Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please direct questions related to tagging of specific images to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where you are more likely to get a timely response. This page is focused on more general discussion about Wikipedia's many copyright tag templates. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Please place new topics at the bottom of the page.
[edit] template:PD-FLGov
I have decided to be bold and restore template:PD-FLGov. AFAICT, it was removed/redirected due to misuse. I believe that the template text is specific enough to prevent misuse. Also, it adds images to Category:Florida government images which can easily be occasionally monitored for infractions. Any comments? -Seidenstud (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice template. I've been working to address the issue as well. --Elvey (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- For reasons discussed at WT:Public domain#Works of the Florida gov't, this template should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] GeoGratis
I've created a new tag {{GeoGratis}} and just wanted to let the "copyright tag community" to know, as I am somewhat new to this and the tag may need to be improved. Thanks. (EhJJ)TALK 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] How is picture uploaded to Commons linked to here?
OK, so I uploaded a photo with appropriate GFDL copyright info to Wiki Commons. I'd like to link to it in Wikipedia. Would someone say how that is done?Skywriter (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- You add it by typing the following: [[File:Example.jpg]]. There are also additional tags you can add, and most images use the following code: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|right|Caption text]] As long we no identically named picture exists at Wikipedia, the image from Commons will be used. (EhJJ)TALK 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks.Skywriter (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Deprecating the GFDL-1.2-only templates on the English Wikipedia
As was recently done on the German Wikipedia, I have proposed deprecating future use of the GFDL-1.2-only templates here as well. Please join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Montenegrin law
Why Montenegro's images still use copyright law of Serbia and Montenegro, when Montenegro got it's law on 1st April 2007? I am talking about this:
 |
This image is in the public domain because according to the Copyright Law of Serbia and Montenegro ("Службени гласник СЦГ", бр. 61/2004), "Work is not copyrighted if the work is:
|
  |
Rave92 (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mistagged PD-Old and PD-US images
It appears that the vast majority of {{PD-Old}} and {{PD-US}} photographs are mistagged, due to a lack of information about who created a photograph or when it was first published. I'm not sure whether these should be deleted or not, and I've opened an RFC here. Opinions and ideas would be most welcome -- just go to the RFC and comment there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New template: {{AGPL-3}}
I've created a new template for the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3. It's a modified version of {{GPL}} with the wording changed to reflect the Affero license. There's not many AGPL screenshots on Wikipedia right now, but I figured it would be good to err on the safe side by have a correct license on these images. Radiant chains (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] UK Parliamentary copyright
There are a lot of good images on Flickr licensed under Parliamentary copyright, which is broadly identical to CC BY-NC-ND. I think it deserves a template. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, right, we don't like NC. In which case I change my suggestion to a new fair use template based on Template:Non-free Crown copyright. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Did it myself. Things are never as complex as they seem. :-) --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tag for derived images?
Is there a tag for "This image is derived from another image already in Wikipedia or Commons?" There should be some convenient way to express that. For mechanical engineering subjects, it's often useful to take a small section from some existing image and enhance it to make some part clear. That's hard to express in the current system. --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- On Commons, there's Commons:Template:Extracted from. Is that what you're looking for? howcheng {chat} 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright abused
A short while ago the Fortnightly Drum published Lord McSnook's (Scottish) coat of arms as shown on wikicommons next to the name of McSnook's younger brother. Wrong helm, etc. Presumably they would say "illustrative purposes only" "fair use" "gfdl" etc. How do we restrict the licence so they can't misappropriate it aqain like this? 91.104.34.26 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Either it's fair use, in which case no license change can prevent them from using the image, or it's not fair use, and the current license just needs to be enforced by the copyright holder. --Carnildo (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Iranian copyrights in the United States
According to Iran and copyright issues works originating from Iran hold no copyright in the United States. Is there a copyright tag that can be used for such situations? – Zntrip 19:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. That only applies to published works. The U.S. copyright system covers unpublished works regardless of their origin. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've updated Iran and copyright issues in accordance with my comment above. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, would an image tag not be in order for images originating from Iran? – Zntrip 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the Wikipedia policy view, as expressed in WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, seems to be to act as though foreign law applies, even if it does not: The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. I think that's pretty silly myself (my own view is that part of those foreign countries' laws is that they've opted not to sign up for international laws in the form of treaties to have works originating in their country protected; so "respecting their laws" includes not treating uncopyrighted works as copyrighted); but that's just me. Jimbo sent an email once, so Wikipedia denies itself completely legal use of uncopyrighted works from those countries. So I don't know what a tag would buy you here. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to thank you for answering all of my questions. Additionally, I found that Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights says, "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." The issue with Iranian copyrights might be settled, but I think it should be spelled out somewhere, perhaps even with a image tag. My questions stem from this image. Considering its from an Iranian government source, it is probably in the public domain there, regardless it is not copyrighted in the United States, and I think there should be some mention of that in its description. – Zntrip 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Truth is, I know a lot more about real copyright law than I do about Wikipedia's policies about and interpretations of it. You found an interesting passage, and on the face of it, it's difficult to reconcile that with the passage I quoted. A recent comment made by User:Quadell on June 22 at WT:Copyrights#Copyright laws by country is probably a pretty good explanation. It ends with,
-
- After much hammering and yammering we decided that for copyright concerns, the English Wikipedia followed U.S. law exclusively, with the exception that countries that did not have a copyright treaty with the U.S. (Iran, Ethiopia, etc.) were treated as if they were signatories to the Berne Convention. And that's pretty much where things stand now.
- Wikipedia seems to have a habit of unnecessarily restricting itself by its copyright policies. It disallows uses that are fair uses based on criteria that are not part of copyright law; and, as you've pointed up, it treats certain classes of works that are not covered by copyright as though they were. There's probably a number of reasons for this:
- A desire for clear policies that can be applied by a typical editor, even if those policies disallow permissible uses.
- A decision to to err on the side of caution to prevent infringement, i.e., it's better to disallow many permissible uses than to allow a few impermissible uses;
- A general policy preference to encourage public domain and freely-licensed work; if Wikipedia is overly restrictive on its copyright policy, perhaps it will encourage the creation of PD or freely-licensed work. TJRC (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tag for sound file, Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 License
I need the appropriate tag for Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 License for sound files. Is this equivalent to one of the current CC licenses? Or does it need a new tag? Thatcher 02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sound files under that license are not usable on Wikipedia: the license doesn't permit commercial use of the original work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I guess so. It's an odd license, though, unlimited use of derivatives even for commercial purpose, but no re-use of the original. Oh well. Thatcher 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
