MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Namespace-mediawiki.svg MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning forms part of the MediaWiki interface and can only be edited by administrators.
To request a change to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning, add {{Edit request}} to this talk page, followed by a description of your request.
This interface message or skin may be documented on MediaWiki.org or TranslateWiki.
Translations: English | Esperanto | français | hrvatski | italiano | 한국어 | português | slovenščina

The comment that "Submission of copyrighted material is prohibited!" is absolutely misleading. This, essentially, asks that users place the text in the public domain, when they are not forced to do so. Secondly, the GFDL ensures the contributor's copyright is preserved. Fix the message please; something like "do not violate copyright" would be an improvement. Dysprosia 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I reworded it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Annoyance[edit]

I'm not sure what you want me to say, pfctdayelise. It's too large and, in general, very annoying to look at. Cburnett 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So after I was told to comment here, I see I've been promptly ignored. Thanks. Cburnett 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think it is too large, unfriendly, and addresses the wrong problem. Submissions of copyrighted text is not a big problem. I've changed it. / Fred J 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Cburnett 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disabling this warning[edit]

You can disable this warning by adding to Special:Mypage/monobook.css the following code:

.copyrightwarning { display: none !important; }

the preceding unsigned comment is by Bryan (talk • contribs)

Again, that's a hack and doesn't address the problem. It literally just hides it. Cburnett 12:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, many thanks. Though it may not address "the problem" (it could be worded a bit better, but I wouldn't call it a major issue), this certainly does help for those of us that know better in the first place. :) EVula // talk // 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The warning will not be removed. MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning is a critical part of commons. its been on commons since it was created. Hiding something that bothers you solves your problem does it not? So whats the problem? -- Cat chi? 11:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said in the section above I can not see why we have to bother shooting fish with bazooka.
That is, a big warning about entering copyright violation text, when that is not a big problem on Commons.
Anyways, I think it is at least better without scary warning triangles.
Fred J 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, really strange thing... I added the above, then went away from Commons. When I came back, I suddenly kept crashing Safari anytime I typed anything into the summary field. I just reverted my edit to my monobook.css file, and voila, it's usable again. Bizarre. EVula // talk // 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COM:SCOPE[edit]

I Linked our project scope in the message to make it more clear to new users. I hope it is okay. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL[edit]

The Wikipedias use text that makes clear that "GFDL" means "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." The English WP does so (see en:MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning; the reference on "GFDL" is at en:MediaWiki:Edittools), and the German WP also does this (de:MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning; the link goes to de:Wikipedia:Lizenzbestimmungen, which says this clearly at the very top). While it may be argued that this has always been implicit, I think it is necessary to make this explicit and to change "I agree to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License." to "I agree to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." Note that the link in my version also goes to a different page, namely to the GFDL itself and not to the Wikipedia article about the GFDL.

I know it's longer, but in view of this, I think it's a necessity. (The box states that the user agrees only to GFDL 1.2, but not to "GFDL 1.2 or any later version", also for text contributions. To be fair, he removed the box some four hours later. Still, I don't want to imagine the potential for confusion if others follow this example. The box is, at the time of this writing, still used by at least one other user.) Lupo 20:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Trixt (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree too. I'm not totally sure but I think so anyway. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. (And used the link to our local copy of the GFDL at COM:GFDL.) Lupo 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also: would it be necessary to include this also on the upload form? We could do so simply enough by transcluding it in MediaWiki:Uploadfooter (and its localizations). Lupo 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Redesign idea[edit]

I personally think this warning needs a better look, so why not this

Warning sign

By submitting text contributions, you irrevocably agree to release all rights to your text contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. Any content in violation of its copyright will be deleted on sight.

Warning sign Are you in the right place? According to our scope, Commons is not an encyclopedia or literary work, but a collection of media that can be used for those kinds of works. If you are wishing to explore a topic in an encyclopedic manner, please go to Wikipedia instead.

This could work better? ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the big red scariness of it. But perhaps some other folks will give opinions as well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
More like this? ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ YES!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice design. Shouldn't the Wikipedia link be directed at the neutral http://www.wikipedia.org though, instead of the English one? --Kimsə (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Since when is any Commons text under 1.3 or later? That is a huge change and I don't see any authorization for it. Commons:GNU Free Documentation License clearly is still 1.2. Superm401 - Talk 05:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

no it isn't[edit]

The images are not standardised and use up more interface space than required. The "GFDL Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts" bit may look nice but doesn't actualy atchive anything other than makeing us incompatible with other wikimedia projects.Geni (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I support putting up those images back. Let us not rv without discussing more, please. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does a backward C and a pair of shoe soles add? rememeber that is 2200 pixels of screenspace that isn't doing anything useful.Geni (talk)
It is attention-getting, which is the whole point. Furthermore, the specifics about the GFDL are 100% relevant. I strongly suggest Geni takes a step back, as they seem to be edit warring on a system message which is mind-boggling (quite apart from whether they're right or not).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There is attention getting and there is using space in a wasteful manner. With the increasing use of mobile devices minimalism is interface design is more important than ever. There are very few graphic interface elements that people can identify on sight and backwards c (which isn't even an accepted symbol for the GFDL) and shoe soles are not among them. As for the text being important well there is an argument for that (indeed I used it to get a version of it added to en a bit over a year ago) but if people actually believed that they would probably have checked that it didn't make commons incompatible with say en.wikipedia (you can't add gfdl 1.3 text to en.wikipedia at the moment).Geni (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That's an argument for putting up the gnu. Which is perhaps a good idea, though I think the logo used is actually more recognizable - see the section above.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't because most people don't know what that means either. Sysmbols sort of make sense when an interface cannot be translated. This is not the case with mediawiki.Geni (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Having the clarification that we mean "GFDL Version 1.3 or later..." (or, if you prefer, V1.2 or later) is important. Some people claim to release their contribs (text and images) under V1.2. only. Can you imaging the mess that creates, especially for text contribs? I want it stated up front that it's the "or later" bit, and if someone doesn't want to comply with this, his contribs will have to be deleted (at least his text contribs). Also, please explain in what way it makes us incompatible with other WMF projects? Lupo 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
En.wikipedia is still requires all text to be under GFDL 1.2 You cannot add GFDL 1.3 content to it. By makeing commons text 1.3 you make it incompatible with en.wikipedia. With the GFDL the or later is automatic unless there a specific statement otherwise.Geni (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Then make it "1.2 or later". The "or later" is the important part that just has to be there. COM:GFDL has 1.2 still, anyway. Lupo 06:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Section 10 of the GFDL functions identicaly to an or latter phrase.19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. Though if we don't say "or later", people may choose to re-use texts under GFDL 1.1. We need to make explicit that the terms are "1.2 or later". Lupo 08:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
People looking to reuse won't be useing that notice but the one at the bottem of the page they are looking to resuse which has never specified a version.18:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
GNU head By submitting text contributions, you irrevocably agree to release your text contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
Any content posted anywhere in violation of its copyright will be deleted on sight.
Start-here.svg Please note that according to our scope, Commons is not an encyclopedia or literary work, but a collection of media that can be used for those kinds of works, such as the wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you are wishing to create or edit content on a topic in an encyclopedic manner, please go to your local Wikipedia

Okay, this will fix our licencing confusion. Anyway, while we're in this confusion anyway, do we have plans to transition to CC-BY-SA 3.0 for all text content? We can though. Also, we CAN legally change to say Version 1.3 only since we said that our site was GFDL 1.2 or later. Wikipedia still has 1.1 or later content in its archives and such.ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is going to make that decision after a referendum.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

funky spacing[edit]

I added line breaks for spacing, but I guess that should be done with padding or somesuch. If someone else knows how, please do so.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to change.[edit]

{{editprotected}} I used similar wording on Wikipedia for this, but here we go:

CCBYSA yellow.png
GFDL yellow.png
By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license, and the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts). Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
Applications-office.svg Please note that according to our scope, Commons is not an encyclopedia or literary work, but a collection of media that can be used for those kinds of works, such as the wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you are wishing to create or edit content on a topic in an encyclopedic manner, please visit Wikipedia instead.

Also if we can get autotranslate going up here, that would also be awesome. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I published the changes, but I couldn't manage to get the {{Autotranslate/Languages}} thingie working on MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/layout. Should we remove it anyway? Oh, and please tell me if other changes are required. Diti the penguin 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The language link at the bottom of this template produces invalid XHTML on edit pages. It starts with <p><small><a href="/wiki/File:Geographylogo.png" class="image" title="Languages">, but ends in </p></small>. This must be fixed. Lupo 12:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
See e.g. the page source of this edit page, with English as the interface language. Lupo 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried something, but the drawback is the source code is now full of <span></span> tags… Anyway, I removed {{Autotranslate/Languages|MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/layout}} from MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning/layout, because it's not working for now. Diti the penguin 13:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Ja somewhat to big. I mean seriously that would take up about half the screen a low res monitor.©Geni (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, shouldn't the servers be updated to fix MediaWiki:Copyright (the message in the footer)? $1 is currently just replaced by a link to the GFDL, but shouldn't the $wgRights stuff in CommonSettings.php also be updated to point to some dual-license CC-BY-SA/GFDL terms? Lupo 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation Update[edit]

As a note, when the Foundation pushes the licensing update out to the ~700 or so wikis it is probably going to automatically overwrite this. Don't be alarmed. You are free to use your own notice as long as it contains (at a minimum) the same elements as the Foundation notice seen at m:Licensing update/Implementation. Dragons flight (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Local copy[edit]

{{editprotected-lu}}

Please link to the local copyright page Commons:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License‎ rather than the external page (and protect that page, if it hasn't been protected yet). Dragons flight (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done--Waldir talk 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected-lu}}

Also, link GFDL 1.3 to the now updated local page at Commons:GNU Free Documentation License. Dragons flight (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done--Waldir talk 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Migration note[edit]

Please note: In order to update all wikis, Mediawiki:Copyrightwarning has been replaced by Mediawiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning with the default text for WMF sites. WMF sites may expand upon, embellish, or otherwise localize this notice as long as they at least preserve the same basic elements. Dragons flight (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is to say that people can use the text and layout from here to update that, if they so choose. Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved, and terms of use[edit]

User:Kwj2772 has moved the old MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning to here, losing the WMF-provided text in the process, as far as I can see. Apart from our (now current) version being more lengthy due to its rambling about 1.2, 1.3, etc, and using more (too much IMO) screen space due to its fancy formatting, it also misses the link to the terms of use. This link is absolutely crucial, because otherwise it is not on the edit page. (Arguably, that's a bug in the MediaWiki software. I don't see any reason not to include that link in the page footer on edit pages.) Lupo 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Self correction: well, the link is there (just below the save/preview/changes buttons). Still, I think using the shorter WMF-provided text would be better. Lupo 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that has become bloated (which is why I've hidden it with my personal css)  — Mike.lifeguard 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Way too bloated. I had it hidden so I didn't see till just now. The terms of service thing made me curious. We need to put that link in the footer with the privacy and disclaimers links. Combined what's left with the two templates and condense it as much as possible. Rocket000 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. Someone's going to want to add some more "don't do this" stuff like "this isn't a encyclopedia". IMO, we shouldn't use that space for anything but the mandatory copyright notice. It didn't seem to help anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the default Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary said:

If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. If you did not write this yourself, it must be available under terms consistent with the Terms of Use, and you agree to follow any relevant licensing requirements.

This appear under the save/preview buttons... I blanked it but maybe we should add something here instead like "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Rocket000 (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Language Above the Edit Summary Box[edit]

The legal department would like to implement new language that would appear on the editing page of the various Wikimedia sites. For example, on the editing page of Wikimedia Commons, we propose replacing the following language:

By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details.

In its place, we would substitute:

By clicking the “Save Page” button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

These changes are part of our ongoing review of the website, and we hope they help ensure even greater clarity and consistency in language throughout the sites. Geoffbrigham (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Message no longer compatible, please fix[edit]

Hello, I'm writing you because your custom version of this message will probably break today or when the new version of MediaWiki is enabled on this wiki, and you need to delete or fix it, see details of the changes and instructions. Thanks, Nemo 17:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)