Template talk:Non-free Crown copyright

message: In the template list, all other templates in the same section as this have a copyright symbol in it, so I feel this template should have the same article.
 © 
--TwelveBaud (disusered) 01:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: At least in Canada, Crown copyright appears to permit nothing of the sort ().  Could we have some references indicating that (for example) commercial use of Crown copyrighted images is legal? --Andrew 21:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
:British Crown copyright does, and the licence is referring to British sites. Its naming is rather UK-centric but it's probably too much work to move things now. David Newton 22:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does crown copyright really allow this? 

message: I think it would be useful to add a ... section to the bottom of the template page to the lists of site we can and can't use with this template at the top of this talk page.  Maybe something like:
----The licensing terms described in this template do not apply to all British Crown Copyright sources.  Please check if the site you are taking images from is included in the list of sites this template applies to, found on the talk page, before using this template.
AJR | Talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: The link above for Court Service is defunct, the new HMCS website has this page  which I imagine is the relevant 
one. May we interpret 
"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. "
as ok for use on wikipedia? Kurando | ^_^ 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is essentially the same wording as many of the other sites, and matches what the template says, so I'd assume so. -- AJR | Talk 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court Service now Her Majesty's Courts Service 

message: I have gone through the list of allowed sites, above, updating links, etc.  There were some where the current statement on the deptartment website would put the site into the "can't use" list - I have struck through these entries.  In these cases, where the permission has been changed, do we have to track down images used from those sites and delete them, or does the permission from when we took thos eimages apply? -- AJR | Talk 12:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be on the safe side, I updated all such images that I uploaded myself with a detailed fair use rationale. I'd recommend that this be done with any others that these changes apply to. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List reviewed 

message: Please note that there is a dispute at  regarding an image from www.royal.gov.uk.  The image is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (for the second time) under January 26, 2006.  Enforcement of Crown Copyright is requested.  User:Noisy | Talk 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: I can't see anything on the  copyright notice provided by the site that would preclude use by third parties other than Wikipedia. It seems that all they require is attribution and that the copyright status be acknowledged. If I've missed something important that would prevent images from the site being used, please let me know. Lacking any response, I'll shift the notice into permitted two weeks from posting this message. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link to the 'click-use' licence site, it seems to say that you actually have to apply for the licence, even for the two categories that are free.  I think it's unclear.  Better to play on the safe side.  Noisy | Talk 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Register Office (Scotland) 

message: Perhaps an idea to make 'not' bold within may not be relicensed. In my opinion this could prevent misreading. --Hardscarf 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not bold 

message: After having a look around, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this license is ever free enough for Wikipedia. Every single instance of the licence includes the clause "subject to its reproduction being accurate". I'm assuming that this is equivalent to disallowing derivatives. All other licences banning derivatives (such as the Creative Commons licenses , , etc.) are in the category , and a note is placed on the template to reflect that. This'd mean that all images in the Crown Copyright category would need to have a fair-use rationale appended. Thoughts? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The design of the template seems far too lenient considering the conditions for using works under Crown Copyright.  I added a red (C) and also added this to the non-free templates category, since derivative works are not permitted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or we could convert it to a "very safe fair use" tag. --Fastfission 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Images that were licensed under the Canadian Crown Copyright were either deleted or relicensed, so I think we should follow that example with this category of images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've nothing against keeping the tag itself, expecially since Fair Use tags add that you need to give all available copyright data. It also allows for easy checking when images fall out of Crown Copyright. The tag just needs to make explicit that it's not enough on its own, and needs a Fair Use rationale alongside. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free licence? 

message: To make it more obvious that the license is non-free, could the design be changed to resemble  (possibly as shown below)? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made this change to discourage the use of this license.  I had already added the red (C), but the previous design was still a bit "soft".  I wonder if this can even be used at all without the conjunction of a fair use tag, such as . --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as this is not a valid license, I suggest all applicable photos be tagged with . ed g2s • talk 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ed g2s, I think you are mistaken.  It is a fair use tag, not a license tag, so a fair use rationale is needed, not . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag redesign

message: Images with this tag automatically fall under WP:FU.  I recommended adding the following to the template:
:To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
Such wording seems to have become a standard rubric on fair use tags. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: See Template:CrownCopyright/Proposed.  To make it clearer that this is a "fair use" template.  Peter O. (Talk) 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Done. Ashibaka tock 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed, I should hope. Ashibaka tock 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit 

message: Please add interwiki for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:
 sr:Шаблон:КрунскоАуторскоПраво
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. CMummert · talk 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: Please change line Category:Crown copyright images to .  Thanks, Iamunknown 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Add a sortkey to Category:Crown copyright images 

message: Hi.
I'd like to suggest the copyright logo in this template to be replaced with this new version: 
To do so, simply replace this portion of the code:
| image      = 
With:
| image      = 
Fleet Command (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010 

message: It sounds as though an image is partly free despite failing Wikipedia's free content guidelines. If that's the case, the second paragraph could probably be shortened to:
This is not an edit request at this time, but it's worth consideration. mechamind90 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia info could probably be shortened. 

message: In light of the Open Government license which covers Crown Copyright material (with a few notable exceptions like 
OS Maps) , this template and the media covered by it needs review. 
If the material can be re-released under OGL, It should be as OGL IS Commons Compatible :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Government License 

message: Reword to:



Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all clear from the above just what the desired changes are. Thus, I've created a /sandbox copy for evaluation. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Tweaked the sandbox into the intended re-working..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Question: these seem to be significant changes; where was this discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here. Boldly!   Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but changing the wording of media licenses can have legal consequences, so I can't see WP:BOLD applying to something as potentially controversial as this. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to reword template 

message: As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established.  This makes it a Bold edit.  I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin.  Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19.  Thanks.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover#Edit request on 17 December 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 17 December 2012 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support as nominator. This lacks WP:PRECISION in it is ambiguous, and there are other templates for other Crown Copyrights, and this is not a generic template for all crown copyrights. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming the category