Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 10

message: See my talk page (towards bottom). Also, see talk pages of various editors who appeared on my talk page.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the GFDL

message: Do videos on YouTube have any copyright? Is it all right to take screenshots of YouTube videos to use on a Wikipedia article? I would like to know. I am referring to YouTube videos of news reports or music videos. I've got a couple of images that are of the sort that I am unsure. Thanks in advance.--Kylohk 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do YouTube videos have any copyright? 

message: Hi folks,
so, what kind of attribution/license do I use when I want to upload a photograph of a copyrighted object. In particular, I'd like to photograph an album packaging to illustrate a critical commentary on the album package, or upload an already existent photograph that forms part of an album review that has been released under  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (review: http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/album-review-10000-days-by-tool/ image: http://www.velcro-city.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/05//.thumbTool1.jpg)?
Thanks in advance for the help :) Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A photograph/scan of a 2-dimensional object (i.e. an album cover) would be covered by the same copyright as the object itself. Last time I checked album covers could be used under fair use on Wikipedia. A Creative Commons license including NonCommercial is considered non-free on Wikipedia. —David Johnson [T|C] 13:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What license do I use when want to use a photograph of a copyrighted object 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:PD-Old regime Iraq}}]]

message: Just today GPLv3 was finalized, taking the focus of the Free Software Foundation off its primary software licenses, and perhaps kicking the ongoing revision of GFDL v. 1.2 into high gear. A preliminary draft of GFDL v. 2 has been online for some time  and I'm wondering whether the Wikimedia Foundation is involved in that process, and if so, to what degree. The license of all wikipedia content is such that new versions of the GFDL apply *automatically* to the content once they are finalized. That being the case, I'd think this would be of paramount interest to the community. As I understand it, when GFDL v. 2 goes into effect, the content of wikipedia will become simultaneously available under GFDL 1.2, GFDL 2.0, and GSFDL 1.0. The GSFDL relicensing will happen as a provision of GFDL 2.0 since none of the wikipedia content has cover texts, invariant sections, or anything else of the sort. There's also the possibility that wikipedia will become available under the as yet undrafted GNU Wiki license, again automatically as a provision of GFDL v. 2. Any comments? Deranged bulbasaur 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL version 2 

message: When spoken words are printed somewhere, does the copyright belong to the speaker or the publisher? 
Or indeed if its spoken publicly is it automatically in the public domain?
:Most speeches are prepared beforehand. The copyright holder is whoever wrote the script. The actual speech could even be considered a performance and thus be subject to neighbouring rights.
:Less clear are impromptu speeches, i.e. speeches given spontaneously without a prepared script. As these are not fixed in a tangible medium, I think they might indeed not be copyrighted. But again, the speech can be considered a performance, which is subject to neighbouring rights, and recordings or broadcasts of the speech are subject to the recorder's (or broadcaster's) neighbouring rights. In some countries (e.g. Russia), even improvisations, such as impromptu speeches, but also jazz improvisations, are subject to copyright.
:The copyright of a transcript of an impromptu speech might indeed belong to the transcriber, if such impromptu speeches are not copyrighted. Publishing a transcription of a prepared speech is subject to the consent of the copyright holder of the speech/script. On the issue of interviews, see also the (somewhat dated, but still useful) Compendium of Office Practices II of the U.S. Copyright Office, section 317.
:So, no, public speeches are not PD by default. HTH. Lupo 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright and Spoken word 

message: The Imperial War Museum has a large collection of photographs from WWII.  I believe I can upload these as it satisfies the following:
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes (from UK copyright law)
Am I correct? Oberiko 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only under "fair use", if you can supply a fair use rationale for each image uploaded. The allowance to make copies for educational purposes is a "fair use"/"fair dealing" provision. It does not mean the images were in the public domain. (Of course, some images from the IWM may indeed be PD. If you can show that an image from the IWM is actually PD in the U.S., you may upload it as .) Lupo 07:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial War Museum photographs from World War II

message: Not sure this is the right place for this. The article Etienne Kuypers is currently up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etienne Kuypers. A substantial part of the article is a translation of the Dutch language website EtienneKuypers.com. The content of the website is copyrighted ("Alle rechten voorbehouden", all rights reserved). The author of the article has denied being the subject of the article, so is not the owner of the copyrights to the website. The question is: does a direct translation of copyrighted content qualify as a copyright violation? AecisBrievenbus 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, translations are derivative works and hence require permission/licensing from the holder of the original copyright.  Dragons flight 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am 100% sure that he is the subject of the article, but that isn't really relevant, as the content from his website is not GFDL. Dragon's Flight, thank you for your clarifying answer :-). Joblf (or one of his socks) will probably come up with a new version of the article that isn't literally translated though, so I listed it on AfD to be done once and for all. SalaSkan 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on translated content 

message: I find that the wording here is vague and confusing:
"This is based on the image guidelines at IMDB"... what, exactly, is "this" alluding to? is the section describing conditions/sources under which celebrity photos are ok to use? if so, fair use or freely licensed use? 
"Legitimate photographs generally come from three different places with permission". "Legitimate" means what? fair use? free license?
I thought I understood Wikipedia policy to be that press kit photos of living celebrities are not acceptable Fair Use and such uploads are Speedy Deleted. Likewise, "Used by Permission" is unacceptable for a GNU/GFDL free license. Now, after reading this section, I don't know what to believe. Am I wrong or has the policy recently changed? If not, it seems that calling such photos "legitimate" is misleading. JGHowes talk -  04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit outdated yes. I changed it a bit although I wouldn't mind if that whole section goes. Garion96 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we remove this? It is confusing to people. One person thought it was an exhaustive list of acceptable sources... If there are no objections I will remove it in a week. - cohesion 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. - cohesion 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity photographs section 

message: For sites that copy wikipedia wholesale articles and don't keep it under the GFDL, where and to whom should we complain? Thank you. --Rajah 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should check out Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_Forks, especially Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_Forks#Non-compliance_process. Sancho 19:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Wikipedia's GFDL is violated, where/who do we post this info?

message: This site has a number of West German campaign posters from 1945-1949, showing the main political parties opinion on the territory de-facto annexed by Pland and the Soviet Union; e.g. they want it back and want that the survivors of the ethnic cleansing be allowed to return to their ancestral homes.
I was planning to write an article on the early years of that territory (i.e. the years when Germany was under Allied occupation 1945-1954, and I thought some of the campaign posters wold be relevant to use, to show that Germany at that time had not yet accepted that the territories were lost. They were by West Germany called "German territories temporarily under Polish and Soviet administration" or somthing equivalent. (The polish Communist regime had invented the term "recovered territories" to justify the Polish claim on the territory)
Is there any way for me to be allowed to use the pictures on wikipedia on the article in question (or in Generral)? If there is, what must I do? Thanks.
--Stor stark7 Talk 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The posters will still be under German (and US) copyright, so they could only be used under fair use. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can West German election posters from the 40's be uploaded?

message: How original does something need to be to be eligible for copyright? If possible, I would like the opinion of a lawyer; would this be something to ask the Wikimedia legal counsel about? The following are examples of works that may or may not be eligible:
:(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(10)(11) --NE2 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not in my copyright expertise. However, at first glance all or nearly all of those look copyrightable.  User:NE2 knows this already, but for anyone else, there are somewhat related discussions of road signs and ancient coins over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content.  Nobody has proposed a good answer to this legal question yet, though.  Perhaps, like the photographs of coins question, this one should go to our (I used the term broadly) lawyer, Mike Godwin Wikidemo 04:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking just the opposite, how is the outline of a state and letters copyrightable?  From  37. C.F.R. § 202.1(e), most of these don't pass (a) of that.  The only ones that I can see that appear copyrightable are 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11.  --Holderca1 06:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CFR is deliberately modest in saying what is not copyrightable.  The Supreme Court, in Atari v. Oman (quoting Feist), in ruling that the look and feel of the 40 X 40(?) pixel original Breakout game has enough originality to be copyrightable, says: [T]he requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.  The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.  Arrangements of pre-existing elements are generally copyrightable.  However, there is a subjective originality test as well.  If a sign is hand painted or designed that means someone actually made it and their choice of where to paste all the sub-parts is a creative one.  If it's a template spit out of a machine or created by rote, then nobody made the arrangement.  So the actual application of lettering to the template doesn't add to its creativity.  #1, 3, 10, and perhaps 5 have that problem.  I can see someone arguing that for #2 and #9, but I think there was some creative arrangement in choosing just how big the circles would be, where and how the outline of the state would fit in, how the lettering integrates into the image, etc.  Again, I'm no expert and I wouldn't form a strong opinion out of applying the regulation directly, or Supreme Court cases decided on a different type of image, unless I read up on what the respected authorities had to say and scoured case law and found that there's nothing else on point. If I had to make a call without outside guidance of a legal expert I would take the conservative approach for Wikipedia and choose prudence over anything where one could argue both sides.  Meaning, it might or might not be copyrighted, so to be safe assume it is. Wikidemo 07:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all seem creative to me, someone had to make them probably, and since they are (all?) done by state and municipal governments I don't see how they would be considered PD. cohesion 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I created (4) along with most of the NY parkway shields. I had contacted the NYSDOT once before, as the shield is theirs (it is used on Long Island parkways maintained by the state). In general, they do not enforce copyrights on shields under their control, which is why I uploaded them the way I did. (2) is different because this is considered privately controlled (by the Thruway Authority), so I declared it Fair Use instead. --WhosAsking 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like some advice on the [[threshold of originality]]

message: Current Wikipedia policy on works made by the Soviet government is considering these works copyrighted and not appropriate for Wikipedia. But it should be noted that all state property in the USSR was constiturionally declared all-people's domain, an analog to western public domain. These works (for example, photographs from space) could be used freely by any citizen for any purpose unless the information is secret. So these items should be considered public domain at least in Russia. After the breakup of the USSR there were attempts to transfere some intellectual property to private companies, but those schemes are mostly illegal and are contested in courts.--Dojarca 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts regarding works made by the USSR 

message: A deletion discussion is taking place at  which appears to be arguing that three view drawings of aircraft are ineligable for copyright. Megapixie 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are three view drawings of aircraft PD-ineligable ? 

message: Is it appropriate to use material from a particular source, but to credit that particular sources citations in the article instead of the author? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy write an Plagiarism Question

message: Since we are now receiving copyright opinions and advice from the Foundation's attorney, we need a place to keep track of them for use as precedent (and so he hopefully doesn't get asked the same question 1000 times).  So here it is:  Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays. -- But|seriously|folks  21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays]]

message: Would appreciate if someone with more familiarity with copyright issues and Wikipedia could take a look at the discussion at User_talk:Andi064#Joanne_Catherall_EL.  I removed an EL for a fansite that had lyrics on it with no obvious "reproduced by permission" notice on it that I could find, and it got reverted by another editor, who justified the inclusion on the provided link.  Would appreciate someone more knowledgeable about the subject helping make the decision on how to proceed.  Thanks.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for third opinion on External Link 

message: We've got a Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 17#Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development of an article deleted for being a copyright violation of a State of California webpage.  That webpage says "© 2004 State of California", but links to a condition of use page that says "In general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use."  Can someone with more knowledge than those of us who are deletion focused give us an opinion?  Thanks.  GRBerry 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is not copyrighted and could be used. However instead it should be strongly edited for encyclopedic style, etc. Rmhermen 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for expert opinion on DRV 

message: I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. Please help, especially if you are familiar with copyright law. Thank you. --NE2 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright on highway shields

message: "Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom."
Is the word "forever" appropriate? GFDL restrictions (I won't call them "freedoms") on a work will, like other copyrights, eventually expire, so current versions of Wikipedia will in time enter the public domain. Of course, then they really will be "free forever", so maybe this doesn't matter ...
BuilderQ 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the "forever" part is appropriate for the freedom of the work on Wikipedia, but it doesn't apply to the "subject to certain restrictions". Eventually, the work will be public domain, and not subject to restrictions, such as the requirement to acknowledge the copyright holder, or to echo the GFDL on derivative works, etc. Sancho 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free forever 

message: I found an image in a book of a painting from 1834. Can I use this image as public domain? Sancho 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard. I found the answer at Wikipedia:Public_domain. Sancho 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An image of a painting from 1834 

message: If I move a discussion from my talk page to another user's talk page, is it technically a violation of the GFDL? The attribution for the edits in the discussion isn't preserved in the history there. Likewise, is "summary style" (moving paragraphs in an article to a separate page when they get too long) a violation of the GFDL? Melsaran (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers/partial moves 

message: Those interested in copyrights and public domain should take a look at this article: Copyfraud
and the lengthy paper by Jason Mazzone that is cited in the article.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Fraud 

message: Based on , which states "Government information shall exist in the public domain to the greatest extent possible", am I correct in saying that most or all works of the Minnesota government are in the public domain? If so, should we create a tag such as ? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a statement of principles, which has absolutely no legal meaning.  If you can come up with a law that implements this, then maybe there's something worth considering. --Carnildo 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring here to :Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg in particular. There's some more discussion and arguments at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 28#Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg. Enlightening comments would be welcome. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota government works 

message: I've been searching around Google, looking for webpages that are free to share, distribute and modify. Many have very nice images, but are either CC licensed with NoDerivs or NoCommercial. I've been emailing webmasters, asking them permission to release them without those parameters. How will most webmasters respond? If they distribute them with a CC license in the first place, would they be just as willing to let it be on Wikipedia?--Alasdair 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the one case where I tried - :Image:LIC Yard-9-21-04.jpg - I was successful. --NE2 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting webmasters to switch CC licenses of images 

message: The instructions here (section "If you find a copyright infringement") need some co-ordination with the procedure given at WP:CP. In particular, WP:CP doesn't seem to say anything about notes on the talk page. Kappa 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the talk page? 

message: Hello I have proposed a change to .  At the moment the template ignores one of the basic  property laws, by making it sound like if the uploader is in the USA, they may release a work into the Public Domain, even though the copyright is legally detained by a person in another country.  If you are interested in discussing please see Template talk:PD-art#International issues, Thanks.  Jackaranga 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment on there was too long, sorry, so I reduced it to 3 lines  3 line version, please read if possible, PD-Art on wikipedia and on the commons are almost entirely different, needs to be corrected. Jackaranga 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to {{tl|PD-Art}} 

message: :This text should not be changed for legal reasons.
Shouldn't that be "For legal reasons, this text should not be changed."? The current version almost implies that we can change it, as long as our reason is not a legal reason. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to simply "This text must not be changed." Sancho 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This text should not be changed for legal reasons." 

message: In the article Bathhouse Row, images are added that are in the Public Domain. If you click on the images on the website from which they are taken, the images have the photographer's name on them. Example:  However, the images used in the article have been taken out of a PDF document and the attribution text is missing. Is this O.K. or should the attribution information remain on the photos in the article? Thanks.  --Mattisse 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an image is in the public domain, any modification may be made to it, including the removal of the attribution information. Adding the attribution information to the image description page would be helpful though, in order for future uses to investigate themselves the licensing of the image. Sancho 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution to photographer in  PD photo 

message: A question about lists that I posted elsewhere a week ago has gone unanswered. (Not even "What a stupid question!") Could somebody take a look? Thanks. -- Hoary 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: Hello, as you may be aware, in some countries (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Country-specific rules), photographs of 2 dimensional works that have fallen into the public domain still attract copyright.   On the commons it specifically says: 
When should the  tag not be used?
* Where the photograph was taken in a country (such as the UK) where faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works of art are generally considered to be protected by copyright, or in a country (such as a Nordic country) that provides 'simple photograph' protection.''
*My concern is that this fact seems to be totally ignored on en.wikipedia, under the assumption, that in the USA people can do what they like, because if the photography had been taken in the USA it would attract no copyright.  Personally I believe it is illegal for Americans to violate European copyrights, however this is very complicated for me and I may be wrong.  
*However I believe the goal of wikipedia has never been to steal European work under cover of legal confusion
On this page it specifically says: 
::Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself.
::and Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of these nations as best they can, the same as they do for other countries around the world.
*If wikipedia prefers to honor the copyrights of countries like Iran, that have no copyright relations with the USA, then why ignore copyrights contracted in the UK for example.  Furthermore this is supposed to be the English language wikipedia, and we can assume many users are in the UK, why make them risk legal problems by viewing images they are not allowed to view ?  This is a basic lack of courtesy.  
* is clearly violating the policy on this page, and should be changed to something like what they have on the commons.  
*Also I find the attitude of pick and choose the easiest option hypocritical: we have templates for images that are PD because they are from a country that has released them into the Public Domain earlier than might have been the case in the USA.  For example on this page there is mention of Russia, or Algeria etc.  If we are honoring this fact, is it not very hypocritical to not honor the fact that photos taken in the UK are subject to copyright ?
*The commons has gone to much trouble describing the specifics of the PD-Art template, yet here the policy is Who cares this is the USA, ignore all other countries.  
*Wikipedia should call itself the American wikipedia, if it deliberately chooses to violate British copyrights, and display images that the viewing of, could get British people into trouble for.  In case anyone was wondering, the English language actually developed in England, and I think stealing British Museums' works while simultaneously claiming this is the English Language wikipedia is hypocritical.  Jackaranga 10:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were recent similar discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Template_talk:PD-art regarding this question. Sancho 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern over copyright violations of European works 

message: I'm sure I'm beating a dead horse here, but the current statement in the policy -- 
: Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). 
fosters an overbroad implication, to say the least. Only one case has made this finding, and two others have explicitly made the opposite finding, and a raft of other cases have implicitly made the opposite finding. Rather than suggesting striking the sentence entirely or writing a lot of other text, I'd like to propose a somewhat more moderate and accurate wording: 
: Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in one district court case in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]), although other cases have suggested otherwise.See, e.g., Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., No. CV 99-7654 HLH(BQRX), 2000 WL 525390 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000); 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6483 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Bernstein v. J.C. Peny ,Inc., No. 98-2958 R EX, 1998 WL 906644 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 1998).
If Wikimedia's policy is simply to take the absolutely most conservative reading, that's fine; however, the policy should not incorrectly state the rationale as if it were decided law in the US that linking is contributory infringement. It is not. --lquilter 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah Lighthouse Ministry 

message: I've opened a discussion on the next generation of our license at Wikipedia:GSFDL comments from as many as possible are requested.Geni 02:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:GSFDL

message: Just a quick sanity-check: for an uploaded photograph or scan of an original photograph: the copyright is that of the original, not the editor's photo or scan of it, right? So an editor couldn't claim a more permissive copyright status ("I took this picture-of-picture and assert ") than the original has without some sort of justification for over-riding an original's copyright status (one that doesn't seem to allow republication)? DMacks 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Rmhermen 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of a picture 

message: Hello,
recently a user changed the  template to display a warning that basically says, "don't use this template". He claims a GFDL problem, referring to a mailing list discussion (see Template talk:R from merge#Template and the GFDL). 
However, all instructions, such as WP:MM, refer to this template and encourage (if not require) its use. This seems very confusing.
Is there really a GFDL issue here? If so, the documentation should be updated soon. How should mergers be performed when not using the template? Could someone clarify? --B. Wolterding 13:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers and GFDL 

message: In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either
...
you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.
i think there should be added: "and if the author of the material has given permission to not-showing his name after the title", following GNU FDL- 4.B:
unless they release you from this requirement.
more full quote:
4. MODIFICATIONS
In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
...
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
...
quote about title:
1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
...
The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.
now at Wikipedia:Copyrights is writed thus:
Contributors' rights and obligations
If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either
you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.
and nothing about that wikipedia-writer must write author names after title of the material,
and so wikipedia-writers ca easily terminate gnu fdl license by not writing/showing/listing at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five) "on the Title Page" (For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.15 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU FDL- 4.B 

message: I found a website Panyathai (http://www.panyathai.or.th/wiki), they copied hundreds or thousands of Wikipedia articles without providing source or GFDL link. They say only "Thank you Wikipedia" and that's all. What should I do in this case? I contact the website owner last two months but they haven't got me back. --Manop - TH 19:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MIRROR#Non-compliance_process and meta:vigilante GFDL enforcement. Martin 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do if I found a web site that verbatim copy from Wikipedia without GFDL provided? 

message: Regarding the GFDL license of Wikipedia, I have a question for which I could not yet find a direct answer. Perhaps someone here could help me? 
Say someone downloaded the wikipedia data (from http://download.wikimedia.org/) and set up a website which answered some specific kind of users' queries based on the data, using some advanced, proprietary, secret algorithm, and did not release the code. Would this be a breach of the license? (Of course, the system would acknowledge and link back to the original article(s) from which the original data was taken.)
Let me give a concrete example: The wikipedia contains a lot of data on various sports, such as yearly final standings of the NBA. One could write a piece of software which analyzed this data and, based on users queries, output some reprocessed versions of it. Would setting up such a website (say, for making money by selling ads) and not releasing the source code violate the copyright?
From reading the license and various discussions on the net my guess is that this is perfectly legitimate use of the wikipedia data. For instance, I found the following quote: "Generally, a summary (or analysis) of something is not a derivative work, unless it reproduces the original in great detail, at which point it becomes an abridgement and not a summary." Nevertheless, I am not completely sure and so I thought I'd ask the experts, i.e. you.
Thanks a lot for any help/comments!
--Phoyer 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may use whatever super secret software you want.  That is not a problem.  The resulting summaries it generates would either have to be licensed under the GFDL, qualify as fair use, or in the extreme case be so reduced as to not include any copryightable elements of the original.  For the latter case, I would note that isolated sports results are an example of factual elements that can't be copyrightable.  Dragons flight 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website utilizing Wikipedia data, GFDL restrictions? 

message: :Discussion copied to Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Logos on "useful_objects".  Please reply there.
As I understand it, objects whose "useful purpose" outweighs their creativity are automatically considered PD-ineligible.  For example, the creative element (e.g. colour and shape) will not affect the nature of a pen or a bus, whereas it will affect the nature of a sculpture or a painting.
There are a lot of "PD-ineligible" images here however, which contain the manufacturer's logo, which by itself IS copyrighted.  My question therefore is
"If an image of a 'useful object' contains a copyrighted component, should the image remain PD ineligible?".  I suspect not, but I'd appreciate some more input here.  There are a lot of these images being moved to Commons, when I think they should actually stay here under fair use.
A couple of examples:
* An Intel Pentium processor tagged as PD-Self, containing a version of the copyrighted Pentium logo.
* Front of a Lexus car tagged as CC-BY-2.0, from Flickr, containing a version of the copyrighted Lexus logo.
Thanks, Papa November 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos on "useful objects" 

message: Can someone look at the fair use rationale on []?  I don't even know where to begin...Compaqdrew 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tagged as bad rationale. Papa November 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful fair use rationale 

message: Is content taken from daviswiki.org OK? or COPYVIO? It is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution License" which when clicked on the bottom of their pages points to version 3.0. Carlossuarez46 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's okay, as long as attribution is provided. --Carnildo 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For text it is not okay. Only text in the Public Domain or under the GFDL is allowed. Images under Creative Commons are allowed. Garion96 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tobe more precise, images under CC-BY-SA or any subset of those restrictions are OK; that includes CC-BY. But CC-NC is not acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm aware, text under CC-BY is allowed, because the CC-BY license permits us to re-license it under the GFDL. --Carnildo (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's yet a consensus on that.  I would steer clear of it, because CC-BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode) says, "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work."  GFDL is more restrictive than CC-BY.  Also, we don't really have any means to note which text is CC-BY.  An explicit identification, along with a link to the license, would be necessary for each use. Superm401 - Talk 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creative Commons question

message: I am planning to start a wiki which I would like to 'seed' with a number of articles derived from wikipedia. Originally I just assumed all I would need to do this would be to put my own wiki under the GFDL and reference wikipedia as the source of any derived articles. I have now realised it is far more complex than that; so complex I don't actually understand what I am required to do. Do I need to find the last five editors of each article and refer to them under the title? Do I need to change my system so it does not allow anonymous edits in order to keep a track of history? etc etc. It would be far easier to understand if there were some pointers to examples of good practice. Clearly these could not be guaranteed to be compliant, and they would have to be dated ('this was a good example as of November 2007'), but they would still be very helpful in trying to interpret the mass of conditions in the GFDL (how on earth does anyone enforce the 'more than 100 printouts' type of conditions? If you have no invariant or title pages, where is all the required information supposed to go? etc)
Marinheiro (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that that would probably count as outright legal advice which would be problematical.Geni 18:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of Good Practice with GFDL

message: An editor is trying to insert language into Wikipedia:Citing sources which advocates archiving sources using the http://www.webcitation.org/ site. Although the homepage of that site says it "can be used by authors, editors, and publishers of scholarly papers and books" the new "Citing sources" language advocates that Wikipedia editors submit sites for archiving, regardless of whether the Wikipedia editor has any authority to do so under the copyright laws. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline change to advocate copyright violation