Template talk:No copyright holder

message: Is this template not redundant to ? Stifle (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like this one. It's clear and concise. It may work as a replacement for ,  and . Carnildo, I suggest saying "Remove this tag only when you provide the information" (or "Only remove this tag  when you provide the information") (the emphasis would not be needed on the template). --Abu Badali 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - great tag, much more clear than subst:nsd.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Template?

message: How do people feel about adding another question, like "Where did you get the image?" Sometimes people list the copyright holder and some very specific license but don't list the source, or their relationship to the copyright holder. - cohesion 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --Carnildo 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, I tried to keep the wording simple like the other questions, but someone might have a better idea :) - cohesion 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Could an administrator please change the border colour of the template to d0d080, this makes it easier to indenitfy whether the image has been tagged by bot or user as most of the user applied templates are now am orange colour and I've recently changed  to the new beige colour for the reasons specified above. Cheers – Rlest 09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this border color convention documented anywhere? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No just on that. Rlest 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a decent enough idea, to me -- easy indentification seems to be a plus; I've gone ahead and implemented this, for now. If this proves to be a good idea, we can continue to implement it. If not, we can discuss at the village pump as to whether the trend should continue. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The title of this template is "no copyright holder". By definition, a copyright holder no longer holds a copyright on an image after releasing it into the public domain. Because of that, this template is completely inappropriate for use with PD images. A separate template can be used for images whose claimed PD status is in doubt, but being asked for a copyright holder after uploading a  image is just enraging. If the template was renamed to something like  and point #2 was removed from the list of questions in the template, there would be no problem continuing to use it the way it's being used now. Noclip 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use with public domain images

message: Unfortunately, use of this template really stifles creativity and needlessly so, imo. Uploaders should not be automatically required to know who (or what entity) owns the copyright to an image. In many, many cases, finding out this information is effectively impossible given that the law is so complex on the subject, what with the manner in which copyrights can automatically transfer from descendant to descendant until the term limit is reached. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, knowing that it either is or is not copyrighted is the important thing and that can usually be deduced from what the image depicts, or from where it was sourced. The other two questions regarding source and attribution are reasonable, but we don't need to ask people to provide current copyright information as well. -- Hux (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be looking for this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposal:_revise_wording_of_NFCC_10a_.28requirement_for_copyright_holder_details.29.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable requirement