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)

Indian Army Licensing[edit]

Is the media released or posted in Indian Army website http://indianarmy.nic.in/ are free to be uploaded to Commons are per the their copyright policy. If yes what is the template? <bɾ> Copyright Policy of Indian Armyː http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=Gh8sw8nlH9TmK4BGh7xcKQ==&ParentID=KtP0cOB21+nPeAHRphT0OQ== --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga(Citizen of the RoIN) Talk 14:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Creation for template of Indian Air Force[edit]

I propose to create a template such as that is created for Indian Navy Template:Indian_navy, to license the images that uploaded which have been taken from the Indian Air Force Website. Because the site features the copyright statement asː
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. It can be viewed in the usage policy of the website.Krishna Chaitanya Velaga(Citizen of the RoIN) Talk 10:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless they explicitly say they are licensing it under a CC-BY license, we cannot assume that. The tag needs to have the licensing text as-is. The fact they don't mention derivative works might make some users nervous about the terms, though even derivative works generally "reproduce" expression so that could be implied there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Navy licence doesn't appear to allow modifications, which is essential for the Commons. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Clindberg, Hchc2009: {{Attribution-IAF}} already exists. Per the discussions on its talkpage (Carl Lindberg, you have a short memory :) ), the freedom of it seems to be disputed. Personally, I agree with Hchc2009 and think that the accuracy requirement is an NoDerivatives restriction – maybe the discussion should be revived in a request for deletion?    FDMS  4    13:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, right. The proposed template should be deleted then; that is a better one. "Accurate" usually refers to moral rights to me (don't make a misleading modification and claim it's the original, stuff like that) -- but I figured that is where there might be some opposition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. There are licences which require "accuracy" (i.e. not misleading anyone) but allow modifications. But equally many licences allow reproduction, but not modification and derivative works - these are different rights. The IAF doesn't seem to allow derivatives. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Including Public Domain in the options of licensing[edit]

When I post a photo, I would like to be able to release it in the Public Domain (PD). I understand there is a reluctance to implement that because in some countries Public Domain doesn't even exist. Well, if we look at things that way, then I suspect there are countries where the Creative Commons license is illegal or inapplicable. What are we doing with the Public Domain photos hosted at Wikimedia Commons? We can't use them in articles because in some countries PD is not even defined? So that should not be an argument against PD.

At very least, the creator should have the alternative of releasing their work with "dual licensing": Creative Commons or Public Domain, leaving the user the choice to use the work the whay they wish, and as allowed by the local laws. This is nothing new, I've seen programs released with dual licensing (GPL and a commercial license). Also I've seen public domain works and posting and using do not seem to be problematic out there in the world. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What does public domain gain you over the {{Cc-zero}}?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I haven't noticed that option until now, thanks! —  Ark25  (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)