Portable) attached to this press release. - Plutor 15:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What about the images on this FBI press release, which would illustrate 2001 anthrax attacks, can they be taken as US GOV PD ? Richard Taylor 14:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I know a guy who wishes to submit photographs free of copyright, but he'd like to be accredited for his work. What is Wikipedia policy on that?
Currently under listed on the heading "UK Govt copyrights" is the tag "CrownCopyright". Is this tag just for the UK as the heading suggests or can it be used for other countries that have crown copyright (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand)? -- Popsracer 10:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I find the PD message rather unclear: it does not list why the image is considered pd. Has the copyright expired? Did the volunteer upload his/her own work? Did the original source donate it into the pd?
As a first step, I would like to create a message saying: This image was created by me, the uploader. I donate this image under the gnu/fdl into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
What do you think about it?
TeunSpaans 20:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
GNU FDL is a licenese given by copyright holder, so there is really no point in saying something is released under FDL (or any other license, for that matter) without mentioning copyright holder. In my opinion the minimum would be:
![]() | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() ![]() ![]() | If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
![]() |
As a sidenote, I agree with Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason’s comment in Template talk:GFDL, the current Template:GFDL is overly verbose with a redundant sentence linking to FDL instead of a link in “GNU Free Documentation License” above and with a redundant link to Wikipedia:General disclaimer (not present in other license templates).
As for public domain, it is not a license per se, but rather a lack of copyright for one of the reasons you’ve mentioned, so it would be in my opinion even more important to specify the reason as well as the author, however it is quite different in a sense that anyone can take a public domain work and release it with any license as a legal copyright holder. In other words I think it is important to know who has released his work into public domain to make sure it is indeed legally in public domain, but if it is, then we don’t have to mention it, that’s the whole point of public domain...
Still, I would always mention the author if only known and would always write something in the lines of “author unknown, work from around XI–XII century, public domain” otherwise, even if it is not legally required. So yes, I agree with you.
Rafał Pocztarski 20:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
![]() | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
![]() ![]() ![]() | If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
![]() |
TeunSpaans 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ideally, I’d like to be able to write:
{{copy}} 2004 ~~~. {{gfdl}}
and have it expanded to:
and nothing else. Currently, {{ GFDL}} expands to:
with strange line breaks, additional explicit <br/>’s, redundant disclaimer and overly verbose link, unlike other, less prefferable licenses, like {{ cc-by}}:
{{
cc-by}}
or {{ cc-nc-sa}}:
{{cc-nc-sa}}
Still, there are lots of whitespace and the table might be considered an overkill, but the text is clear. Or maybe I’m wrong and this would be enough:
Rafał Pocztarski 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just to resurrect the point of this subsection, I think the PD template should make it clear that it is expected that an image tagged PD should be accompanied as to an explanation as to why it is PD. This (1) makes fact-checking at least in principle possible; and perhaps more importantly (2) combats uploader ignorance. If an uploader, say, is under the impression that whatever they happened to pull off another web site is PD, then under the current system, they tag it PD, and we're left with a non-PD image and a faulty assertion. If the template required some sort of explanation, then the ignorant uploader would give an inappropriate explanation, and their mistake would at least be detectable. Shimmin 18:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've encountered the same issue, wanting to release my own work into the public domain, or clarify that something is definitely released (not expired, etc.) -- I created these two templates to see if others can use them and/or improve them. Suggestions and editing welcome:
![]() | I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the
public domain. This applies worldwide. If this is not legally possible: |
![]() | This work has been released into the
public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible: |
Why is this only a category and not a tag? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are lists of untagged images at User:Yann/Untaggued Images. Please help with tagging these, and remove any tagged ones from the lists. All images that are not tagged will not be included in the planned Mandrakelinux distribution (see m:Wikimedia and Mandrakesoft). Angela . 10:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Since Jimbo has stated that images free for non-commercial use only should not be uploaded to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Non-commercial_use_images), shouldn't all the cc-nc tags be deprecated, too, together with {{noncommercial}} and the like? Lupo 14:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I've added a table with the number of images with a given template in their description. The numbers are generated with a program that analyzes the backup database dump, and I'll update them every week or so. A couple of observations:
Alfio 22:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've recently copied Image:Iceberg2.jpg and Image:Iceberg2 modified.gif from the German Wikipedia ( de:Bild:Eisberg klein.jpg and de:Bild:Loch ness.gif, respectively). The German images have no copyright info, but they have existed since 11 January 2004 with no problems. What copyright tag should I use here on the English Wikipedia? • Benc • 19:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have noticed Template:Chess image, which is used to mark images imported from GPL program XBoard. I have tagged the template, but it should be noted that all images tagged with {{Chess image}} are GPL. Nikola 07:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to point out something which might not be obvious, if someone would like to tag some images but doesn't know where to start. Some people have, when describing their images, had foresight to link them to GFDL. So, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=GFDL there is a nice heap of images to tag. You should remove link to GFDL so that new images would appear on the link list (some of the images are tagged already but linked anyway). Nikola 07:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:PD_USGov has to be watched from time to time, to notice images tagged with this wrong tag. Perhaps the template should be deleted? Nikola 07:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What do we do for Image:JFK grave.jpg, which was taken by a wikipedian, but has no license info? →Raul654 23:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL
I think we cannot assume they are put their works under GFDL. Wikipedia copyright says text you submit is put automatically under GFDL but not images. CopyrightedFreeUse is a correct choice because any image uploaded to wikipedia must be compatible with GFDL and if a specific license is not provided, CopyrightedFreeUse would be a choice. Also, CopyrightedFreeUse is arguablly more generous license in that it is not copylefted. It would be safer to assume relatively less restrict license. -- Taku 22:24, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
Umm, actually Wikipedia:Copyright also says:
So I was guessing that the material means text. I think this is a legal ground why you can upload an image whose copyright you have and put it under public domain, yet you cannot put any text you contributed under the public domain.
But as you said, this is a delicate issue. But one thing we can be sure, I think, is that you cannot upload images put under a license imcompatible with GFDL, so that is why I said {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should be a good guess. -- Taku 05:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Derrick, he has a good point, I think. I agree that most of authors have intent to use their images in the way of copyleft just like text in wikipedia. But as Derrick, we should not go second-guessing. Yet, I think we can still safely assume that they agree to use them in the way compatible with wikipedia. After all, you cannot upload non-free image or non-commercial image, regardless if you have a copyright or not. I still think CopyrightedFreeUse is a good choice because it says:
Because the author didn't specify any restriction like attribution, we cannot guess any restriction he would like. Finally, I do agree to use a new tag with a message like:
or something. The whole question is if we can use that image or not and surely we can use it. -- Taku 22:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
There is a tag for "Albumcover" but we also need one for "Videocover."
Are stamps automatically PD? I know U.S. stamps are, but what about this? How should it be tagged? – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 23:49, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
{{ CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} - same as above, with a variable for the reason and unprotected. (view) I do not understand this. What is the purpose of the variable for reason? What does 'unprotected' mean in this context? Why wouldn't I just use {{ CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}
How about national or regional coats of arms (e.g. Image:Nicaragua-coa.jpg). Can we presume these are public domain? Should we mark these as {{logo}}?
What is the proper procedure when the owner of existing, copyrighted images wants to allow them to be used on Wikipedia, and all future versions thereof (WikiCooking, etc.), provided that proper credit is given, but does not want to change them into public domain images?
How about {{copyrighted}} (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags):
Possible Copyright Infringement |
If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of
Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2024_July_21/Articles * {{subst:article-cv|File copyright tags/Archive 1}} from [{{{url}}}]. ~~~~ |
![]() The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems:
Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.
Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. |
|
Maintenance use only: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=File copyright tags/Archive 1|url={{{url}}}}} ~~~~ |
Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ like this -- Chris 73 Talk 04:06, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I am kinda new to all this, thus the reason for my questions. I took a look at that page you mentioned, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, I may be mis-reading something, but it appears you are not suppose to use that tag you suggested any more? Should I maybe use the "PermissionAndFairUse" tag instead? Or perhaps the "CopyrightedFreeUseProvided", and then list the restrictions? Given that the "Copyrighted" tag appears to be deprecated, what is the preferred approach for this situation? Thanks. -- Arlingtonmall 06:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The NPS has an excellent website [4] that is all PD material, it would be good to have an Image:copyright tag for their pictures. -- nixie 04:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This article or image contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain in the United States. See the NPS website and NPS copyright policy for more information. Note that not all images on NPS websites are in the public domain. Please be sure that this template is only used for images that are not attributed to a copyright holder. |
![]() |
I couldn't find the image tag for the Forest Service [5], is it acceptable to use the USDA one, or can someone make a USDA-FS tag?-- nixie 15:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone have a (legal) reference to the stated fact that works of the State of California are in the public domain? I'm interested in knowing whether this applies to the University of California also. Ydorb 17:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've been looking around for a hour or so and I'm still a bit confused about some simple situations. I have an image of my 'self' for my profile that's a gift drawn by a friend at DeviantART. I've been tempted to give credit and then attach {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but I really don't know. What do I do?
Oh, and on another note, are there any types of images that should not be uploaded at the Commons? (Besides, of course, those which shouldn't be uploaded period.)
-- Al Fox 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I just realized I can direct-link to pictures from outside the Wikimedia pages. Doesn't really matter anymore then (as I'll take the responsibility of hosting my personal images). Sorry for bothering anyone with it, but then again, nobody acted like they noticed me anyways. -- Al Fox 22:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What is the copyright status of pictures taken by Nazi servicemen or for the Nazi gov't during and preceding WWII? Has copyright on these expired? Were Nazi gov't images free for use back then, and if not has there since been a law/treaty that makes them free? There are numerous pictures on wikipedia that could use a nazi gov't/military tag if indeed they are free (otherwise there are numerous pictures that may need to be deleted). Finally, if such a tag is created, be cautious and make sure a picture actually is a WWII-era nazi picture before actually tagging it as such (i.e. it may have been taken post-war or by a non-serviceman/Nazi gov't official). - Lommer 05:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The National Archives claims that they have rights to a very large body of Nazi photographs and documents. Their reasoning seems to be that ownership of copyright passed to the US since they seized them by force. Perhaps German law supercedes this in Germany, or by some strange EU machination in all of the EU, but as for the US, these
seized materials are property of the US government and PD. Or am I mistaken? Similarly, wouldn't documents seized by the Soviet Union become property of the state and copies of them subject to the 1971 copyright rule? -
Mak Thorpe
02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Note
Template:PD-Germany and the
images which use it--
Henrygb 01:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See also Template talk:PD-Germany. Thuresson 22:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Zondor, for organizing and formatting this page. I have some questions though.
Thanks! – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 05:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
About FairUseUnsure: I made the tag for pictures for which fairuse would certainly apply, but where the image may in fact be in the public domain. It's much like the fairold tag, but where the question of whether the image is in the Public Domain is not based on the image's age. For instance, take a still frame from a video produced and released by al-Qaida that shows one of the 9/11 hijackers. If the image is copyrighted, fair use would certainly apply. (It's a rare image of a historical event, and it's used for educational purposes.) But is a video produced by a non-governmental-group like al-Qaida in Afghanistan copyrighted? Did the Taliban actually have copyright law, and would it apply to home-tapes by al-Qaide? Could an infringement case possibly be made under any circumstances?
In cases like this, I wanted a tag that said "May be PD, and if not, then Fair Use." – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 17:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Commons talk:Image copyright tags#Sharp GNU Head
I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently. Below are both versions compared:
The GFDL template with the sharp logo would look like this:
![]() |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. |
I think it looks much better. What do you think? Rafał Pocztarski 07:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Heckert GNU white.svg]]
should already work everywhere.
Rafał Pocztarski 05:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)[[Image:Red copyright.png|64px|Copyright]]
and [[Image:Copyleft.png|64px|Copyleft]]
as in Commons.
Rafał Pocztarski 14:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)I've created a template for video game cover art to correspond with the templates for DVD, video tape, album, and book covers. What do you guys think of that? Should we keep using it, and do you think it should be added to the page with all of the others? I think it's pretty similar to all the rest, but I wanted to get approval. But it's so close, I think I'm gonna just start using it. I'll undo everything if this is denied. The template is Template:Gamecover. It looks like this: Template:Non-free game cover
Thoughts? Cookiecaper 03:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have uploaded these CC icons to Wikimedia Commons:
Those icons could be used in license templates, so e.g. Template:Cc-by-2.0 could look like this:
Creative Commons License ![]() |
The image at the top of this page is licensed under a
Creative Commons License. Specifically, it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0, colloquially known as "cc-by". |
and Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 could look like this:
Creative Commons License ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The image at the top of this page is licensed under a
Creative Commons License. Specifically, it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License 2.0, colloquially known as "cc-by-nc-sa". For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
It would make them more visually distinctive and consistent with Commons Deeds [8] appearance. Do you think that would be a good idea? If so then I can update the templates. Rafał Pocztarski 04:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another idea: would anyone prefer to change templates like this:
Creative Commons License ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The image at the top of this page is licensed under a
Creative Commons License. Specifically, it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License 2.0, colloquially known as "cc-by-nc-sa". For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
to something less redundant, like this:
Creative Commons License ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The image at the top of this page is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License 2.0:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Also, The image at the top of this page could be changed to This image which would be a direct link to the actual image file, using [[Media:{{PAGENAME}}|This image]]
. I think I will prepare some examples in my User namespace to show exactly what I mean and to possibly allow someone with administrator privileges to move my code directly to the actual templates.
Rafał Pocztarski 05:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here are my proposed tables for the CC templates:
Table for Template:Cc-by:
![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 License: |
Table for Template:Cc-by-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() |
This image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License: |
Table for Template:Cc-sa:
![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under Creative Commons ShareAlike 1.0 License: |
Table for Template:Cc-by-sa:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 1.0 License: |
Table for Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License: |
Table for Template:Cc-nd:
![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons NoDerivs 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nd/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nd:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs 2.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-nc:
![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons NonCommercial 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nc:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 2.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-nc-sa:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons NonCommercial ShareAlike 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nc-sa/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-sa:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-nd-nc:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons NoDerivs NonCommercial 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nd-nc/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-nc:
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs NonCommercial 1.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-nc-2.0:
Creative Commons License![]() ![]() ![]() |
This image is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.0 License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/ For the purposes of Wikipedia, this license is a non-free license. |
They are clear, short, consistent and visually distinctive. The visible URL is in my opinion a better choice than the colloquially known as text. This image links would automatically point to the image file when the template is used, solving The image at the top of this page ambiguity. See this image for a live demo with a temporary User:Rfl/cc-by-2.0 template. Comments welcome. Rafał Pocztarski 07:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because they're protected pages, I'm going to wait a week or so to see if there are any objections. I'll also put links to here in the talk pages. – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 17:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
These changes have now been made. Thanks again for your work! – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 00:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
A similar CC templates proposal has been posted on Wikimedia Commons. Rafał Pocztarski 11:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is there some way that these image tags could include the Creative Commons metadata -- Ellmist 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I added a {{money}} tag for national currencies. I think these are all public domain, but I'm not sure. For now, people can tag money images, and if the decision changes on how they should be listed, then it can change in one central location. So are money designs public domain? – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 23:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, there are several issues here. One is whether a picture of money can be copyrighted. Copyright only applies to creative works, so a photograph of something that adds no original creative content cannot be copyrighted. This is why Image:Le picador.jpg, even though the photo was taken recently, is in the public domain. The same is true for money: Image:100pesos.jpg and Image:10centavoII.jpg are not copyrightable, since they add no new creative content to the image on the currency. But a picture of a coin standing on its side, or of a crumpled dollar bill, that would be a copyrightable photograph.
The World Coin Gallery pics are a difficult matter, and I don't know how they should be dealt with. There are three possible interpretations:
I support interpretation #1. For now, I'm leaving the WCG template on images, but I'm adding the money template as well. – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 15:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Howdy, I just came across Image:Wikipedia-banner0002.png, which is a version of Image:Wikipedia-banner.png. The original work is marked as GFDL, but the new version claims to be public domain. Is it possible to take a derivative of a GFDL work and release it into the Public Domain? I don't think so, but again i'm not a copyright lawyer. I've marked it {{PD}} for now, but someone who is more confident of their judgement on this may wish to go change it to {{GFDL}} - Lommer 03:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are there a set of templates for copyright of .oog (sound) files, Halibutt has created a category to collect all the files in one place, and many have image templates stuck on them now, which may not be the best way to tag them. Any suggestion on the best way to track copyrights on these files? -- nixie 08:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok, how do we feel about logos? I've been tagging images and this is the most confusing category for me. I've come across a logo for a car manufacturer which I marked as {{fairuse}}. Then I found the {{logo}} tag, so I started using that. Currently I want to tag all of the images listed in {{Polish Football First league}}. Should I use logo? Does this apply since they are Polish and not American? Quadell, at my inquiry, marked all the images in the {{Canadian federal political parties}} with {{logo}}, but originally they were marked as {{fairuse}} I think. Any insight would be great. I am going to go ahead and mark those Polish images as {{logo}} for now. Ack, so confusing. -- MaxPower 15:21, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Marking it as a logo would certainly be beneficial to reusers. I'm not going to comment on the legal issues, as international copyright law/fair use is way too confusing for me to understand. anthony 警告 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do sculptures also fit under this tag? -- Aqua 08:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
It seems that consensus here is toward treating non-PD postage stamp images as free use. Is there an archived discussion of that decision? Is it clear with the legal people? — Tkinias 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this is correct, but I've found drawings of chemical formulas (such as Image:Pentane.png) marked {{PD-ineligible}}. I don't know if this is correct or reasonable, but I will mark others in the same fasion, so somebody stop me if there's a more appropriate tag. :-) - Lommer | talk 08:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Can images from stock.xchng be used at Wikipedia? The images (mostly) say "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." But the terms of use indicate some restrictions. Any copyright experts here? Opinions? Dbenbenn 14:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
AICT has a ton of "free use " images available. The license permits free use to educational institutions, such as schools and libraries. I'd say that Wikipedia generally qualifies as educational, but what is the consensus? Can we use these images? -- EagleOne 04:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a {{imgcopyvio}} tag, to put on an image while it's a IfD. I've been using {{unverified}}, but that isn't quite right when I have verified that the image is a copyright violation. Of course, such a tag would be only for temporary use! Dbenbenn 09:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should the fairuse screenshot tag or the GPL tag be used for screenshots of GPL programs(eg: Image:GIMP-1.2.5.png)? Similarly, should the program's licence be used for the screenshot where applicable?(BSD, the free-er CC's, etc.) Boffy b 10:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
I want to upload a few pictures of the places I visited while on vacation. I am confused as to what tag to put {{GFDL}}, {{PD-self}}, {{cc-by}}. Could someone please guide me? Can I use all tags? PS. Please reply on my talk page. Nichalp 19:21, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
People watching this page might want to take a look at Template:Whatever, and express an opinion on how it is used. dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 (UK), and it isn't listed on the "project page". There are a few images tagged with it; can the tag simply be replaced with Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0? dbenbenn | talk 16:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What tag should a picture have when the author made up his own license? For example, see Image:Lions snoozing in the sun.jpg. It's licensed as cc-by-sa-2.0 with the condition that you must "Inform the photographer before any use of this image." I could tag it {{permission}}, but that isn't accurate. I think what I'll do is create Category:Copyright specified on image description page as a subcat of Category:Images by copyright status. Objections? dbenbenn | talk 17:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uh... The cc-nc-sa license is free the same as the cc-sa license... I use nc-sa on all of my stuff because I don't want anyone else making money off of my work. What exactly is the incompatability with the GNU Free Documentation License? Wikipedia is not making money here, this is non-profit, non-commercial so what is the problem with adding non-commercial to a Wikipedia accepted license? -- Singpolyma
One of Wikipedia's most important goals is being an open content encyclopedia. This means people can use what they find in Wikipedia for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The GFDL allows this. The Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0 license allows this, but is not compatible with the GFDL. All text in Wikipedia must at least be licensed under the GFDL. -- Ellmist 16:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)