Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Edit request
The page states, However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work The creator is not always the copyright holder. I believe that this section is actually intended to prohibit linking to works posted in violation of copyright regardless of who holds the copyright. Therefore, I suggest rephrasing to: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi I think this has the potential to cause more confusion than it solves - explicit permission isn't always needed (eg when it's CC licensed) and people often misunderstand that. Would suggest the much simpler solution to the issue buidhe raises would be to just strike "the creator's" from the original wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think that a CC license is the copyright holder giving permission. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree, but unfortunately not everyone understands that ;-) and if we have the opportunity to avoid that confusion, that is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did think of this hypothetical confusion, but the previous one is already causing issues since people assume it's OK to link a postprint research paper posted by an author. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Which is why I think just removing creator fixes it - it's an issue of violating copyright no matter who holds that copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reopening, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it OK to link to photo archives?
To use a copyrighted photo as a ref to support a fact. I know that photos make poor refs, but they're allowable I think. The last paragraph of WP:COPYLINK is the part of the rule that comes closest addresseing this I think, and it says:

Alright, if you want to prove that Joe Shmoe starred in (or was said to star in anyway) some movie, and you've got an article which doesn't say so but does include a picture of a copyrighted movie poster that does say so (they are presumably using the picture of the poster under legit fair use), then link to the article and not the photo. Well and good.

But what if the copyrighted photo has no meaningful context?

An example would be, say, a photo on a photo gallery site which is selling photos. They took the photo and own the copyright. So they're not displaying them under fair use. Let's say the context is minimal, such as "Get an 8 x 10 of this cool photo for $10, enter your credit card and address if you want one". There's no context to remove, basically. You're not linking directly to just the photo (like "htpps://photoland/coolphoto.gif"), but almost.

(We are leaving aside for now the question of the url being possibly unstable, and that photos are probably poor refs generally. Different issues.)

My take is that it'd be OK according to rule anyway.

Except: Photoland is serving the page explicitly and solely to sell copies. All or essentially all of our usual refs are different; an article in the "New York Times" is not served explicitly and solely to sell copies of that article. So it's different (altho there is very often a pecuniary motive, in this case maybe that the Times wants to draw people to their site so they can sell subscriptions).

FWIW, both the Times and Photoland would be glad to have more visitors go their page, one would think, to sell subscriptions or sell more copies of the photo, respectively, if that matters (commercial considerations do matter for uploading a picture for fair use, but that's different from linking.) But we can't 100% assume that Photoland would be happy to have their page being used as a reference rather than just being visited by people looking to buy photos. Maybe it messes up their page counts which they use for figuring what pictures to feature, or something. (Technically we don't have to care about that I guess, only about the law. But still.)

My take is that even considering this difference it'd still be OK, by both the spirit and text of the rule. Am I correct? Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we add translations to this page?
Can we add a brief note on this page to cover translations and link to Close paraphrasing? I have seen multiple people mistakenly translate content without realizing they were creating a derivative work? Rjjiii (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names. &#x0020;Given the comments that have been made so far, it would be helpful (in my opinion) for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution policy/requirements for copying within Wikipedia. Best, user: A smart kitten meow  14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees
Possibly of value? Fyi only. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
This sentence in the section "Linking to copyrighted works" appears to be incorrect:

"However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work."

The last bit should be removed:

"However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder."

Thank you for your time. &mdash; gabldotink [ talk &#124; contribs &#124; global account ] 06:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Could we use the mbox template for the intro blurb?
I don't exactly like the use of the broken HTML in this matter when there is a template that formats the notice much much better. It is not even center aligned. For example:

How would this look on the page? Awesome Aasim 18:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Internet archives"
The text currently reads:
 * The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear

This is confusing for two reasons: I see no reason to use a non-standard name for "web archives". Recommend simply changing to:
 * 1) "Internet archives" actually goes to web archives
 * 2) "Internet archives" is easily confused with "Internet archive" which is the name of a specific web archive provider, and one so large and dominate (over 90% of enwiki) that one might be easily mistaken.
 * The copyright status of web archives in the United States is unclear

..because "web archives" is what they are called. -- Green  C  16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ along with some additional text scope clarifying there. — xaosflux  Talk 18:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Input requested
There is a discussion that may be of your interest including the topic proprietary services, at Template talk:GeoTemplate. Your input is welcomed. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Thinker78 2806:10A6:13:52DE:7CF0:8C5E:87E:DEDF (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 March 2024
-per MOS:': 2003  LN  6  23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. For future reference don't copy-paste the entire page - say exactly what you want changed and nothing extra. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"The U.S. government can own copyrights"
However, not every work republished by the U.S. government falls into this category. The U.S. government can own copyrights that are assigned to it by others–for example, works created by contractors.

Wording unclear. If the government own the copyright, does that set the copyright free (PD)? Can we use it? Schierbecker (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)