Commons talk:Email templates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

(Attribution)[edit]

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.

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

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

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right use the image in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I acknowledge that I always retain copyright of my image, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the image will not be attributed to me.

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 geographically specific restrictions.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

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

Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Name?[edit]

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)

Inconsisticy[edit]

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)

geographically-specific restrictions[edit]

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 "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Bad page to link to[edit]

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)

PD OTRS[edit]

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)

Wikipedia example requests misleading[edit]

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)

Adaptations[edit]

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)

Translation of Email templates[edit]

In order to get many more language versions of Email templates I suggest to move this translations from commons to translatewiki. --Robby (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The wording of this template is very important to Commons. We need to retain the ability to make adjustments and clarifications when needed. This should not be handed off to a third party. LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rephrase[edit]

  • "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide..." <- change to:
  • "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide..."

--Bensin (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

proposed version when someone signs an email on behalf of an organisation[edit]

i'm not a lawyer, but many parts of Template:Email templates/Consent/en sound absurd when it's a person signing on behalf of an organisation, e.g. "will not be claimed to have been made by me". If Joe Bloggs signs on behalf of Universal Wheat Studios, it doesn't matter that changes are not claimed to be made by Joe Bloggs, what matters is whether they are not attributed to Universal Wheat Studios. Also, rather critically, "I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement" surely would be much better as "I acknowledge that my organisation cannot withdraw this agreement", wouldn't it? Otherwise, the organisation could say, "OK, Joe Bloggs cannot withdraw from what he signed on our behalf, but he has been sacked for disloyalty, and he was only authorised to sign things for the duration of his employment, so now i'm the Director and i withdraw our organisation's agreement."

Another example: "copyright of my work". Someone can sign things on behalf of an organisation, but that doesn't make the organisation's work into his/her own work.

I've suggested a modified version at w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_rights#Logo_replacement, for a particular case.

IMHO we should have two different versions: for a human as copyright holder and for a human signing on behalf of an organisation ("legal person").

A copyright lawyer should check this... Boud (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Public domain version[edit]

How about creating a version for releasing the work to public domain... "I hereby declare the above specified works to be public domain and irrevocably relinquish all claims to any rights... yadda yadda, lawerspeak, lawyerspeak, ....blah, blah, blah, more lawerspeak." In my experience many casual amateur photographers truly DGAF about all the legalistic waffle that gets thrown at them here. Dodger67 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I'm about to send off an e-mail to request for some images relating to the Indonesian military. Must I include this when I e-mail it to the guy in particular? Thanks. Ominae (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Release of personality rights[edit]

Billy talks with his doctor about his embarrassing health issues, private diseases, and criminal addiction to illegal substances

Suppose that some model agreed to release their en:personality rights so that their image and face in a photograph could be used in health educational materials and advertisements. Some people might not, for example, want a picture of them used in an advertisement for treating embarrassing health conditions. Some other people who are informed of the risks might agree to be models for such a photograph. Indeed, there is an industry around licensing stock photography for medicine.

Does Wikipedia have any process for releasing personality rights associated with photos uploaded to Commons? If personality rights are not released, then in cases of advertising or medical promotion which could imply that the models in the photo endorse a certain practice, then it would be correct to say that all models must be individually contacted before using the photos, right?

Can readers here please comment that they have not seen a personality rights release on Wikipedia if in fact they have not seen one? I think that no such thing exists here, but wanted to get comments before I explore options for developing one. See also this same question on English Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would not be up to WP nor WC to release personality rights (the model does that) nor release property rights. However, WMF could (if is so decided) hold on file a copy of the model and property release forms, so that in the event that the model or property owner dies or otherwise can not be contacted, a bona-fide copy of the form is available for the end user to down load and place on their own file. I have seen not releases at all, neither here nor on WP. What I did here and here was to leave contact details on whom to contact. The best place to host these forms maybe is on Wikidata. A link to it could be placed on the relevant 'permission box' on the template which can show whether or not the image has any release. I shouldn't think too many people will go to the trouble of obtaining a sign release, so I don't think this will significantly increase the WMF's workload, needed in checking and placing forms into the depository. First though, we need to get a consensus and also decide upon whether we allow models and property owners to insist on restrictions. I see a problem here. It is one thing for a few nouveau models and property owners to waive all rights but sensible ones will insist on including clauses. My view is: we now need releases to give would be commercial users more confidence. Those in the industry may well remember Texas teenager Chang suing Virgin Mobile for a Creative Commons photo of her that they used without her permission. They maybe many other similar cases settled out of court for all I know. Should we decide that a release depository is a good thing to have, then I would suggest we contact some of the insurance firms that offer cover to publishers, for just such violations. It would I think, be in their interest to give their views. So, I am all for WC becoming less amateurish in style.--P.g.champion (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is not for Wikimedia to release personality rights. And Wikimedia should not get involved into this. There are too many potential legal issues. Anyway, a personality rights release is probably only valid on case by case basis, and it depends heavily on the local law. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
P.g.champion Yann Thanks for the feedback. Of course only models can release personality rights. If these rights were released, then this would be presented in the same way that copyright holders release rights with a CC license.
Thanks for sharing the Chang case. That is exactly the same issue.
It is my intent to get a personality rights release form used in industry and adapt it for Wikimedia Commons. It will release every personality right to the extent that personality rights are released in the stock photography industry. I will post all the releases publicly in a Wikimedia project, probably by scanning them and uploading them to Commons and tying them to the photographs. Champion, what you describe is either exactly how I would do this or very close.
I also see a problem in consent and personal rights, and for long term best practices I think models should be informed of all the risks associated with releasing personality rights, but at Wikimania 2015 I think I will find a few bold people to agree to be the first models in the world to do this and I will be one too. I am not prepared to deal with violations or responsibility for problems, and do not see how any harm can come to me for organizing or managing this project, but I do want to be transparent about this and would act in accord with community wishes.
My motivation for this is to provide a path through which nonprofit medicine can have model photographs to use in health education. This kind of photography is typically low quality and high price, and I want to make a free repository available to meet the needs of organizations which cannot meet expensive corporate standards. I would take input for either of you or anyone else.
Anyone can be involved in this or stay out of this as they like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Stock photos for health organizations for more information about the project which this idea supports. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request[edit]

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)