Wikipedia talk:Granting work into the public domain

message: I've been (mistakenly, it appears!) slapping the PD-release tag on most of my images.  It now appears that this is inappropriate, or at least, doesn't do what I want.  So what tag should I use to achieve the same effect?  "CopyrightedFreeUse" seems like the obvious candidate, but the text there makes me nervous - it's not obvious enough for my taste that modification and commercial use are permitted.  I suggest creating a tag analogous to PD-release or PD-self that is more explicit.  How's this for the text?
:This material is copyrighted, but the author has chosen to permit its use for any purpose, including but not limited to copying, modification, publication, sale, and the production of baby-mulching machines.
Well, maybe we can leave out the baby-mulching machines.  
As for the name, maybe "NoRightsReserved", "Release", "CopyrightedAnyPurpose", "PD-ifonly", ...  --Andrew 04:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry guys, there is already a "CopyrightedFreeUse" template, which does almost exactly what Andrew asks: 
:Take a look at the Creative Commons public domain dedication for some wording ideas.  You might want to include that link in the tag.
:Perhaps someone should get in touch with the Creative Commons, and ask them to write an actual license.  We'd call the tag .  dbenbenn | talk 17:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. I'm afraid  was a pre-existing image template currently in use, and we really don't want to rename it or have duplicate templates, so the name will probably have to stick. The text I'll certainly update to clarify things — in fact, I proposed just this on Template talk: CopyrightedFreeUse to no apparent response. I'm do find the copyright symbol a little scary, even if it is a calm green colour, but I'll leave that I think. Deco 22:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "and we really don't want to rename it"—you realize the "move" feature works for templates just like for articles?  It leaves a redirect at the old name, which allows the old name to continue working.  dbenbenn | talk 01:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, cool, I didn't realise that. Maybe it's worth renaming it then. Deco 03:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate tag to replace "PD-release" 

message: These two statements seem contradictory:
:Once this irrevocable act is complete, they are still, legally, the copyright holder, but this gives them no power over how the work is used.
:The owner still retains all rights to the work, and has the legal right to prosecute people who use the work under the false impression that it was in the public domain.
If the owner no longer has power over how the work is used, what is an example of a way someone could use the work that would violate the copyright? Rad Racer | Talk 00:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are talking about two different situations. The first is where the author has made a statement releasing all rights. The second is where the author has made a statement releasing the work into the public domain. Because the second statement has no legal effect, the result is that no rights have actually been released. I hope this clarifies things — feel free to reword the text to help clarify it for others. Deco 00:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please cite sources demonstrating that a statement releasing all rights has a different legal effect than releasing the work into the public domain? Is there any case law about this? It seems weird that the intent of the copyright holder would not matter. Rad Racer | Talk 03:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. That's pretty much exactly what the sources I cited at the bottom of the page say. I don't believe this has ever come to court, so there's no precedent. The intent does matter, and would definitely affect the outcome of the case in the end, but does not make reusing the work legal. Deco 23:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: What is the point of this proposal? To protect people who use PD images (or whatever) in case the author actually slapped a PD tag on it with the intent to sue someone later over the legal ambiguity of it? Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous? --jag123 14:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the only practical difference I can see, that an author or heir might want to play loophole games in the future. Wikipedia has done things smartly and put big scary warnings about only uploading material with permission. If the material was uploaded by its author, that author is going to have to explain both the supposed ambiguity and agreeing to that disclaimer. --iMb~Meow 19:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The disclaimer has loopholes just as big. It says "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright" (emphasis mine). You just have to get a friend to upload it. Deco 23:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and then the friend is taking the responsibility for having permission to upload the file under the GFDL.  That's just business as usual around here. --iMb~Meow 00:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The full statement is: "By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." If you don't hold the copyright, you have fulfilled these terms vacuously, and so you are not responsible. It used to be different, but they changed it because it contradicted our policy on fair use images. Deco 03:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's even not too big a deal, because even if an uploader deliberately does that, Wikimedia can always fall back on OCILLA, which pretty much pushes the liability back on the uploader (provided that the image is deleted when a takedown notice comes in). --iMb~Meow 03:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's true, except for the paper Wikipedia and other offline derivative works. There are other potential dangers though (like paranoid content reusers and other Wikipedians uploading derivative works under less strict licenses). I think at least a small change like a warning seems justified. Deco 04:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of this proposal

message: Just ignore this article. It is patent nonsense -- even if highly-paid lawyers repeat it. Remember, lawyers eat bullshit for breakfast and spend their entire lives cranking out more bullshit. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that legal nonsense is reality. 
If you put a work of yours into the public domain, it is there, in fact. Anybody can use it for anything. If later you make a claim, you can drag a user of the work into court; and he can drag in his lawyer; and they can fight it out, and "earn" large fees. This is always true, so really nothing has changed. Putting a clear notice on your work stating release into public domain knocks the issue so far into the gray area that nobody can say what a given judge will decide, let alone a jury full of unemployed housewives, welfare drones, manual laborers, and the occasional confrontational jerk eager to serve a duty from which he could escape. 
IANAL, thank all the gods. Don't get sucked into this Black Hole. — Xiongtalk 02:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
:You're right that, in all likelihood, no one could succeed in suing somebody for infringing a copyright on a work that they claimed to place in the public domain, but I'd hate to see some unfortunate soul dragged into court for days or weeks because they didn't know about this issue, when a simple additional free-use license statement and/or a warning in the public domain tag could eliminate this possibility. Despite what you say, you'd really have to be a rich idiot to sue someone after putting a tag like this on your image:
:
:This wouldn't be an issue at all if the original public domain statement contained similar language. It might seem pedantic, but the potential danger seems real to me.
:Besides this, it's also about intent — people who donate their work to the public domain want to release all rights to it, forever. They don't want some potential future court decision to reverse that, perhaps after they're dead. Adding a free-use statement helps guard against this. Deco 03:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that when I'm burning in the eternal fires of hell, what happens to the legal status of some pictures I uploaded on Wikipedia will be the least of my concerns. I think bringing up legal issues surrounding PD is a waste of time, because most of the people who release as PD couldn't care less what happens. If they did care about legal issues, or copyright, or anything like that, they'd pick one of dozens of other licenses, or make their own. Having that said, anyone who wishes to change the license on my images can go ahead and knock themselves out, but I'm not bothering; I think my intent is crystal clear. --jag123 05:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am a person who releases as PD. I released all my images under PD. This is exactly why this came to concern me. But you know, never mind, fuck it. I just wanted to help, I'm not going to fight about this anymore. Deco 06:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really sorry for overreacting above. I really just need to remove myself from this issue, I've been feeling too strongly about it. All of your objections are reasonable, and I trust the community to do whatever is best for Wikipedia. Deco 07:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent nonsense 

message: Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to change the shortcut from WP:PDWTF to something else that isn't an abbreviation of an expletive? Dar-Ape 02:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: This page and the seem Wikipedia:Image copyright tags page to suggest you should use additional tags other then  in your images. However it seems to me with it's current wording:
I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.  This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
you don't have to since you explicitly say if you can't release it into the PD, you allow others to do anything with it. Indeed it seems a bit strange/contradictory to me to say it's in the PD then also say it's copyrighted but you release all rights as if it's in the public domain. Better to say it's public domain but if it's not, I've released all rights. Nil Einne 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page and others still correct