No edit summary |
→Author gone: No, do not change license |
||
Line 426: | Line 426: | ||
: But the problem with CFU is that it is '''more''' liberal than GFDL, so it is probably against authors' wishes. For example, it does not require attribution. |
: But the problem with CFU is that it is '''more''' liberal than GFDL, so it is probably against authors' wishes. For example, it does not require attribution. |
||
: Perhaps a new tag should be enacted for such cases, until wise heads decide what exactly to do with them. I don't see a reason to tag such images as copyrighted, people who have made them made them for Wikipedia and wanted them to be used on Wikipedia - regardless of the actual licence they might have not evan thought about. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
: Perhaps a new tag should be enacted for such cases, until wise heads decide what exactly to do with them. I don't see a reason to tag such images as copyrighted, people who have made them made them for Wikipedia and wanted them to be used on Wikipedia - regardless of the actual licence they might have not evan thought about. [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
||
:Second-guessing the author's intentions is not legally sound. If the picture is used in a commercial derivative and the author pops up out of nowhere and sues them, the Wikimedia foundation and the editors who introduced the false license may be partially liable. More importantly, you're disrespecting the author's right to control over their own works. Quite frankly, we all ignore that silly image upload message — images have whatever license their image page says they have. If the author cannot be contacted, I'd conservatively put it as unknown/unverified. [[User:Dcoetzee|Derrick Coetzee]] 05:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==New Tags Needed== |
==New Tags Needed== |
Revision as of 05:09, 8 October 2004
Follow-up on Watchlist
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've suggested that the next important step is to have a standard format and information set for every photo, where clearly marked is the photo credit, capture date (if known), location (if known), source (if applicable, such as a URL) and the copyright tag. Please see my proposal at the Wikipedia_talk:Image_description_page, and let me know what you think. It seems to be the next natural step in keeping tabs on the origin of images. --Jeff 19:04, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Big problem?
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)
- The uploader is already (A) warned and (B) instructed to update the text. Is this sufficient? Martin 18:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I guess...Though somehow I doubt most uploaders are going to follow those instruction/warnings. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've tagged every "large" (over 300kb) image. --Imran 19:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
CopyrightedFreeUse
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)
- I think so. --Imran 15:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
- We need to clarify the message then. When I tried to add the tag to Image:Info_bulb.png I got reverted by Eloquence who said: "wtf? gpl!=any use"
Anthony DiPierro 15:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- GPL is any use. It contains no restrictions as to who can use it or for what purpose. --Imran 18:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That's not true. It has a copyleft requirement and an author credit requirement.—Eloquence 19:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The two aren't mutually exclusive, to use the image you have to meet certain conditions (credit, licencing) but you can use it for any purpose you want. The conditions don't limit the purpose (as for example fair use conditions do) so it classifies as "any use". --Imran 19:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation. The phrase "for any purpose" is too vague to be a good characterization of the GPL. It must not be used on GPL licensed content.—Eloquence
- To quote what it actually defined as "where anyone is allowed to use an image", which clearly is covered by GPL by anyones interpretation. Also note that the primary point is to distinguish these from licences which prohibit commercial exploitation. --Imran 13:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Now that we have a tag for GPL the point is somewhat mooted. However, we should probably consider rewording this for the future. Maybe a good start would be what falls under this which doesn't fall under any other category? Then we can build a definition around that. Anthony DiPierro 14:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Btw, I discussed this matter at Wikipedia talk:Pictures from southwarkphotolibrary.co.uk details with Secretlondon, and we vaguelly agreed to blitz "CopyrightedFreeUse" as too vague anyway. Wander over there, read, opine, etc. Martin 23:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- "CopyrightedFreeUse" IS too vague. The question of interest is whether a given image is compatible with the GFDL. I.e. can it be distributed under the GFDL, which is only possible if it has a licence that grants all of the permissions of the GFDL. It the licence doesn't explicity grant permission to perform any particular act (e.g., making copies or creating derived works), then under copyright law you don't (unless in case of fair use) have permission. Remember that the image copyright is not the only thing that can be violated: if an image can't be used under the full terms of the GFDL, then adding the image to Wikipedia violates the licence of every contributer of text (since they have given only GFDL permissions, which only permits combining the work with other GFDL material. If it wasn't intended to work this way, Wikipedia would have chosen a less restrictive licence). I suggest an alternative tag "GFDL-Compatible". Goatherd 19:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It would make sense to have some or all of:
- Template:GPL (perhaps link to [1] too)
- Template:LGPL (perhaps link to [2] too)
- Template:cc-by
- Template:cc-by-nd
- Template:cc-by-nd-nc
- Template:cc-by-nc
- Template:cc-by-nc-sa
- Template:cc-by-sa
- Template:cc-nd
- Template:cc-nd-nc
- Template:cc-nc
- Template:cc-nc-sa
- Template:cc-sa
- The various CC licenses should include the appropriate machine-readable meta-data too. I don't think mediawiki supports <a rel="license"> tags, but the RDF tags should work. Martin 15:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'd say we don't need some of those cc licenses:
- No derivatives allowed!
- No commercial use allowed:
- Hmm, perhaps. I'll concentrate on the freer ones. Nevertheless, we do have images that are for non-commercial use only (hence Template:noncommercial), and we do have images that do not allow derivative works (various crown copyrights, for example). So I don't think these would be particularly worse than others. Also, peeople may wish to additionally license under some of these CC licenses. Also, I'm not sure to what extent cc-by-nc and cc-nc are viral - it may be that they don't prevent derivate commercial works. I'd have to check.
- As one example, Image:SOHO solar flare sun MPEG 20031026 eit 304.mpeg is effectively cc-by-nc. Martin 15:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- OK...You make good points. I guess it's OK to have these licenses, but the non-free ones (listed above) should only be used as additional licenses or in cases where "fair use" is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 20:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Public domain
- FYI: email I just sent to Creative Commons
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:
- An image is certified public domain.
- An image is dedicated to the public domain.
- The image is believed to be public domain, but it hasn't been formally certified as such (IE, disclaiming any warranty in case of errors).
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
- I got a response - need to act now :) Martin 01:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Tag formats
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)
- Looks fine. Here are the Creative Commons Guidelines - do read. Martin 19:36, 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)
- Would it be good to also edit the mediawiki page for the text on the "upload file" special page? Anyone know which one that is? Martin 20:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It is MediaWiki:Uploadtext. I made some changes to it already. Be careful with this - its HTML not wikimarkup, although it gets sent through the wikiparser for display. Morwen 20:50, Feb 25, 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)
- This is wrt the ejector seat photo? The front page of that Holloman AF site links to a Privacy & Security notice, which says, "Information presented on the Holloman Home Page is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Sounds solidly public domain. Personal approach? I'd mark it with {msg:PD} and add additional links to the original PDF and the Privacy & Security notice. And follow a similar strategy for any other images uploaded from US gov & mil sites. –Hajor 18:49, 8 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)
- OK, noted. Ordering them by (perceived) freeness was a good idea. –Hajor 20:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Fair use
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)
- What exactly were the terms of his permission? It sounds as if one of the other tags – {{msg:PermissionAndFairUse}}, or a custom one – might fit the bill better. –Hajor 01:13, 6 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)
- Wikipedia:Fair use is proposed, has some support from high-profile Wikipedians (notably Eloquence and Jimbo Wales), but is not yet common practice. Use your best judgement. Martin 18:27, 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)
- Thanks. I've done that now. It just doesn't make a lot of sense as it is claiming to be fair use and PD at the same time. Angela. 18:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
French initiative
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)
- I think that may be a good idea. hopefully, Template:unverified will help us find such pics easily. Martin 21:47, 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)
Jimbo sez
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)
- "Therefore these images should be deleted" [3] Having this message available only encourages people to think that using such images is OK, creating legal problems for downstream users and possibly Wikimedia as well. --mav 00:34, 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)
- There is no practical way for them do do that when they download and use our database. Do you really think that a downstream user would go through the tens of thousands of images we have in order to figure that out? We should not encourage the use of these type of images absent a way to exclude these images from the backup dump we allow anybody to copy. I'll think of some better wording to act as a caveat next to the message. --mav
- Images are not included in the backup dump. anthony (see warning)
- Then how do other websites use our images? --mav
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)
- Does he allow modification? To some extent that's a bigger isue than non-commercial restrictions... might want to query that with him.
- I would suggest only using an n/c image if it is necessary for the perfect article on some subject, and you are not aware of any alternatives, and it is also likely to be fair use. That's pretty conservaive, and I don't think anyone could reasonably complain about such images. Martin 22:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Confused
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)
- {{msg:PD}}
- I hereby place this image in the public domain
- - <signature>
Which becomes
-
- I hereby place this image in the public domain
- - <signature>
- AFAIK, you don't need to identify yourself. Work of an anonymous author, or work of an author known under a pseudonym (which is the case here) could be released under any of the licenses. Nikola 22:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- Nicola is correct - you don't need to identify yourself. However, if you do identify yourself, it makes the copyright status a little more verifiable, which may be useful in some cases (eg if the image is subsequently spotted on another website). Martin 22:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- The copyright tag should be the last thing on the page; to mark the work as your own, please use the following format. You can also add more info to the image talk page about releasing it into the public domain if you deem necessary. --Jeff 10:53, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
* '''Photo credit:''' [User:username] {{msg:PD}}
Fair's fair
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)
- Denni: Because Wikipedia is fundamentally an open content project. We want to take sure that the content of Wikipedia will forever be reusable by everyone. Yes, that means surrendering many of your rights in the process of licensing. The GFDL does require attribution, but also allows commercial use -- in fact, Wikipedia mirrors even now attach ads to our content and make money off our work. We may not like it, but potential misuse is a price we may in order to ensure free use. Whether you choose to license your work under the GFDL is your personal decision as a copyright holder. You can certainly attach other terms to your work (for instance, a non-commercial use term), by licensing under a difference license, but that may also make your work ineligble for inclusion in Wikipedia because of the license terms which Wikipedia uses. -- Seth Ilys 23:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
CC licenses
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)
- We have looked closely. The answer is... nobody knows (even lawyers). For "derived" works CC licenses are, in general, incompatible with the GFDL (and vica versa), though both organisations have stated they wish to fix this if possible. However, Wikipedia's use of CC images is based on the "aggregation" section of the GFDL, so may be allowed. Fair use images are in a similar position. Martin 01:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Style update suggested
I suggest that all of the image copyright tags be styled like the creative commons tags.
- For example, Template:GFDL/temp
- See this example in action here, Image:Silverfish_enhanced.jpg
I think this makes the copyright info more clear, and also separates it from the other image info. Thoughts?
- Nice. But could we incorporate a logo or a picture of some sort, to make it
even more funmore closely resemble the format of the CC license tags? W:fr's GFDL tag uses Image:Gnu-head-sm.jpeg, or something very like it. –Hajor 14:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Nice. But could we incorporate a logo or a picture of some sort, to make it
- What about the image used at the bottom of all pages, http://en.wikipedia.org/style/images/gnu-fdl.png - that's a more descriptive mark than the gnu's head, in my opinion. --Jeff 19:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
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:
{{Cc-by-sa}} is deprecated. Please use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} for new files and migrate existing files to another CC-BY-SA template.
versus:
Template:GFDL/temp {{Cc-by-sa}} is deprecated. Please use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} for new files and migrate existing files to another CC-BY-SA template.
Nikola 06:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Press Release images
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)
- It's not public domain, probably fine under fair use. --Imran 22:32, 22 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)
Crediting?
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?
- that's fine, just put the condition on the image description page. As what he wants is compatible with GFDL you should add a GFDL copyright tag as well --Imran 22:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Crown Copyright tag
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)
pd message is unclear
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?
- Well, you have to specify. Perhaps that should be clearly stated in this article: only a tag is not enough. Nikola 06:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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:
- Copyright © 2004 name.
-
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).
- I think that it is better to be too careful than not careful enough. IMO, CC licenses should have a link to the General disclaimer also. Nikola 06:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
- I Agree, is there a message just saying:
- Copyright © 2004 name.
-
TeunSpaans 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ideally, I’d like to be able to write:{{copy}} 2004 ~~~. {{gfdl}}
and have it expanded to:
- Copyright © 2004 Rafał Pocztarski.
- 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.
and nothing else. Currently, {{GFDL}} expands to:
- 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.
- A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License".
- Subject to disclaimers.
with strange line breaks, additional explicit <br/>’s, redundant disclaimer and overly verbose link, unlike other, less prefferable licenses, like {{cc-by}}:
Please use a more specific CC-BY template. See this list for available templates.
or {{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:
- This image is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
Rafał Pocztarski 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Arent the cc-nc-sa and nc-sa contradictory with gnu/fdl? TeunSpaans 19:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why do you think that they are? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Album covers
Why is this only a category and not a tag? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Untagged images - please help!
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)
- I edited your comment to avoid the surprise link. Hope that's ok. Pcb21| Pete 10:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Tags for non-commercial images
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)
- Well, they shoul not, but they could, and if they are, they should be tagged so that they could be found easily and eventually replaced. So, I think that the tags should stay. Nikola 13:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tagging status
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:
- GFDL and PD seem to make the bulk of the tagged images, with fair use as the third option. This is a good trend
- The number of untagged images is going UP. This means that the tagging is not keeping up with the new uploaded images.
Alfio 22:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki issues
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)
- Apparently this issue will be solved in the long term by Wikimedia Commons. For the short term, what license tag (if any) should I use for these two images? • Benc • 01:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yet another tag
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)
- The tag seems a bit specific for its generic name.
- I would not be sure that XBoard images are necessarily licensed under GNU GPL, as they are not part of the program, but its output.
- I think Template: XBoard image would be a better name.
- Best regards, --zeno 18:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If I udnerstood it well, the images come in the xboard archive, which is under GPL. We might ask the uploader if this becomes an issue. Either case, the images are used for creating chess tables on Wikipedia, so they are not related to XBoard only, no need to change the name of the template. Nikola 09:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Source of images for tagging
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)
Author gone
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)
- Did you try e-mailing him? He has left his e-mail address... if that fails, I'd suggest either {{GFDL}} (although the upload form only since recently states that own works uploaded are licensed under the GFDL) or {{copyrightedFreeUse}}. I think it is safe to assume that a Wikipedian uploading his own work would be happy with either one. Lupo 18:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Its even better than that. There has, since always, been that checkbox, which says:
I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.
- And on that page:
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL
- So, if a user clearly stated their autorship, he has agreed to license it under the GFDL. I just tag such with GFDL. User can't retract the licence, no need to contact him, except perhaps to ascertian that he is really the owner (but if we don't believe him the first time, why would we the second?). I think that such images must not be tagged with copyrightedFreeUse. Nikola 09:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
- Wikipedia:Copyright says "If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." Emphasis mine. Material. Not just text. So if you contribute an image to Wikipedia, and you follow Wikipedia:Copyrights, then you license the image to the public under the GFDL.
- Of course, whether or not Wikipedia:Copyrights is binding on the submitter of an image is arguable. And even if it is binding, it seems difficult for a third party to use a waiver required by an click-through agreement between two others. If you want to cross your ts and dot your is, you really should get an explicit license agreement by the copyright holder.
- None of this really answers the question, but I think from a practical standpoint, if you agree with my first paragraph, then the GFDL tag or one similar to it would be the most appropriate (although I should remember not to tag them GFDL myself, as tagging an image as being under a license without having spoken to the copyright holder is a rather negligent thing to do). Personally I'd put an {{unknown}} tag on it and delete it if the author can't be found, but that's probably overly paranoid. If someone wants to take the legal responsibility of adding the GFDL tag, that's fine with me.
- anthony (see warning) 23:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Umm, actually Wikipedia:Copyright also says:
- To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.
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.
- You, of course, can put any text you've written in public domain, just put appropriate notice on your user page. There are Wikipedians who dual-license all the text they've written under a CC licence. Nikola
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)
- But the problem with CFU is that it is more liberal than GFDL, so it is probably against authors' wishes. For example, it does not require attribution.
- Perhaps a new tag should be enacted for such cases, until wise heads decide what exactly to do with them. I don't see a reason to tag such images as copyrighted, people who have made them made them for Wikipedia and wanted them to be used on Wikipedia - regardless of the actual licence they might have not evan thought about. Nikola 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Second-guessing the author's intentions is not legally sound. If the picture is used in a commercial derivative and the author pops up out of nowhere and sues them, the Wikimedia foundation and the editors who introduced the false license may be partially liable. More importantly, you're disrespecting the author's right to control over their own works. Quite frankly, we all ignore that silly image upload message — images have whatever license their image page says they have. If the author cannot be contacted, I'd conservatively put it as unknown/unverified. Derrick Coetzee 05:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
New Tags Needed
There is a tag for "Albumcover" but we also need one for "Videocover."
- What about a tag "cover", which would also include book covers? --zeno 18:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What about stamps?
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|reason
Template: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 Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided
- and list the reason? Gzuckier 14:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)