→Greek tag: don't really need {{tl|PD-GermanGov}} either |
|||
Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
::::::I appreciate your input, JKelly, as I am trying to help clarify the copyright status of Greek material. Why does {{tl|PD-GermanGov}} belong here, isn't it analogous to {{tl|PD-GreekGov}}? Also, what tag should be applied to a photograph of a "current event" in Greece? Thanks for your help! [[User:Argos'Dad|Argos'Dad]] 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
::::::I appreciate your input, JKelly, as I am trying to help clarify the copyright status of Greek material. Why does {{tl|PD-GermanGov}} belong here, isn't it analogous to {{tl|PD-GreekGov}}? Also, what tag should be applied to a photograph of a "current event" in Greece? Thanks for your help! [[User:Argos'Dad|Argos'Dad]] 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Now that I have removed {{tl|PD-GermanGov}} from every image it did not belong on, there are two left. We don't need it either, and it should be deleted and replaced with {{tl|PD-because}} on those two remaining images. A photograph of a current event in Greece that was not taken by you should probably be tagged with {{tl|imagevio}}. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:16, 8 March 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well I guess I'll have to revert, hopefully Kvasir will forgive me :P --WikiSlasher 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's done now. --WikiSlasher 07:43, 20 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)
- What's wrong with the old {{tv-screenshot}} tag? That said most of them will have to go, unfree material should be kept to a minimum and used only for critical commentary per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, the use of screenshots in this article is clearly exessive. --Sherool (talk) 09:40, 16 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 freely-licensed images be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here?
I have seen that in some foreign language Wikipedias while searching for interwikis for some of our image licensing tags 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)
- Maybe, if proper emphasis was given to the fact that there is more to moving something to Commons than merely copying the file over. I wanted to clean out some of the backlog from the "now commons" categories recently but was only eable to delete a couple of images. All the rest was not properly moved. A lot where missing required history and sometimes even source/attribution info. Some images turned out to just be the thumbnail from the image page rater than the full sized image, and some where just flat out not free licensed images after all upon closer inspection. Previous few where also properly categorized at Commons. I'm all for moving images to Commons, but it has to be done right so a fairly detailed procedure would need to be added, not merely a "please move this to commons" message. --Sherool (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to add a note to Template:Nowcommons to encourage users to orphan the image themselves and then perhaps list the image which replaced the tagged image. That's what I usually do on behalf of the admin. --Iamunknown 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Photograph dated 1878 of a person who died in 1940
Can such a thing be presumed to be in the public domain or fair use? The "Licensing" menu at special:upload seems to lack any obviously applicable thing to choose for such circumstances. Michael Hardy 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Much more information would be needed to make an educated guess about the image's copyright status. What image? In what country was it taken, and by whom? Where and when was it first published? Where did you get it from? Note that if the subject died in 1940, it is well possible that the photographer also lived that long... Lupo 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. And here. Michael Hardy 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, Edgardo Mortara. It's clearly a professional photo and as such a "work". But we'd still need to know who the photographer was or when it was published originally. If it was not published ("publication" = making available to the general public copies of the photo), which strikes me as quite likely, it might be in the public domain in the U.S. (because 1878 < 1887 (= 2007 - 120), assuming the first publication was indeed on that Italian web page, which would have occurred 2005/06, and treating it as an anonymous work.) See WP:PD#Unpublished works. If it was published, we still need to know when and where. I'd try asking the CDEC whether they can tell you more about this image (without giving away that you're trying to figure out whether it is PD :-) Lupo 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
muhammadimage.jpg
I created this and released it to the public domain. Then I uploaded it. What else do I need to do? BYT 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- You need to replace the untagged template with a new section called "Licensing" and put {{PD-self}} into it. This'll be done automatically by selecting the appropriate option from the Licensing drop-down menu when uploading the file. --WikiSlasher 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Template added. --WikiSlasher 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what everyone thought of Template:CR-SLA-2. The Sri Lanka Army Web site notes that photos may be reproduced with attribution, but it doesn't explicitly allow modification and the like. Is this free enough? — Rebelguys2 talk 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- For an image to be considered "free" under Wikipedia's Image use policy, the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. The template belongs in Category:Non-free_image_copyright_tags, similar to Template:FinnishDefenceForces. I think an image tagged with Template:CR-SLA-2 would also need to include a fair use rationale and an appropriate fair use tag (Help:Image page#Fair use rationale and Wikipedia:Fair use). —RP88 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? In a legal citation or relevant legal policy pages perhaps? --Iamunknown 07:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the source of Rebelguys2's information, but I just now took a quick look at the Sri Lanka Army web site. At the bottom it says "Contents of this site are the sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication in any media is liable for prosecution. Reproduction of these465 stories/data is possible provided its source is given its recognition." That sounds similar to Rebelguys2's description, definitely doesn't meet WP's policy. —RP88 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I guess it could be appropriate. But, like you said, definitely non-free and with a fair use rationale. --Iamunknown 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the source of Rebelguys2's information, but I just now took a quick look at the Sri Lanka Army web site. At the bottom it says "Contents of this site are the sole property of Sri Lanka Army and any duplication in any media is liable for prosecution. Reproduction of these465 stories/data is possible provided its source is given its recognition." That sounds similar to Rebelguys2's description, definitely doesn't meet WP's policy. —RP88 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured. I had started tagging some of these images by chance, but stopped as I wasn't sure if there was a reason we had this tag. We ought to pretty much wipe or retag this category, as well as Template:FinnishDefenceForces and similar ones, for lacking fair use rationales and the like, yes? — Rebelguys2 talk 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Use of {{pd-ineligible}} on images of signatures?
In Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images a question has come up with regard to signatures. The image Image:PaulHendersonSig.jpg, is marked PD-self, which is clearly wrong (unless the uploader is Paul Henderson). Would it be acceptable to change its license to {{pd-ineligible}}? The {{pd-ineligible}} tag has been used for other signatures (e.g. Image:Sellars_sig.png, Image:M.KemalAtatürk--sign.jpg, Image:Faruqi_signature.jpg, etc.). —RP88 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, PD-ineligible is for things like common symbols (treble clef, astrological signs), math formulas, charts, chemical compounds... basically anything that if anyone were to create it, it would pretty much end up looking the same. A person's signature clearly does not fall under that category. Otherwise, forgery wouldn't be a crime. :) howcheng {chat} 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I tend to agree with you (except with regards to you remark about forgery, which is a completely separate issue from copyright :-). However, since posting this question a couple of days ago I've done some research. For example, in this Google Answers thread on Autograph Copyright Law a librarian who worked on a copyright committee of a university and taught the library copyright classes consulted an intellectual property attorney, who came to the conclusion that "In general, unless the autograph was accompanied by some creative doodle, message, or is extremely flourish-y, it is not protected by copyright law. This is because copyright law only protects the creative expression of an idea or fact. A signature is not generally considered "creative" unless it's really something else." Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything more definitive than this answer on Google Answers. —RP88 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Suspected wrong copyright tag on an image
Image:Paluma dam A.jpg is tagged as though the uploader took the photo - but if you go to the image, it clearly shows that it is provided "free for use, with acknowledgement". Is uploading of "acknowledgement required" images permitted, and if so - is this the correct tag? Secondly - is this the right place to ask this question? (if not, where is?) Garrie 12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the image is going to have a GFDL tag, the copyright holder of the image needs to explicitly say that he releases the image under the GFDL license. Otherwise, he can release it either under a similarly-free license (Creative Commons, etc.) or use a tag like Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat; with the latter, he can require attribution, but must release rights for redistribution and modification. Non-commercial and educational-rights-only restrictions are also not allowed. — Rebelguys2 talk 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images is the best place to list images with questionable tagging, otherwise list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. General help/discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. In the case of this particular image, it might be possible to relist it with an {{Attribution}} license if the source specifically permits commercial use, modification, and redistribution, but requires an attribution. If they don't grant that degree of freedom, then you or someone else needs to add a detailed fair use rationale to the image description page and it should be tagged with {{Fair use in|<article name in which image appears>}} and perhaps {{Withpermission}}. —RP88 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Copyright tag request for Sleeping_goldie.jpg
I read that I have to get a tag for my image, Sleeping_goldie.jpg. Can I have one? Pennybiscuit 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Did you take the photo? --WikiSlasher 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- User indefinitely blocked per log --Iamunknown 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK but I might as well answer anyway: you're supposed to select a license from the drop down menu when you upload the file. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for info. --WikiSlasher 07:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- User indefinitely blocked per log --Iamunknown 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why was the "The Case for Free Use" essay added to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
WAS 4.250, why did you append a 20,000 character essay on how bad NC licenses are to the end of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags? It only seems tangentially related to a page designed as an organizational tool for the image tag templates. If you must post it, please move it elsewhere. —RP88 17:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it should go somewhere on wikipedia and this was the best spot I could find. It was written by Erik Möller, a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and explains why we are cracking down on nonfree images. Eric also wrote stuff on the mailing list explaining this new crachdown, but this is his extended version. People need to understand that wikipedia is about being a free as in freedom encyclopedia not just a free as in no cost encyclopedia. I did not include Eric's name as the essay should be edited as needed to fit (in standard wiki fashion). WAS 4.250 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't just append it to a some random existing page, be bold, create your own! I recommend here. Copy the style of the other copyright related essays (e.g. Wikipedia:Publicity photos) by sticking {{essay}} at the top and [[Category:Wikipedia copyright]] at the bottom. —RP88 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did not put it at a "random existing page". I put it the best place I could find. Please feel free to discuss the merits of where best to place it so we can arrive at a choice of the best place. What arguments do people here have for where to place it? Let us give arguments, then hold a !vote and then act according to whatever seems best to the most people. WAS 4.250 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it was written by Erik Möller, with no attribution and no mention of his choice of licensing, then it should be immediately removed as a copyright violation. I recommend wholesale removal of the text from this document and adding a "see also" link to the source. --Iamunknown 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I quote "Erik Möller 2005-2007. This article is in the public domain. Feel free to use it for any purpose. It is also a living document whose editable main copy resides at http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC. You are encouraged, but not required, to include this notice." [3] WAS 4.250 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have restored the explanation of why we insist on a free license because it is an issue that needs to be addressed here and is not addressed here. WAS 4.250 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- ICT is not the place for an essay like this. The essay is roughly 3 times longer than the rest of the content on the page. If you want to use it as an essay, then find somewhere to put it and mark it as such, but you shouldn't simply dump it into an existing page as if Erik's thoughts are the definitive expression of wiki philosophy. Dragons flight 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, the essay definitely does not belong on this page. Kaldari 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
(reset tab) I hope a link to the page is an appropriate compromise. If anyone has remaining concerns, please, let's not edit war. Discuss on the talk page. --Iamunknown 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK. If you guys want to move it and link it I'll accept that as the consensus. WAS 4.250 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whee! A REAL PD-StateGov!
According to http://gov.ca.gov/site/conditions#ownership , you can get PD stuff off of California's governors site. 68.39.174.238 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's a little more complicated. We used to have Template:PD-CAGov, but it was determined we couldn't guarantee that CA gov images were really public domain. See the whole discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov. howcheng {chat} 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Woman Wolfmother
I'm having trouble figuring out how to apply the correct copyright tag to Image:Woman Wolfmother.jpg. If someone more experienced me could assist me in doing this, it would be truly appreciated. Meesheek 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- {{Albumcover}} --WikiSlasher 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Khflottorp
User:Khflottorp, you had a question (diff) that you posted on the project page. Note that this project page is more for helping users choose which image copyright tag they should use, not answering questions; but I'll be perfectly willing to post a follow up here. I assume that you are talking about Image:XPad.jpg. I see you included the image copyright tag {{Don't know}}. Maybe I can help you figure out what copyright the image is under. Do you own the image? If not, where did you get it from? --Iamunknown 15:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've uploaded a lot of images, but i don't know how to add tags to them. Can someone please help me out? Happyme22 05:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to give you a hand. Let's take this to your user discussion page. —RP88 05:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia itself violate the GFDL?
If I upload to WP a GFDL'd image containing embedded metadata that indicates the image is copyrighted and is licensed under the GFDL, WP itself removes the embedded metadata from scaled-down copies it creates. This would appear to be a violation of the GFDL by WP itself, according to my reading of the GFDL: it says a licensee may copy a document (the image in this case) "provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies". Has anyone else noticed this? Rling 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- When I view your full resolution image on my monitor, my computer makes a derivative copy of your image in video memory that lacks your embedded GFDL license and copyright. Is this also a problem? All copies of WP reproduce the GFDL at Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. If you believe that this is inadequate, it might be better discussed at one of the Wikipedia:Village pump forums, perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), rather than here (since this discussion is about WP's copyright tag templates). —RP88 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've taken it there. Rling 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted image copyright tags
What should we be doing with recently deleted image copyright tags? We could (a) leave them in their place for a while, (b) maintain a list of recently deleted ones to notify editors (which would kind of be WP:BEANS-ish, i.e. bad), or (c) remove them very soon after they are deleted...or other options which I have not thought of. I ask in response to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 24, where four such tags are listed and IMO will be deleted (one already is). Any thoughts? --Iamunknown 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete them. If a tag exists, it will be used. I get one or two notices from OrphanBot a week that someone has uploaded an image as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, even though that tag has supposedly been deleted. --Carnildo 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Remove 'em soon after they're deleted. If we leave it up, we just continue to offer a misleading option to (in)experienced users. Even if it stays up as a red link, it'll still mislead. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you talking about invalid copyright tags that are not in use on any images? If so, I personally favor outright deletion. I suppose I might make exceptions for invalid tags that are highly likely to be "guessed" by experienced editors or formerly heavily used tags, but I don't think I'd be easily convinced. If I was I'd probably recommend that a prominent "this tag is obsolete, this image may be deleted at any time" message be placed on the tag (along with adding the image to the appropriate maintenance category). On the other hand, are you're instead talking about tags that are scheduled to be deleted but are still in use on a few images? In this case I'm in favor of removing the obsolete tag from the images and retagging them, if possible. In either case I dislike tags that on their face claim to be one thing (i.e. {{PD-SomeReason}}) that in turn actually redirect to something else like {{no license}}. I find them hostile to both users and to machine parsing. —RP88 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the tags I'm referring to are probably not heavily used now. You can see my two edits to Template talk:Image-license here and my edit to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Deprecated here --Iamunknown 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Will do! --Iamunknown 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Inherited photos
Say your father dies and you are the sole heir to his estate. You have a photograph you know he took which is not in the public domain but which you want to use in an article. Which tag could you use? You're not the creator, but you are legally the copyright holder and you are the only one who has the right to approve or disapprove its use. --Charlene 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you are the sole legal copyright holder (i.e. the photographs have never been published previously and you are the only claimant to his estate), you could use {{PD-release}}, {{GFDL}}, or any of the Creative Commons licenses. Just be sure to put an explanation of the copyright status on the image description page. Kaldari 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. They are home photographs (of a public building), never published, and I am the only claimant to the estate. Thanks again. --Charlene 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Greek tag
I have created a tag {{PD-GreekGov}} to cover certain Greek material in the public domain. Unless there is objection, I will list it on the page of tags by country. Argos'Dad 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The name of your tag implies that it covers material generated by the Greek government and placed in the public domain by statute. It shouldn't also discuss material that Greek statue considers ineligible for copyright "...or an expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." as these might not come from a government source and might be eligible for copyright in other jurisdictions (in particular, the US, where the WP servers are hosted). —RP88 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, let me clarify that. I'm mostly only concerned with the name of the tag. The name implies a government source, while the content of the tag indicates that it could be used on material that is not a work of the Greek government. If Greece has a more expansive concept of what is ineligible for copyright than the US (ie. {{PD-ineligible}} isn't broad enough to cover Greece) you really need two tags - perhaps {{PD-GreekGov}} and {{PD-Greek-ineligible}}. Another possibility might be just to rename it {{PD-Greece}}. —RP88 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how this tag would be useful. Everything it covers is either not an image, or already covered by {{PD-ineligible}}. --Carnildo 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is very helpful. I think there actually should be three tags: (1) government-generated, (2) folklore, news information, simple facts and data and (3) another provision of Greek law (Article 25) makes "reproduction ... permissible without the consent of the author and without payment: a) for the purpose of reporting current events by the mass media, the reproduction and communication to the public of works seen or heard in the course of the event; b) for the purpose of informing on current events..." On a seperate note, it seems to me, Carnildo, (and I am no expert) that the concept of "ineligible" works is a creature of U.S. law (Sec. 105) that is analogized to government works of other countries, but Greek law indicates that the works listed here are public domain by law, not "ineligible."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Argos'Dad (talk • contribs)
- {{PD-GreekGov}} doesn't belong here. It may belong at Wikisource, if they use templates to indicate these things (I'm not sure). Simple facts republished in Wikipedia do not need an accompanying template, and case 3 is fair dealing. There's no need to create templates to reflect any of this. An article on Copyright law in Greece, however, would be helpful. Jkelly 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your input, JKelly, as I am trying to help clarify the copyright status of Greek material. Why does {{PD-GermanGov}} belong here, isn't it analogous to {{PD-GreekGov}}? Also, what tag should be applied to a photograph of a "current event" in Greece? Thanks for your help! Argos'Dad 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I have removed {{PD-GermanGov}} from every image it did not belong on, there are two left. We don't need it either, and it should be deleted and replaced with {{PD-because}} on those two remaining images. A photograph of a current event in Greece that was not taken by you should probably be tagged with {{imagevio}}. Jkelly 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)