Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright/Archive 1

Archive 1

Server location

Because the servers are located in the United States, Wikipedia is subject to US copyright law in this matter.

Could something be added explaining what the situation will be when the new servers are installed in France please. It is believed these will be squid caches. Angela. 14:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The last section (fair use) is incomplete right now. I'll see what I can do though. →Raul654 15:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Photos from concerts which ban photo-ing...

I posted this to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights but got no answer. Perhaps this is a better place?

(William M. Connolley 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?

(This is not legal advice) - If you took the picture, you own the copyright. If it's an outdoor event, they really have no recourse to stop you from publishing it. Basically, they can kick you out of the concert, but that's about all they can do. I think girls gone wild adjudicated a similiar suit. →Raul654 21:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)) OK, thanks for that. I shall upload some to wiki once I get my video capture properly sorted out and see what people think.

Copyrighted Art

Which tag is preferable for images of copyrighted works of visual art? I'm not very good with legalese, so I would also like a very plain explanation of what would be involved in using such a license? I would also like to know if there are any special stipulations for photographs of sculptures and buildings? Justin Foote 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted. →Raul654 03:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

First thing to say is that if the work of art is sufficiently old it will have passed into the public domain (q.v. that article for the details of what "sufficiently old" means). As for works of art that actually are copyrighted, the same goes as for any other image — the copyright holder has to license them for use, and then on the image description page you need to state this license. As for your other question, displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building. (Warning, entirely irrelevant fact: in North Korea if you take a picture of a statue it has to be from the front and include the entire body in the frame). If you took the photo you can choose to license it as you see fit. Are there any particular scenarios you have in mind that prompted you to ask the question? If you give the details someone may be able to offer better advice. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We're generally not interested in images of copyrighted works of visual art. If the copyright holder has decided to release those copyrighted works under a free license, then you'd tag the image with the tag for that license. Otherwise, we don't want it. anthony

(see warning) 13:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, my question is about pictures of sculptures. The FAQ is not explicit about that. Are they derivative works or not? "A new copyright is generated." Does this mean, the copyright (if there is one on the statue/sculpture) is not important? I mean, look, e.g. at Henry Moore. He is dead only 19 years, so his works are not PD. If photos are derivative works, they should be fairuse, right? Could somebody add there and "deconfuse" me? Ben talk contr 10:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

(IANAL) If the work in question is not in the public domain, then yes, your picture is a derivative work. The only way you could use it would be under the guise of fair use (subject to all the limitations thereof). →Raul654 16:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not a lawyer either, but the situation is complex and appears to vary internationally.

1. In the UK, works of artistic expression, including sculptures are covered by the copyright act of 1988. However, 3D works on public display may be photographed without infringing copyright (see for example the section 'Public Exhibitions' at [1] - although there are probably better sources).
2. The situation in the US and Germany may not be the same, in particular Wikipedians have had the copyright questioned on a larger version of this sculpture in the US and this sculpture in Germany. Although these were both sculptures displayed inside buildings (art gallery and a cathedral) where it may also be possible to question whether they were on public display.
3. Further, in the US, works of architecture are apparently covered by copyright with exceptions covering photographing buildings from a public highway.
4. Conversely, photographic reproductions of 2D works which are in the public domain are not considered creative and so not eligible for copyright in the US on the basis of the case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. However, this is not thought to extend to photographs of 3D artworks. So a modern photograph of an old PD sculpture, may be copyright of the photographer.

Although I haven't read much of the site, it looks like there is some interesting discussion on these questions at http://www.photopermit.org. Including this story about the city of Chicago trying to claim copyright on a city park, with notes suggesting that public sculpture is not covered by copyright in Canada.

You might also be interested in this discussion on the Commons concerning night time images of the Eiffel Tower, where recently copyright has been claimed on the light display. -- Solipsist 22:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This all sounds very complicated. At least it probably means this kind of pictures should be fairuse internationally (i.e. e.g. nothing for commons). But then, (see head of page) servers are in the US, so copyright matters concern US law (only) in en, if I understand this correctly. So, if somebody could find a case, where photos of a not-PD sculpture could have their own copyright independently from the sculpture copyright in the US, than this is all we need to have them not as fairuse, correct? Ben talk contr 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is complicated. And figuring out how it works internationally is even more complicated. My expectation would be that if a photograph doesn't violate copyright in the territory in which it is taken, and is then released under a license that allows Wikipedia to publish it, then that is OK (I could be completely wrong however). This would mean photographing a Henry Moore in a public space in the UK or Canada would be fine, but photographing a similar sculpture in the United States would not be, although FairUse might then apply. -- Solipsist 22:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

links

The two links under the licenses section, labelled "Jimbo has prohibited the use of these" currently appear to be linking to

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012133.html

it doesn't look right, and certainly isn't clear what relevence that post has to licenses...?

I noticed this recently. Someone has been screwing with the mailing list (I suspect one or more older emails were deleted) and *ALL* links to older emails are broken - go to the wrong email. →Raul654 19:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. renewal records

[2] looks very useful (it includes maps, and presumably other images). First, I'd like confirmation that it's accurate and all. Assuming it is, should it be added to the article? --SPUI (talk) 06:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A clarification - this is for anything made between 1923 and 1964, which not only needed a copyright notice (which everything needed until 1989) but needed to be renewed at some point, or it's public domain. For example, most of the maps in commons:Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (though those don't seem to have copyright notices either). --SPUI (talk) 20:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Borrowing images

Can I borrow images from other language wiki's, does this cross boundaries ?.

In general you just treat images from other languages wikis as you would images from any other source. If someone uploads a photo to the German Wikipedia and releases it under the GFDL you can put it on the English Wikipedia provided you comply with the terms of the licence, which basically means crediting the person who took it on the image description page and saying that it's GFDL. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nursing diagnoses

I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization (NANDA) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for nursing diagnoses. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a list of nursing diagnoses? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) Matt 23:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? Matt 20:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scanning PD images from copyrighted book

I want to include some photos that were taken in the late 1800s in a wikipedia article. The only source I have for these photos is a book that is under copyright. Based on the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation case, it appears to be permissible for me to scan and upload them, however I'd like to get confirmation from someone else first. I can't be the first person to want to do this, maybe the answer should be included in the Copyright FAQ article itself. Toiyabe 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I think this is a clearly covered by the case. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though. →Raul654 20:38, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading example removed

Example - Any published writing by William Shakespare or Mark Twain, or published composition by Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach, is so old, it is no longer protected by copyright. It may be copied without restriction.

I deleted this for the following reason: derivative works of material which is in the public domain (such as the text of a Shakespeare play) can sometimes be copyrighted. For example, I think that a critical edition of Romeo and Juliet can be copyrighted as the publishers have had to have it typeset and edited. Similarly, musical scores of old music can be copyrighted, not least because they are often heavily edited (eg to comply with modern musical notation, for stylistic consistency, annotations and commentary added), although the original manuscripts may be out of copyright. The statement above seems to imply that I can photocopy and redistribute any Mozart score without restriction, which is wrong. Lupin 20:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, typesetting certainly won't give you copyright, and I suspect that editing will only give you copyright to text that you actually compose yourself. To gain copyright of a public domain artwork, you must creatively modify it substantially. See the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation as cited above. Mwanner | Talk 19:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia and fair use

This article says that US law applied because the servers are in the US. But in fact, we have 67 machines in Florida, 5 in France, and 11 in the Netherlands, Ref. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers. Besides, I am dubious that applicable copyright law is strictly based on server location. It could be dependent on the editor's location, the viewer's location, or the origin of the material. Mention should be made of fair dealing which is the international version of fair use. --Yannick 1 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Proposed improvement

This page is a thoughtful, thorough, and accurate overview of copyright law and survey of common licences. Unfortunately, I fear that it has lost its way somehow, as it doesn't directly address any of the frequently asked questions about copyright on Wikipedia. In my observation, users most commonly ask (or should ask!):

• Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
• Can I reuse WIkipedia's content somewhere else?
• What should I do if I find a copyright violation on Wikipedia?

I propose that we add a pithy leader section something like the following:

Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? In general, no. Every piece of text or image that has been created is automatically copyrighted by the creator, and you are not allowed to use it without permission. Some work has been made available by authors under an appropriate licence (see below), and some work is in the public domain (see below). Works that have permission to only be used on Wikipedia, or only be used in non-commercial contexts, cannot be used on Wikipedia either. Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of U.S. copyright law (see Wikipedia:Fair use and below). If in doubt, assume the worst — you cannot use it. Can I reuse Wikipedia's content somewhere else? In general, yes, but there are a few caveats. Text in Wikipedia (excluding quotations) has been released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (or is in the public domain), and can therefore be reused freely providing that the authors are credited and you release any derived work under the GFDL (this is a summary, see the licence text for details). Many images used in Wikipedia are similarly licensed, but many are used on a fair use basis, and you must evaluate for yourself, for each image, whether you can reuse it. See the description page for the specific image you want to use; if no further information is given, then the copyright status is unknown. Some Wikipedia contributors dual license their contributions, which may give you more options. What should I do if I find a copyright violation on Wikipedia? We take this very seriously. We try hard to keep copyright violations out of Wikipedia, but we don't always succeed. If you are the copyright holder, go to Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation; otherwise, go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and report the instance in question.

Please feel free to edit the contents of the box above, and comment below on what you changed. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for new copyright notice. Bovlb 06:33:02, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

• Looks good. --Janke | Talk 07:38:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and improvements. I have added the new section to the article. Bovlb 19:35:19, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Maps

I'm unclear about how the idea-expression divide is applied to maps.

An idea cannot be copyrighted, but an expression of that idea can be. When you have a map that shows boundaries, there isn't much difference between the idea and the expression.

It seems to me that the location of a boundary is an idea, and isn't subject to copyright. What is subject to copyright is the way that boundary is expressed. So if you copy the map, but you use a different line thickness and a different colour it seems to me you wouldn't be breaching copyright.

There's another reason I can think of that they might still have copyright: the map projection. If they prepare the map using a special projection they can claim that the preparation using that projection is subject to copyright. So you would have to redraw the map on a generic projection to be safe. On the other hand if they use something generic like Mercator or the New Zealand Map Grid, then it seems to me you could trace directly.

There seem to be five possibilites:

1. You can copy a map if you change the line style. The projection doesn't matter.
2. You can copy a map if you use a generic projection and a different line style. If they used a generic projection then changing the line style is enough.
3. A company holds copyright over any representation of the boundary using the projection that they used. You'd have to change the projection to copy the map, even if they used a common projection like Mercator. You'd also have to make sure your map wasn't cropped in the same place.
4. It's the copying that's illegal. You cannot trace a map. You must be able to demonstrate that you calculated the geographic location of every vertex in the boundary and then constructed your own map from that raw data.
5. Companies hold copyright over the location of the boundary. Any representation of that location is a breach of their copyright.

That's my conjecture, what's the real story?

Ben Arnold 00:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The data in a map is probably not copyrightable, though, no more than the data in a phone book. Presentation is probably copyrightable. So if you make a new presentation of given map data, it should be just fine. Obviously the line between re-drawing based on the same data and flat out copying (i.e. scanning or photocopying) is going to be fuzzy in this instance. I don't think companies hold copyright over the location of a boundary, but inclusions of specific boundaries, perhaps. They certainly hold copyrights to specific map images, but because the basis of such images is in raw data and not creativity (with the exception of selection of which data to use -- what boundaries, what features, what cities, etc.) it would seem unlikely that tracing a map, as long as it was not an exact copy, would be deemed as using the same data to create a new image.

But I don't really know. It would be interesting if there is any specific caselaw on this. The way I see it though, tracing a map is not a whole lot different from tracing a phone book, if that makes any sense. (and at least in the U.S., the data in a phone book is not copyrightable, see Feist v. Rural) --Fastfission 02:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

PD-CAGov

I am concerned about this template. It make the claim that all works made by employees of the CA State goverment are in the public domain, and I have been unable to find statutory evidence for this. I have found considerable statutory and other evidence against it. It is complicated by the fact that most, although not all, CA State departments "Conditions of Use" pages state: "In general, information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use.", which makes the whole issue rather confusing. Any comments (at the above linked page), would be very greatfully appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Choose the right licenes

I have added several self made pictures to this site, but I am confused by all the legalese. I want to allow anyone to have these images, but I want them to credit me when they do? Which license should I tag my images with?--Ewok Slayer 04:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Licenses...Eh??

I'm confused as to why certain liceses are banned... Firstly, the non commercial license: "There are many different kinds of non-commercial licenses, but generally they say something like You may use, copy, or distribute this work for non-commercial purposes."

Surely Wikipedia is not a commercial project, and thus these licenses are allowed by U.S. law, correct? And yet here they are listed as prohibited.

There's also the educational license: "Others include all forms of public education, including encyclopedias, to be educational."

Again, this is an encyclopedia, so I fail to see any reason why these shouldn't be allowed. In cases where licenses allow only for use by schools and colleges, this would not be the case, of course, but surely it would be OK in all other cases?

In both cases, the email linked to did not help clarify this in the slightest, so I' hoping someone here could explain it to me.

First you should log in and sign your contribution. If I want to sell a CD with wikipedia on it that is comercial even if I'm a non-profit or giving the profits to a charity. One can argue that any distibution of information is educational therefore we must assume educational use means something more restrictive. --Gbleem 20:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikimedia are non-profit, but that doesn't mean we want the database to be restricted to non-profit uses. Raul654 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Old editions

How does one access old versions of Wikipedia with articles that have since been deleted? Are deleted articles completely gone from the history of Wikipedia? If so, is it possible that somebody with the authority to do so could abuse this feature, by deleting their own user page, to cover up discussions that they do not want to be public anymore? oneismany 13:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit histories of deleted articles are not visible to normal users, but can be retrieved by administrators. Specific edits that have been removed from the edit history of articles are likewise hidden from normal users but are still retained in the database. The reason for this, as mentioned in the FAQ, is to comply with copyright requirements; if copyrighted material is uploaded to Wikipedia without permission, it has to be removed from public view. However, in most cases the old versions of articles can still be retrieved, though in some cases it may require a developer to do so. Some history, particularly from very old articles, has been lost/wiped or was never stored in the first place; any edits made recently, however, should still be there. Until a few months ago it was possible for all logged-in users to view the edit summaries of deleted edits, but this has now been disabled. Note that when images are deleted, they are permanently removed; this is mainly for reasons of storage space on the servers -- Gurch 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Attribution of authors

"This requires that, among other things, you attribute the authors and allow others to freely copy your work." - what exactly does this mean? One has to list all the authors?(!) How? Where? Thomas Ash 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This simply means to footnote your sources. The rule of thumb is always cite sources when you put a direct quote in your work. When you are summarizing or paraphrasing, you typically do not have to cite a source when the information you're using is found in the same form in three or more sources. And, yes, you should indicate them all. To do otherwise is plagiarism.--CTSWyneken 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what I meant was what to do when reproducing a wikipedia article, or other article covered by the same license, elsewhere on the web? Has one to list all the authors then?(!) How? Where? On the same page? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Thomas Ash 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate question. I'm not sure where else to ask this. When uploading an image covered by an "attribution" Creative Commons license, is the attribution on the image page itself considered sufficient? Or should the author/photographer also be credited in the article where the image is used? — MSchmahl 12:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Typically, photographers like to have some sort of caption as well, although I suspect the image page is enough. It is good practice to caption each photo in any event. --CTSWyneken 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

LDP license

Is the Linux Documentation Project License compatible? It seems so... TheAnarcat 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How to add public information that's sourced from a particular website?

Moved to: WP:HD

Question about CC Attribution-ShareAlike

CC by sa states that the user of the image must acknowledge the originator of the image in a manner specified by the origiantor/author. Now, if someone mentions in a CC-by-sa image that he must be mentioned in the image caption credits, is it necessary to add his name to the image caption when the image is used in wikipedia? For example, if the author "X" says the usage of image Y should mention his name, should the caption of Y used in article A be "<some description>. Photo:X"? Is there any argument / policy for or against mentioning the author's name in the image captions? --Ragib 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From the CC-BY-SA legal code: "If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice... Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit." (Emphasis mine). Putting the information on the image page, in my opinion, qualfies as being "reasonable to the medium". To that end, I do not believe it necessary to credit the author in the caption; in fact, given the nature of a wiki, it is emminently likely that such captions will be changed. (It is, to that end, unreasonable to expect that to be the means of attribution) Raul654 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Reasonable to the medium on the Wiki means on the image description page with the full-size version of the image. --Fastfission 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. :) --Ragib 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

song lyrics

Is it a violation of copyright to post lyrics to a song? --Bookgrrl 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If those lyrics are copyrighted, they should not be treated differently than any other type of copywrighted work. In most cases, non-trivial and/or non-fair use of unlicensed copyrighted lyrics would be a copyright violation. --Benjamin Mako Hill ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Practical help needed re images

I would like some practical help, in layman's terms and simple language, regarding the use of images. Editors seem to be only too pleased to clamp down on people who are still fairly new, such as myself, and remove images with great glee - even though I always state that I have done my utmost to find out where the image came from. I am rather fed up with being treated like a Wiki-criminal! (When I complained about this in the Wiki Commons, I got banned for 24 hours - I won't be going there again!) Here's a typical scenario for me - I find an image on a website which I would like to use, so I email the website owner. They usually email me back saying that it is fine for me to use the image - so I load it into a Wiki entry. It's then that some captious editor decides to castigate me, quoting acronyms galore (I do NOT understand such gobbledegook as 'GFDL' and 'GNU' - I'm sorry, I just don't!) and generally showing off their copyright knowledge - but nobody ever helps! By that, I mean, nobody actually tells me what to do, in plain English - or is this too much to ask? Coming back to the point, my question is - why can't I use an image when I've been given permission by the owner? And what do I call it when I do use it? Many thanks to anyone who is actually prepared to take the time to explain all this to an avowed lamebrain in words of one syllable, who just wants to improve their Wikipedia entries without being 'arrested' by the 'Wiki-police'..........?! (P.S. I am not alone!) Jaycey 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at your Talk page and it looks like several people have pointed you to at least some of the information you need. If you look here you will see an itemized list of what you need to do to get an image accepted. The most important thing is that every image has to have a copyright tag with it. If the owner/creator has given permission, then you'd have to look and see which of the options matches the permissions he has given. In other words, if he's given permission to anyone to use it anytime, you'd use {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} . If he's given permission but with certain restrictions, you'd use {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|restrictions}} and specify the restrictions -- e.g. "citation and link to his home page required" or whatever. You might also use a Creative Commons license. Mostly it depends on exactly what permissions the copyright holder has given you, so you'd need to talk with him and figure it out, then use the right tag. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask me on my Talk page also if you have further questions. --Bookgrrl 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Political Figures

I've read through the various articles and am still unsure what rules apply to photos of political figures, especially those who don't have government photos of them. I'm more than willing to e-mail them for permission to use a photo or requesting a photo, but want to be sure I'll be doing everything right. --Tim4christ17 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that the planned usage for these images would be for the subject's Wikipedia entry, as well as relevant Wikipedia articles and lists of politicians, campaigns, potential campaigns, and (possibly) political parties. --Tim4christ17 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How to credit work - example/practically

I have asked for copyright permission, and was just told to attribute it to them. I know I'm supposed to add a footnote to do this but I don't practically know what this should look like etc. Is there an example of a page which has done this so I can see how to do it. --MatchDancer 22:57, 09 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan drawings

Shentok recently uploaded this drawing of Speedy Gonzales and released it into the public domain. I suspect that it's not that simple though, since Speedy (and presumably his likeness) are property of Warner Bros. What is the proper tag for this type of fan drawing? — Amcaja 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about CC Attribution-ShareAlike for text

Is it OK to incorporate text from a website that licenses content under cc-by-sa? The Share-alike page states that the license is similar to the GFDL. I've had a quick read of the legalcode and I'm worried about the need to provide attribution and link to the license. John Vandenberg 02:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing question: what to do if a site or a printed source is violating Wikipedia's copyright?

As per heading, we seem to be concentrating to much on 'what if we err' not it's difficult to find information what to do in case others err.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the appropriate response in such situations? Just email the site admin? I know of a site that has culled content from multiple wikipedia articles without attribution. I have not received a response from the site admin yet. What would be the next step? Myasuda 22:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First, make sure the site is listed in the index of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.

You do know that people who copy Wikipedia, as long as they follow the GFDL terms, do *not* violate our copyright?

Is the "Non-compliance process" at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks what you are looking for?

(How can we improve " Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ : Can I reuse Wikipedia's content somewhere else? " to make this clearer? Or do we need a seperate "What should I do if I see some other site copying stuff from Wikipedia?" question?) --68.0.120.35 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

program source code

At Talk:Adler-32, I see I'm not the only one wondering about the status of source code in Wikipedia. It would be nice if this document clarified what exactly I should do if I copy-and-paste source code from Wikipedia articles. Say I'm working on a piece of software that is already under LGPL. And I copied the code in, added a comment with username of the one who contributed the code to Wikipedia, and the URL of the article I got it from. And put that username in the "credits" list. Is there anything else I should do? --68.0.120.35 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo of a letter I purchased.

Person A writes a business letter to person B. Person B dies and person C buys a bunch of documents from his estate that includes the letter. I purchase the letter from person C. Can I publish the letter? Do I now own the copyrights to it? Can I take a photo of it and release it under GFDL? SteveBaker 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First mediation congress romania - Press release

The article above has been copied from a press release at [3]. After I marked it with a {{copyvio}} tag, a user pointed out that the source is from a press release. Is that relevant here? Eli Falk 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Is it possible to add a section including "how to reference Wikipedia" for academic purposes? If I am blind/dumb feel free to contact me and remove this :) 121.45.201.5 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Buildings

I just removed the reference to US copyrights on buildings. While it is certainly accurate, it is not relevant for Wikipedia purposes, as most images of buildings are going to be permitted. So it will likely confuse people. (We just had a question on this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions [4] that arose from here.) This FAQ is a general guide, and the building issue is rather detailed to be fully treated here. -- But|seriously|folks  22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted - it is important to note buildings can be copyrighted but that the copyright does not extent to pictures thereof. Otherwise, someone is going to come along, find out that buildings can be copyrighted, and claim that huge swaths of pictures are copyvios. Raul654 01:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (Both of which are already mentioned in this article; the person who posted at the Media copyright questions page obviously didn't read this page in its entirety)

Artwork

Madame Tussauds has many photos of the wax sculptures and recently one of the images Image:WxwrkHitler.jpg has been labeled as a copyright violation. The reason is because it is a "derivative work". The wax statues would be copyrighted so can someone take a photo and release it under a free license? In this FAQ it says that photos of public domain statues are not necessarily in the public domain. Does this work in reverse; photos of copyrighted statues are not necessarily copyrighted? James086^{Talk | Email} 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos of a copyrighted work are derivative works and thus subject to the original work's copyright. Raul654 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a nasty suspicion so, thanks for clarifying. I guess it's off to the tip for the images then. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?"

As worded, the section basically said that an editor couldn't use information that he/she got somewhere else. Since original research is forbidden, that essentially would mean that Wikipedia articles could consist only of things from the public domain and free content licensed sources. That's absurd. So I reworded it to make it clearer (I hope) that it's okay to take facts from a (copyrighted) newspaper article, for example, as is done thousands of times per day - see WP:CITE, which makes no mention that copyrighted material cannot be cited (because, in fact, copyrighted material can and is cited). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The warning about a mass blanking of contributions by Darius Dhlomo led me to the noticeboard and then here.

The advice given in this section seems impossibly restrictive for text. As original research is forbidden, every contribution is 'something I got from somewhere else' – and to restrict 'somewhere else' to public domain and suitably licensed sources would substantially reduce the informative content of Wikipedia. An example given here of a Dhlomo copyright infringement in an article (now deleted) on Mikiyasu Tanaka : Dhlomo contributed "Tanaka was sent abroad by the Japan Olympic Committee to study volleyball". How is that a copyright infringement? Surely anyone who knows that is entitled to contribute the information, even if it has been provided previously by others? It would have been helpful to provide a reference or footnote. Is that Dhomo's offence – that no sources were listed? Apuldram (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid original research you need to get facts from somewhere else. What you can't get from elsewhere is the creative elements of the presentation of those facts, such as the structure and language used to present them in copyrighted sources. The Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing essay has some other examples of what may or may not be copyright infringement when it comes to stating the same thing in similar ways. For your particular example, if that sentence is the only prose then it is simple enough that it could be rephrased as, for example, "The Japan Olympic Committee sent Tanaka overseas to learn more about the sport." (I haven't read it to get context, this is just a quick example). Where it would be a bigger problem and more room to rewrite is if there was a series of simple sentences like that in the same order as presented in a copyrighted source. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof of ownership

One thing i could never understand is this: How does Wikipedia trust image contributors that they really created the image themselves or received it under GFDL-compatible terms?

For example, User:Marina T. uploaded a lot of images with questionable source and copyright. For examples, see Image:Robert Doisneau photographed by Bracha L. Ettinger in his studio in Montrouge, 1992.jpg and Image:Ping pong.jpg. The user added very short source information, such as "photo was taken by X, who gave me permission", but no tangible proof. Can i trust this?

On the other hand, i uploaded a few photos, too, and Wikipedia somehow trusted me ... --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is WP:AGF. We can't guarantee that it will or won't be actually free to use, so we just have to trust users unless we find the image on another site, or it's watermarked, or we get a DMCA takedown notice. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can alternatively put the images on WP:PUI but that doesn't answer your question. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of pissed off that someone has deleted ALL my original photos, with proper attributions and licensing info; following the rules at the time they were posted (posed by author), because there's no proof that I was the image creator. How do I prove that they are my photos? It's kind of ridiculous - why should I waste my time providing requested images if they're only going to be deleted? - Aion (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

External Links to copyright violations

I'm trying to find a statement in a guideline or policy that covers external links to copyrighted material. I constantly see innapropriate links to material on sites like Youtube, but I can't find the best quote that says "don't do that." Or perhaps I'm mistaken and it's perfectly acceptable. To put it a more FAQ-y format, "Can I create external links to sites that are in violation of copyright?" -Verdatum (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, finally stumbled onto it by mistake: WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works -Verdatum (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Using content from other places

I came to this page wondering if content licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-sharealike license could be imported directly into Wikipedia. It would be helpful if this page explained which licenses are compatible with the GFDL to that degree. -- Beland (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only public domain or GFDL content can be imported. Superm401 - Talk 11:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of Wikipedia content for profit

Does it violate Wikipedia's GFDL to copy an article and sell it in book form? More specifically, if this review of this book is accurate, is the publisher violating Wiki's copyright? Coemgenus 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the GFDL specifically permits such copying as long as the GFDL is complied with, and I suspect that the publisher is doing so. By reprinting the GFDL in the book, the publisher not only fills up more space to make the book look longer, but it also complies with one of the requirements of the GFDL. Without having seen the book, my guess is that the publisher's main offense is against the book-buying public by charging them $9.99 for one Wikipedia article and calling it a book, but not against the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From what licenses texts may be copied to wikipedia?

This FAQ does not give a terse, clear-cut answer, which licenses allow texts to be imported in wikipedia. I'd like to see a list of these. For example, can a copy to wikipedia texts released under GPL? Please add the corresponding item to the FAQ. Timurite (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed alteration

• Section Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

I would like to revise this section. Primarily, I want to include instructions for requesting copyright permission and to caution contributors against close paraphrase in accordance with US law. Some of this is taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from WP:C.

You can add any type of content if it has been made available by authors under an appropriate license (see below). It's not enough to have a license that restricts use only to Wikipedia or prohibits commercial use; these are treated as if there was no license at all. You can also add content if it is in the public domain, as discussed below.

The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it.

Only GFDL, CC-BY (or any other text which allows use for any purpose with only attribution), or public domain text can be freely copied onto Wikipedia. The GFDL is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license or any other copyleft license. If the material you would like to use is not currently licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, you may be able to obtain permission to use it. See Requesting copyright permission for details.

Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images and text can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law. Limited use of copyrighted text, for example, can be done without requiring permission from the rights holders for such things as scholarship and review. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and below for more information on when and how copyrighted text and images can be used.

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. you may need to be careful not to paraphrase the source too closely in language or structure. The United States Court of Appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[5] You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw. (With respect to paraphrasing works of fiction, see derivative works section below.)

This proposal rises from a conversation begun here. I'll publicize this at village pump, as well, as I did that one in the hopes of inviting more feedback.

I think some reference to WP:COPYREQ would be helpful in this position, since it is quite possible to get licensing. I also think warning against close paraphrase is important, since I have seen a good many articles come by WP:CP where individuals followed source articles line by line, with the handy little language changes that one gets in using a thesaurus. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great improvement so far - the direct quotes from the court decision lend it some clear authoritativeness. There's a tricky balance of readability and completeness; to thoroughly describe what kind of reuse constitutes infringement would require an entire class, but we can at least convey general guidelines. The key sentence here is "you may need to be careful not to paraphrase the source too closely in language or structure" - I think this can be strengthened, to say something like, the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. I like this phrasing because I think editors want to make a creative contribution and this says where it's okay (without getting into original research), and discourages changing the source "just enough" to meet some kind of threshold.

Another thing that's not discussed here (perhaps rightfully) is the consequences of copyright infringement - the kind of legal vulnerabilities that it creates for Wikipedia and other reusers of our content, what recourse WMF would have (e.g. OCILLA), and how difficult it is to remove infringing material after it's been edited by other users. Dcoetzee 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) I've incorporated your suggestion into the proposal. Barring objection, I hope to implement this change within the next few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This question having just been raised again at WT:C, I've gone ahead and implemented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY compatability issue, remove from FAQ?

At the moment, the Copyright FAQ states explicitly that content licensed under the Creative Commons attribution license (CC-BY) is permitted on Wikipedia (and is thus compatible with the GFDL). During my work at WP:SCV dealing with possible copyright problems, I came across the problems surrounding CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and the GFDL. In correspondance with Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) the WM Foundation general counsel, Mike Godwin, indicated that CC-BY may not actually be compatible with the GFDL, the issue being additional conditions imposed by the latter. Therefore I suggest removing the sentence ...CC-BY (or any other text which allows use for any purpose with only attribution)... can be freely copied onto Wikipedia from the FAQ. At the moment we are advising something which is itself doubted by our own legal council, and while a policy tackling the issue may take too long to form considering the forthcoming switch to CC-BY-SA, I think its prudent to at least stop advising it. I've asked Moonriddengirl to share her thoughts on the matter here. – Toon^(talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did indeed write to our general counsel to see what the official stance of the Foundation is on the issue. He told me there wasn't one, but he expressed his personal opinion that the two were incompatible. Some background on the issues: [6] and [7]. The GNU-Foundation itself seems to deny compatibility, here, as in discussing CC-BY it says "Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL." (We, of course, use GNU FDL.) It was these conversations that prompted me to contact Mike in the first place. (I still have his communication, but of course can't post it here for privacy and copyright concerns.) Lacking any other evidence, I'd agree it's probably a good idea to remove this pending the license transition in August, when everything gets to be turned upside down. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would note that most of those conversations seem 3 years old. Is there any more recent info? Also confusingly CC on their site state "CC-by is one-way-compatible with GFDL - meaning that CC-by content can be used in GFDL work, by not vice-versa." [8] referencing this email: [9]. Also if you change it now you will have to be concerned that people have been adding significant cc-by licensed material to WP up to now (given the statement here and the general assumption that CC-By is compatible).--rgrp —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Given the existance of contradictory statements from the two organisations, it seems unwise to advise something which can't even be agreed upon by the experts, and I have to point out that simply ignoring a problem does not make it go away - just because we don't want to deal with them does not make the issues invalid. – Toon^(talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The only kind of recent communication is my e-mail from Mike, which dates to Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM. I agree that CC's note just adds to the confusion. :) I would also tend to agree with Toon that we probably shouldn't be explicitly mentioning this as example of a license that is okay if the matter is unclear. I'm not looking forward to the complication of shifting license this summer (presuming the vote will go that way), but I will be pleased to see us land somewhere with less gray areas. (Very optimistic of me, I'm sure. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the relevant text, given the lack of further objection in 6 days. – Toon^(talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Using content from press releases

I've not been successful in an attempt to find policy on using content (particularly images) from press releases. It seems rather obvious (to me) that the very point of a press release from an organization is to get others to reproduce the content, yet there seem to be people making different assumptions both here and on commons. Do we have policy that I just haven't found, or are we operating in a vacuum? LeadSongDog come howl 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There has never been consensus that I know of to use press releases, images or otherwise. It comes up occasionally, most recently at Wikipedia talk:CP#Material from press releases, on November 13th. As mentioned there, while press releases may be intended for wide reuse, they do not necessarily permit modification or commercial reproduction. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It was an interesting read, though it still does not really satisfy the question. I'm not addressing the RS question, which is quite distinct. Case in point: We've just had a number of Air France Flight 447 images gutted from commons for, AFAICT, no sound reason after a deletion debate where almost all editors argued for Keep. They were taken by the Brazilian air force. They're available on the Brazilian air force public affairs office's website with all the related releases and are clearly intended for reuse, not end user browsing. If we are requiring more explicit licensing, we should outright say so and say how to get it. It will save a great deal of editor effort and frustration. LeadSongDog come howl 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the FAQ currently says:

You can add any type of content if it has been made available by authors under an appropriate license (see below). It's not enough to have a license that restricts use only to Wikipedia or prohibits commercial use; these are treated as if there was no license at all. You can also add content if it is in the public domain, as discussed below.

The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it.

I would think that may be clear enough in requiring explicit licensing. As to how to get it, I've moved the following statement further up to make clear that it applies to all material: " If the material you would like to use is not currently licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, you may be able to obtain permission to use it. See Requesting copyright permission for details." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It is clear enough, had I only seen Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright first. Thanks again. Now there's just that pesky "anyone can edit" constraint. Seems to get permission one has to give up one's (pseudo-)anonymity first. Or is there an outward-bound equivalent to OTRS? LeadSongDog come howl 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Depending on where you find the material, you might be able to leave a note asking the copyright holder to contact OTRS him or herself (say, in a comment at flickr). Alternatively, you can always create a Wikipedia specific e-mail address. I know quite a few Wikipedians who use Gmail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, it just doesn't feel right somehow. Thanks. LeadSongDog come howl 18:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

present status of CC-BY-SA

Do we or do we not accept text that has been licensed only by the CC-BY-SA license? There are various statements in various places on /wp, and from a section above, this page has been deliberately left unclear. If I am going to delete articles based on undoubted copyright violations, I must know whether pr not this is. If I give advice to authors about whether they can or cannot use such material, I have to be correct about it. Whatever the present status is, the FAQ needs to say so. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We do, if.... :) Wikimedia:Terms of Use specifies that material that is licensed only under CC-By-SA may be imported if the person placing the text here is not the copyright owner or is co-owner. If he or she singly owns the material, license must be dual. The actual policy at WP:C is clearer than the FAQ on this. I am concerned, though, that enforcement on this is likely to be lax. I'm not sure if everyone on the OTRS team is properly noting when a release is CC-By-SA only. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

makes sense to have that limit, because if they are the owner, they could easily give both licenses. Can I count on you to update things? You're the expert! DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and Translation

If I find substantial text in a language other than English that is covered by current copyright, and I translate that text into English on a "close as can be" basis, and make it into an article on en.WP, is that a copyright infringement? This assumes I am giving credit to the original author and not plagiarising. Bielle (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it would constitute a derivative work, which would be covered by the original author's copyright thus you would still need their permission. If they don't give permission, it is a copyright infringement (credited or not) and we can't use it. Hope that helps! – Toon 11:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Toon. That is exactly what I was searching for. It is difficult to find unless you already know the related term is "derivative work". Perhaps we could use some re-directs from search terms like: translation copyright; copyright and translation. Bielle (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"this defeats the purpose of a public domain"

The following passage is awkwardly written:

The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable, and that this defeats the purpose of a public domain.

The most natural reading is for this to reference that any reproduction of a 2D work in the public domain is not copyrightable, thereby implying the following:

That any reproduction of a 2D work in the public domain is not copyrightable defeats the purpose of a public domain.

I doubt this is what was intended, so how about

It is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation, however, that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable, for otherwise the purpose of a public domain would be defeated.

Comments? EEng (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. Personally, I wonder if it wouldn't be enough to say, "The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable." We don't need WMF reasonings on the purpose of public domain. This is a FAQ, after all, and I doubt anyone's ever asked: "What does the WMF think is the purpose of public domain?" :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the best wording to use here, but the statement from the Deputy Director of the WMF which supports the phrase follows:

To put it plainly, WMF's position has always been that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain.

— diff

VernoWhitney (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We can always quote it in a footnote. I'm just not sure if it matters in the body for the purpose of the FAQ; what people who come here really need to know is the position that they are public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[I've refmtd to an indenting style which I find helpful -- every discussant gets his/her own indent level, so it's easy to see who's talking. Hope you don't mind.] The "assault' language is a bit aggressive -- it almost sounds (I know this isn't the intent) like an editor who presents a reasoned disagreement will be run out of town! I'll make a change, see if you like it. Can one of you make sure I get the cite right to the deputy's quote? EEng (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored my indentation. My last was specifically in reply to Verno, and I prefer the style recommended at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. I've also restored the active voice in the FAQ. As I said above, I don't see that there's any need for text such as "for otherwise the very purpose of a public domain would be defeated as to such works"...especially now that the explanation is given in the footnote. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the ref formatting for the quote. After looking at it for a bit I'm inclined to agree with MRG that the second half of the sentence is unnecessary since it only explains why, which seems excessive for a FAQ. What about just saying "The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this, however, is that any reproduction of a two-dimensional work in the public domain is not copyrightable." or "...is also in the public domain." or something like that? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I personally didn't feel comfortable changing the (intended) sense by dropping anything, because I don't know what discussion may have led to its inclusion here. My concern was to fix the risible wording. You decide on the rest. EEng (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity in "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" section (top)

At Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? 3rd para., 1st sentence:

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.

Then a couple of sentences & a table later, it is stated that others besides 3.0 are compatible with WP. Now you can infer that they are compatible with 3.0, but it is not a necessary inference. A less ambiguous Edit proposed is:

Only text that is in the public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, including Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the other Y licenses below, can be freely copied onto Wikipedia. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an essential inference. We really do mean that we can only accept text licensed compatibly with Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or in the public domain, because Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) is the license we use. The box just contains some of the licenses that are compatible with Wikipedia because they are compatible with CC-BY-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That was queek. I'm on your side, but (I'm sorry to say) repetition with emphasis of the first quoted sentence above with a gloss referring to what comes later does not make the first sentence clearer as a stand-alone. There, "compatibly" is not self-interpreting. A diligent reader might very well not see what it adds to the sentence, and thereby be perplexed at the consistency of the first sentence with what comes later. Are you saying that the proposed Edit is wrong, unnecessary, or both. If it's not wrong by your lights, then what's the harm of clarifying early? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed change is not in itself inaccurate, but could be confusing to those who miss the point that the compatibility they need to find is between other licenses and CC-By-SA. The list is not exhaustive. I think your proposed change could possibly introduce more ambiguities than what we currently have. If anything, I think it would be better to change the wording "not currently licensed compatibly with Wikipedia"--to "not currently licensed compatibly with Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they may not be in a position to judge CC-BY-SA compatibility easily. All they need is something they can Y off. Some of the same considerations on the other page may apply here as to different ways to say "Yes" (all you need is one!). If like Consumer Reports, it was feasible to rank licenses according to different dimensions, prospective donors might be in a better position to give an informed & confident "Yes." I believe that the proper thought experiment is this: suppose you were coming to this page with little background. What wording would raise the fewest valid questions? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "different ways to say "Yes" (all you need is one!)" But if the other page you mean is Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, this page is not written specifically copyright holders. It is written for people who find already published content and want to know if they can bring it here. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say the goal is raising the fewest valid questions; we have our copyright policy for that. It seems to me that our goal here is to anticipate valid questions and address them. If they are not in position to judge CC-By-SA compatibility easily, they can follow the green check marks in the table. I'm not sure how acknowledging that CC-BY-SA compatibility is required complicates that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul proposal

May I make a plea for simplicity and clarity. In the last fortnight I have come back to this article five times and I am still not certain that I understand it. I would like the first para of the section to summarise all the permissible kinds of addition. Something like:

"You can add material obtained from somewhere else if:

it is a fact which cannot be copyrighted.

it is in the public domain.

it has a licence compatible with Wikipedia, see below.

you have obtained permission to use it, see requesting permission for details.

it falls under the fair use clause of US copyright law (only under narrow cicumstances).

These can then be amplified in the sections which follow. Apuldram (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems kind of like a separate issue to me, so I've subdivided for clarity. Hope you don't mind. :)

The danger of a nutshell is that people often do not go beyond it. :/ Perhaps we can achieve some of what you like with bolding and/or numbering? I would not personally support separating (for instance) your first point from the necessary note that facts must written in original language if they are expressed with creativity. It is hard to simplify a very complex subject. :/

What about something like this:

You can freely copy content to Wikipedia that you found elsewhere if:

• It can be verified to be Wikipedia:Public domain. The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it. (Occasionally, the question is raised about the copyright status of press releases. While press releases are by nature intended to be reproduced widely, there is no inherent permission to alter them or create derivative works based on them, or to use them for commercial purposes. Accordingly, press releases are handled like other copyrighted content. In the absence of explicit disclaimer or permission, these may not be freely reproduced.) If you can verify that content published elsewhere is public domain, you may import it with full attribution in the manner set out at Wikipedia:Plagiarism.
• It is licensed compatibly with Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). (If copyright of the previously published text belongs exclusively to you, it must also be licensed under Gnu Free Documentation License.) It's not enough to have a license that restricts use only to Wikipedia or prohibits commercial use; these are treated as if there was no license at all. If the material you would like to use is not currently licensed compatibly with CC-BY-SA, you may be able to obtain permission to use it. See Requesting copyright permission for details. The Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License is not necessarily compatible with other copyleft licenses. An incomplete table of licenses compatible Y or not N with CC-BY-SA is shown below. Remember that inputs of Creative Commons licensed text may require attribution - point to the source in your edit summary and in your references. If the content is not dually licensed under GFDL, you must note that it is only available under CC-BY-SA either in the reference or prominently on the article's talk page. (You may use Template:CCBYSASource or compose a note of your own.)

Table of compatible licenses
License Compatibility with Wikipedia Creative Commons Licenses License/Compatible License/Compatible CC-By-NC N CC-By 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Y CC-By-NC-ND N CC-By-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Y CC-By-ND N CC-By-US 3.0 Y CC-By-NC-SA N Other Licenses Any GNU only license N GFDL & CC-By or CC-By-SA Y

Even if content is not compatibly licensed or public domain, you may still be able to use it in some cases. Under very narrow circumstances, copyrighted images and text can be used without permission under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law. Limited use of copyrighted text, for example, can be done without requiring permission from the rights holders for such things as scholarship and review. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and below for more information on when and how copyrighted text and images can be used on Wikipedia.

You may, of course, use facts that you find elsewhere, as facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. The United States Court of Appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[10] Unless the facts are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw. (With respect to paraphrasing works of fiction, see derivative works section below.)

(The box, of course, is just to make it clear where the proposed alteration begins and ends. I'm not suggesting we box it in the FAQ.)

Is this better? Worse? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that that brief Lead paragraph such as at the top is still worth consideration as to this section. To paraphrase Strunk & White, 1st tell them what you're going to say, then say it. If people have some notion of what's below, they're more likely to continue, as distinct from getting clobbered by the details first. So, Y "Yes" for a nice, short lead paragraph inviting study of what comes next in the section.

Since the page is about WP:FAQ/Copyright, it makes sense in this section to talk about copyright issues first (so, an improvement from the current Edit) but with italics, not bolding unless used for each paragraph, and with no hidden table. 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 in the preceding section & another page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling

At "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?" Paragraph 2, line 3 @ "copyleft" should read "copyright." Fat-Al123 (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's not actually a misspelling, but a different concept: copyleft. :) It's explained in more detail at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Copyleft licenses. Since it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw, I've added a link to the word, which may help keep it clear for others who review it. Thanks for pointing out the confusion! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Imported Wikipedia Pages On My Site

I am creating a free wiki to help those of us in property preservation. I have imported pages from ya'll and am trying to put credit where credit is due. Situation: The credits section is my attempt to catch anything that slips through the cracks. This is a specific example of giving credit. I am not a coder by any stretch of the imagination and I don't want to do anything wrong here. I mainly want folks who worked hard to make the stuff I am importing get credit, but I realize there's probably legal stuff I don't understand. Is what I have created sufficient? Thanks, in advance, to ya'll! --Foreclosurepedia (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your interest in doing this the right way. :) We can't give you legal advice here, but I'll give you some feedback based on what I see. I don't see anything on your website about the copyright status of your content. Any article into which you import content from Wikipedia must be licensed under either WP:CC-By-SA or WP:GFDL. See Wikipedia:Reuse. Frankly, I'd go with CC-By-SA, since because we underwent a licensing transition a while back not everything here is under GFDL anymore. I would recommend acknowleding in your "edit history" the copying. On Wikipedia, we would usually do this by writing in the edit summary something like, "Content copied from link; see talk page for details". (That said, when we incorporate content from sources under CC-By-SA, we acknowledge it on the article's face. You can see how we do it here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for your reply! So, I see the notes section on the Clinton article. Are you saying just create a Notes section? I mean I don't know how to get/apply a license. Now, the copying part would be easy (e.g.; create a template to hold all the copyright/license stuff --- this would be kinda what you have in the Notes Section --- and then stub the link out to ya'll on Wikipedia for the actual article where it came from). Or do I need to embed some kind of link in the footer to state what my license is like where the mediawiki button is? Or can I simply create a page containing this info or put it in my Copyright link? Thanx again! I added the license to the bottom of the wiki and created a licensing page. I hope I am moving in the right direction.--Foreclosurepedia (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding tabular presentation

Suggestion - the table in this section should be reformatted. While it didn't take long to figure out, I wasted time trying to understand why there were two columns. I checked to see if the headings were different, or if there was some distinguishing difference between the two sides. I first though it was simply designed to be more compact, but now I think someone decided incompatible licenses should be on the left, and compatible should be on the right. If that is the goal, it isn't the right way to present it. With that goal, one column should be something like "Licenses not compatible with Wikipedia" and the other "Licenses compatible with Wikipedia". (Plus, I would list the compatible ones first, on the left. In the current scheme, there are two indicators of the status - the choice of column, and the entry of a "no" or "yes". While redundancy can be a positive in some cases, in this case it leads to confusion. The alternative is a single long list, using the signifier "no" or "yes". I slightly prefer the first option.

For example:

License Compatibility with Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licenses
Licenses compatible with Wikipedia	Licenses not compatible with Wikipedia
CC-By 2.0, 2.5, 3.0	CC-By-NC
CC-By-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0	CC-By-NC-ND
CC-By-US 3.0	CC-By-ND
	CC-By-NC-SA
Other Licenses
GFDL & CC-By or CC-By-SA	Any GNU only license

--SPhilbrickT 11:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully support this change. On a sidenote, what is CC-By-US 3.0? As far as I can determine it refers to the US version of CC-By 3.0, so why a separate mention? I would understand if it was commonly used abbreviation of said license, but that does not appear to be the case. Yoenit (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(addendum) Thinking about it a bit more, it also makes sense to include CC-0 1.0 and clarify under other licenses that we mean "GFDL & CC-By or GFDL & CC-By-SA". Yoenit (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have removed the red crosses and green ticks which previously were a useful visual aid. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this table is good. It's easier to understand than the yes/no or check/X columns actually. Moonriddengirl's changes originated from a conversation here where I was confused about its use for text and/or images.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for any change that makes things easier to use. :) I created the table on my userpage, without much thought as to widespread publication at the time, and it was added to the FAQ by somebody else as useful. :) CC-By-US 3.0 was separated out in the table by same contributor (who has given me tons of help over the years), here and there. I'm not sure why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see enough support that I'm going to go ahead and change it. I'll leave it to others to supplement the list if there are some things missing, or remove or modify (in the case of CC-By-US 3.0) if that isn't the right phrasing.--SPhilbrickT 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Long time since this was done but some editors have recently misinterpreted the table here and I can see how the status of "Any GNU only license" could be a bit ambiguous. Therefore I've boldly tweaked the table to try to avoid this happening again. Dpmuk (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good call--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we please include links from this table to their explanations? Either to 7.1 below, or to the more thorough articles. Perhaps even hover boxes with non-abbreviated titles. All these abbreviations are confusing, and some sources use the full name, not the abbreviations so it is difficult to connect the two and make the right decision about using that source. The easier it gets for the average user, the more content we get, and with better alignment to WP rules. TGCP (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial licenses

Our guideline states: "Jimbo has prohibited the use of these" and links to http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012156.html , but I note that the email in question is rather unclear. Surely we have a better proof and explanation why non-commercial images are not allowed? An unclear email from Jimbo dated to 2004 and saying "Jimbo says no" is hardly sufficient those days. PS. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html would be better, I think, at least it is much more clear. PPS. commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications has some interesting arguments, but no references to back it up as an official, community or foundation decreed proof that non-commercial licenses are not allowed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The second to last frame of the cartoon in the Commons link you provided seems to say it: Wikimedia sells inexpensive books and DVDs.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Translations from other languages

One aspect of copyright which I think many editors are not very aware of is that sources in other languages need to be translated AND paraphrased. Translations, especially direct ones, are derivative works. If the original is in the public domain then the translation becomes copyrighted to the translator. If the original is copyrighted, then the publication of a direct translation is a copyright violation. This means that:

1. When using someone else's translation, same rules apply as to works which were originally published in English. 2. If a Wikipedia editor translates and uses a source which is in public domain, then she or he is releasing the rights to their translation per GDFL. 3. Most importantly, if an editor is translating a copyrighted source in an article, the wording still needs to be paraphrased, just as is done with English language sources.

I've encountered quite a number of instances where a particular editor was not aware that simply translating a copyrighted foreign language work is not sufficient. Often the attitude/belief (though in most cases this was done out of ignorance, not purposefully) is that the act of translation itself is a "paraphrasing" (it's not).

Given that en-Wiki does have a large number of non-English speakers I think that this is something that should be included in this FAQ, as well as, per Moonriddengirl's suggestion [11] over at Copy-paste. I hesitate to change the page myself but any suggestions as to the exact words to be included are welcome (if not I'll have to be bold or something).VolunteerMarek 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

While I try never to change too much in these kinds of pages under bold, I think that inclusion of this truth should be flatly uncontroversial. How is this for a start? [12] The guidance at Wikipedia:Copy-paste, I think, would be more direct and explicit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about GFDL

So I'm kind of trying to understand the issue of Wikipedia vs. GFDL vs. CC-By-SA. And here's something I don't get: For years, all contributions to Wikipedia were released under the GFDL. This article says:

"All published derivative works must use exactly the same license as the original: if you use the work, you're forced to use the same license for your own original work as well."

I had always assumed that Wikipedia is considered a "derivative work" of all of these various contributions. This would "force" Wikipedia to use the GFDL for all of its content, then. And in fact, it says at the bottom of this page (the one I'm typing on, not the one you're reading):

"you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL [emphasis added]."

And for this reason I had always assumed that this new license Wikipedia adopted a few years ago, the CC-By-SA, must be 'backward-compatible' with the GFDL. But Wikipedia is apparently not under the GFDL.

"All text published before June 15th, 2009 on Wikipedia was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility."

Elsewhere the article says it's "most[ly]" under the GFDL—I guess because "most" of its content was authored by the people who typed into that box [or was in the public domain]. It never occurred to me before today that "your contribution" doesn't mean the same thing as "whatever you just put in this box" (and it probably still hasn't occurred to a lot of other people). I mean, "whatever you just put in this box, assuming it isn't already incompatible with Wikipedia's license," and I think that part is implied obviously enough. But—I just learned this—I can't put GFDL content, e.g. from another wiki, in Wikipedia, even with proper attribution and a link to the GFDL. (I tried it and the article in question was speedily deleted, to my substantial surprise.) Everyone seems to agree about this, but I'm not at all sure—even after reading this article—what the basis for that agreement might be (other than wanting to be agreeable). In fact, it appears that the incompatibility is symmetrical; our article also says:

"Some text has been imported only under CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA-compatible license and cannot be reused under GFDL; such text will be identified either on the page footer, in the page history or the discussion page of the article that utilizes the text."

I'm not even entirely sure what that means... and I'm less confident that it's true because I haven't seen it anywhere else. Overall, my perception of the discussion on this issue is that it consists of a mass of assertions without explanations. But perhaps I am simply bereft of certain intuitions that many others share. Or perhaps there is a technical explanation that can only (though 'legitimately' in some sense) be understood by those with significant technical legal background, in which case those who agree are mostly simply deferring to the experts (or think they are). Am I mixed up? Or is Wikipedia's copyright mixed up? Or is copyright (and copyleft) in general mixed up? (These possibilities are not mutually exclusive.) Can anyone explain it clearly and concisely? False vacuum (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading GNU Free Documentation License#Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms and m:Licensing update. Essentially a clause was added to GFDL version 1.3 that allowed us (and similar projects) to migrate to a CC license (the FAQ link of the second link covers this reasonably well). This clause effectively allowed us to release our content under CC-BY-SA or GFDL. However the two would not be compatible without that clause. The statement about "All text published before June 15th, 2009" is there because anything that was introduced before that date was definitely release under GFDL whereas anything after that date has only very probably been released under GFDL. It's also worth remembering that the copyright remains with the original creator and so if I release my contributions under GFDL I can also release it under CC-BY-SA quite separately and then people can choose which license to use.

I wasn't really active on wikipedia at the time of the migration so there will be people more knowledgeable than me out there. I'm happy to try to answer any more questions you have and know someone to ask if I don't know the answer - indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they come along and give an answer anyway although given that they're very busy at the moment that may not happen for a while. Dpmuk (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for general guideline on book covers / cover art

I've been going round in circles between copyright faq, policy, image policy, etc., for some time now, and I can't find a clear answer to my question.

All I want to know is: if I have scanned a book cover myself, can I fairly use that image in a Wikipedia article on that book? (Novel published as a paperback in the UK by Pan in 1978)

Surely this is an extremely common issue with new contributors like myself, and would be worth a section headline?

I understand that the rules will change, depending on what book, where & when published, etc, but is there not a general rule, given certain limited conditions, within which we can say 'this is ok'?

Help please! David FLXD (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that the cover is almost definitely copyrighted I'd start at WP:NFC and if you're still unsure a post at WP:MCQ is more likely to elicit a helpful response here as this page isn't massively well watched. I'm more of a text copyright person myself so sorry I can't be of more help. Dpmuk (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dpmuk. WP:NFC was not one of the pages I had looked at, and the answer to my question is there under Guideline Examples - Acceptable Use - [| Images] - 1. Cover art, where it says that IF accompanied by a critical review of THAT item then it's covered under fair use. I still think that this page would be a good place to display the same guidelines as well. David FLXD (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably agree. Amongst those volunteers that are active in copyright there has long been a feeling that the Wikipedia guidance pages related to copyright need an overhaul but unfortunately at the moment we don't even have enough editors to keep up with the backlog of copyright problems (see, for example, WP:CP which currently has a backlog of a couple of weeks) so sorting out the information pages, unfortunately, keeps on taking a back seat. Dpmuk (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles written from IMDB filmographies

We get an awful lot of these, sometimes produced in organized efforts to essentially translate IMDB filmographies into Wikipedia articles. In some cases, the problem is clear enough (cut/paste copyrights seem clear violations), but I'm starting to doubt whether transcribing the entries with minimum transformation is actually fair use, as it usually seems to be presumed to be here. Our use is non-commercial, the nature of the work is a database. Both of those are good, I'd guess. The organized translation of entries into otherwise unsourced biographies that are all filmography, or all filmography plus a line of text, would seem to start rising to a substantial amount of information from IMDB. And our use does have an effect on IMDB's commercial use of the same information with respect to ad revenue. Could I get some guidance from people with real copyright clue on this matter? Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there'd be an issue in Europe, but the United states has no database rights to worry about. What that leaves us with is the creativity of IMDB's information and whether or not it's protected by copyright. If they used selective lists or presented them in a creative fashion, then it could be, but a truthful comprehensive listing presented in chronological order is about as mundane and noncreative as it gets. It's certainly useful, but as far as I can tell there's nothing that would let them legitimately assert that their filmographies are protected by copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Howto?

Hi, in what way is it allowed to use public information of motorcycle specifiations? I just started Kawasaki Z800 and User:MadmanBot alerted some little similarities to http://www.kawasaki.eu/Z800/Specifications + http://www.kawasaki-z800.de/#features – is it sufficient to reword the specs (what is a bit difficult to not change them technically)? --Trofobi (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to re-post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. My understanding is that the text can be copyrighted but athe data itself will not be, like a recipe or a telephone book. Brianhe (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Minimum requirements of attribution licenses

In commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses it says that simply writing "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient.

But here in section WP:Attribution licenses, it gives "You may use, copy, or distribute this work, as long as you give credit to the original author" as an example of attribution license. But in this sentence it's not clear whether derivative work is allowed or not. Isn't it necessary for the license to explicitly express allowance of derivative work? Shouldn't we change it to "You may use, copy, modify or distribute this work, as long as you give credit to the original author"? -- Dalba 2 Shahrivar 1392/ 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Attribution licenses appears to describe attribution licences in general and not only free attribution licences. For example, CC-BY and CC-BY-NC-ND are both attribution licences, but only the former is considered free in the Wikipedia sense. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But the section starts with "An attribution license is a permissive license with an additional requirement of attribution of previous authors' works in any derivative work". As I understand, this is definition of free attribution licenses; otherwise a general attribution license does not need to be a permissive license or allow derivative works. -- Dalba 2 Shahrivar 1392/ 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Author adding his own text, for which he holds the copyright

I have a question on copyright, for which I have not yet been able to find an answer. Is it acceptable for an author to cut and paste a section of his own book into a WP article? Let us assume the added text is of moderate length. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0 compatibility?

On 25 November 2013, Creative Commons released version 4.0 of their license suite. Quite quickly, and importantly for Wikipedia, PLoS adopted it and used it to publish a Topic Page (of which I am an author). More details on Topic Pages can be found here or here, but basically they are peer-reviewed academic review papers designed to be co-published on Wikipedia. For this particular topic page, license compatibility may not be an issue, as the page was prepared on the PLoS wiki under a CC-BY 2.5 license, so that should be the original license and it should be compatible. However, it would be useful to know whether PLoS publishing future Topic Pages under CC-BY 4.0 will break license compatibility. As of now, it is not listed on WP:Compatible license. Could somebody in the know clarify whether CC-BY 4.0 is compatible with Wikipedia? -Kieran (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kierano: Pls see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else?. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: are you still editing the topic pages for PLoS-CB? This might be worth raising with the publisher. -Kieran (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am still involved with the Topic Pages, but I don't see what the publisher should do now. In any case, I think CC BY 4.0 is compatible with Wikipedia in the sense that CC BY 4.0 materials can be incorporated into CC BY-SA 3.0 articles. Not sure what the precise legal language is for that, though. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just asked for pointers. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether or not this situation is likely to be resolved in the future? I'm concerned CC-BY-3.0 is being phased out and the resulting shrinking pool of free/libre resources available for reuse at Wikipedia. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kierano and Fgnievinski: Recent discussions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Open text and plagiarism (note that this wikilink will later be archived) reveal that material licensed under CC BY 4.0 (the latest version at the time of writing) is compatible with the Wikipedia CC BY–SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses. Indeed the compatibility table in the Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright § Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? article is currently correct. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison and Daniel Mietchen: Thanks Robbie! Very good to know. I'm pinging Daniel as well, since he's the technical editor of the PLoS Topic pages. -Kieran (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Mietchen, Fgnievinski, and Kierano and also Bluerasberry, Finnusertop, Justlettersandnumbers, and Moonriddengirl. I recently emailed the Wikimedia Legal team (legalwikimedia.org) on this matter and received a reply today. The key points are:

• CC version 3.0 is more strict than 4.0, thereby creating the backwards compatibility problems we have been discussing
• the Wikimedia Foundation intends to engage in a community consultation about an upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0 for all Wikimedia projects (including Wikipedia), a process that may start as soon as October 2016. Participation by Wikipedia contributors will be encouraged.

A license upgrade would, of course, resolve the issue. Best wishes to all. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? Do we have to ask en:Stallman for special en:GFDL compatibility permission again? How did this happen last time?

• GNU temporarily makes GFDL compatible with CC
• Lessig thanks Stallman
• meta:Licensing update Wikimedia community votes to accept Stallman's offer and switch to CC
• first community-wide vote, which used meta:SecurePoll for the purpose
• wmf:Resolution:License_update is the December 2007 WMF board approval

Some of this happened in 2007 and some happened in 2008 or 9... not sure.

Yay, Stallman! Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Mietchen, Fgnievinski, and Kierano and also Bluerasberry, Finnusertop, Justlettersandnumbers, and Moonriddengirl. Wikimedia is consulting on an upgrade to Creative Commons 4.0 with discussions being held between 5 October 2016 and 8 November 2016. For more information and to participate, see: Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying examples of Derivative Work

I request/recommend a few clarifying examples of reproduction of 3-D works. For example (and what has prompted this request), is a photograph of a product, such as a can of Del Monte Peas, or a bottle of Vitalis hair tonic, considered a new creation that the photographer can then release the rights to, or are they only reproductions of a copyrighted image/product that require releases from Del Monte or Vitalis before being uploading and used these graphics in Wikipedia? For example, can i take a picture of a bottle of soda and publish it here as my own work, or do i need permission from Coke or Pepsi to do so? Is something like this [File:Peck's Anchovette Jar.jpg] or this [File:Coca-Cola 24 Can Pack.jpg] OK to publish (and release) as original art? Also, is a reproduction of the paper label removed from the product treated any differently than if it was still on the can, as this changes the original art from 3-D to 2-D? BeadleB (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

Sehraumesh (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)