Wikipedia talk:File copyright tags/Archive 1

Follow-up on Watchlist
Impressive marathon tagging effort! Logical next step? Include some form of boilerplate instructions at the top of Special:Watchlist so that User knows what to do with all the files that have suddenly sprung up – instructions at the very least for indicating that User took the photo last year on his/her holidays and User does license it under the GFDL. Doable? –Hajor 00:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that the next important step is to have a standard format and information set for every photo, where clearly marked is the photo credit, capture date (if known), location (if known), source (if applicable, such as a URL) and the copyright tag. Please see my proposal at the Wikipedia_talk:Image_description_page, and let me know what you think. It seems to be the next natural step in keeping tabs on the origin of images. --Jeff 19:04, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Big problem?
I just realized a potentially big problem with marking these images. When the image is replaced, the image description doesn't change. Anthony DiPierro 18:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The uploader is already (A) warned and (B) instructed to update the text. Is this sufficient? Martin 18:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess...Though somehow I doubt most uploaders are going to follow those instruction/warnings. Anthony DiPierro 18:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- I've tagged every "large" (over 300kb) image. --Imran 19:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) -

CopyrightedFreeUse
What is the msg:CopyrightedFreeUse supposed to be used for? Would the GPL apply? If not, can we make a tag for free non-GFDL licenses? Anthony DiPierro 14:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think so. --Imran 15:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)~


 * We need to clarify the message then. When I tried to add the tag to Image:Info_bulb.png I got reverted by Eloquence who said: "wtf? gpl!=any use"

Anthony DiPierro 15:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * GPL is any use. It contains no restrictions as to who can use it or for what purpose. --Imran 18:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not true. It has a copyleft requirement and an author credit requirement.&mdash;Eloquence 19:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The two aren't mutually exclusive, to use the image you have to meet certain conditions (credit, licencing) but you can use it for any purpose you want. The conditions don't limit the purpose (as for example fair use conditions do) so it classifies as "any use". --Imran 19:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This is your interpretation. The phrase "for any purpose" is too vague to be a good characterization of the GPL. It must not be used on GPL licensed content.&mdash;Eloquence


 * To quote what it actually defined as "where anyone is allowed to use an image", which clearly is covered by GPL by anyones interpretation. Also note that the primary point is to distinguish these from licences which prohibit commercial exploitation. --Imran 13:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Now that we have a tag for GPL the point is somewhat mooted. However, we should probably consider rewording this for the future. Maybe a good start would be what falls under this which doesn't fall under any other category?  Then we can build a definition around that.  Anthony DiPierro 14:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Btw, I discussed this matter at Wikipedia talk:Pictures from southwarkphotolibrary.co.uk details with Secretlondon, and we vaguelly agreed to blitz "CopyrightedFreeUse" as too vague anyway. Wander over there, read, opine, etc. Martin 23:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "CopyrightedFreeUse" IS too vague. The question of interest is whether a given image is compatible with the GFDL.  I.e. can it be distributed under the GFDL, which is only possible if it has a licence that grants all of the permissions of the GFDL.  It the licence doesn't explicity grant permission to perform any particular act (e.g., making copies or creating derived works), then under copyright law you don't (unless in case of fair use) have permission.  Remember that the image copyright is not the only thing that can be violated: if an image can't be used under the full terms of the GFDL, then adding the image to Wikipedia violates the licence of every contributer of text (since they have given only GFDL permissions, which only permits combining the work with other GFDL material.  If it wasn't intended to work this way, Wikipedia would have chosen a less restrictive licence).  I suggest an alternative tag "GFDL-Compatible".  Goatherd 19:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It would make sense to have some or all of:


 * Template:GPL (perhaps link to too)
 * Template:LGPL (perhaps link to too)
 * Template:cc-by
 * Template:cc-by-nd
 * Template:cc-by-nd-nc
 * Template:cc-by-nc
 * Template:cc-by-nc-sa
 * Template:cc-by-sa
 * Template:cc-nd
 * Template:cc-nd-nc
 * Template:cc-nc
 * Template:cc-nc-sa
 * Template:cc-sa


 * The various CC licenses should include the appropriate machine-readable meta-data too. I don't think mediawiki supports tags, but the RDF tags should work. Martin 15:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd say we don't need some of those cc licenses:
 * No derivatives allowed!
 * Template:cc-by-nd
 * Template:cc-by-nd-nc
 * Template:cc-nd
 * Template:cc-nd-nc
 * No commercial use allowed:
 * Template:cc-by-nc
 * Template:cc-by-nc-sa
 * Template:cc-nc
 * Template:cc-nc-sa

--Anthony DiPierro


 * Hmm, perhaps. I'll concentrate on the freer ones. Nevertheless, we do have images that are for non-commercial use only (hence Template:noncommercial), and we do have images that do not allow derivative works (various crown copyrights, for example). So I don't think these would be particularly worse than others. Also, peeople may wish to additionally license under some of these CC licenses. Also, I'm not sure to what extent cc-by-nc and cc-nc are viral - it may be that they don't prevent derivate commercial works. I'd have to check.


 * As one example, Image:SOHO solar flare sun MPEG 20031026 eit 304.mpeg is effectively cc-by-nc. Martin 15:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * OK...You make good points. I guess it's OK to have these licenses, but the non-free ones (listed above) should only be used as additional licenses or in cases where "fair use" is acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 20:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Public domain

 * FYI: email I just sent to Creative Commons

Hi.

I'm working on Wikipedia, where we're trying to get to grips with our huge array of images, and working on tagging them appropriately, both in human-readable and machine-readable forms. You can see how we're doing at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags

One problem we've run into is for public domain images: both images that have fallen into the public domain, and images that have been explicitly dedicated to the public domain.

Your site is clear enough about what I should do if I personally want to certify or dedicate an image to the public domain. However, I face the situation where *someone else* is claiming that an image is public domain. Should I direct them to use your "Public Domain Dedication" service?

My second question is for metadata: What metadata should I use to indicate that:


 * An image is certified public domain.
 * An image is dedicated to the public domain.
 * The image is believed to be public domain, but it hasn't been formally certified as such (IE, disclaiming any warranty in case of errors).

Your site won't display the meta-data unless I personally dedicate something to the public domain, and it's not clear if I need different metadata for the three categories above.

Thanks, -Martin


 * I got a response - need to act now :) Martin 01:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Tag formats
Does anyone have any objections to my changing the format of the CC tags so that they read like this? Basically, a stack with the logo on top, followed by the two lines of text. Looks a bit neater, in my view, but I don't know if CC has specific rules for displaying its licenses. –Hajor 16:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. Here are the Creative Commons Guidelines - do read. Martin 19:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; duly read. What I want to do appears to be well within their guidelines, so I'll get cracking. –Hajor 21:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could someone come up with some standard text explaining tagging and asking users to do it, so that we can we just copy/paste it to uploader userpages if they aren't marking. --Imran 02:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Would it be good to also edit the mediawiki page for the text on the "upload file" special page? Anyone know which one that is? Martin 20:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It is MediaWiki:Uploadtext. I made some changes to it already.  Be careful with this - its HTML not wikimarkup, although it gets sent through the wikiparser for display.  Morwen 20:50, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)~

-

Could someone indicate on the page what message should accompany a picture taken from a web site of the US government? My belief is that all such material is really put into the public domain, but I'm not positive. Tempshill 21:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * This is wrt the ejector seat photo? The front page of that Holloman AF site links to a Privacy & Security notice, which says, "Information presented on the Holloman Home Page is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Sounds solidly public domain. Personal approach? I'd mark it with {msg:PD} and add additional links to the original PDF and the Privacy & Security notice. And follow a similar strategy for any other images uploaded from US gov & mil sites. –Hajor 18:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The GFDL-compatibility issue is more complex. Firstly, none of the CC licenses are directly GFDL compatible, secondly, all of them are GFDL compatible in "aggregation" mode. So the issues is one of freeness, not GFDL compatibility. Martin 19:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, noted. Ordering them by (perceived) freeness was a good idea. –Hajor 20:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair use
Do I have to add every image which is fair use to the Fair_use page? The images I'm uploading are from another web site and I've gotten his permission and am attributing the images to him. But every image that I add in this manner I still have to add to the Fair Use page? &mdash;Frecklefoot 22:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly were the terms of his permission? It sounds as if one of the other tags –, or a custom one – might fit the bill better. –Hajor 01:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see that other one. I think that fits it. That wasn't exactly my question, though. I just wanted to know if I have to list every image I upload to the Fair Use page. I can understand adding it there if the status of the image is in question. But all these images are clearly fair use plus I've obtained permission from the source. It just seems like a waste of everyone's time to add such images. &mdash;Frecklefoot 16:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair use is proposed, has some support from high-profile Wikipedians (notably Eloquence and Jimbo Wales), but is not yet common practice. Use your best judgement. Martin 18:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which tag should Image:Isaac.jpg get? I got permission to use it, so I thought about adding, but as it is a photograph from pre-1923, doesn't that make it ? Do I need a new tag? Angela. 23:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

If it is PD only in the US, and needs permission here, then add both. Secretlondon 23:50, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've done that now. It just doesn't make a lot of sense as it is claiming to be fair use and PD at the same time. Angela. 18:56, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

French initiative
French Wikipedia has just started a similar (perhaps bolder) project: fr:Wikipédia:Projet, Chasse aux images. On their rc they are also talking about the suppression d'images non décrites (ie, deletion of pics without descriptions). –Hajor 16:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that may be a good idea. hopefully, Template:unverified will help us find such pics easily. Martin 21:47, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two completely separate things:

1) I notice that is not listed here, probably because it is created before this initiative; also, at MediaWiki custom messages it is listed under "Sources of articles" while it should be under "Image description namespace". I didn't want to list and move it myself, maybe there is something I don't know.

2) I have just uploaded two images (this and that) for which I couldn't find appropriate tag. I recall seing more images and sites with somewhat similar policies, so I suggest a new message, named perhaps, or  , with contents of, say:

''This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. Terms of the permission are given below:''

Perhaps not very useful, except to identify such images.

Nikola   04:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo sez
While Jimbo has said that we should avoid images that are used with permission only, he's also said that we shouldn't go on a mass deletion binge, but proceed slowly and respectfully. During this slow and respectful period, there will be images used with permission on Wikipedia, and it is better that such images are tagged accurately than not tagged at all. Further, some images will be used with permission and fair use, and in these cases a dual tag will always be appropriate, even years from now. Martin 00:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "Therefore these images should be deleted" Having this message available only encourages people to think that using such images is OK, creating legal problems for downstream users and possibly Wikimedia as well. --mav 00:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012142.html We're not going to do anything radical and sudden and frightening, but at some point in the possibly distant future, we hope to have our image-tagging sophistication to the point that we'll just delete stuff that doesn't suit our needs for freedom and transparency.] - right back at ya.

Giving people the option promotes clarity, so we can see what we have, and fix any problems. It also aids downstream users, who can clearly see which images are not available for them to use. If you think it's misleading, fix that by editing, not by removing the option. If I see an image that has been uploaded (perhaps months ago) with Wikipedia-specific permission, I want a way to clearly tag it as such - that's what the "used with permission" tag is for. Martin 01:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no practical way for them do do that when they download and use our database. Do you really think that a downstream user would go through the tens of thousands of images we have in order to figure that out? We should not encourage the use of these type of images absent a way to exclude these images from the backup dump we allow anybody to copy. I'll think of some better wording to act as a caveat next to the message. --mav


 * Images are not included in the backup dump. anthony (see warning)


 * Then how do other websites use our images? --mav


 * They have to spider the site. Angela. 02:09, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have the tag, if for no other reason than to mark the images for eventual deletion. anthony (see warning)

Although I agree with not going on deletion rampage any time soon, where is the policy of uploading new images that are likely to be tagged with a "non-commerical only" tag. I am considering approaching this guy who has fantastic photos. He already allows non_commercial_reuse_provided_credit_given. (see http://www.galenfrysinger.com/faq.htm) but I would like to try and get a bit more free-ness for his low-res photos. If this is not possible, should I bother copying and loading under the restricted licence, or is the expectation that the wikipedia website will be made unambigiously GFDL-free soon? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Does he allow modification? To some extent that's a bigger isue than non-commercial restrictions... might want to query that with him.
 * I would suggest only using an n/c image if it is necessary for the perfect article on some subject, and you are not aware of any alternatives, and it is also likely to be fair use. That's pretty conservaive, and I don't think anyone could reasonably complain about such images. Martin 22:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Confused
I just read an article on the Lunette begging for an illustration. Since it came from an esteemed editor and the image seemed to be within my limited abilities and tools, I took some time to make a rough but representative sketch. When I went to upload the sketch I found that things had radically changed in the months since I had last uploaded images. Everything seemed very reasonable and I could understand why those changes were needed but I could not see what to do. Yes, OK place a tag, but which one? All I wanted was to give away my sketch, with no strings attached, as I had done previously for all my sketches (Armoire desk, Bureau a gradin, Bureau Mazarin, Pedestal desk, Rolltop desk, Spinet desk). This talk page and its original page were very interesting but they were of no help for my problem. At first I thought the logical thing to do would be just to place (how to place it is another question I have not started to figure out) that GNU tag since I have noticed that the Wikipedia content is covered by it. But then I read that you had to identify the creator for this, and I am not willing to reveal my identity. Other tags seemed likely but they were all shot down in the discussion in the talk page. All I want is to give it away so that anybody can do anything with it. What should I do? AlainV 06:30, 2004 May 6 (UTC)


 * I hereby place this image in the public domain
 * I hereby place this image in the public domain

Which becomes


 * PD
 * I hereby place this image in the public domain

Martin


 * AFAIK, you don't need to identify yourself. Work of an anonymous author, or work of an author known under a pseudonym (which is the case here) could be released under any of the licenses. Nikola 22:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Nicola is correct - you don't need to identify yourself. However, if you do identify yourself, it makes the copyright status a little more verifiable, which may be useful in some cases (eg if the image is subsequently spotted on another website). Martin 22:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The copyright tag should be the last thing on the page; to mark the work as your own, please use the following format. You can also add more info to the image talk page about releasing it into the public domain if you deem necessary. --Jeff 10:53, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

* Photo credit: [User:username]

Fair's fair
I'm not asking anyone to pay me for my work. I'm not even going to get too pushy about my name appearing under or beside an image I create. But I work hard on my stuff. I don't see any reason I cannot request two simple things: first, that credit be given somewhere when my work is used, even if it's the bibliography, and second, that my work be protected from commercial use. I'm not making money on my work, and I would be profoundly distressed to see it used to promote a commercial site or product with which I had some political or philosophical difference (as a vegan, do I want my sunrise picture promoting a nice breakfast of bacon and eggs? I think not!) So please help me understand why, if I don't agree to what amounts to a flat-out surrender of my work, it's ineligible for Featured Illustration or other Wiki goodies. Denni 02:18, 2004 May 15 (UTC)


 * Denni: Because Wikipedia is fundamentally an open content project. We want to take sure that the content of Wikipedia will forever be reusable by everyone. Yes, that means surrendering many of your rights in the process of licensing. The GFDL does require attribution, but also allows commercial use -- in fact, Wikipedia mirrors even now attach ads to our content and make money off our work. We may not like it, but potential misuse is a price we may in order to ensure free use. Whether you choose to license your work under the GFDL is your personal decision as a copyright holder. You can certainly attach other terms to your work (for instance, a non-commercial use term), by licensing under a difference license, but that may also make your work ineligble for inclusion in Wikipedia because of the license terms which Wikipedia uses. -- Seth Ilys 23:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

CC licenses
Have we looked closely from a legal standpoint and gotten a definitive answer on whether or how the CC licenses are compatible with the GFDL? I have a feeling that we may need to get professional legal consultation on this matter. -- Seth Ilys 23:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * We have looked closely. The answer is... nobody knows (even lawyers). For "derived" works CC licenses are, in general, incompatible with the GFDL (and vica versa), though both organisations have stated they wish to fix this if possible. However, Wikipedia's use of CC images is based on the "aggregation" section of the GFDL, so may be allowed. Fair use images are in a similar position. Martin 01:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Style update suggested
I suggest that all of the image copyright tags be styled like the creative commons tags.


 * For example, Template:GFDL/temp
 * See this example in action here, Image:Silverfish_enhanced.jpg

I think this makes the copyright info more clear, and also separates it from the other image info. Thoughts?


 * Nice. But could we incorporate a logo or a picture of some sort, to make it even more fun more closely resemble the format of the CC license tags? W:fr's GFDL tag uses Image:Gnu-head-sm.jpeg, or something very like it. –Hajor 14:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What about the image used at the bottom of all pages, http://en.wikipedia.org/style/images/gnu-fdl.png - that's a more descriptive mark than the gnu's head, in my opinion. --Jeff 19:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have worked on your suggestion, and also added a top line of text which is the same as in CC tags. I'd also like to point out how ugly it is when an image is licensed under two licenses:

versus:

Nikola 06:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Press Release images
Are press release images considered "public domain" (or otherwise covered under fair use)? I'm referring specifically to this image (of the PlayStation Portable) attached to this press release. - Plutor 15:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not public domain, probably fine under fair use. --Imran 22:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about the images on this FBI press release, which would illustrate 2001 anthrax attacks, can they be taken as US GOV PD ? Richard Taylor 14:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Crediting?
I know a guy who wishes to submit photographs free of copyright, but he'd like to be accredited for his work. What is Wikipedia policy on that?


 * that's fine, just put the condition on the image description page. As what he wants is compatible with GFDL you should add a GFDL copyright tag as well --Imran 22:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Crown Copyright tag
Currently under listed on the heading "UK Govt copyrights" is the tag "CrownCopyright". Is this tag just for the UK as the heading suggests or can it be used for other countries that have crown copyright (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand)? -- Popsracer 10:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, if Crown Copyright is GFDL-incompatible, don't these images have to be moved to nonfree? &#8212;Tkinias 23:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pd message is unclear
I find the PD message rather unclear: it does not list why the image is considered pd. Has the copyright expired? Did the volunteer upload his/her own work? Did the original source donate it into the pd?


 * Well, you have to specify. Perhaps that should be clearly stated in this article: only a tag is not enough. Nikola 06:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a first step, I would like to create a message saying: This image was created by me, the uploader. I donate this image under the gnu/fdl into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

What do you think about it?

TeunSpaans 20:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GNU FDL is a licenese given by copyright holder, so there is really no point in saying something is released under FDL (or any other license, for that matter) without mentioning copyright holder. In my opinion the minimum would be:


 * Copyright &copy; 2004 name.

As a sidenote, I agree with Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason’s comment in Template talk:GFDL, the current Template:GFDL is overly verbose with a redundant sentence linking to FDL instead of a link in “GNU Free Documentation License” above and with a redundant link to General disclaimer (not present in other license templates).


 * I think that it is better to be too careful than not careful enough. IMO, CC licenses should have a link to the General disclaimer also. Nikola 06:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for public domain, it is not a license per se, but rather a lack of copyright for one of the reasons you’ve mentioned, so it would be in my opinion even more important to specify the reason as well as the author, however it is quite different in a sense that anyone can take a public domain work and release it with any license as a legal copyright holder. In other words I think it is important to know who has released his work into public domain to make sure it is indeed legally in public domain, but if it is, then we don’t have to mention it, that’s the whole point of public domain...

Still, I would always mention the author if only known and would always write something in the lines of “author unknown, work from around XI–XII century, public domain” otherwise, even if it is not legally required. So yes, I agree with you.

Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 20:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I Agree, is there a message just saying:
 * Copyright &copy; 2004 name.

TeunSpaans 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, I’d like to be able to write:

2004.

and have it expanded to:


 * Copyright &copy; 2004 Rafa&#322; Pocztarski.
 * Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

and nothing else. Currently, expands to:


 * Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
 * A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License".
 * Subject to disclaimers.

with strange line breaks, additional explicit &lt;br/&gt;’s, redundant disclaimer and overly verbose link, unlike other, less prefferable licenses, like :

or :

Still, there are lots of whitespace and the table might be considered an overkill, but the text is clear. Or maybe I’m wrong and this would be enough:


 * This image is licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.

Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 22:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Arent the cc-nc-sa and nc-sa contradictory with gnu/fdl? TeunSpaans 19:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that they are? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to resurrect the point of this subsection, I think the PD template should make it clear that it is expected that an image tagged PD should be accompanied as to an explanation as to why it is PD. This (1) makes fact-checking at least in principle possible; and perhaps more importantly (2) combats uploader ignorance. If an uploader, say, is under the impression that whatever they happened to pull off another web site is PD, then under the current system, they tag it PD, and we're left with a non-PD image and a faulty assertion. If the template required some sort of explanation, then the ignorant uploader would give an inappropriate explanation, and their mistake would at least be detectable. Shimmin 18:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is why we have a variety of more specific PD tags. Assuming most actual public domain carry these, it's relatively easy to sift through the images tagged "ordinary" PD to isolate and investigate any suspicious ones. That said, this process would be assisted by encouraging an explanation. Derrick Coetzee 20:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've encountered the same issue, wanting to release my own work into the public domain, or clarify that something is definitely released (not expired, etc.) -- I created these two templates to see if others can use them and/or improve them. Suggestions and editing welcome:


 * Template:PD-self


 * Template:PD-release

Album covers
Why is this only a category and not a tag? Nikola 07:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Untagged images - please help!
There are lists of untagged images at User:Yann/Untaggued Images. Please help with tagging these, and remove any tagged ones from the lists. All images that are not tagged will not be included in the planned Mandrakelinux distribution (see Wikimedia and Mandrakesoft). Angela. 10:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I edited your comment to avoid the surprise link. Hope that's ok. Pcb21| Pete 10:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanks. Angela. 18:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Tags for non-commercial images
Since Jimbo has stated that images free for non-commercial use only should not be uploaded to Wikipedia (see Copyright_problems), shouldn't all the cc-nc tags be deprecated, too, together with and the like? Lupo 14:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, they shoul not, but they could, and if they are, they should be tagged so that they could be found easily and eventually replaced. So, I think that the tags should stay. Nikola 13:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tagging status
Hello, I've added a table with the number of images with a given template in their description. The numbers are generated with a program that analyzes the backup database dump, and I'll update them every week or so. A couple of observations:
 * GFDL and PD seem to make the bulk of the tagged images, with fair use as the third option. This is a good trend
 * The number of untagged images is going UP. This means that the tagging is not keeping up with the new uploaded images.

Alfio 22:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Transwiki issues
I've recently copied Image:Iceberg2.jpg and Image:Iceberg2 modified.gif from the German Wikipedia (de:Bild:Eisberg klein.jpg and de:Bild:Loch ness.gif, respectively). The German images have no copyright info, but they have existed since 11 January 2004 with no problems. What copyright tag should I use here on the English Wikipedia? &bull; Benc &bull; 19:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently this issue will be solved in the long term by Wikimedia Commons. For the short term, what license tag (if any) should I use for these two images? &bull; Benc &bull; 01:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yet another tag
I have noticed Template:Chess image, which is used to mark images imported from GPL program XBoard. I have tagged the template, but it should be noted that all images tagged with are GPL. Nikola 07:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The tag seems a bit specific for its generic name.
 * I would not be sure that XBoard images are necessarily licensed under GNU GPL, as they are not part of the program, but its output.
 * I think Template: XBoard image would be a better name.
 * Best regards, --zeno 18:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If I udnerstood it well, the images come in the xboard archive, which is under GPL. We might ask the uploader if this becomes an issue. Either case, the images are used for creating chess tables on Wikipedia, so they are not related to XBoard only, no need to change the name of the template. Nikola 09:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Source of images for tagging
I'd like to point out something which might not be obvious, if someone would like to tag some images but doesn't know where to start. Some people have, when describing their images, had foresight to link them to GFDL. So, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=GFDL there is a nice heap of images to tag. You should remove link to GFDL so that new images would appear on the link list (some of the images are tagged already but linked anyway). Nikola 07:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:PD_USGov has to be watched from time to time, to notice images tagged with this wrong tag. Perhaps the template should be deleted? Nikola 07:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Author gone
What do we do for Image:JFK grave.jpg, which was taken by a wikipedian, but has no license info? &rarr;Raul654 23:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you try e-mailing him? He has left his e-mail address... if that fails, I'd suggest either (although the upload form only since recently states that own works uploaded are licensed under the GFDL) or  . I think it is safe to assume that a Wikipedian uploading his own work would be happy with either one. Lupo 18:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Its even better than that. There has, since always, been that checkbox, which says:

I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright.


 * And on that page:

If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL


 * So, if a user clearly stated their autorship, he has agreed to license it under the GFDL. I just tag such with GFDL. User can't retract the licence, no need to contact him, except perhaps to ascertian that he is really the owner (but if we don't believe him the first time, why would we the second?). I think that such images must not be tagged with copyrightedFreeUse. Nikola 09:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we cannot assume they are put their works under GFDL. Wikipedia copyright says text you submit is put automatically under GFDL but not images. CopyrightedFreeUse is a correct choice because any image uploaded to wikipedia must be compatible with GFDL and if a specific license is not provided, CopyrightedFreeUse would be a choice. Also, CopyrightedFreeUse is arguablly more generous license in that it is not copylefted. It would be safer to assume relatively less restrict license. -- Taku 22:24, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Copyright says "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)." Emphasis mine.  Material.  Not just text.  So if you contribute an image to Wikipedia, and you follow Wikipedia:Copyrights, then you license the image to the public under the GFDL.


 * Of course, whether or not Wikipedia:Copyrights is binding on the submitter of an image is arguable. And even if it is binding, it seems difficult for a third party to use a waiver required by an click-through agreement between two others.  If you want to cross your ts and dot your is, you really should get an explicit license agreement by the copyright holder.


 * None of this really answers the question, but I think from a practical standpoint, if you agree with my first paragraph, then the GFDL tag or one similar to it would be the most appropriate (although I should remember not to tag them GFDL myself, as tagging an image as being under a license without having spoken to the copyright holder is a rather negligent thing to do). Personally I'd put an Unknown tag on it and delete it if the author can't be found, but that's probably overly paranoid.  If someone wants to take the legal responsibility of adding the GFDL tag, that's fine with me.


 * anthony (see warning) 23:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Umm, actually Copyright also says:


 * To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. 

So I was guessing that the material means text. I think this is a legal ground why you can upload an image whose copyright you have and put it under public domain, yet you cannot put any text you contributed under the public domain.


 * You, of course, can put any text you've written in public domain, just put appropriate notice on your user page. There are Wikipedians who dual-license all the text they've written under a CC licence. Nikola

But as you said, this is a delicate issue. But one thing we can be sure, I think, is that you cannot upload images put under a license imcompatible with GFDL, so that is why I said should be a good guess. -- Taku 05:54, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * But the problem with CFU is that it is more liberal than GFDL, so it is probably against authors' wishes. For example, it does not require attribution.
 * Perhaps a new tag should be enacted for such cases, until wise heads decide what exactly to do with them. I don't see a reason to tag such images as copyrighted, people who have made them made them for Wikipedia and wanted them to be used on Wikipedia - regardless of the actual licence they might have not evan thought about. Nikola 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Second-guessing the author's intentions is not legally sound. If the picture is used in a commercial derivative and the author pops up out of nowhere and sues them, the Wikimedia foundation and the editors who introduced the false license may be partially liable. More importantly, you're disrespecting the author's right to control over their own works. Quite frankly, we all ignore that silly image upload message &mdash; images have whatever license their image page says they have. If the author cannot be contacted, I'd conservatively put it as unknown/unverified. Derrick Coetzee 05:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If someone creates an image, uploads it to Wikipedia, and links it to an article, they obviously wanted it to be used on Wikipedia. I don't see how is that second-guessing. If a text on Wikipedia is used in a commercial derivative and the author sues them - it's the same thing. I don't disrespect authors' right to control their works - quite to the contrary. The image upload message may not be legally binding, but then so isn't tagging the image page - I don't see why would we respect one but not another. Finally, both unknown and unverified are wrong: unverified is for images with no source information - but here we know the source; unknown might be the thing but in practice it is used only for images whose author is not a Wikipedian. At the end of the day, it seems that a new tag is needed. Nikola 10:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Derrick, he has a good point, I think. I agree that most of authors have intent to use their images in the way of copyleft just like text in wikipedia. But as Derrick, we should not go second-guessing. Yet, I think we can still safely assume that they agree to use them in the way compatible with wikipedia. After all, you cannot upload non-free image or non-commercial image, regardless if you have a copyright or not. I still think CopyrightedFreeUse is a good choice because it says:
 * This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose

Because the author didn't specify any restriction like attribution, we cannot guess any restriction he would like. Finally, I do agree to use a new tag with a message like:
 * The author of the image him-or-herself uploaded the image. He or she did not specify a license under which the image is put. It is assumed that he or she allows the image could be used in wikipedia.

or something. The whole question is if we can use that image or not and surely we can use it. -- Taku 22:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

New Tags Needed
There is a tag for "Albumcover" but we also need one for "Videocover."


 * What about a tag "cover", which would also include book covers? --zeno 18:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Template:Video tape cover done! -- Zondor 16:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about stamps?
Are stamps automatically PD? I know U.S. stamps are, but what about this? How should it be tagged? – Quadell (talk) (help)  23:49, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|reason
reason - same as above, with a variable for the reason and unprotected. (view) I do not understand this. What is the purpose of the variable for reason? What does 'unprotected' mean in this context? Why wouldn't I just use CopyrightedFreeUseProvided
 * and list the reason? Gzuckier 14:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coats of Arms
How about national or regional coats of arms (e.g. Image:Nicaragua-coa.jpg). Can we presume these are public domain? Should we mark these as ?
 * A new(ish) template has been recently introduced and upgraded, please use for these images. -Lommer | talk 08:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Existing Copyrighted Images
What is the proper procedure when the owner of existing, copyrighted images wants to allow them to be used on Wikipedia, and all future versions thereof (WikiCooking, etc.), provided that proper credit is given, but does not want to change them into public domain images?
 * To licence them under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, copying under that licence requires credit to be given so just stick on the page. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   03:05, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * They do not want to loose their existing copyright to these images by making them public domain (which I think is what you are suggesting?), just to allow their use on Wikipedia, and future versions thereof. How do you do that?
 * Like i said put it under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, that does not put the image in the public domain, it mearly gives people permission to modify it under the conditions imposed by the GFDL, which include that attribution must be given. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   00:55, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

How about (see Image copyright tags):

Also, please sign your comments by typing ~ like this -- Chris 73 Talk 04:06, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I am kinda new to all this, thus the reason for my questions. I took a look at that page you mentioned, Image copyright tags, I may be mis-reading something, but it appears you are not suppose to use that tag you suggested any more? Should I maybe use the "PermissionAndFairUse" tag instead? Or perhaps the "CopyrightedFreeUseProvided", and then list the restrictions? Given that the "Copyrighted" tag appears to be deprecated, what is the preferred approach for this situation? Thanks. --Arlingtonmall 06:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you use a none-free licence the images are quite likely to get replaced and or deleted in a future purge of none-free images. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   00:55, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

US National Park Service
The NPS has an excellent website that is all PD material, it would be good to have an Image:copyright tag for their pictures. --nixie 04:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I went and created a tag, just to eventually discover one already exists, :


 * It wasn't listed on this page, so I added it. I also put the tag on a number of images that a casual search turned up that were missing it. Derrick Coetzee 05:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, for those looking for PD images to import, theNPS Digital Image Index is chock full of them. Derrick Coetzee 05:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks really great --nixie 05:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

USDA Forest Service
I couldn't find the image tag for the Forest Service, is it acceptable to use the USDA one, or can someone make a USDA-FS tag?--nixie 15:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been using the USDA tag for the moment, but here's the USFS shield, if someone could make a USDA-FS tag from it, please - MPF 23:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I found Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FS already made. I'll add it to the list. - EagleOne 18:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Work of the State of California
Does anyone have a (legal) reference to the stated fact that works of the State of California are in the public domain? I'm interested in knowing whether this applies to the University of California also. Ydorb 17:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Embarrassingly confused
I've been looking around for a hour or so and I'm still a bit confused about some simple situations. I have an image of my 'self' for my profile that's a gift drawn by a friend at DeviantART. I've been tempted to give credit and then attach, but I really don't know. What do I do?

Oh, and on another note, are there any types of images that should not be uploaded at the Commons? (Besides, of course, those which shouldn't be uploaded period.)

--Al Fox 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized I can direct-link to pictures from outside the Wikimedia pages. Doesn't really matter anymore then (as I'll take the responsibility of hosting my personal images). Sorry for bothering anyone with it, but then again, nobody acted like they noticed me anyways. --Al Fox 22:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice you until now, actually.


 * If someone made an image of you, then he/she owns copyrights to it. You should ask before assuming it's Free Use.


 * Fair use and used by permission images may not be uploaded to commons. It should be Creative Commons, GFDL or public domain (or free use or other compatible license).


 * Sure you can host them yourself, but we'd naturally like you to submit them :-). &mdash; David Remahl 22:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WWII Nazi pictures
What is the copyright status of pictures taken by Nazi servicemen or for the Nazi gov't during and preceding WWII? Has copyright on these expired? Were Nazi gov't images free for use back then, and if not has there since been a law/treaty that makes them free? There are numerous pictures on wikipedia that could use a nazi gov't/military tag if indeed they are free (otherwise there are numerous pictures that may need to be deleted). Finally, if such a tag is created, be cautious and make sure a picture actually is a WWII-era nazi picture before actually tagging it as such (i.e. it may have been taken post-war or by a non-serviceman/Nazi gov't official). -Lommer 05:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * First off, keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, and what follows is not legal advice. My understanding is that the German Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law) applies. It states in §72(3), that the copyright on photographs (and only photographs; other works are protected for longer) expires 50 years after their initial publication (or public exhibition), or fifty years after they have been taken if they have not been published or publically exhibited in that time. Thus German photographs that have been published before 1954 would be in the public domain by now. WWII photographs that were not published in the 50 years after they were taken would also be in the public domain. (For example, a 1943 photo not published before 1994.) Other than that, I have no idea about the copyright status of German WWII photos, and I do not know whether the issue of who took them (servicemen, government official, or other) is even relevant. Lupo 12:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since this section has recently been used as a justification for uploading a German WWII-era image as PD, let me point out that my comment here was wrong. The issue has been solved since and is summarized at WP:PD: such images are in general copyrighted outside the U.S. and probably also in the U.S. It is unknown to us to date whether any "seized works" rules might make German WWII images in U.S. archives PD in the U.S. Lupo 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The german copyright law distinguish between so called "Lichtbild" and "Lichtbildwerk". Nowadays nearly all pictures except passport photographs would be classified as "Lichtbildwerk". And the copyright on "Lichtbildwerke" expires 70 years after the death of the photographer --Guenny 07:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You both refer to the same law which makes this hard to understand. §137 claims that the law applies to pictures not in the public domain by July 1, 1985, apparently meaning photographs taken after 1935. I understand enough German to see that the law uses both the 50-year-rule and the 70-year-rule in a confusing way. Thuresson 07:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The National Archives claims that they have rights to a very large body of Nazi photographs and documents. Their reasoning seems to be that ownership of copyright passed to the US since they seized them by force. Perhaps German law supercedes this in Germany, or by some strange EU machination in all of the EU, but as for the US, these seized materials are property of the US government and PD. Or am I mistaken? Similarly, wouldn't documents seized by the Soviet Union become property of the state and copies of them subject to the 1971 copyright rule? -Mak Thorpe 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note Template:PD-Germany and the images which use it--Henrygb 01:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also Template talk:PD-Germany. Thuresson 22:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (To Mak Thorpe) It would appear you are mistaken - if you read the copyright note on the page:
 * Copyright Note: Some of the materials in this record group may have been of private origin. The fact that such materials were seized is not believed to have divested their original owners of any literary property rights in them. Anyone who publishes such materials in whole or in part without the permission of the original owners or their heirs may be held liable for infringement of property rights.
 * Megapixie 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Zondor's changes
Thank you, Zondor, for organizing and formatting this page. I have some questions though.


 * 1)  and  are listed twice. Is this an accident?
 * 2) Three copyright tags have been shown with a strike-through tag:, , and . Why?

Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (help)  05:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Didn't realise those were listed twice. Both were in Fair Use and Free License categories which that may have implied. Fixed that. Now only in Free License category. Because CopyrightedFreeUse is free to do anything though copyrighted, and CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat is similar to Creative Commons Attribution license.
 * Fairuse, Freefairusein, and Fairusein have very subtle differences. I think Freefairusein should be scrapped as well. Fairuse and Fairusein are very similar only that one refers to an article.
 * The statement "however, those wishing to use this work should make this decision for themselves based on their own circumstances" in Freefairusein makes a fluffy point. KISS.
 * CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is protected so I have no influence to make it better as it is malfunctioning. This tag must be exactly the same as CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat.
 * Fairuseunsure is a contradiction - big time! haha. It is also made obsolete by the Possibly Unfree Images tags.
 * -- Zondor 14:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fairuseunsure
About FairUseUnsure: I made the tag for pictures for which fairuse would certainly apply, but where the image may in fact be in the public domain. It's much like the fairold tag, but where the question of whether the image is in the Public Domain is not based on the image's age. For instance, take a still frame from a video produced and released by al-Qaida that shows one of the 9/11 hijackers. If the image is copyrighted, fair use would certainly apply. (It's a rare image of a historical event, and it's used for educational purposes.) But is a video produced by a non-governmental-group like al-Qaida in Afghanistan copyrighted? Did the Taliban actually have copyright law, and would it apply to home-tapes by al-Qaide? Could an infringement case possibly be made under any circumstances?

In cases like this, I wanted a tag that said "May be PD, and if not, then Fair Use." – Quadell (talk) (help)  17:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Normally, we don't want images that have no copyright status.
 * I see where you are coming from. There should be a distinction made between that a copyright status that cannot be determined and one that it is not provided.
 * But, isn't copyright a right that is inherent under all circumstances?
 * Whoever you are you automatically have copyright to all your work?
 * -- Zondor 19:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Common law copyright -- Zondor 20:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that applies to works created in the United States and Great Britain. But it isn't true of works published in some countries, and I seriously doubt that Afghanistan, under the Taliban, had any explicit rules regarding copyright.
 * To add to the complexity of this real-world example, some al-Qaida videos may have been produced in any one of several coutries, and determining the copyright status seems prohibitively difficult. Add to that the fact that regions like South Waziristan in Pakistan (where Osama bin Laden is most likely hiding) and Iraqi Kurdistan in Iraq (where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi operated for a time) are not under any effective control by their titular national governments, and I don't think it's possible to state with any certainty how copyright law could be handled. It's all academic anyway, since al-Qaida presumably wants their videos copied and distributed as much as possible, and would have no effective legal recourse to sue in any case.
 * That's why I think images like that should be considered in the public domain, but I am not 100% certain of this (and I don't think anyone could be). But it's clear the use of the images would be fair, if the image is copyrighted. So I don't want to use the fairuse tag, since fair use doesn't apply to images in the public domain. And I don't want to use the unknown tag, since there is no more info that can be added, and the images certainly should not be deleted. I could use the PD tag, but I think the fairuseunsure tag would be more accurate. What do you, or anyone else, think should be done in cases like this?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * A video of some terrorist is produced by al-Qaida is distributed around the world.
 * I upload a photograph of my cat from my digital camera and publish it on the web.
 * In both of these situations, they have said nothing about their copyright status.
 * However, copyright is implied and automatically granted to me or rather it is a birthright over the photograph and just as well the video is copyrighted by al-Qaida.
 * Therefore, such images used are fair use and so there is no need for Fairuseunsure.
 * Countries like USA and UK reject the common law copyright that only limits the perpetual right like having expiration on copyright.
 * If the image becomes rather old without certainty, it can be Fairold.
 * If the image is really old then it is public domain.
 * -- Zondor 09:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that most/some/all Muslim countries have effectively no copyright, on grounds that all creativity stems from Allah. Sorry I'v no source on this as yet.Boffy b 22:30, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Sharp GNU Head
See also: Commons:Commons talk:Image copyright tags

I have uploaded a different version of the GNU Head logo which doesn’t look blurry after downscaling, like the one used currently. Below are both versions compared:



The GFDL template with the sharp logo would look like this: I think it looks much better. What do you think? Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 07:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * o000ooh baby. -- Zondor 14:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. Thanks.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:18, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Great, so I&rsquo;ll update the templates. I have already changed the logo on the Polish Wikipedia (where it was almost invisible) and if anyone wants to use it in other wikipedias, the logo is on Wikimedia Commons so  should already work everywhere. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have changed Template:Chess image and Template:GFDL-small but it turns out that I have no privileges to edit Template:GFDL, Template:GPL and Template:GFDL 1.2 so someone more privileged has to do it for me. Is there any formal procedure to request changes of protected pages? (Also, when should one use Template:GFDL 1.2 and Template:GFDL-small instead of Template:GFDL?) Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Template:GFDL, Template:GPL and Template:GFDL 1.2 have already been changed by Quadell. Thanks. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've changed those for you (as I see, on preview, you have discovered). You have to be an administrator to edit protected pages. You can request to be an administrator here, if you so desire, or you can contact any administrator and ask for help with anything you can't do. (Here is a list of admins.) You only use Template:GFDL 1.2 if the copyright hold specifies this version only. (It's very rare.) Template:GFDL-small is considered the exact same as Template:GFDL, but some people just like the smaller version better for aesthetic reasons. Cheers!   – Quadell (talk) (help)   06:01, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I discovered that you had changed it right after posting my comments on the templates talk pages... If the response is so fast every time then I don&rsquo;t really think I need administrator privileges myself. I have also created a red copyright logo to use in place of the large red &ldquo;&copy;&rdquo; in Commons:Template:CopyrightedFreeUse at al., and a copyleft logo for the Free Art License template. They can also be used in appropriate Wikipedia templates using  and   as in Commons. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 14:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand. Why are your new versions preferable?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:29, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * My new versions of the copyright symbol? The enlarged &copy; symbol looks terrible in my browser so I tried to draw something that would look somewhat better. The only argument for the graphical symbol is that it always looks the same, has the same size, shape, resolution and anti-aliasing, no matter what font, browser and font rendering engine is used. Also, the circle is filled with white color to make it more consistent with some of the other icons and to generally make it more icon-like. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 16:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Video game cover tag
I've created a template for video game cover art to correspond with the templates for DVD, video tape, album, and book covers. What do you guys think of that? Should we keep using it, and do you think it should be added to the page with all of the others? I think it's pretty similar to all the rest, but I wanted to get approval. But it's so close, I think I'm gonna just start using it. I'll undo everything if this is denied. The template is Template:Gamecover. It looks like this: Template:Non-free game cover

Thoughts? Cookiecaper 03:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Good. But understand why you created that tag. Review Image_description_page. The cover is a low resolution of a video game cover, does not limit the copyright owners to sell the game in any way, such low resolution copies cannot be used to make illegal copies of the video game cover artwork, used only for educational purposes, etc. I think every template should have this rationale added in. Check out this checklist. -- Zondor 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CC icons
I have uploaded these CC icons to Wikimedia Commons:



Those icons could be used in license templates, so e.g. Template:Cc-by-2.0 could look like this: and Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 could look like this: It would make them more visually distinctive and consistent with Commons Deeds appearance. Do you think that would be a good idea? If so then I can update the templates. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 04:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think matching the CC format more closely would be better. Go ahead. JesseW 06:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks brilliant. James F. (talk) 13:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Great. I have changed: Template:Cc-by-2.0, Template:Cc-by-nd-2.0, Template:Cc-by-nc-2.0, Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, Template:Cc-nd-nc (unifying style with Template:Cc-by&mdash;please verify) and Template:Cc-by-nd-nc-2.0. I have also added missing slashes to the end of URLs to avoid HTTP redirects (the URLs without the slash work, but require 2 HTTP requests). Someone with administrator privileges will have to change or temporarily unprotect: Template:Cc-by, Template:Cc-sa, Template:Cc-by-sa, Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0, Template:Cc-nd, Template:Cc-by-nd, Template:Cc-nc, Template:Cc-by-nc, Template:Cc-nc-sa, Template:Cc-by-nc-sa and Template:Cc-by-nd-nc. Please don&rsquo;t edit it yet, I will prepare the code to insert to all of them. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another idea: would anyone prefer to change templates like this: to something less redundant, like this: Also, The image at the top of this page could be changed to This image which would be a direct link to the actual image file, using. I think I will prepare some examples in my User namespace to show exactly what I mean and to possibly allow someone with administrator privileges to move my code directly to the actual templates. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 05:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CC templates proposal
Here are my proposed tables for the CC templates:

Table for Template:Cc-by:

Table for Template:Cc-by-2.0:

Table for Template:Cc-sa:

Table for Template:Cc-by-sa:

Table for Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0:

Table for Template:Cc-nd:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nd:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-2.0:

Table for Template:Cc-nc:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nc:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-2.0:

Table for Template:Cc-nc-sa:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-sa:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0:

Table for Template:Cc-nd-nc:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-nc:

Table for Template:Cc-by-nd-nc-2.0:

They are clear, short, consistent and visually distinctive. The visible URL is in my opinion a better choice than the colloquially known as text. This image links would automatically point to the image file when the template is used, solving The image at the top of this page ambiguity. See this image for a live demo with a temporary User:Rfl/cc-by-2.0 template. Comments welcome. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 07:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Those look great. I fully support the changes.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:39, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I&rsquo;ll be glad if they are used in the templates. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 16:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because they're protected pages, I'm going to wait a week or so to see if there are any objections. I'll also put links to here in the talk pages. – Quadell (talk) (help)  17:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Meanwhile, here are the tables with source and links for easy copying, and a centered version in case it looks better. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 00:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the broken Image:Somerights20.png. I have changed User:Rfl/CC templates to use PNG versions of CC logos which makes them portable across all Wikimedia websites, so for anyone interested, those templates should be now easy to move to other language versions of Wikipedia as well. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 04:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These changes have now been made. Thanks again for your work! – Quadell (talk) (help)  00:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought that would be my first administrative task when now I have no excuse that somebody has to do it for me, but I see that you have already done it. Thanks. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 13:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update
A similar CC templates proposal has been posted on Wikimedia Commons. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 11:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Metadata
Is there some way that these image tags could include the Creative Commons metadata --Ellmist 05:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of money
I added a tag for national currencies. I think these are all public domain, but I'm not sure. For now, people can tag money images, and if the decision changes on how they should be listed, then it can change in one central location. So are money designs public domain? – Quadell (talk) (help)  23:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Talk about timing - I was just thinking that this needed to be done earlier today. I should also point out that I ran across this page which has already tagged some monetary pics. That template should probably be converted to a more copyright-centric template and listed as a subset of the new money template on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -Lommer 03:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry to double-comment, but I was just about to start tagging with when I realized that just because a picture is of money doesn't mean its public domain. For example, I can take a picture of an American coin on a desk and copyright it, even though it is still a picture of a monetary unit. I suppose the only similar situation is that of flags, for which we do have a tag. I'm no expert on copyright law, so I think we need one to weigh in before we can say what's what. I would venture to guess that if a picture is of just money and nothing else (e.g. juse a bill or just a coin on a white or black background) that one would have a hard time defending a copyright, but again, I'm no expert. If it turns out that we do need to worry about others' copyrights on images of money, then a  tag isn't going to help much beyond being useful for throwing them all in a category (which is still extremely useful and should be done). -Lommer 03:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, there are several issues here. One is whether a picture of money can be copyrighted. Copyright only applies to creative works, so a photograph of something that adds no original creative content cannot be copyrighted. This is why Image:Le picador.jpg, even though the photo was taken recently, is in the public domain. The same is true for money: Image:100pesos.jpg and Image:10centavoII.jpg are not copyrightable, since they add no new creative content to the image on the currency. But a picture of a coin standing on its side, or of a crumpled dollar bill, that would be a copyrightable photograph.

The World Coin Gallery pics are a difficult matter, and I don't know how they should be dealt with. There are three possible interpretations:
 * 1) They do not own the copyright to their images, which are in the public domain. (It should be noted that WCG has never explicitly claimed copyright, or indicated that they believe they hold copyright on any of the images.)
 * 2) WCG does own the copyright, but gave Wikipedia "full permission" to use the images. Since all images used on Wikipedia with permission are implicitly licensed under the GFDL, WCG has implicitly licensed all their images under the GFDL by giving Wikipedia "full permission" to use them.
 * 3) WCG does own the copyright. Although they gave Wikipedia permission to use them, this doesn't include third-party use. As such, they are not licensed under the GFDL, and should be removed.

I support interpretation #1. For now, I'm leaving the WCG template on images, but I'm adding the money template as well. – Quadell (talk) (help)  15:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Euro banknote design is clearly copyright (the notice on the notes kind of gives it away!). As such, taking photos of euro notes can presumably be classed as fair use, but certainly images of only the design are not public domain, and even photos of the notes should acknowledge the design copyright.
 * While we clearly should be able to use photos of euro notes on Wikipedia, there is no way we can apply the tag to them.
 * zoney &#09827; talk 17:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We can apply the tag to them if we change what the money tag says. The question is: what should it say? If different currencies should be tagged differently, how should we determine which is which? I have changed the money tag to say that the copyright status is currently in discussion.
 * U.S. currency designs are in the public domain. U.S. copyright law does not allow the U.S. federal government to claim copyright, and (with a few limited exeptions) any design made by a federal government employee in the performance of their duties is ineligible for copyright. The EU is different. But what about Zambia? Trinidad and Tobago? North Korea?
 * The tag is used for all flag images, and simply says that "in general" flags are ineligible for copyright. Some flag images are modified versions of PD flags, and the modified versions are released under the GFDL. In that case, the image gets the GFDL tag and the PD-Flag tag.
 * So what should the money tag say? I would propose something along the lines of:
 * This is a picture of a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use.
 * – Quadell (talk) (help)  20:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Howabout this: we have the tag for general images, but we create subtags (as in other images) for euro notes (  ?) and for WCG (  ?) images, and any others with unusual terms. Though this will likely eventually lead to a subtag for each currency, that's not neccesarily a bad thing. I also tend to support the first interpretation of WCG copyrights, but since we are not agressively going on a rampage deleting non-free images, we can likely avoid any problems for now by just creating a subtag which credits them with the photo, links to their email, and leaves it at that. Once we determine the status of WCG copyrights, we can move on them then using our nicely categorized images. Until then the WCG people have been very generous and I see no need to step on their toes by saying we can rip off their images as much as we want because they don't own the copyright anyways. -Lommer 02:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent idea. I have now created a tag and a  tag to compliment the  tag.    – Quadell (talk) (help)   16:13, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * It should also be notted that i think in the UK, the money is crown copywight, kust like most  of there products. tooto

GFDL and the Public Domain
Howdy, I just came across Image:Wikipedia-banner0002.png, which is a version of Image:Wikipedia-banner.png. The original work is marked as GFDL, but the new version claims to be public domain. Is it possible to take a derivative of a GFDL work and release it into the Public Domain? I don't think so, but again i'm not a copyright lawyer. I've marked it for now, but someone who is more confident of their judgement on this may wish to go change it to  -Lommer 03:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

.ogg files
Are there a set of templates for copyright of .oog (sound) files, Halibutt has created a category to collect all the files in one place, and many have image templates stuck on them now, which may not be the best way to tag them. Any suggestion on the best way to track copyrights on these files? --nixie 08:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:A Wheel Within a Wheel.ogg has a tag I haven't seen before: Template:sample20s64k. Obviously this wouldn't fit in all cases, but its somethin'.  For now, I've been using the regular image tags.  Maybe we can change the wording in those templates to something more appropriate, say "This media file..."? EagleOne 20:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Logos
Ok, how do we feel about logos? I've been tagging images and this is the most confusing category for me. I've come across a logo for a car manufacturer which I marked as. Then I found the tag, so I started using that. Currently I want to tag all of the images listed in. Should I use logo? Does this apply since they are Polish and not American? Quadell, at my inquiry, marked all the images in the with , but originally they were marked as  I think. Any insight would be great. I am going to go ahead and mark those Polish images as for now. Ack, so confusing. --MaxPower 15:21, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Marking it as a logo would certainly be beneficial to reusers. I'm not going to comment on the legal issues, as international copyright law/fair use is way too confusing for me to understand. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pd-art only 2d?
Do sculptures also fit under this tag? --Aqua 08:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not under the current text of the template. We probably picked a bad name for the tag, though. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Postage stamps again
It seems that consensus here is toward treating non-PD postage stamp images as free use. Is there an archived discussion of that decision? Is it clear with the legal people? &mdash;Tkinias 21:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "free use", but "fair use" is being claimed and in my (uneducated, not-legal-advice) opinion is valid. I don't recall any discussion though -Lommer | talk 08:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chemical Formulas
I don't know if this is correct, but I've found drawings of chemical formulas (such as Image:Pentane.png) marked. I don't know if this is correct or reasonable, but I will mark others in the same fasion, so somebody stop me if there's a more appropriate tag. :-) -Lommer | talk 08:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've marked a bunch of chemical formula images now, and I think that pursuing tags for these images is probably a bad idea. There are several images already marked  with similar content, and the argument of "no original content" could easily fall either way when one starts getting into more complex molecules or reactions. To resolve this, I think the best, most unambiguous (sp?), but admittedly labour intensive thing to do would be for a wikipedian to recreate these images and release them to public domain or something (why do GFDL when you can have PD?). Anyone feel like tackling this? Thoughts? -Lommer | talk 09:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

stock.xchng?
Can images from stock.xchng be used at Wikipedia? The images (mostly) say "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." But the terms of use indicate some restrictions. Any copyright experts here? Opinions? Dbenbenn 14:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There's been some discussion and checking on the Wikimedia Commons. In short, it varies depending on the stock.xchng photographer. Do not assume anything on the site can be used without asking. Some individual photographers there have been contacted and have allowed reuse of their images under GFDL or Copyrighted Free Use. Others have not decided not to give such permission. -- Infrogmation 18:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. One author I emailed (see hubcap) said he thought his images at stock.xchng were automatically PD!  So stock.xchng is obviously inherently confusing.  I wonder if there should be a note about stock.xchng here?  dbenbenn | talk 17:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Art Images for College Teaching
AICT has a ton of "free use " images available. The license permits free use to educational institutions, such as schools and libraries. I'd say that Wikipedia generally qualifies as educational, but what is the consensus? Can we use these images? -- EagleOne 04:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that while Wikipedia probably qualifieds as educational, we prefer free images that can be reused in wider contexts, so educational use images don't qualify as "free" under our guidelines. Off the top of my head, if wanting to use one of those for a Wikipedia article, I'd give source info & link then tag it as "Fairuse"-- it's ok for us to use it in a given context, but may not be elsewhere or in other circumstances. Other thoughts on how to handle something like this? -- Infrogmation 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio tag
It would be nice to have a tag, to put on an image while it's a IfD. I've been using, but that isn't quite right when I have verified that the image is a copyright violation. Of course, such a tag would be only for temporary use! Dbenbenn 09:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If an image is a copyvio, place on the image description page and list the image at WP:CP, not at WP:IFD, unless there are other reasons to get it removed, too. (Such as inappropriate content...) Lupo 07:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, it's  .  I added a note about it on the page.  dbenbenn | talk 16:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GPL Screenshots
Should the fairuse screenshot tag or the GPL tag be used for screenshots of GPL programs(eg: Image:GIMP-1.2.5.png)? Similarly, should the program's licence be used for the screenshot where applicable?(BSD, the free-er CC's, etc.) Boffy b 10:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * We have to used the fair use tag. Even if the program is released, there are so many other parts that may be copyrighted or patented (info shown, OS-specific menus, fonts, etc.) that all screenshots are being tagged fair use for now.

Confused
I want to upload a few pictures of the places I visited while on vacation. I am confused as to what tag to put, ,. Could someone please guide me? Can I use all tags? PS. Please reply on my talk page. Nichalp 19:21, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're the copyright holder, you can add any tag you want. Unless you use a PD tag, you should probably include , since you implicitly license your work under GFDL by uploading it here.  dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whatever
People watching this page might want to take a look at Template:Whatever, and express an opinion on how it is used. dbenbenn | talk 16:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's on WP:TFD. There's no way this is legally logical. Dunc|&#9786; 16:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 (UK)
I don't understand the purpose of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0 (UK), and it isn't listed on the "project page". There are a few images tagged with it; can the tag simply be replaced with Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0? dbenbenn | talk 16:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the key difference is the word licence/license. Perhaps a personal issue for User:Chamaeleon or his sources. --Henrygb 01:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What tag to use for some arbitrary license?
What tag should a picture have when the author made up his own license? For example, see Image:Lions snoozing in the sun.jpg. It's licensed as cc-by-sa-2.0 with the condition that you must "Inform the photographer before any use of this image." I could tag it, but that isn't accurate. I think what I'll do is create Category:Copyright specified on image description page as a subcat of Category:Images by copyright status. Objections? dbenbenn | talk 17:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no legal meaning the phrase "cc-by-sa-2.0, except. . ." The cc-by-sa-2.0 license is a self-contained license that states: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." One might interpret that the publisher has licensed the photo under the cc-by-sa-2.0 license, with an additional non-binding request. Or one might interpret that the photo has not been licensed under a cc license at all, but under an ill-defined license. The copyright holder should give a more specific explanation of the copyright status of the work. I'll e-mail him.
 * I would advise you in cases like these to determine (by consensus) whether the license as described is "free" (according to Wikipedia) or not. If so, I'd tag it . If not, well, I'd list the image on Images and media for deletion. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:13, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I've seen images tagged with where the condition is along the lines of
 * the image can't be sold
 * the image can only be used in an educational setting.
 * This use of the tag is totally incorrect. I intend to improve the tag's explanation here shortly.  dbenbenn | talk 23:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons Non-commercial attribution share-alike 2.0
Uh... The cc-nc-sa license is free the same as the cc-sa license...  I use nc-sa on all of my stuff because I don't want anyone else making money off of my work. What exactly is the incompatability with the GNU Free Documentation License? Wikipedia is not making money here, this is non-profit, non-commercial so what is the problem with adding non-commercial to a Wikipedia accepted license? --Singpolyma

One of Wikipedia's most important goals is being an open content encyclopedia. This means people can use what they find in Wikipedia for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The GFDL allows this. The Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0 license allows this, but is not compatible with the GFDL. All text in Wikipedia must at least be licensed under the GFDL. --Ellmist 16:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)