Template talk:Attribution

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

Could it not be useful to add a parameter which would let you add the name/website/organisation which needs to be attributed? Similar to how PD-User works. /Lokal_Profil 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Added as an optional parametre. Samulili 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change parametre into parameter. --Hello World! 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how this license is different from the Creative Commons Attribution license.-- 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

cc-by is particular license. Template:Attribution should be used for works, whose copyright holder released them under a similar license, but not cc-by in particular. --DStoykov 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Please, add:


--DStoykov 19:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Platonides 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add:


Neukoln (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Tags to match wikipedia.[edit]


Please replace

The [[:en:Copyright|copyright]] holder of this file{{#if: {{{1|}}}|, {{{1}}},|}} allows anyone to use it '''for any purpose, provided that''' the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.


The [[en:Copyrights|copyright]] holder of this file {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|'''[[:{{{1}}}{{!}}{{{2}}}]]'''|'''[[:{{{1}}}{{!}}{{{1}}}]]'''}}}} allows anyone to use it '''for any purpose, provided that''' the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. {{{text|}}}

to match w:Template:Attribution and allow

{{attribution|User:Someuser}} or {{attribution|Home Corporation}} or {{attribution|User:Someuser|My full name}} or {{attribution|User:Someuser|My full name|text=Required attribution text: by Someuser, available from (link).}}

Taric25 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Siebrand 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


What is the difference between this licence and Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (cc-by-sa)? --PAD (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike cannot be relicensed (must stay {{cc-by-sa}}). {{Attribution}} can be changed to any other license that requires attribution, i.e. cc-by-sa or GFDL.
However, I don't quite grasp the difference between {{attribution}} and {{cc-by}}, which is not a ShareAlike license. --Botev (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There is practically no difference in the human-readable versions of {{attribution}} and {{cc-by}}, however, while Attribution's human-readable version and lawyer-readable version are one-and-the-same, Creative Commons licenses have very different lawyer-readable versions.
For example, Creative Commons licenses explicitly prohibit endorsements and warranties. Attribution gives the creator free will of whatever to be attributed to the work. Taric25 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


I have mixed feeling about this "license". I am under the impression that people use it because it seems simpler than {{CC-BY}} and thus a better choice. In fact I believe it is a worse choice. First because it is not a well-defined standard like the "true" licenses (hence incompatibility hell etc.), but mostly because it provides less security for the licensor: CC licenses have clauses about endorsement which are meant to protect the licensor. I think this should by made clearer, otherwise aren't we doing licensors a disservice ? Jean-Fred (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Since this is trying to be a simple license that is the same as CC-By, can we just depreciate this one and have people choose the standard CC-By license instead. Wittylama (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I would support deprecating this license in favor of CC-by. They both say the same thing, but CC-by says it in a way that is legally comprehensive and optimized for global validity, whereas this license leaves people unclear on the legal details. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Would be nice if we could create a licence migration opt-in for files using this template, so users can individually decide if they want to use CC-BY. Furthermore the template should remain existent (for those who don't agree to the migration), yet somehow deactivated, so further uploads can't use it. Does anyone about the tools to change this with community consensus (like a poll or anything)? Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
We could add an usage note (somehow similar to the on {{Copyrighted free use}}): If this is your own work, please use {{cc-by}} instead. --McZusatz (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I read this template not so much as a full license, but rather as a description. I generally used this kind of template (we used to have one on nlwiki as well) mainly when the author already published a set or specific image online with clear permission for free usage as long as attribution is made. In that case I find it silly to contact that person whether we can use it under CC-BY because that happens to fit in our system better. Why bother, if the human language version of the release is clear enough? I can very well imagine that someone doesn't want to read and sign a long license like CC-BY (we may know and trust Creative Commons, others might want to read what they are signing), but is happy to phrase it in their own words. That scenario would be cought by this template, but not by the CC-BY template. So yes, I would not come up with this template to a person, but if it saves hassle in communicating, why not? Effeietsanders (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add that this licence is, for instance, used for a number of Dutch government publications where the requirement of 'attribution' has been added as a (and the only) restriction on the legal standard that government publications are public domain unless stated otherwise. Unless the licensor starts using CC-BY in all these cases, we need this template to describe this situation incorrecly. If not, I foresee the deletion in the future of a large number of images which are within scope, being used, but just fall somewhere in between our 'standard licences'. If commons realy would go that far, please let us know in advance so we can save these images on our local projects.... But please don't go that far, just because the way some organizations use different free-license forms than CC. KKoolstra (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I am using it with my {{botev license}}, for example here. --Botev (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Questionable notation now displaying?[edit]

Why is this notation now appearing in the Licensing section of files using the Attribution license:

"This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required..."

As an example, see File:Catherine_Zeta-Jones (squared).jpg. This is not correct. JGHowes talk - 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you get mixed up with {{Personality rights}}? --McZusatz (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Apparently it's a flaw in my smartphone display, which superimposes this {{Personality rights}} note on the Attribution template placement. Anyway, never mind! JGHowes talk - 13:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we use Commons-emblem-copyright.svg for the symbol?[edit]

It keeps the new 3D logos consistent in usage, and it also looks much cleaner. Longbyte1 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and changed it. --Indeedous (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Erm … the current symbol is not in the PD and using it with link= therefore means violating copyrights. Also, I would have opposed changing the symbol in the first place, as all our {{PD-because}} tags use a 2D symbol too.    FDMS  4    01:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Compatibility with CC-BY[edit]

Can images flagged up as with this template be legally re-distributed under CC-BY? I'm helping a project which harvests images from Commons, but which is only set up to distribute images under either public domain or creative-commons licences. If an image flagged up as "attribution" here on Commons is taken and distributed by another project as CC-BY, would this be illegal? HYanWong (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, this isn't compatible with CC-BY. Note that it says use, which does not really cover relicensing. But then again, if Commons allows this type of file to be uploaded here, then the answer is yes. The clause is a bit confusing, and you can interpret it in a numerous amount of ways. Longbyte1 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove description from main template page[edit]


Please remove everything between the <noinclude> tags except {{documentation}}. This content is stored on the documentation subpage (examples and category) and Wikidata (interlanguage links). Thanks! --tacsipacsi (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you −ebraminiotalk 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)