Commons talk:Email templates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 (Attribution) 2 Name? 3 Inconsisticy 4 geographically-specific restrictions 5 Bad page to link to 6 PD OTRS 7 Wikipedia example requests misleading 8 Adaptations

[edit] (Attribution)

The template could be improved by more pointing out what rights the copyright holder has: to be attributed. Right now it only mentions what rights he gives up -- a negative viewpoint, IMO. / Fred Chess 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion. Compare with previous revision to see differences.

Fred Chess 07:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 Oppose Keep the old one. Only bad changes. A 'negative viewpoint' and a strong statement of 'what rights he gives up' is exactly what is intended with this template. This template is not for convincing people to sign it! This can be done in the request previous to refering to this template, but the template itself should be crystal clear about the negative consequences.

1. You removed "publish modified versions, as far as copyright is concerned." This hides the fact that modification is permitted. Instead you are going redundant "and to charge money for it if necessary." Commercial is clear enough.
2. "I acknowledge that I always retain copyright of my image, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen." That's irrelevant. Please only the consequences for the rights owner. Of course he 'acknowledges' of things which do not change for him. "Modifications others make to the image will not be attributed to me." This is not guaranteed by the license, and it is outside of the subject of copyright. The whole new paragraph is bad.
3. "I acknowledge that the free license for only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in violation of another law such as trademarks restrictions, libel, or geographical specific restrictions." This has actually inverted the paragraph's sense, one could now think the right is reserved to exclude the other rights by copyright and sue people for copyright violation if they violate one of the other laws. Exactly that is not the case with the license and the intention of the original paragraph was to make this clear. It is a clarification that this is an agreement for copyright and only for copyright, not an acknowledgement. --Rtc 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose ACK Rtc. The template should AVOID legal troubles by beeing absolutely clear for the copyright owner. It is only fair that he knows what is happen when he gives his picture free (umfassende Aufklärung). --129.13.251.76 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User 129.13.251.76 (IP at Karlsruhe University) --Historiograf 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, you guys are picky. I think Fred's version is fine too. They're both accurate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks p-elise :-) (sorry I have given up on your name).

Feel free to brush up the language. I'm not usually careful about that.

Fred Chess 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not understand. Your changes were contrary to the purpose of the template. You added camouflage without any value at all. --Rtc 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rtc --Historiograf 21:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

Has it occured to anyone that some people might not mind having their work distributed freely, but don't necessarely want their real name distributed along with it? --Chlämens 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is a very good question. Particularly for images of people used to illustrate medical articles. Concealing the identity of the copyright holder helps to conceal the identity of the "patient". Please see Commons talk:Patient images. --Una Smith (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsisticy

In this template the words work and image were used inconsitently for the same purpose. I have changed all occurences of image into work. Bryan 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, seems that you have overlooked at least one occurrence in the template. Will change that too. --91.59.212.75 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] geographically-specific restrictions

I suggest to remove the reference to "geographically-specific restrictions" - it is totally obscure. What is this supposed to mean? All laws are specific to some jurisdiction, which is traditionally bound to a geographic location. I would suggest to refer to "personality rights" instead.

I guess that this was intended to refer to special rules against abuse of official insignia, or "forbidden symbols" (like nazi emblems in germany, when used out of context). Those are however criminal offenses to be prosecuted by an attorney, it's not up to the creator of the work to press charges. So such a reference is out of place here. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me you are totally right. I endorse removing it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this. Go ahead and remove it. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, done. have y look if you like. -- Duesentrieb^(?!)

[edit] Bad page to link to

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].

That's a terrible page to link to. What, is someone going to choose to put their holiday snaps under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}? We just need a link to a simple list of acceptable licenses for user-generated content, either here at Commons or maybe at the Definition of Free Cultural Works.--Pharos 07:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just link to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses.--Pharos 07:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we should create a seperate page that briefly explains some common licenses. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PD OTRS

Is that possible? Gridge 10:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Its possible - the appropriate license tag would be {{PD-author}}, with the usual OTRS tag added.--Nilfanion 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia example requests misleading

As a newbie, I sent out a request to an author using the text suggested in Wikipedia: example requests for permission and received the reply "I give full permission to use xxx on Wikipedia free of charge."

Then (on this article page) I found out that this was not enough and that I should have got the author to fill in a specifically and unambiguously worded grant form.

Does the WP documentation need changing? Esowteric (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Have added the following to the lede of Wikipedia: example requests for permission:

"Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") it is advisable to attach to your enquiry email a standard declaration of consent. See Wikipedia declaration of consent or Commons email templates." Esowteric (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptations

Where does this come from: Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me ? The cc-by-sa-3.0 (see 4b [1] )seems to be pretty clear about this. Adaptations have to be marked as such and original license including author attribution information must be pertained. Nillerdk (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forget my question. I have read the sentence as "modified versions of my work will not be attributed to me", because someone translated it that way into Danish (Commons:E-mail-skabeloner). In my rush I forgot to check the original. I will correct the Danish translation immediatly. Nillerdk (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)