Template talk:Do not move to Commons

Until
Is it possible to extend this to have "Do not move to commons until xx/yy/zzzz" for images which will eventually become PD in both countries? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes: "It takes an optional argument expiry that hides the message at the end of the given year. For example, if a work by an author who died in 1950 was first published in a country whose copyright term is life plus 70 years, expiry would be 2020, and the message would automatically disappear in 2021." --Falcorian (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kewl! Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was it limited to PD?
Shouldn't it also cover files labelled with CC/GFDL licenses? NVO (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would an image with a valid cc/GFDL license have any problems being moved to Commons? -Nard 17:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The most common scenario would be a CC/GFDL-licensed derivative of a pre-1923 underlying work that was one of the author's first, the author still being alive in . --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can this be made more unmissible?
Some of us (or "me" if you like) find this template to be rather too similar to Copy to Wikimedia Commons and NowCommons in appearance. Would it be possible to make the colours more alarming? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reason parameter
I'm going to remove the reason parameter. This has been discussed at my use talk and User talk:Adam Cuerden; Adam Cuerden apparently says that he will be taking a long Wikibreak. However, different reasons to keep a file here (a user's request, another issue) are an entirely different purpose from that of the template at present (and are pretty much what NoCommons does, in my opinion not very well), and this is very confusing, considering the symbols on the template, which refer to works not in the public domain in the U.S. So if different reasons even should be added, the template should be changed rather more. &mdash;innotata 01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The paramter is in use. Your change made the files it was used on give the wrong message, without providing any substitute template for them.
 * As you know, I do not, under any circumstances want certain files of mine on Commons, and this is a condition of me releasing them to Wikipedia. Sneaking around when you think my back is turned to try and get your way without making any attempt to fix the problems that arise from your actions is unethical, and certainly not going to encourage me to think any better about Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just thought nothing would happen if you were gone; I was about to ask you on your page after not receiving a reply when some at WT:FS said you had just stopped editing. You shouldn't have reverted me now, but I won't revert you (I've even restored the reason parameter to the documentation). First, will you discuss this then? This template has a very specific scope: files that cannot be moved to Commons because of its requirement that they be public domain where they were first published; it has the notice "For more details, see Commons:Licensing, Wikipedia:Public domain, Wikipedia:Copyrights and talk for the PD-US license template." at the bottom and a symbol of works not being copyright in the U.S. So using this for files which are strongly requested not to be moved to Commons is misleading. Can you reply to this? &mdash;innotata 13:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Adam: Technically, innotata is right that this template is only to be used for files that legally can't be placed on commons.
 * @Innotata: 1) You should have waited before doing this, and your talk page is not the proper place for such a discussion. 2) You went against an editor's expressly stated desires because you thought he wasn't there to see it. That's horribly unethical and quite rude. Shame on you.
 *  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new template, NeverCommons, which expresses the strong desire that Adam and I both have, that our work never touch commons. It's worded harshly, yes, but anyone that knows me knows that that's gentle compared to what I really want to say.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem solved!

NeverCommons

Fun, right?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't object to you asking for your images not to be placed on Commons, but other users will, and you certainly should not claim that you have any right to stop these from being on Commons (or anywhere) but not here, having released your works under irrevocable free licenses. The discussion was on our user talk pages since I started by asking Adam; I don't see what is unethical: I was avoiding continuing the discussion constantly from what Adam said, and was just about to contact him again when it looked like he would not respond to anything on my part. &mdash;innotata 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry then. You got sucked into something you had no idea on. Adam and I both have very strong dislikes of Commons, (for different reasons), which is where the hostility comes from. If you didn't mean to go against Adam's wishes behind his back, then I apologize for saying that, and by implication you, was in the wrong here.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand exactly what you mean. For what should be done now, would you mind removing the statements that the works you uploaded cannot be moved to Commons? If these are valid, the works you created are not free in the definition used in Wikimedia policy, so they can't be on Wikipedia either. (Where these are on unmodified PD works or those explicitly under an irrevocable free license, these are certainly not valid.) You can use as strong language as you like saying you really don't like Commons and don't want your contributions be moved there as far as I care, and I'm not going to try to convince you to get these moved to Commons or anything now, but these have to be free cultural works to be on Wikipedia as well. &mdash;innotata 15:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That I really can't control how my files are used is the main reason why I have uploaded so very little of my own work. Like many users, the inability to upload non-commercial or attach other stipulations does make me less willing to share. There is backstory to that template which I will not share with you, however as the template is gone, this part of the discussion is effectively over.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Innonata, but you've abused my good faith once too often, and I am no longer willing to discuss this subject with you. If someone else genuinely holds the views you assign to them, but do not, apparently, hold yourself, they may contact me, but I decline to discuss this with you any further. I've had you attempt to replace a template asking for files not to be moved to commons with a template that explicitly asks for them to be moved to commons, I've had you compare me to Nazis for not wanting my files on Commons, and now you've gone behind my back.

I cannot work with you on this subject. Far, far too often have you acted in ways that, even though they may have innocent reasons behind them, show that you do not have even the most basic respect for my wishes, as you feel that my requests may be removed from things that I have spent, in some cases, fifty hours on meticulous restoration, and replaced with completely different requests, and, since you have never signed your work, or even noted you did it, you have effectively signed my name to it because I am the file uploader.

I should note, I do not believe you acted maliciously, but you've acted like a bull in a china shop. I simply wanted a simple, polite request on certain of my uploads stating I did not want it on commons, and I was even willing to set a date after which I'd release it to commons.

I am completely unwilling to upload such files without their wishes being noted, you have consistently acted to hide my wishes. As such, I am now no longer willing to upload my image restorations to Wikipedia at all, since I cannot trust Wikipedia to even note my wishes exist.

Hence, I cannot work with you, and consider this discussion closed, as I will not be uploading any more image files, the worst possible of all outcomes, but you are unwilling to accept any other. I have several dozen images already restored that these uploads were meant to test the waters of uploading. The test has failed completely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's of any use if you don't want to discuss this in any way, but I'll say what I have to say. It seems you've approached this mostly thinking of your issues with Commons, and were bound to take issue with something. I mentioned the seized enemy property images since I was cleaning up their documentation at the time; I undid your change here after you didn't reply to my queries. If you doubt anybody will ask that these be moved to Commons, search files for deletion for terms like "keeplocal". Wikimedia projects are supposed to contain free cultural works, which can potentially be redistributed anywhere, so if you say your contributions cannot be placed on Commons as a condition of your release of rights here rather than a wish of the author of whatever form, you aren't contributing free cultural works—if that's what you really want, yes, you could just not contribute. (By the way, I don't follow what you are trying to say in your second paragraph above.) So I'm not working to move those files you don't want moved, but I won't ignore material that actually isn't free for Wikipedia to use. I'd also prefer if you'd at least suggest something that keeps this template with its purpose. &mdash;innotata 20:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Innonata, if you switch Do not move to Commons - which says not to move it to commons - with KeepLocal, which says to move it to commons, then, given only my name appears on the page (as uploader), it follows that unless they check the file history (and they won't), it will give the impression that I am the one asking for it to be moved to commons, as you replaced my request it not be put there with one that asks for it to be put there. File deletion is irrelevant; the whole point of KeepLocal is it stays on en-wiki while also being on Commons, which is precisely what I object to. I really don't think this is a very difficult point. You entered into this aggressively, have remained aggressively, and when I tried to engage with you, and seek a compromise, you attempted to undo the compromise behind my back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to ask that your contributions be kept here, I don't think you should try to use this template, which is intended for matters of copyright law. I used keeplocal since there isn't a template that says what you want, I didn't know what you wanted well, and I thought it said as previously that the files it were on could be moved to Commons but were not by request. I don't think I really did what you said in discussing this, but it won't do anything to get into that. Do you want to suggest something else to be done now? &mdash;innotata 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New name
Not sure about the new name. (Why was the page moved?) There still is the "reason" parameter I disagreed with above that allows a different reason to be specified. Should it be removed now? Plus, this can be used for images that are derivatives of works that are PD in the U.S. which are not PD themselves and such, and "Do not move to Commons" seems more straightforward. (But then, template names don't matter much.) &mdash;innotata 16:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove the reason tag. It is used by FoP-USonly and PD-ineligible-USonly and deleting it would break those templates. Besides, I've sometimes used it to specify a clear reason as to why a file can't be moved to Commons (for example: enters the public domain in the source country in 2015 and in the United States in 2020). The expiration tag only allows one year (which would have to take the latest year) and people often don't realise that works enter the public domain in different countries at different points. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This template should not be a license tag and it needs to put files in a category
It seems that this template is both used as a license and as a template for files with unsure copyright. So I think all files with this template needs to be checked.

I therefore suggest that a category is added - perhaps Category:Media now not suitable for Commons so it is easy to see all files using this template.

I also suggest that the template is not used as a license because it does not tell why the file is believed to be PD in the us. --MGA73 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not categorised as a license tag (I assume that means files with only this template are tagged for no license), I've never seen it used as one, so I don't think there's such a problem. A category is a good idea, though. &mdash;innotata 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was used as a license tag on a few signatures I nominated for deletion as possibly unfree. But never mind that. If we put all files using the template in a category it is easy to find out if there is any cases where there is no license template.
 * The category name I suggested above sounds a bit strange and I think that Category:Media not suitable for Commons sounds better. Noone has objected that a category is added so lets add a category now. --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage of this template
A more general use for this template, which I have not seen discussed above, is for photos that are subject to freedom of panorama restrictions in their country of origin.

Pictures taken of buildings, sculptures, and other works may be freely licensed in the US, but not in their country of origin due to differences in freedom of panorama laws among various countries. An example is File:Episcopalian Cathedral of Saint Mary & Saint John.jpg, which is a freely licensed picture of a building in the Philippines. Unfortunately, pictures of buildings whose designs may be under copyright are not specifically waived in Philippine law. Since the copyright status of the building itself is unknown (and probably very difficult to determine), the example picture is unsuitable for transfer to the Commons, due to their policy that the image must be free use in both the US and the country of origin. However, since en.wp has no FOP policy that I can find, it's still OK for this project, and must be kept locally.

In summary, this is only really useful in some limited situations, but it's helpful to not have to write up something "official looking" by hand to put on the file page. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For FOP issues, use instead. Also keep in mind that there is no FOP for sculptures in the US, although a few of them, e.g. Den lille havfrue in Copenhagen, might survive as PD-US-1923-abroad. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Change icon
As the icon in this file is shown at a relatively small resolution, it would make more sense to change the icon to File:NoCommons2.svg. This file removes the gradient which is too much detail for the resolution it is shown at. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 10:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ firefly  ( t · c ) 14:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

new related template: copy to Wikimedia Commons in
It's my understanding that out of copyright in is only for files that are public domain in the U.S. but not their home countries. I don't think we have a template that indicates when a work will be out of copyright in both countries, and so have decided to make one. Hope people find it useful. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Ixfd64, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but what's the purpose of this new template? They seem to be the same but with slightly different wording...? All files on Wikipedia (except for those that are non-free) or Commons must be free in the United States, so I guess that is an "as granted" on Out of copyright in. Perhaps the wording could be changed to add some better wording to clear up the ambiguity. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 17:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, out of copyright in is for works that are free in the United States but not the country of origin. This template is for the converse. For example, corporate works are copyrighted for 50 years in Canada and 95 years in the United States. Because the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, some Canadian works will remain copyrighted in the U.S. even after they fall into public domain in Canada. It would not make sense to use out of copyright in for those works. copy to Wikimedia Commons in is designed to be a more general template for any file that is not suitable for Commons, not just those that are only free in the U.S. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So would this be used for non-free files then? As mentioned above works have to be public domain in the United States to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is meant to be for non-free files. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops, I didn't realize do not move to Commons had an  parameter. I've modified copy to Wikimedia Commons in to point to this template. Hopefully people still find it useful as it's faster than calling do not move to Commons and filling out both a reason and expiration year. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you merge Copy to Wikimedia Commons in with Out of copyright in. It's a bad idea to differ between "unfree in the US, free in the source country" and "free in the US, unfree in the source country" as there's also "unfree in both" which sometimes needs a template.
 * Many of the "PD-somecountry" templates ask you to use if Not-PD-US-URAA and  if it's in the public domain in the US. I'd like if there were a way to specify expiry of the US copyright in those templates. I've sometimes used  which achieves that (the parameter automatically changes in 2050), but it looks clumsy. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)