Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: The uploader is already (A) warned and (B) instructed to update the text. Is this sufficient? Martin 18:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess...Though somehow I doubt most uploaders are going to follow those instruction/warnings. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Big problem?

message: :: 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)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks fine. Here are the Creative Commons Guidelines - do read. Martin 19:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: OK, noted. Ordering them by (perceived) freeness was a good idea. –Hajor 20:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag formats

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: French initiative

message: 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)
thread_title: Fair's fair

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CC licenses

message: 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 fun more 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)
replies: text:  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:
----


----
versus:
----


----
Nikola 06:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style update suggested 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not public domain, probably fine under fair use. --Imran 22:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Release images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crediting? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, if Crown Copyright is GFDL-incompatible, don't these images have to be moved to nonfree? —Tkinias 23:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown Copyright tag

message: Why is this only a category and not a tag? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Album covers

message: 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  and the like? Lupo 14:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tags for non-commercial images

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tagging status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transwiki issues 

message: 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)
thread_title: Source of images for tagging

message: 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)
replies: text:  Template:Video tape cover done! -- Zondor 16:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Tags Needed

message: - 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  
:and list the reason? Gzuckier 14:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|reason

message: How about national or regional coats of arms (e.g. Image:Nicaragua-coa.jpg). Can we presume these are public domain? Should we mark these as ?
:A new(ish) template has been recently introduced and upgraded, please use  for these images. -Lommer | talk 08:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coats of Arms 

message: Thank you, Zondor, for organizing and formatting this page. I have some questions though.
# and  are listed twice. Is this an accident?
#Three copyright tags have been shown with a strike-through tag: , , and . Why?
Thanks!  – Quadell (talk) (help) 05:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
: Didn't realise those were listed twice. Both were in Fair Use and Free License categories which that may have implied. Fixed that. Now only in Free License category. Because CopyrightedFreeUse is free to do anything though copyrighted, and CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat is similar to Creative Commons Attribution license.
: Fairuse, Freefairusein, and Fairusein have very subtle differences. I think Freefairusein should be scrapped as well. Fairuse and Fairusein are very similar only that one refers to an article.
: The statement "however, those wishing to use this work should make this decision for themselves based on their own circumstances" in Freefairusein makes a fluffy point. KISS.
: CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is protected so I have no influence to make it better as it is malfunctioning. This tag must be exactly the same as CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat.
: Fairuseunsure is a contradiction - big time! haha. It is also made obsolete by the Possibly Unfree Images tags.
: -- Zondor 14:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zondor's changes 

message: I've created a template for video game cover art to correspond with the templates for DVD, video tape, album, and book covers. What do you guys think of that? Should we keep using it, and do you think it should be added to the page with all of the others? I think it's pretty similar to all the rest, but I wanted to get approval. But it's so close, I think I'm gonna just start using it. I'll undo everything if this is denied. The template is :Template:Gamecover. It looks like this:
:Template:Non-free game cover
Thoughts? Cookiecaper 03:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. But understand why you created that tag. Review Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. The cover is a low resolution of a video game cover, does not limit the copyright owners to sell the game in any way, such low resolution copies cannot be used to make illegal copies of the video game cover artwork, used only for educational purposes, etc. I think every template should have this rationale added in. Check out this checklist. -- Zondor 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game cover tag 

message: A similar CC templates proposal has been posted on Wikimedia Commons. Rafał Pocztarski 11:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Is there some way that these image tags could include the Creative Commons metadata --Ellmist 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =Metadata

message: Howdy, I just came across :Image:Wikipedia-banner0002.png, which is a version of :Image:Wikipedia-banner.png. The original work is marked as GFDL, but the new version claims to be public domain. Is it possible to take a derivative of a GFDL work and release it into the Public Domain? I don't think so, but again i'm not a copyright lawyer. I've marked it  for now, but someone who is more confident of their judgement on this may wish to go change it to  -Lommer 03:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL and the Public Domain 

message: Ok, how do we feel about logos? I've been tagging images and this is the most confusing category for me. I've come across a logo for a car manufacturer which I marked as . Then I found the  tag, so I started using that. Currently I want to tag all of the images listed in . Should I use logo? Does this apply since they are Polish and not American? Quadell, at my inquiry, marked all the images in the  with , but originally they were marked as  I think. Any insight would be great. I am going to go ahead and mark those Polish images as  for now. Ack, so confusing. --MaxPower 15:21, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Marking it as a logo would certainly be beneficial to reusers.  I'm not going to comment on the legal issues, as international copyright law/fair use is way too confusing for me to understand. anthony 警告 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: Do sculptures also fit under this tag? --Aqua 08:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
*Not under the current text of the template.  We probably picked a bad name for the tag, though. anthony 警告 13:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  pd-art only 2d? 

message: It seems that consensus here is toward treating non-PD postage stamp images as free use.  Is there an archived discussion of that decision?  Is it clear with the legal people? —Tkinias 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about "free use", but "fair use" is being claimed and in my (uneducated, not-legal-advice) opinion is valid. I don't recall any discussion though -Lommer | talk 08:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postage stamps again 

message: I don't know if this is correct, but I've found drawings of chemical formulas (such as :Image:Pentane.png) marked . I don't know if this is correct or reasonable, but I will mark others in the same fasion, so somebody stop me if there's a more appropriate tag. :-) -Lommer | talk 08:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've marked a bunch of chemical formula images now, and I think that pursuing  tags for these images is probably a bad idea. There are several images already marked  with similar content, and the argument of "no original content" could easily fall either way when one starts getting into more complex molecules or reactions. To resolve this, I think the best, most unambiguous (sp?), but admittedly labour intensive thing to do would be for a wikipedian to recreate these images and release them to public domain or something (why do GFDL when you can have PD?). Anyone feel like tackling this? Thoughts? -Lommer | talk 09:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Formulas 

message: Can images from stock.xchng be used at Wikipedia?  The images (mostly) say "There are no usage restrictions for this photo."  But the terms of use indicate some restrictions.  Any copyright experts here?  Opinions?  Dbenbenn 14:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some discussion and checking on the Wikimedia Commons. In short, it varies depending on the stock.xchng photographer. Do not assume anything on the site can be used without asking. Some individual photographers there have been contacted and have allowed reuse of their images under GFDL or Copyrighted Free Use. Others have not decided not to give such permission. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks.  One author I emailed (see hubcap) said he thought his images at stock.xchng were automatically PD!  So stock.xchng is obviously inherently confusing.  I wonder if there should be a note about stock.xchng here?  dbenbenn | talk 17:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[stock.xchng]]? 

message: AICT has a ton of "free use " images available.  The license permits free use to educational institutions, such as schools and libraries.  I'd say that Wikipedia generally qualifies as educational, but what is the consensus?  Can we use these images? -- EagleOne 04:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
: Well, the problem is that while Wikipedia probably qualifieds as educational, we prefer free images that can be reused in wider contexts, so educational use images don't qualify as "free" under our guidelines. Off the top of my head, if wanting to use one of those for a Wikipedia article, I'd give source info & link then tag it as "Fairuse"-- it's ok for us to use it in a given context, but may not be elsewhere or in other circumstances. Other thoughts on how to handle something like this? -- Infrogmation 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art Images for College Teaching 

message: It would be nice to have a  tag, to put on an image while it's a IfD.  I've been using , but that isn't quite right when I have verified that the image is a copyright violation.  Of course, such a tag would be only for temporary use!  Dbenbenn 09:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If an image is a copyvio, place  on the image description page and list the image at WP:CP, not at WP:IFD, unless there are other reasons to get it removed, too. (Such as inappropriate content...) Lupo 07:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Actually, it's .  I added a note about it on the page.  dbenbenn | talk 16:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio tag 

message: I want to upload a few pictures of the places I visited while on vacation. I am confused as to what tag to put  , , . Could someone please guide me? Can I use all tags? PS. Please reply on my talk page. Nichalp 19:21, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
:If you're the copyright holder, you can add any tag you want.  Unless you use a PD tag, you should probably include , since you implicitly license your work under GFDL by uploading it here.  dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: People watching this page might want to take a look at :Template:Whatever, and express an opinion on how it is used.  dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on WP:TFD. There's no way this is legally logical. Dunc|☺ 16:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Whatever]] 

message: I don't understand the purpose of :Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 (UK), and it isn't listed on the "project page".  There are a few images tagged with it; can the tag simply be replaced with :Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0?  dbenbenn | talk 16:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the key difference is the word licence/license. Perhaps a personal issue for User:Chamaeleon or his sources. --Henrygb 01:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 (UK)]] 

message: Uh...  The cc-nc-sa license is free the same as the cc-sa license...  I use nc-sa on all of my stuff because I don't want anyone else making money off of my work.  What exactly is the incompatability with the GNU Free Documentation License?  Wikipedia is not making money here, this is non-profit, non-commercial so what is the problem with adding non-commercial to a Wikipedia accepted license? --Singpolyma
One of Wikipedia's most important goals is being an open content encyclopedia. This means people can use what they find in Wikipedia for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The GFDL allows this. The Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0 license allows this, but is not compatible with the GFDL. All text in Wikipedia must at least be licensed under the GFDL. --Ellmist 16:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative Commons Non-commercial attribution share-alike 2.0