Commons talk:Licensing

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Commons discussion pages (index)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

Archived discussions[edit]

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ignoringincl. comments added in 2014:

Template protection after review[edit]

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

Multilicensing with accepted and non-accepted licenses[edit]

Let's say that I want to dual-license an image, making it available under a version of cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc. Such a thing is explicitly permitted here (all we care about is that it has one Commons-acceptable license), but how would this be done from a technical perspective? For example, {{cc-by-nc-2.0}} redirects to a speedy deletion template, a good idea in most cases, but very bad in an acceptable dual-licensing case. This page currently doesn't explain how this is done; it ought to give an explanation or (even better) a link to a technical help page explaining how to do this. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some users create a cc-by-nc template in their userspace. See for example User:青子守歌/cc-by-nc. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think such standalone tags are not allowed (to reduce our housekeeping jobs). But User:青子守歌/own_work/license is OK. Nyttend, you can create a new multi-license tag like Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-2.0 under Category:Multi-license license tags. Jee 02:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that User:Jarekt has a bot which finds files which do not have any copyright tag at all. Does that bot find files which only use User:青子守歌/cc-by-nc? It would be convenient if it does. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that tag is not used in any files. It is used only in the other tag I mentioned above. Jee 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


The "Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences" published on Meta and available here as PDF could be added in the "See Also" section. Normally I'd try a SoFixIt, but on a policy page + IANAL + only read a review on somebody else has to decide if that's a good idea.Face-tongue.svgBe..anyone (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)