Wikipedia talk:Basic copyright issues

message: This page should be reviewed and added to the Wikipedia policy list.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on.  A lot of Fair use Police fail to explain why the remove fair use images other that that is the policy.  This could prove vital in avoiding conflict.  I plan to link policies to this page. or even change it to Template:Proposed--E-Bod 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty conservative about fair use but I've never listed anything for deletion if WP:FUC point 10 has been complied with. William Avery 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goo'

message: I recommend we change the name of this essay in order for it to become more useful.  We can't tell users to look at this page if it is called for dummies.  While the current name is Very funny and relevant to the essay I would like to link users to this page, however i don't want to call them Dummies.  That would be uncivil.--E-Bod 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was feeling a bit wimsical at the time, I asume the "... for dummies" series is fairly well known though,  but by all means, if anyone can think of a better name go right ahead and rename it. --Sherool (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simple copyright explanation or something. Usually the people I would send here already are angry at me. :D - cohesion 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly the "for Dum..." part should go, it's not our trademark. How about "Image Copyright Issues for Wikipedia Editors"? Ironic for this page to itself be an intellectual property violation. :) Wnight 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: This is an excellent essay, but there are some issues I'd like to see addressed. For example, why an article on a famous magazine model cannot include images of any magazines on which she appears, for example. This is a real thorn in my side because in my opinion such images illustrate the professional work of the subject and therefore are free use. And I don't mean just saying "because it's against the law" - why is it against the law? Why is it considered economically harming the copyright holder of the magazine? Something that has annoyed me and nearly made me quit Wikipedia altogether is I kept getting unhelpful replies like "That's just the way it is" or "If you don't like it, write your Congressman" (I'm Canadian so that's useless). I'd like to get some concrete reasoning, not just parroting a law which implies one doesn't understand it. Does that makes sense?
Another area I think could be expanded is the fact that copyright use varies from country to country and something that is public domain in, say, Britain (such as most music recorded before 1956) is not necessarily public domain in the US, where Wikipedia is based, and so on. 
Also, since there seems to be a bit of "fear of God" going on regarding copyrighted images, perhaps a statement to the effect that there is no rule saying articles must have images. Just a few thoughts. 23skidoo 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 23skidoo, if you mean that you wish to debate the issue in a general philosophical way, read about the reasons for the creation of copyright and the supposed gain to society from granting these monopoly rights, and then about the gradual one-sided changes in those rules. Early US copyright was quite short for instance. Slashdot has hosted many discussions of this worth googling for and it's interesting because of the changes (the net, Wikipedia, etc) happening in the intellectual-property world today. Wnight 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts

message: I would like to actually start using this page, but the people I would send here are already a little upset, and I would rather not imply that they are dummies. Anyway, if there are no objections in about a week I'd like to move this to "Basic image copyright issues". - cohesion 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure why not. As I said back in June I'm not married to the "for dummies" name, discussion just kinda seemed to die down. "Basic image copyright issues" sounds ok to me. --Sherool (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, changed. I'm not dead set on this name either, so if someone has a better idea :) - cohesion 06:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I think that the mentioning of GFDL is outdated. Since 2009 Wikipedia have been using Creative Commons too. --MGA73 (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL is outdated