Wikipedia talk:Declaration of consent for all enquiries

License choice

This one frustrates me endlessly. We need to find some way in the body of the consent form to indicate that GFDL is mandatory if the copyright is owned by the contributor. I wonder about defaulting to co-licensing and noting beneath that GFDL can be removed under some circumstances and that both can be replaced in others? That way, the lazy people who copy without reading will not only get the right license, but also the more liberal option, which is good for our reusers anyway. We stay compliant with our own Wikimedia:Terms of Use, and everybody is happy. I think I'm going to give it a try. If you disagree with me and revert, please join me in finding a workable solution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Public domain

Hi. :) I'm a bit concerned about the fallout of this change, as it seems to be generating some contradictory releases. If they agree to release the content into public domain but don't remove the language further down that says, "I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.", there is some plausible reason to fear that they have misunderstood the scale of their release. They don't retain copyright of their work, if they release into public domain.

I think perhaps the simplest is the recommended dual license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything for informed consent should be on this page

1. But that's not the case now. Thus, there is mention of other forms but no link(s) and no listing of what are WP-acceptable alternative forms, suggesting a take-it-or-leave-it or guess-where-what-don't-kwow-about-is approach to eliciting consent. How can a consenter know what is or is not an acceptable amendment? A reasonable response might be, in the absence of knowledge, "No." Suggestions would be to have required or optional portions of the agreement WP-content use and links to other acceptable consent forms.

I tried to do an email request as follows:

"[Name, title, and address of contact person + salutation]

"I didn't know to whom best to send this, but I'm confident that you would direct this to wherever it needs to go.

"On behalf of Wikipedia, I am requesting permission from YYY University to publish content on the following site: http://YYY.edu/about/history/individuals/joseph-j-doe Content there would be especially useful in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Doe (currently blanked). If YYY University would be willing to grant such permission to Wikipedia, a form to be completed and other details are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT with an email address of permissions-enwikimedia.org where the form could be sent. I'd also appreciate a courtesy email copy as well.

"The permission would be relative to a Wikipedia-compatible form among those green-check-listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F with the statement there that "Only text that is licensed compatibly with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or in the public domain can be freely copied onto Wikipedia."

"Sincerely, [My name]"

2. The substance of the 2nd quoted paragraph elaborated simply in Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries would be very helpful to the prospective consenter. Expecting the prospective consenter to find or wade through the link there is expecting a lot. IMO the object of this project page should be to make it as easy as possible to say "Yes" to WP, consistent with the requirements of WP. Easier said than done. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what value would be gained by asking them to choose among the compatible licenses rather than default to the one under which the content will be published here? I'm afraid that would be more confusing for potential content donators than less. We used to offer them the option of submitting their content into public domain; I don't know how many consent forms I received attempting to release content under both CC-By-SA and public domain before that was altered. The more complex this becomes, the less likely they are to do it right, and experience tells me that when we write them back to tell them what they've done wrong and what we need them to do to correct it, we frequently never hear from them again. (It's a slightly different story with images, as these are published here under multiple licenses.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, with more chances to say "Yes," the chances of getting a "Yes" may improve. If it is "take-it-or-leave-it-as-to-this-page-and-we're-not-telling-you-any-more-here," the prospective consenter might feel cornered or unreceptive. That's why I included that 2nd paragraph. Any suggested alternative the concern of the 2nd paragraph would be fine by me. It may be a little like asking for donations. Do you want the choice of only one amount? P.S. On the other page, I thought an appreciable number of readers would be puzzled. I was anyhow. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I now see that Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License qualifies the the 1st lines of the Deed there in ways that only work to the advantage of prospective donor of content, alleviating a concern expressed above. So, I'd subtitute this new 2nd paragraph of the generic email at the top, so that the email read:

"[Name, title, and address of contact person + salutation]

"I didn't know to whom best to send this, but I'm confident that you would direct this to wherever it needs to go.

"On behalf of Wikipedia, I am requesting permission from YYY University to publish content on the following site: http://YYY.edu/about/history/individuals/joseph-j-doe Content there would be especially useful in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Doe (currently blanked). If YYY University would be willing to grant such permission to Wikipedia, a form to be completed and other details are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT with an email address of permissions-enwikimedia.org where the form could be sent. I'd also appreciate a courtesy email copy as well.

" Consenting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT in no way reduces future rights of the owner as spelled out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

"Sincerely, [My name]"

--Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

letter format

I want to discuss is the format of the letter. I know that many people use this letter for Donating copyrighted materials, but for me was difficult to write ( I do not know English very well ). If the letter was more like this i thing that was more easy to write

Subject : write what you want to donate

PERSONAL DETAILS

Owner: first name /last name

Copyright holder: : first name /last name

Wikipedia user name: username

SPECIFY THE WORK HERE

URL: write here

TEXT: write here

PHOTO: write here

OTHER MATERIAL : write here

STANDART CHOICE

TYPE OF LICENSE: choose one or more from the list below

1. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license

2. GNU Free Documentation license.

3. Other write here.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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

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

SENDER NAME AND DETAILS(to allow futere verification of authenticity):

NAME: first name/last name

E-MAIL:write here

SENDER’S AUTHORITY choose one or more from the list below

1. Copyright-holder

2. Director

3. Appointed representative

4. Other write here

DATE

Month-Day-Year

Or all of this you can make it as form it will be more easy. Best regards Maragkoudakis (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC) AspieNo1 (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge_discussion

Both pages (this one and Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission) dealing with the same content: they want the user/reader to send a mail with a permission. The only concrete difference is that one page is talking only a bout images and the other one is talking about media, but both should and can be carefully merged since it is overall the same. I even didn't know that there are two separated pages at all. The idea that the photosubmission page is editprotected is good and I think that page is easier found by a new user, overall the other one is regular used in the IRC. mabdul 18:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, these two pages serve completely different purposes. If any change needs to be made, then we should link to here from the photo submission page. howcheng {chat} 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, one wants the user/reader to send a mail with a permission, the other one wants the user to send a mail with a permission and the photo itself, and is directed to a particular group of readers only.

Please re-read, and be aware that these are different queues within OTRS (photosubmission@... / permission...@...). In effect, you seem to be proposing the merge of these two queues. Have you talked to the OTRS team about this?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

While several OTRS members do have access to permissions and photosubmissions (such as myself), you are correct that these are different queues. We want to avoid confusion, as both of them would have emails that state a declaration of consent, but one involves finding the image already uploaded (and they don't always give the exact name) while the other we know nothing's been uploaded yet. Having permissions emails sent to photosubmissions will waste volunteers' time trying to upload an image and then seeing that it already exists, while having photosubmissions emails sent to permissions will waste contributors' time as we ask them where they uploaded the file. – Adrignola talk 21:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Grant of rights

GREETINGS UNTO ALL: THIS IS HEATHER HASCEHAU AGAIN. FIRST MATTER: RIGHT NOW I WANT TO POINT OUT UNTO ALL THAT AS ALLWAYS I GRANT UNTO THE WIKIPEIDA PEOPLE THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT AS WELL AS THE USEAGE TO USE MY NAME/LIKENESS/IMAGE/ETC., ETC., AS WELL AS OTHER THINGS TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION ON A THEN/NOW/FOREVER MORE BASIS. ALLWAYS AND EVER MORE TOO. SECOND MATTER: THE WRITINGS ABOVE THAT OF MINE IS NOT/WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED MINE AT ALL. I HOWEVER AM RATHER SYMPATHETIC UNTO THIS PERSON(S),AS WELL AS AM VERY HOPING THAT ANY SORT OF GOD ALLMIGHTY WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE PITY UPON HIM/HER/THEM AS SUCH BEING THE CASE. (ALLWAYS). BUT HOWEVER, AND THUS, I TAKE NO CLAIM UNTO IT/THEM. THEN/NOW/FOREVER MORE. THUS, WITH APPOLOGIZIES GIVEN/TAKEN, I HEATHER HASCEHAU, THEREFORE,---WITH ALL DUE REGARDS UNTO ALL THAT READ OF THIS, THINK OF THIS, HEAR OF THIS,---THEN/NOW/FOREVER MORE, SAY HERE AND NOW, ***GOOD BYE/GOD BLESS/HASTA LA VISTA/AU REVOIR MON CHERIS.*** SIGNED AGAIN: (RATHER UNDOUBTEDLY SO); MADAMOISELLE/SENORITA HEATHER HASHEAU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.106.172.216 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

First, this message is misplaced, as this is the page for discussing improvements to the corresponding project page, Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Second, this kind of consent must be given by email, since your IP address does not guarantee that you are who you say you are. Third, the consent must be given in the proper form for it to be effective. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice reply. I am in awe of your patience. 3dimen (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What happens to the information?

Please explain on the main page what information becomes public knowledge - the entire letter? How about the sender's email address? Please explain how wikimedia.org handle this, and is the letter forwarded to other organizations? Thank you. 3dimen (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the details of communications with OTRS volunteers are only available to OTRS volunteers.--ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This page as a point of external communication

Suppose that some organization with valuable media content was generous enough to make an offer to donate that content into Wikimedia-compatible licensure and arrange that someone upload their content to Commons. Is this the page that a Wikipedian ought to present to the outside world to explain to them how this is done? And further suppose that the organization was going to sign or complete some declaration that they agreed for a Wikipedian, on their behalf, to upload media content to Commons. Is the template on this page to be cut and pasted to just any email or text file and presented to the organization for them to complete, or is there anywhere any form with any greater appearance of professionalism in existence?

Is this page the keystone of the entire Wikimedia community's presentation to external entities who would share their non-text media content with us? If not, where is the entry point for organizations to come to understand these things? I am interested in two cases - a non-Wikipedian individual consenting to the upload of content and an organization consenting to the upload of content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:Donating copyright materials.--ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(unported) --> Unported

Can I (or anyone) change "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) to "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported", as Creative Commons actually refers to it as such here and here (legal code)? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You would have been welcome to do this but I just did it. Good catch - it should have been as you said. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Change from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0

User:Mike V changed the licence version of CC-BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0. Is this really a good idea? It is a good idea to have images licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but if we get some text under CC-BY-SA 4.0, then further edits to those articles need to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 too, which requires changing the default Wikipedia licensing and various Wikipedia pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2 Not sure. At the last Wikimania there was a talk on the implications of CC 4.0 at wm2014:Submissions/Creative Commons 4.0: Everything You Wanted to Know, and Probably More. The video of this talk is not up yet. I looked for any WMF guidance. It seems the only thing which has been said was in November 2014. Maybe LuisV (WMF) should comment on this one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From my experience of working with OTRS tickets, I have noticed that it's not uncommon for our photo donors to use the template found here, despite the message located on the top of the page. I believe it would be preferable to use the 4.0 version of the license for many of the reasons that Luis discussed in his blog posting. The number of permission releases we receive for images vastly outweighs the number of releases we receive for text. In situations where we receive text released under version 4.0, we could simply reply with a request to license it under 3.0 as well. As Luis mentioned in the post, it seems like the WMF won't discuss changing the default text license until it has been openly discussed and evaluated by the community. Perhaps it might be best to initiate a request for comment on meta in the near future? To LuisV (WMF): You mentioned in your post that the most substantive change to the license involves database rights. Has the legal team done further analysis on its implications within the scope of the Wikimedia projects? If so, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Also, I look forward to the video release of your talk as I'm sure it will serve as a basis of further discussion around CC 4.0. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One important difference between 3.0 and 4.0 is also the change to the licence termination clause. Under 3.0 licences, the licence is terminated if you violate the licence, and the licence can only be reinstated if the copyright holder says so. Under 4.0 licences, the licence is automatically reinstated if you cure the violation within one month after finding out about it (but it is unclear how to cure a violation if, for example, you violated the terms in a printed publication and all copies since have been distributed to unknown people). However, the licence termination rules still have the fraud rule left: it's still possible to take notice of a violation made today (e.g. use without proper attribution), and then state that the licence wasn't in force when the same person uses the same material in some other context five years later with proper attribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

4.0 is a clearly better license. That said, as I've indicated on the Commons Village Pump and in the referenced talk at Wikimania, I'm unhappy that Commons chose to switch default uploads to 4.0 without consulting with the broader community. It shows a lack of respect for the rest of the movement and other projects, and could conceivably create problems for people who aren't paying attention to the details (though that is unlikely, which is why I did not scream to roll the change back when Commons did it.)

I think the same thing is true here: the odds of a practical problem are low (at least for images!), but to avoid confusion and potential mistakes this should remain in sync with the standard license used by the projects. If this could apply to text, then it absolutely definitely should not be done.

I plan to start an RFC on meta when there are translations available, in keeping with the spirit of the TOU's requirement that translations be available when the TOU is changed. I don't mind an RFC before then, but simply be aware that my response will be to say "too early - wait for translations" :)

About the specific changes mentioned here:

• databases: we've done very extensive analysis of this clause, which I've shared a little bit in the talk at Wikimania and will share more of as I get time to carefully polish it. The short version is "I don't think it causes us any problems, but I want to have a very broad community discussion of it because I'm worried that people will find new use cases that cause new problems".
• termination: this is a change, but I think ultimately not very important one. For people who simply made a good-faith mistake, it allows them to fix the mistake without leaving them in legal limbo; for people who are causing bad-faith violations of the license, I don't think it does much to help their cause. For what it is worth, the language was inspired by similar language in GPL v3 and MPL v2, so there is broad consensus in the FLOSS legal community that clauses like this one are a good idea.

Hope that helps. —Luis V. (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You and Stefan2 have raised some good points and it seems that v4 is on the horizon, but not ready to be rolled out just yet. I've switched it back to v3 for now and will keep an eye out for those translations. :) Mike V • Talk 19:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Any update on this? Is Wikipedia ready to join the 4.0 movement yet? The Commons template has also had a gentle text makeover to make it less full of SHOUTED WORDS AND INSTRUCTIONS THAT DON'T NEED TO BE SHOUTED (oh, my eyes hurt now!) as well as more carefully/ precisely arranged wording generally— perhaps Wikipedia would like to follow suit on that as well (UNLESS ALL THE SHOUTING MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER though it doesn't do that for me!). KDS4444^Talk 08:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I take it from the five months of silence that the answer is still "No." KDS4444^Talk 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to change it to 4.0 since that is the only option in the upload wizard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton:, please revert your change. This email template is used for both file and text releases. While files can use any free license, text on Wikipedia must be licensed under a license that is compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. CC BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0, and any release for text sent in using the current version of this form is invalid. Thanks. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Done - what's the best way to get the versioning to match, to keep people from being confused? Include the other text somewhere so people can cut and paste it if they want? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Timtempleton, That's a good question. The enwiki pages about requesting and granting permission for copyrighted material are in need of a cleanup generally. In my experience, giving people choices in the form doesn't work well. There are a lot of tickets that get sent that start with I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] Joe Schmoe the creator and/or...

I think the best solution would be to have our own permissions generator (the new Commons one is written in JavaScript, so that wouldn't be too difficult) that does license compatibility automatically. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: The whole process may need to be looked at to make it easier. I'm trying to help the subject of a BLP article upload a photo for his article, so I can add it for him, and in writing the instructions on his user page realized how difficult it will be for him. The licensing verbiage in the permission form and upload wizard not matching is only one problem. Allowing someone to upload a photo of themselves that they didn't take but own should be easier, if they say they own the reproduction rights. Doesn't this protect Wikipedia legally, similar to how other platforms can't be held responsible for copyright violations as long as they are taken down as soon as someone complains? Loading to Wikipedia allows this, yet uploading to Commons requires the name of the photographer, and the date the photo was taken, which most people will not remember for photos that may have been in their family for years. So I instructed him to upload to Wikipedia, although the text clearly says that Commons is better for the project. I see these photos being moved to Commons after the fact, so that's a process crying out for simplification. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I hear in your message two distinct issues: an issue with the enwiki and Commons upload processes and a question about the complexity of the release process. The information about an image that is required by policies and guidelines is roughly the same on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. The governing policy on Commons is c:COM:L#License information and WP:IUP#RI here. Both policies require a clear free license, the source, and the author unless the author is anonymous or unknown and unknowable. Both policies also request that a date be provided. If no date of any kind is available, you can use {{other date|unknown}} to bypass the Commons Upload Wizard's checks.

As far as the actual release process goes, that's a bit more complicated. English Wikipedia and Commons licensing policy, consistent with the Terms of Use, requires that files include a source that shows they were published under a free license. That license statement is a legal document, so it needs to be connected to the copyright holder somehow. For files where the uploader is the copyright holder ans that haven't been previously published, simply stating that you are the copyright holder is usually enough. If the file has been previously published, it's usually best to attach the license statement to the previous publication. In situations where that's not possible (because the file was not published in an editable location or at all), the OTRS system is used. In some cases, copyright holder-uploaders will also be directed to OTRS because the reason they are the copyright holder is not clear or verifiable. In either case, the OTRS team will then try to work with them to establish why they are the copyright holder and that the license is valid.

In the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA 512. But just like the English Wikipedia non-free content policies, our policies and guidelines in this area are more strict than US law requires. This is because we also must consider contributors and reusers around the world. To be fair to those reusers and be a reliable source of freely-licensed content, we must provide some more assurance than "no one has complained yet".

Alright, now that I've got that out of the way: The various forms being inconsistent is a problem. The best solution is to upload files on Commons and use the Commons wizards. If you are planning to have the copyright holder send an email to OTRS, it does not matter who uploads the image as long as the copyright holder sends us the email. You can also have copyright holders fill out either the enwiki or Commons consent form and send it along with the image to photosubmissionwikimedia.org and an OTRS volunteer will upload it. I think I've covered everything, but if I missed something or misunderstood you please let me know. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Release of personality rights

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 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 asked on Wikimedia Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "employer" own the rights to the images and not the models ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mlpearc Not by default, for several reasons. Typically, a photographer employing a model will have them sign something to release personality rights. Rights typically say "I agree that my image can be used to endorse a product or service". Suppose that a typical Wikipedian took a photo and uploaded it. Just because that person owned the copyright to the photo would not mean that they can use that photo to imply that the people in the photo endorse a particular point of view, or that they want their face associated with some dramatization of them having a particular social affiliation. To use a person's photo to communicate that they support a perspective which is not their own can be defamatory even if the person in the photo does not own the copyright to the photo. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Then, (unless I'm not getting this) wouldn't it be up to the model to not pose if they don't indorse the products ? Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mlpearc No. Check the concept of personality rights. Suppose that the model agreed to be photographed. Being photographed is not a further agreement that the model endorses every conceivable product or service which exists, or that the copyright holder can use the photo in every way. See the picture example above that I used of "Billy". I violated his personality rights here as an example by saying that he has lots of private health problems and that he talks with his doctor about them. I actually know nothing about this person and this is just a photo that I found to demonstrate use that some people would agree to let happen, while typically this use would be restricted. If someone were to see this photo they might think that Billy actually has all of these problems, when actually the "Billy" character does not exist and is not the real person modeling for the photo.

For an example of personality rights management, see for example this company which collects licensing fees when anyone wishes to use old pictures of Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, and others to endorse a perspective. While anyone may own the copyright to a photograph or video, and while the model may have agreed to be photographed, they did not also agree that copyright holders can use their photos in a way that purports to state their views. Saying "Albert Einstein was a scientist" is fine; saying "Albert Einstein would want you to drink Starbucks coffee" in an advertisement is a violation of personality rights. I am asking if Wikipedia has a draft of this kind of model release. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

Commons has now changed it's e-mail template c:Commons:Email templates/Consent. Should we not do the same here to be consistent - after all most images given permission, often get tagged to move to commons at the same time. Commons template now reads I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

See #Change from CC-BY-SA 3.0 to 4.0 above. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

...which appears to be a dead-end conversation. KDS4444^Talk 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Representing someone does not even imply ownership

The language of the consent for representatives has the person affirm that they represent another person, without stating they have authority over their copyright, and then launches from the affirmation of representation straight to to the release.

A person can "represent" someone or an entity in many capacities without having any authority over the person's property. You can also represent a person or entity, and as part of your representation, have only limited authority over specified types of property, or even only certain items of property and not others. Peruse a power of attorney which grants certain powers and not others; grants of limited or restricted Letters Testamentary or of Administration in estates; contracts of representation granting power over some objects and not others, etc. You can also have joint legal authority, or joint ownership, which requires a second person or entity to agree to any release. The following suggested change I think eliminates this entire problem (change to existing text in green)

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

Thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear lord we need legal help.

Um. The Wikimedia Foundation's definitely got lawyers, correct? How do we get ahold of them? Birdsinthewindow (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

By email to legalwikimedia.org. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)