Wikipedia talk:Donating copyrighted materials

message: Great idea, Jmabel -- excellent and much-needed resource.  Please be sure to note something about Wikipedia:No original research here, if you would -- don't want people thinking this is another avenue for crackpot theories.  (Don't want to interrupt your "in-use" editing to do it myself.)  — Catherine\talk 20:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2005

message: I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about other kinds of permission?

message: God resource.  I've been looking for something like this for a while.  I have proposed adding a link to Template:nothanks. Bovlb (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nothanks 

message: In the Granting us permission to copy material already online section, it says to post to the talk page, and "Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission".  How does this process get started?  I'm specifically referring to User:ITU-T, who had posted copyvio material to the page Malcolm Johnson (Director) and now has a permission statement on their userpage. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "someone will contact" 

message: Currently, this document says:
This is less than ideal for many reasons, not the least of which is that few (if any) of the editors addressing copyright concerns are members of the Communications Committee. Wikipedia's editors and administrators must follow the same procedure as other contributors, going through WP:Permissions process to first obtain a letter of clearance from the webmasters and then forward it to the Communications Committee. Adding this middle man creates pointless delay. I believe that this document should be updated to suggest that the copyright owners send the letter themselves, as it is already recommended at WP:IOWN. Accordingly, I suggest:
I've removed the bit about listing of sites from which we may freely draw. Unless an OTRS ticket is added to the title at that list, it doesn't seem to be usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten and updated much of the page  to reflect how things are actually supposed to be done now. It was all pretty wrong before, not to mention confusing, mixing info about text and images without really distinguishing which parts applied to which content. I also removed a redundant section that was partially incorrect. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Looks good to me! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "someone will contact" redux, suggest revising 

message: Are some of the references to GFDL on this page outdated?  For example, should we retain the description of GFDL as one of many option for images but not suggest it for textual contributions?  I think the advice can be improved, but I'd rather leave the exact wording to an expert than boldly get it wrong myself.  Certes (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. :) I may not be following you precisely, but if you are suggesting that we eliminate reference to GFDL from text donations, we really can't if we are to comply with :wmf:Terms of Use. It is required that copyright holders (unless they are coholders of copyright) license material under both CC-By-SA and GFDL. If that's not what you mean, could you be more specific about your concern? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's answered my question.  I was unsure of the exact status of GFDL for text, now that standard page footers etc. have been changed to mention only CC-by-SA explicitly.  In that case the existing text looks fine. Certes (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL 

message: I have a number of websites at which I release all content under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver (CC0). My intuition is that this material really ought to be available for use on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't mention anything about more permissive licenses. So my questions are:
* Is CC0 an acceptable license (or waiver statement, rather) for text to be used by Wikipedia?
* Is CC-BY (without multilicensing under GFDL) an acceptable license for text to be used by Wikipedia?
* What other licenses might qualify?
* Should these be listed as alternative options on this page?
Thanks for any input. Dcoetzee 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#More_permissive_licenses.3F --Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78#More_permissive_licenses.3FLeadSongDog come howl! 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More permissive licenses? 

message: I wrote a blog post, Open-licensing your images. What it means and how to do it, to encourage people to make images available to Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons.  An interesting debate about doing this, vs. the interests of commercial photographers, has developed in the comments. Further input is welcome (as would be pointers to any previous discussion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interests of commercial photographers 

message: This document needs a going over to allow for the possibility of permission from print sources, as we occasionally do have book and journal authors who import their content here. I'd like to develop a new section called "Granting us permission to copy offline materials" that will talk about some of the ways these authors can verify. This is slightly more complex, since they can't easily put a note on the website, but some of the ways that can work include (a) emailing from an email associated with the author, if s/he has a clear online presence (as with university professors) or a statement on that website; (b) emailing from an email associated with the publisher (journal or book authors) or a statement on their website. I assume that we can trust them if they say they have the rights; while I know of one significant and painful case where we had to remove content of a published author because his publisher objected, this has only happened once that I know of and legally we should be protected by the authorization of the author, I think. I'll propose what I come up with here, of course, but before I start working on it just wanted to share my thoughts and see if anybody else had any others. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission to copy content ''not'' already online

message: The note at the top of the page reads "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work."  In U.S. copyright law (among others) there is no requirement that the work be published in order to attract copyright protection.  Would it be prudent to change the wording to reflect the situation more accurately?  Something like, "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own existing work."?  ... discospinster talk 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it isn't previously published, it may be difficult for them to verify ownership and would seem to be unnecessary in most cases. While, for example, we often compose text on the fly, people who take photographs and upload them are always going to be adding "existing work". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously published 

message: Hi there copyright minded people. 
I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro 
Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club Alpbach Croatia 

message: Is it applicable to granting us permission to copy material already on facebook pages or groups? Can we consider facebook pages or groups as “site”? --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the owner of an individual Facebook page can release that content. Obviously, they cannot release the entire site. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granting us permission to copy material already online 

message: I would like to know that how to communicate for granting us permission to copy material already online, particularly for other Wikipedia such as Tamil Wikipedia. The section suggest to send email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Does this email applicable to all Wikipedia projects such as Tamil, etc? I do not see WP:DCP page at many Wikipedias. Actually, I have been asked by a user for granting us (Tamil Wikipedia) permission to copy material already online. As far I know Tamil Wikipedia uses an gmail ID for communication. How could it be possible for an official communication? --AntonTalk 20:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Anton. Speaking as an OTRS volunteer, I do not believe that there's any eason you cannot use permissions-en@ as long as the communication is in English - the mailing address is not specifically for matters related to the English Wikipedia, but for all contacts in English. That said, English speaking volunteers may be less familiar with the Tamil Wikipedia and might be nervous about logging the permission in an unfamiliar environment. The best thing is if they are willing to put the release on their website. This is a very transparent approach, as anyone can see and confirm the license. Some people prefer not to host the license perpetually - that's okay. They need to understand that even if they stop publishing the license, it remains in effect. What we typically recommend in such cases is taking a snapshot of the license and storing it on the talk page. Template:Text_release talks about how to do this under "usage" via an archive URL. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Moonriddengirl for your explanation. --AntonTalk 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister project and communication 

message: Donation implies giving something up. I thought about "releasing", but it shares the same potential problem in misunderstanding. Wouldn't it be better to retitle this page to "Wikipedia:Sharing copyrighted materials"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Donating is a little misleading for the reason you describe, but I'm afraid "sharing" may not make clear the scope of the release. If I were going to rename it (about which I have no strong feelings, as I haven't really ever encountered any questions or confusions about this in my years working in this area), I'd probably just be frank about it: "Licensing your copyrighted materials". OTOH, the page does define pretty quickly what it means. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "donating" the best word? 

message: The above mentioned section gives a list of license templates that is not the same as the one found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#For image creators. I suggest removing the list from this page and replacing it with a link to WP:FCT instead. Having the list in a single place makes maintenance easier. —capmo (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Donating your photographs' section 

message: I think we should make it clear that owning a physical copy of a work does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Especially the "photographs" section would benefit from this. I'm suggesting this as one user at Commons has complained about lack of such guidance which in turn led to an invalid OTRS ticket and much dismay. Particularly I would like to suggest the following change: "If they are your own photos, you will probably want to use one of the following" → "If you are the photographer, you will probably want to use one of the following". De728631 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a valid rephrasing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have now changed this phrase. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership vs copyright 

message: Wiki tags this article as Coppy right item etc. however Im the owner of this creative studio which all text are already my own and I would like to add on wiki. (Oliviadurak (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kibrit Creative Solutions 

message: If content is available CC-BY under v4 of the CC licenses am I right in thinking we can import it here with attribution, but It can't go the other way as we require SA? Or is there a problem moving between v3 and v4 of the licenses? ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: CC-BY v4

message: The donation engine (linked by a big, prominent blue button on this page) is not working, as part of the toolforge deprecation. Update needed. Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken tool