→Granting into the public domain: No changes |
|||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
:I think you're right; I have never liked {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUse}} because I suspect people don't realize quite what they're letting themselves in for (in particular, I'm not sure they realize this includes modification and sale). I made a suggestion on [[Wikipedia talk:You can't grant your work into the public domain]] for an unambiguous replacement tag (which may need some discussion). --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) |
:I think you're right; I have never liked {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUse}} because I suspect people don't realize quite what they're letting themselves in for (in particular, I'm not sure they realize this includes modification and sale). I made a suggestion on [[Wikipedia talk:You can't grant your work into the public domain]] for an unambiguous replacement tag (which may need some discussion). --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) |
||
:For the record, the final consensus seems to be that there's no consensus and so no changes will be effected. See [[Wikipedia talk: Granting work into the public domain]] some discussion. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== photographs of trademarked products == |
== photographs of trademarked products == |
Revision as of 06:23, 10 April 2005
- /archive1 05:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What license to use?
I'm confused, and I need help figuring out how I should license my own photos for use in Wikipedia articles. Here's what I want to accomplish:
- I want Wikipedia to be freely allowed to use my photos.
- I don't want someone else to earn a profit from the photos I took.
- I want to require that my name be associated with my photos, so people know I photographed them.
- I don't want someone else to be able to claim ownership of my photos or say that he photographed them.
- I don't want someone else to be able to put a different license, with different restrictions, on my photos.
Basically, I want anyone to be able to use my photos fairly, as long as I get credit and they're not making money off 'em. I don't want any complicated legal entanglements on my photos. I had been using this tag: Template:NoncommercialProvided the photographer (Brian Kendig) is credited. but I've been informed that copyrighted photos of any sort are not allowed on Wikipedia and will be deleted. So, how should I license my photos? Or is some part of what I want incompatible with Wikipedia's aim? - Brian Kendig 15:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If it weren't for the non-commercial part, that would be roughly identical to the GFDL or cc-by-sa (I think). Maybe you can take "comfort" in the fact that anyone distributing it must include the text of the GFDL, and any modifications must also be GFDL. I'm not that familiar with this stuff, as I'm a public domain commie, so wait for someone else to comment. --SPUI (talk) 16:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In short, I think it's precipitous to be deleting your images at this stage, unless there exist replacements of sufficient quality and weaker license. On the other hand, we certainly shouldn't be redistributing them, since almost all of our downstream users are commercial. While I'd like to encourage you to consider the profit society as a whole could have by being able to indefinitely use the pictures in many works for many purposes, while continuing to credit you, I understand that you might feel like others are profiting from your work. Deco 19:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I just don't like the idea that maybe one of my photos might somehow be so good, or so unique, or just so convenient to get, that someone decides to sell my work and pocket the proceeds for himself. That's why I want to copyright my work and license it freely to anyone as long as they're not making money off it. What do you mean by "almost all of our downstream users are commercial" - are there really people charging others for the use of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia wants me to make my material available for commercial use so they can do this? - Brian Kendig 21:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Downstream users (such as encyclopedia.com) don't charge, but they have ads, and they intend to make money that way.
- About non-commercial licenses, I sympathize, but all submissions to Wikipedia (text or photos) are licensed under the GFDL, which allows commercial reuse. Your only choices are (1) allow people to reuse your work for commercial purposes, so long as they release their own work under the GFDL, or (2) don't submit material to Wikipedia.
- In practice, very few money-making ventures are willing to release their product under the GFDL. So if someone wanted to use your work, but didn't want to release their own product under the GFDL, they would have to ask you for a separate license (which you would presumably either turn down or charge money for). – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Article surgery
Hey all, sometime in the past, the entire article was duplicated in itself, with headings and discussions repeated. I just trimmed it down by removing the top half, in the theory that people prefer to reply to the part on the bottom. My apologies for any lossage involving people who were talking in the upper parts. --Improv 19:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unknown Source
I am creating a new image tag, Template:Unknownsource. It should be used in the case where the license of an image is assumed or suspected to be usable with another tag (perhaps Fairuse, Promophoto, etc.) but the actual original location and copyright status is not known for certain. This differs from Template:Unverified which is used when the license is totally uknown. An example of an image where I think this tag is justified is Image:Alexis Bledel.jpg, where fair use promotional photo is assumed, but the image does not have a known source or credits for its creators.
The text of the notice currently is:
- This is a image with an unknown source. Any assumptions about the copyright status or license of this image is opinion or speculation. Use of this image in articles should be avoided if an alternative is available with more clear copyright status.
Comments welcomed. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 01:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This has been replaced with {{fairuseunknownsource}}, shortened to {{fuus}}. --ChrisRuvolo 22:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not really a tagging question
I have used some images from the website http://www.forestryimages.org, the site is a collaboration between the USDA Forestry Service and the University of Georgia. The University asserts copyright over images made by USDA FS, but wouldn't they (the images made by USDA FS employees) be in the public domain by default since they were made by US government employees?--nixie 01:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, they would be Public Domain. The University is incorrect. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ease-of-use suggestion
When I am adding images I can never remember the tags. Invariably I have to open another window, navigate to the tags page, and look them up.
What I would recommend is a pop-up containing all of the tags and a short description. When selected, they would insert that tag into the text at the current cursor location. Yes, I realize this would only work on 95% or more of the browsers out there, and I'm sorry about the other 5%, but I think this would make tagging dramatically easier, and as a result, more widely used.
Maury 13:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Image tagging is a specialized function; there's no reason to muddle up the software to pander to our admittedly small project. Tree of Life didn't get a software rewrite to deal with their template issues; they worked around it. Keep another window or tab open in the background---that's what I do, and it works fine. grendel|khan 18:50, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
- There is a lot of discussion over at Wikimedia Commons about doing something like this for uploads. When uploading, a user would have to select an image tag from a list, or it won't let you upload. Something like this may happen on Wikipedia. Or image uploading may occur at one single location. Or the deal with Google may change everything. It's all up in the air right now. I like the idea though. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I like it too, it would mean the end of untagged images--nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
United States Census Bureau
The Census Bureau is a great source of pictures, could someone clever make a template for tagging these images? Incidently we also have no tag for the US Department of Commerce--nixie 06:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BBC
Have tried looking around to see if the BBC permits its images to be used online, their site policy says you can use its media for personal non-profit use, which I guess makes it not permitted on Wikipedia? Does anyone know if the BBC have permitted their images to be used? --PopUpPirate 22:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
- As the front page of http://www.bbc.co.uk has a copyright notice, I'd assume all their content to be copyrighted unless you find something stating differently. Note that http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ says: "You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. " So it seems that no, we cannot make free use BBC images. -- Infrogmation 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Catégorie:Image Art Libre
I noticed an image copied here from fr:Wikipedia, where it was tagged with the template "ArtLibre". This is apparenly some type of free licence, but I don't know the en equivilent, and fr:Catégorie:Image Art Libre has no interwiki. Can someone clarify this, is this equivelent to an existing en category, or is it something different that we can/or can't use? Wondering, -- Infrogmation
- There's an equivalent en tag: Template:FAL. Both tags declare Copyleft, so they seem suitable for use on Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of transwikifying the two templates. -- EagleOne 21:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Clip art?
I've been using this image ([1]) for a while on my user page and it's only recently occurred to me that this might be copyrighted.
The image itself is based on fairly poor-res version of a piece of Microsoft Word clip art. I traced over everything again to clean it up and then changed the colors. But is this enough to distinguish it from the original? And if not, could the original be copyrighted? Can someone shed some light on this? IKato 08:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't use Microsoft clip art. MS is not at all helpful about this. "In some instances, Microsoft cannot specifically grant permission for end users to reproduce, redistribute or modify clip art located in our products, because certain clip art may be owned by third parties and licensed to Microsoft. . . Microsoft will not assist you in making this determination, and special permission to use Microsoft clipart will not be granted to you by the Permissions/Copyright Group." [2]
- However, if you've traced over it and changed the colors, I'm not sure whether the copyright holder would have a case or not. Either way, I applaud you for caring; lots of people have copyvios on their user pages, and these have been mostly ignored. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Unless something mitigating comes up, I'm going to remove it for now just to be safe. IKato 22:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
forestryimages.org
Been getting no reply to this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy - anyone here any ideas? or at least know where to ask to get an answer?
There's a huge collection of tree and forestry photos at http://www.forestryimages.org/. Most are taken by private individuals and copyrighted, with (usually) a non-commercial licence note attached; fair enough.
However, some are marked as taken by United States Forest Service personnel - these photos carry the same non-commercial license restrictions on the page (typical example: this one). Yet surely as US Government photos, these are in the public domain and free of copyright? Can I ignore the stated restrictions as being incorrect, and use these USFS photos with the tag {{PD-USGov-USDA-FS}}? - thanks, MPF 11:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- AIUI, they would only be PD if they are full employees and the pictures were taken in the course of their duties. Whether or not this applies in each case is difficult to ascertain, and in every, very much highly unlikely.
- James F. (talk) 12:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Granting into the public domain
Lately I've become concerned about works on Wikipedia supposedly granted into the public domain by their authors, including a number of my own. According to an e-mail I recently received from the U.S. Copyright Office:
- "Please be advised that one may not grant their work into the public domain. However, a copyright owner may release all of their rights to their work by stating the work may be freely reproduced, distributed, etc."
In other words, it's currently impossible to grant one's own work into the public domain, and a statement willing it into the public domain has no legal effect. This suggests that such works currently put us in some danger, since the owner still retains full copyright despite what we or they might think (although you might argue in court about their intent).
It would seem we need some kind of statement that authors can apply instead — a sort of "public-domain-equivalent" license that irrevocably releases all rights to the work. Although it might seem like there's no harm in also saying it's granted into the public domain, I'm concerned that, like a contract, there exists the possibility that one unenforcable stipulation might render the entire license void. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I'd like to hear a real lawyer's opinion on all this. In any case it seems like some action needs to be taken. Deco 18:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Creative Commons seems to imply the opposite, but Public domain#Disclaimer of interest seems to agree with you. Damn legal stuff. --SPUI (talk) 18:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Nor am I a lawyer, but I agree, something needs to be done. We could modify the language of the PD-self, PD-user, and PD-link tags to reflect the language of the note from the Copyright Office. I suggest the following:
- I, the creator of this image, hereby release all rights to this work. Permission is granted to freely reproduce, modify, and distribute this work. This applies worldwide.
- Again, I'm not a lawyer, so the language may need tweaking. – EagleOne 18:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- So is anything going to be done about this? Your wording looks good, but no lawyers in the hizzy. --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, changing the language of existing licenses is likely to get us in trouble — since, legally, the contributors have not yet released any rights, we can't go releasing rights on their behalf without their permission. That's why I propose below we simply retire the existing tags and ask the original authors to change the tags. Deco 06:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Who needs a new tag for this? Just {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} should do the trick. dbenbenn | talk 05:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I hesitatingly recommend we retire the {{PD-self}} and {{PD-user}} tags, recommending {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} in its place, since technically no one can place their own works in the public domain. This could save us a lot of potential trouble, and convincing contributors to change over probably isn't a big deal. Is everyone for this change? I realise we might want a {{CopyrightedFreeUseUser}} tag to indicate which user is the copyright holder. Deco 06:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
{{MultiLicenseMinorPD}} and {{MultiLicensePD}} are also in trouble, then. —msh210 15:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- These never made any sense anyway — a work is either copyrighted or in the public domain, not both. In fact, even multi-licensing both free-use and GFDL makes no sense, because this is simply equivalent to free-use. We should encourage users of these to move to the appropriate free-use tag for text contributions (what would that be?) Deco 18:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just pinging this for people's watchlists — if there is no complaint in the next several hours, I will proceed to deprecate the tags that claim that an author has released their work into the public domain and inform the necessary users about the change. I've created a project page explaining this here: Wikipedia: You can't grant your work into the public domain. I will deprecate the text-licensing tags later on after I've warned them properly. Deco 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're right; I have never liked {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} because I suspect people don't realize quite what they're letting themselves in for (in particular, I'm not sure they realize this includes modification and sale). I made a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:You can't grant your work into the public domain for an unambiguous replacement tag (which may need some discussion). --Andrew 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, the final consensus seems to be that there's no consensus and so no changes will be effected. See Wikipedia talk: Granting work into the public domain some discussion. Deco 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
photographs of trademarked products
I've become interested in taking photographs to illustrate articles. If I take a picture of, say, a Coca-Cola can, can I release that into the public domain or under the GFDL? Or since it is a photograph of a presumably trademarked design, can I not do that? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it, you can release any extra rights you would have over the fair use of the product under any license. So someone using it would have to comply with fair use and whatever you specify. Trademarks are a different matter - if they're old enough to be PD as copyrights, the only restrictions are on using them in a way that violates the trademark (like selling the image on a soda can). --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A trademarked word cannot be copyrighted, and is free for you to use with or without the trademark symbol. Logos, however, are frequently copyrighted in addition to being a trademark. I am not a lawyer, though, and this isn't professional legal advice. Deco 06:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PD-USSR
Text in Template:PD-USSR is incorrect:
- According to the laws of the Soviet Union, all works published before May 27, 1973 were not protected by copyright and were thus in the public domain.
It's incorrect. These works were protected by copyright in USSR (and they are protected in Russia now), but until May 27 it was not recognized internationaly. So it's not worldwide public domain! See ru:Википедия обсуждение:Источники информации/БСЭ (in Russian). --ajvol 07:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So, where does that leave us with this tag? Are there any Russian laws on works in the public domain? Should we scrap the tag altogether? — EagleOne\Talk 04:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- New text:
- All works published in Soviet Union before May 27, 1973 were not protected by International Copyright Conventions and were thus in the public domain in many countries (in Russia some of these works yet protected).
- Is it OK? --ajvol 05:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good. I've made a couple grammatical changes; see below. Do you have a link to a website on Russian copyright laws that we can throw in there? Possibly in English?
- Also, what is the copyright status of these texts in contemporary Russia? The text needs a little more information in that area. — EagleOne\Talk 19:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- User:DaeX has done large research in this field [3] (in Russian). As result: all works published in Soviet Union before July 28, 1954 are now in worldwide public domain (protection expired). Works published in Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, but after July 28, 1954 are now in public domain in all countries except Russia and, probably, ex-USSR countries (these works were not protected by International Copyright Conventions, but they were protected by national copyright), they will in public domain in Russia in July 29 2024. Works published in Soviet Union after May 27, 1973 are protected by modern international copyright. But all my sources only in Russian, so we need Copyright in USSR article in English (I'll request it in Russian Wikipedia community. Sorry for my English :( --ajvol 12:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- New text:
Proposed text
All works published in the Soviet Union between July 28, 1954, and May 27, 1973, are not protected by international copyright conventions and are thus in the public domain in many countries. (In Russia and other former Soviet republics, some of these works may still be protected by copyright.)
- I made a few grammar changes. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:41, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- And I; also, I added the info about 1954 and the other former SSrs per above discussion. —msh210 14:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From here (PDF) This may help to clarify things:
Each of the following Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (but not the CIS countries Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) is a successor state to the Soviet Union’s copyright treaty obligations, in particular, the obligations under the UCC Geneva, and accordingly is a member of the UCC Geneva effective May 27, 1973, the date the Soviet Union became a party. The successor status in each case was confirmed in a bilateral trade agreement between each of these countries and the United States, effective in each case on the date set forth below. Note that the successor status is consistent with the treatment by UNESCO (secretariat for the UCC) of these countries. The effective dates of the bilateral agreements with the United States confirming the successor status are as follows:
- Azerbaijan (April 21, 1995)
- Belarus (Feb. 16, 1993)
- Georgia (Aug. 13, 1993)
- Kazakhstan (Feb. 18, 1993)
- Kyrgyz Republic (Aug. 21, 1992)
- Moldova (July 2, 1992)
- Russia (June 17, 1992)
- Tajikistan (Nov. 24,1993)
- Turkmenistan (Oct. 25,1993)
- Ukraine (June 23,1992)
- Uzbekistan (Jan. 13, 1994)
and
Russia:
- UCC Geneva May 27, 1973
- SAT Dec. 25, 1991
- UCC Paris March 9, 1995
- Berne March 13, 1995 (Paris)
- Phonograms March 13, 1995
ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Templates should link here
Every template's talk page should link back to here or something:
"See Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags"
- Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Commons templates
I think commons templates for PD and stuff are prettier. Can we copy them? - Omegatron 18:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- My guess is that we can copy their design. I've looked at most of the templates, and the wording appears to be identical. The question is, do we want to go through the trouble of replacing all of the templates that we have developed thus far? — EagleOne\Talk 03:59, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat
I've been having a long conversation at User talk:Dbenbenn#M1911 Pistol image about what kinds of restrictions are allowed on the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} tag. My position is that since the tag places its images in a subcategory of Category:Free images, certain restrictions are not allowed, such as disallowing modification. User:Twthmoses disagrees, and tags all his images, such as Image:P38 AC44.jpg, with
- {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|it remains unmodified (except re-size), credit is given and copyright is attributed.}}
Opinions? What restrictions exactly are allowed with that problematic tag? dbenbenn | talk 05:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was looking over at your entry at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright tags#What is free content exactly?, and you indeed have found some interesting cases. I would say they are not free images, and thus can’t be on Commons. They have clear reproduction and use restrictions. I found some interesting cases too looking around. Some of them make my entry look like a schoolboy copyright, and some of them are clearly not free images. It would be nice with some guidelines here…
- Commons:Image:BSD-daemon-rendering.png Is such a large credit requirement not an image restriction too?
- Commons:Image:E 022 3A.jpg Notification of author on use!
- Commons:Image:Embraer supertucano.jpg Weird!
- Commons:Image:Minhocampusparty2002 logob.gif Not alter
- Commons:Image:Nickshanks.png Use and reproduction restrictions.
- Commons:Image:Pär Nuder.jpg A valid date? Huh? Twthmoses 06:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at some of the other tags.
- How can CrownCopyright be an ok tag to use when it stats “reproduced accurately”? does that not mean ‘Not edit”? how else can you reproduced accurately?
- WorldCoin seems to be a halfheaded tag. It grants Wikipedia full permission to use, not users of wikipedia or any other! and does full permission for use also mean full permission to modify?
- LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright also contains the reproduced accurately string. "Accurately" most mean a modification restriction. Right? What else does it mean? It also contains reproduction restrictions, since you can't use it in "misleading context". Is that not a reproduction restriction? Btw the above CrownCopyright also has this as well as NationalAuditOfficeCopyright and NHSCopyright
- CanadaCopyright is much better and much more accruate if no restriction is allowed on images on Wikipendia, they only ask that the user "use due diligence" in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced.
- OntarioCopyright Does not state it specified, but state "reproduced for non-commercial purposes" does that mean you cannot use it for commercial use? If so is the image then actually free? Should it not be listed under none-free images?
- CACTVSGIF has clear restriction on use.
- HABS is just plain weird. What it is basically saying is that it is the users responsabillity to find if the images are really free. How do one know if images under this tag is really free? What an easy way to make it PD!!
- PAphoto may not be supplyed to 3rd parties?? Huh? A restriction and what excatlty is 3rd party? In the link it is stated that it has clear mod. restrictions. This is not free images.
- Many weird things here........Twthmoses 07:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have a different position. I believe {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} should not be considered a free license — nor, in fact, should it be used at all except in exceptional cases. People who are not lawyers should not be randomly inventing a multitude of licenses. Not only will many of them create non-free licenses, willingly or accidentally, but many will create licenses that courts are likely to rule unenforcable, self-contradictory, or meaningless. It also makes them very difficult to combine with other works under other licenses. This really isn't the sort of mess we want to get into. Deco 08:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That might be a valid and good opinion, but as you can see some of the tags already listed right here as FREE or PD tags, are actually not free (in the true sense of the word) and contain restrictions of both use and modifications. Why should a normal mortal user also not be able to makes such same restrictions? Why is CrownCopyright more "right", and allowed, then a user making the same restrictions? Because they can better enforce it? Does capability to enforce make you more right? Hmm... I think the real question here is; how free must an image be to be on wikipendia? I think that needs to be resolved first.Twthmoses 08:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- By a free license I don't mean a free-use license. It's alright to place restrictions, but the issue is that it's easy to create a license that is completely bogus if you don't know what you're doing. For example, take a look at the Artistic License or the zlib license. They're well-intended but much too vague to be useful or safe. Licenses like the GFDL or the CC licenses (or, yes, the Crown Copyright) were carefully reviewed by professional lawyers, which is a luxury we can't afford for every license invented by a user. (To clarify, the statement in the template is not necessarily legally accurate, but it refers to a fully reviewed license statement elsewhere.) Deco 18:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Deco, do you think we should move Category:Conditional use images to a different parent category? And move {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} to a different section of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I totally agree with your point about creating bogus licenses; we shouldn't be encouraging that. dbenbenn | talk 18:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is two different subjects here. Is it allowed to put images on Wikipedia where there are restrictions on both modifiability and reproduction?
- If it IS allowed then there can’t be any argument that a normal user is allowed to enter whatever he likes on the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}, even make up bogus copyrights.
- If it is NOT allowed, then about two dozen other established tags, which are currently listed under free licenses and PD, includingCrownCopyright should be listed under un-free images, and eventually deleted.
- The original discussion came about because dbenbenn thinks that my tagging makes my images un-free. Fair enough. But I can’t take a CrownCopyright Winston Churchill image and paint a Hitler moustache on it and then re-publish it. That is absolutely no different then my tagging. So either they are both disallowed or they are both allowed.
- dbenbenn even gives a tag that is listed as un-free on wikipedia Cc-by-nd-2.0. But how is "No Derivative Works" of this "Do not upload images for which one of the tags in this section applies" tag different from "reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" from the CrownCopyright, which is a tag that is allowed? This is not a wording contest is it? Create the most hidden restrictions and still manage to slip it in under "free".
- As for the 2nd subject. Creating bogus licenses. I agree on that (even though I do it myself :)), it should not be encouraged. I will probably retool to GFDL, after reading it carefully.Twthmoses 19:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)