MediaWiki talk:Licenses/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedia screenshots

Why is the "Wikipedia screenshot" tag categorized under "Fair use / copyrighted - read WP:FU before using any of the following tags:"? It is duallicensed under GFDL/GPL. TZM^T (de:^T) 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

All too often such screenshots also include the users browser and various images that are not GFDL licensed, IMHO the whole tag should be phased out as it gives the false impression that any screenshot you make while a Wikipedia page is visible is somehow automaticaly GFDL/GPL licensed. The only kind of images the tag rely makes sense for is those that have been carefully cropped or "sensored" to only contain HTML formated text and nothing more. The majority of images with that tag probably belong in the software screenshot cat. --Sherool (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this

I have mentioned before that I think "with permission" and "non-commercial" should be added to this list as "traps". This kind of images are frequently uploaded and put in a random license category (most frequently Category:Free use images). I have made a draft for a possible wording of such a template, it's fairly long but I feel it's important to explain why such images are not allowed on the off chance that someone will actualy read it before the image is deleted. Any thoughts? --Sherool (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. "Non-commercial us only", I agree completely... Perhaps also "no derivatives". Make it a standard trap (honest but not too threatening). Too much of this isn't good either though, because we do create the impression for people who only read the drop down that these images are permitted, but since we're good at deleting them I think that risk is acceptable.

"With permission" I'm not so sure... Say I have an image I want to GFDL but I'm unsure of all this licensing stuff... well you have my permission too, so I might just select with permission because selecting something I know I understand feels more safe. We could try it though, and see what happens. Even with my low expectations I only expect it will catch people who are unsure, and we really should have a conversation with people who are unsure just so we won't have to deal with the mess of them asking us to remove all their uploads when they discover that copyleft licenses permit commercial use. :) --Gmaxwell 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording should include something about licensing of self-created images. I've seen a few "no-commercial-use" images go by which were clearly created by the uploader, and sometimes contacting the uploader will lead to the image being re-licensed under the GFDL or a CC license.

Of course, there's also the problem that people don't read the description pages of images they upload. Every day, OrphanBot notifies me about a couple dozen images where that's clearly the case. --Carnildo 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found dozens of cases where they *did* read it, then they changed license tags at random until they got one that didn't sound dangerous... At some point I'll code something to detect all these (where the uploader changed from a trap right after uploading) and flag them for review. Perhaps we should provide a license wizard? "Did you create this on your own?" etc.. but then again, it might be useless, we get a lot of "self made movie screenshot released into the public domain". :( :( --Gmaxwell 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it:

People who see the deletion notice and pick another tag at random

Well what can you do, warn/block people who do this, no matter what we do this will be possible though, people can do this with "don't know" right now, but we still delete a lot of crap because the uploader choose "don't know" when he uploaded it.

Self created works

Well self created or not if commercial use is not allowed it still have to be deleted. If the uploader sees the message he will know that he need to re-license the image or it will be deleted. I don't see this as a problem (but feel free to refactor the draft to make this more clear), maybe add instructions for the deleting admin to notify the uploader about why the image was deleted and point them towards WP:DRV to get the image undeleted if they agree to release it under a free license after all.

People getting the impression that those licenses are acceptable because they are official options

Well again most people seem to think that anyway, they just pick the "closest match" from the license dropdown and go on theyr merry way. Once they have uploaded an image with that tag they will (hopefully) read the message and be educated, if not see first item above. If they just upload and don't look on the image page at last we can still easily delete the image, and again the deleting admin can notify the uploader as to why it was deleted.

I think it would be worth a shot at least, unless we have some other solution to this problem that will be ready to implement any time soon... --Sherool (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone go ahead to implement these trap tags? If not, I will. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

clearing out these traps on CSD is a pain. Need a way to make the thing automaticaly refuse image upload with a reason.Geni 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Autorefuse would just cause people to iterate through the options until it worked and feel morally justified in doing so... people simply do not feel bad about lying to 'a computer'. .. If this is really something that could be automated, we could simple have a bot perform the deletions. .. any real reason not to have a bot do it is also a reason not to make refusal automatic on top of the risk of additional incorrect tagging. --Gmaxwell 02:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As lon as it survived a test run peroid I can't see why it would not be worth a try.Geni 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New Permission tag

I received a message from User:Bkell concerning the new Permission tag. He thinks that this wording needs to be changed: "I have permission to use this image only on Wikipedia" or "I have permission to use this image for non-commercial purposes only" or something. After all, if someone finds an image licensed under the GFDL somewhere, and wants to upload it to Wikipedia, then that person has permission to use the image—permission under the terms of the GFDL license. The presence of the "I have permission" option at the very top of the list, worded so broadly, makes him concerned that many newcomers will choose it even if they meant that the image is available under a free license.

My feeling on the subject is that this is probably a non-issue. If you have permission to upload the image under the GFDL (or CC, or pretty much your choice of allowed license) then you must also include details of the license, and/or the license text. Either the uploader will hence choose the right tag first off, or include in the summary what the license is, or it's a copyright violation and should be deleted anyway. But some other opinions would be good too, particularly from people who m:avoid copyright paranoia. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts about the subject: although it's badly backlogging CAT:CSD, the option is proving to be devastatingly effective. Not only is it catching a big pile of images that might otherwise have slipped through the net, there's a curious coincidence: most images uploaded with the new "with permission" trap tag are used in nn-bio articles or vanity pages, which can then be caught and deleted too. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

you issed the random corperate stuff but the shear amount causes problems.Geni 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

GAH! no no no. "the file you have uploaded has been listed for speedy deletion". You are only inviting people to change tags at random until they find one that doesn't tell them their file will be deleted. Must we go over this every couple of months? :-/ blah. --Gmaxwell 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this happening much. OrphanBot doesn't see all of the images tagged with {{db-noncom}}, but of the images that it has logged as using the template, only one out of 60+ had the license template changed by the uploader. The main cause of these images still being around is admins changing the {{db-noncom}} tag to {{no source}} or {{no license}}. --Carnildo 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record there might be some "dark numbers" (is that the proper English term?) there as I have noticed a couple of people re-uploading the same image with a different tag rather than trying to modify the first one. Then again a number of them are also aparently self made photos (Guess "permission to use on Wikipedia" was the first "best" option they could find) so having them changed to "gfdl- or pd-self" seems fair enough (I've only checked a handfull of images though). --Sherool (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably more common, it seems from reading people's questions, how you would "change the license" isn't obvious to most people. I think most people's expectations are that the drop dopwn menu somehow sets metadata about the image. Most people don't immediately understand how it's actually working, so I would bet people would either give up and ask someone, or re-upload the image selecting a new choice from the dropdown. - cohesion 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope I'm not to bold, but I took the liberty of rewriting the label to hopefully avoid a bit of confution and I also added non-commercial. --Sherool (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I slightly modified it. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the reason I included the "only" and "no other terms" was to try to minimise possible misunderstandings. We don't have a problem with content that happens to allow non-commercial use (as long as everyting else is also allowed ;) ), we have a problem with content that only allow non-commercial use. Maybe peopel will figure that out themselves though. --Sherool (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. We're trying to balance between getting images deleted if they shouldn't be here and avoiding having people put on bogus tags. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite as bad as I thought. Here is a first cut: User:Gmaxwell/changed_tag. This is a list of images that started out somewebsite but are now GFDL-* PD-* or CC-by-*. God I love having a wikipedia database with full text for all revisions. Muhahah. I'll make more lists later. Enjoy. --Gmaxwell 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, great job, Gmaxwell! Keep up the good work. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Just to be on the safe side, I feel that it is about time to archive parts of this page. It is getting too large. Any comments about this would be welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

... safe side? Safe side of what? Anyways, no need to discuss... just do it. ~MDD4696 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to all. I have archived some of the contents of this page. If anyone has any objects over this, please feel free to state your concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Single license

Moving from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

This one is very minor:

When choosing a license on the "upload file", there is no single cover license. But if you choose the album cover license, it gives you an "album/single cover" template on the image page. Michaelas10 12:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Agree; the label 'Album cover' for albumcover should be 'Album or single cover'. I've added {{editprotected}} to this section. --ais523 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deprected tag?

I think {{PD-Soviet}} should be removed from this list. It makes no sense to have a deprecated tag in the drop-down list at the upload screen. Lupo 08:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Its gone (finally).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of licenses

Umm, I think the order of the free licenses should be rejigged. Currently GFDL is the first and so is the most frequently used. However, its not the best license for imagery. I propose that we reorganise this by usage of template not by what they are. So list the self-made licenses, then the other free licenses and finally the fair use licenses. Basically I think on the lines of how Commons does it. This is a more rational order in my opinion and will result in dual licensing for typical selfmade work (which is by far the best).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking through Commons, I think I agree with this. --ais523 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

promocomic

At WikiProject Comics we've noticed that {{promocomic}} is not on the license drop down box, so would it be okay to add it? I get there are concerns about using some classes of promotional images, but since no free to use image of comic book characters will ever exist, the fair use of these is just as strong as other images, perhaps stronger since they are released by the companies for the very purpose of promoting the work. Hiding Talk 10:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After

**** Comicscene|- Series of panels from a comic strip

please add

**** Promocomic|- Promotional image of forthcoming comic cover

per above. --ais523 11:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done —Mets501 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Autoreplace

Is it important that the autoreplace tags are specific to people, places etc? Right now the substing isn't working because it is missing a layer, so the dates are remaining {{CURRENTDAY}} etc. I am changing them to subst in {{autorfu}} instead. This is just like rfu except it throws in Template:AutoReplaceable fair use instead. We do need to go in and replace the ones that got the other tag, they will be easy to find in today's category forever :) - cohesion 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Luckily enough it looks like not many people use that selection in the dropdown, so there isn't really much of a problem at all :D Mission accomplished for that "Invalid" header I guess. - cohesion 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

what fo you mean missing a layer. The seperation is useful because it allows for subject specific instructions on posible protests.Geni 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We can still have different ones, but they were getting substed in with the variables not stable, for example, they were still just {{CURRENTDAY}}. So they would always be in the current day's category, rather than the day they were placed. The missing layer I meant was something like {{rfu}}, so that the dates can get locked down. I really don't have any opinion about whether they are different tags or not, it was just easier to fix if they were the same. I will look at it again, and make them go to the different ones, but still going through some intermediary. :) - cohesion 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done, now we can make as many as we want that are different, but we don't need to make any more intermediary ones. I didn't rename {{autorfu}} but it can be used to add the normal date time thing to any template that accepts it. :) - cohesion 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks although I hope we won't need any more soon.Geni 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

boobytraps fail to assume good faith

Please see Why the booytraps? and What's the deal with the educational and non-commerical license speedy candidates? for recent discussions on why the boobytraps are not working very well at present. I believe lots of people are never getting to the image description screen where it explains why the image will soon be deleted; most seem to get to the "Your image has been uploaded" and go on about their business. I had a user upload the same image three times and them ask what was wrong with our upload servers that his image wasn't showing up? When I explained what was wrong, he went and got permission, and now we have a properly licensed image for that article.

We're either going to have to implement a software change where people cannot upload images under these invalid licenses, or change the upload confirmation screen, or accept that we're shutting out a lot of possibly valid images because people don't understand the black art of media licensing on Wikipedia on their very first try. I believe this is a prime example of biting the newbies. -- nae'blis 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If they're not familiar with our image policies, they shouldn't be uploading images, especially if they're copyvios. These traps are our first line of defense against untagged images, images with false tags and misused fair use images. I might add that the image you linked is not properly licensed; if the uploader really got it licensed under the GFDL, he has to prove it, since the source has a (C) notice. He needs them to notify the permissions OTRS queue. --Rory096 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Assuming good faith is all well and good when it's in general practice, but we simply cannot afford to do so in the matter of copyright violations, where a violation could cost the WMF significant amounts in legal damages. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Found the image somewhere

Can we delete this option because it is effectively the same as "I do not know the license." --Ellmist 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This one is for people that just found the image, but acutally have no clue what a license even is. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Branded product covers

I've proposed a license for general branded product covers on the village pump and following one support and no opposes I've decided to create one here. I've left it on the licenses page and it remained completely unchanged. I believe it's time for it to appear here as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not that clear from the text of the template that you are only referring to food-products, but that is the category that the template adds the image to. There is also only one image using the template right now, Image:RBASE for CTOS disk photo.png, which is not food-based. Maybe the category could change? I'm a little hesitant to add a template to the list when only one image is using it. Is there really a lot of need for it? - cohesion 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A different category was created on Category:Branded product covers and I'm requesting the removal of the old one. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any progress? Accepted? Rejected? I know plenty of fair use images who would require this license rather than just a "copyrighted work" one, and it would certainly be helpful to list it here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any way of describeing it that would not be somewhat confusing.Geni 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian government

I have received a message that I need to apply a tag indicating the copyright of the image Bairros-regionaisBH.jpg. Images produced by the Brazilian federal government, the states or municipalities are automatically in the public domain, but there is no tag for that (unsurprisingly, there is one for US government). How do I proceed? Macgreco 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well first you need to find the relivant section of law so that people can check it is really public domain then raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags.Geni 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Styling of this list

Where exactly are the text styling defined? The "headers" in the dropdown list are currently styled as style="color: GrayText". IMHO this is not ideal, light gray on white background is rater hard to read, and may be part of the reason a lot of people still upload things under licenses marked as "invalid" on the list. Adding a differnt background color at least would probably help, but where to change this? I looked at the source and it looks to be hard coded on each list item rater than using any CSS class we could change from the central stylesheet. --Sherool (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-self-no-disclaimers

Could someone please change

*** GFDL-self|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)

to

*** GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)

in order to bring the two GFDL licenses into sync with each other since the non-self GFDL license doesn't have disclaimers in the license selector either. Here is a template link for {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. The text is the same, though it just lacks the disclaimers that the version it is using now has. Many thanks. Kyra_~(talk) 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! Stifle (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

More conversion of GFDL licenses to non-disclaimer versions

Please replace the lines

***self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)
**self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)

with

***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)
**self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-2.5|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)

under the Dual Licenses section in order to remove disclaimers from future GFDL works. Jesse Viviano 20:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done —METS501 (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Invalid fair use

Under invalid fair use, would it be clearer if the two descriptions were changed to 'Copyrighted image of...' rather than 'Fair use image of...'? The uploader may not understand the use of the term fair use, especially a newer user, so they may choose another option which does not apply to their work. If they choose this but the image can be used, this can be easily changed by a patroller or the deciding admin. Hopefully, this would catch more images which fail the fair use criteria. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

does quite work since all GFDL images are also copywriten.Geni 16:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Geni, it was worth a try. mattbr³⁰ 16:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

UK Government Images

Can {{PD-BritishGov}} be included on the drop down please? Greenshed 16:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Which dropdown does it go in? Expired or not subject to copyright? Is there consensus for this change? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone replace all instances of cc-by-2.5 to cc-by-3.0 and similarly cc-by-sa-2.5 to cc-by-sa-3.0 (new version released of the same licenses a couple of images already using {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}).--Konstable 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

hmm d lisence claims to use the terms of the berne covnetion but then talks of fair dealing rather than fair practice.Geni 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

given the current issues Probably not a good idea.Geni 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading the discussion on Commons, I'm adding the cc-by-sa-3.0 and cc-by-3.0 licenses to OrphanBot's list of forbidden license tags, until we get a decison on whether or not the licenses are free. --Carnildo 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting the license dropdown to appear on the upload page

Does anyone know if the license dropdown is an extension or a built in function? At another wiki I help out at, I'd like to add the dropdown to the upload page. I've edited MediaWiki:Licenses but that does not make it appear. I also looked at MediaWiki:Uploadtext and it does not directly reference the dropdown... I trolled around on the mediawiki.org site but did not find this info in the helps yet. I'm guessing that there is either a $variable you set, or another MediaWiki page you have to create or edit to get the functionality to happen. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-09-12/File upload selector says this was added but not whether it was an extension. Any ideas? I will also ask at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Support_desk if this try comes up cold. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it. I was editing MediaWiki:License when I should have been editing MediaWiki:Licenses :) Once I edited the right page that sorted it. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Web screenshot

Web-screenshot is kinda dangerous, to a lot of users it means "anything I found on the web". Just letting people know, the tag/category is a little messy. - cohesion 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I changed the wording to "Website layout screenshot" to make the use more specific.. but if we continue to get a lot of bad uploads, we should maybe just remove it as an option here. Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New category

From a request above to have date-based {{Don't know}} and {{Somewebsite}} so that people could help out new users: That probably is a good idea, it is kinda mean saying an editor will help when that never happens. Anyway, Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload has been created. This is date based from upload. These are only images where people used the dropdown and are using Template:No license from license selector. Instead of the usual no license tag, it now adds Template:No license needing editor assistance. This is useful anyway because the wording on no license was odd if it wasn't manually added. (It had a lot of info about notifying the uploader etc) This new category is not a deletion queue. The images are all still in Category:Images with unknown copyright status. Since this isn't a queue there is the possibility that the old date based categories will never get deleted even when all the images are deleted via the main process. If people use the create link on the main category it will throw in some parserfunctions that will tag the subcategory for deletion 10 days after it was created. This way we won't have them stacking up forever. - cohesion 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing the invalid image copyright tags

I don't think that this edit was such a good idea. Those templates are there, in my mind, to catch good-faith uploads of images from "some website" that the editor simply does not know are unacceptable for Wikipedia. I would really like to see them put back in. --Iamunknown 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, these are always mildly controversial, but they really do serve a purpose. People are going to upload images regardless of the license selector. When they are trying to upload something and don't find a choice that makes sense they don't stop uploading, they just pick the next best choice. This means we get a lot of incorrectly tagged images. I am going to wait for a response rather than revert. - cohesion 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Notice how I also modified the upload text itself to make it clear that these images are unacceptable. I was hoping that rather than uploading them and having them deleted, people wouldn't upload them at all. Also, CAT:CSD is constantly overloaded with a huge number of images, which allows of lot of crap articles to slip through our fingers. If we do go back to having instant-deletion templates in the license selector, can we at least change the templates so that they use a separate speedy deletion category? --Cyde Weys 02:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point and one I had not previously considered. What I would like to see if the options are put back in is a way to organize the "No license from license selector" images by date; I would like to try to help out editors who choose this option, but the category (Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status) is large and overwhelming. --Iamunknown 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They are organized by date using {{no license}} into Category:Images with unknown copyright status. Do you mean you want just the ones from the selector to be separate? I don't think anyone would object to that as long as they were also in the existing categories, but a lot of them are from the selector so you might be happy with that existing category. There is a backlog on this, but it isn't extreme. Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status makes it seem huge, but this is really only 2 days backlog right now (the category includes images in the 7-day window), plus whatever images have had their deletion tag removed (seems not extremely significant). A ton of images get deleted. - cohesion 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What I would like is for Category:Uploader_unsure_of_coyright_status to be sorted by date. I tried to figure out how to do it previously, but I was unable to figure out how to do it. I'd like to offer suggestions to editors who upload images that end up in that category and to actually help them (as the template says experienced editors will). --Iamunknown 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, see below for details. There are some in there already actually. :o - cohesion 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

People don't read the fruit salad above the upload box. They often do read the dropdown list of tags, so having the invalid tags there (clearly marked as "don't use") serves a purpose. --Carnildo 02:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And just as a data point, in the two hours since the invalid tags were removed, at least three by-permission images were uploaded where the uploader selected a reasonable-sounding (but wrong) free-license tag. I haven't checked for the other types of unacceptable images. --Carnildo 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That happens all the time already anyway. I was constantly seeing this stuff even before removing the idiot trap. --Cyde Weys 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Cyde's point but have reverted some of the change. The point, for instance, about permission for use on Wikipedia is too subtle for people to understand, there needs to be a choice there that leads to deletion, or people will just end up lying. As bad as the deletion backlog is, as much maintenance as that implies, I am much more uncomfortable with what would happen if false licenses were being chosen more often. Mangojuice^talk 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did notice the changes to Uploadtext, and they're great, but I don't think many people read that. They see a form and it's obvious how it works, most people interpret the text above to be instructions for the form which they don't need. This is why I'd like to see us do something like commons, where you actually have to read some text before you see the form. - cohesion 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

slightly reorg

{{editprotected}}

Since CC lisences are less than ideal for people's ownwork I would like the free lisence section to be re-ordered as follows:

• Free licenses:
  • Your own work
    • GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)
    • self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)
    • self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-2.5|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)
    • PD-self|You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it to the public domain
  • Creative Commons licenses:
    • cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
    • cc-by-2.5|Attribution 2.5
  • GNU Free Documentation Licenses:
    • GFDL-no-disclaimers|GFDL
• Public domain / no rights reserved:
  • Copyright expired:
    • PD-old|Author died more than 100 years ago
    • PD-art|- Photo of a two-dimensional work whose author died more than 100 years ago
    • PD-US|First published in the United States before 1923
    • PD-stamp|Postage stamps known to be in public domain (US before 1978, others)
  • Not covered by copyright:
    • PD-USGov|Work of a US Government agency

15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I seem to remember there have been requests the other way (i.e. saying "GFDL is inappropriate for own work, encourage the multilicence and CC licences), I'll leave this up to see if there's consensus for the change. --ais523 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Things have changed see this.Geni 09:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about using GFDL images in works. I wonder if it applies the other way round (i.e. using CC-by-sa images in GFDL works)? Anyway, if it's a problem, it's more reason than ever to encourage multilicencing rather than one licence or another. --ais523 09:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That was largely the point of my change. It was to remove pure CC from the prefered options for self lisenceing. Geni 11:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about jumping the copyleft multilicence to the top at the same time? What's being done about this (if anything) on Commons? --ais523 12:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The traps must stay at the top in order to mentian maxium effectiveness. Commons is hesitateing last I heard.Geni 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant the top of the 'own work' section, not the top of the entire list (which is of course where the traps should be). I think probably following Commons on whether to include CC-by-sa as a selfmade is the best idea, both to maintain WMF-wide consistency, and because it is likely to have a higher density of people who understand image copyright. --ais523 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't have cc-self lisences in the seltion box at the moment. the idea of the chnage is just to make this fact a bit clearer.Geni 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Yes, multilicensing should go to the top of the own works section and we should leave the selector be +GFDL for all the ownworks licenses. In anycase, this was already done on commons for the mainline ownwork upload page. --Gmaxwell 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done (with multilicences moved to the top). --ais523 13:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

cc 3.0

Do we want to switch to creative commons 3.0 or wait? I have no preference, someone asked at Wikipedia talk:Upload though. Do people prefer 2.5? I think we should stick with whatever we prefer even if it isn't the newest. Most people will choose whatever is in the dropdown I imagine. - cohesion 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Let's make the switch. It'll prevent users from wondering why we're recommending a license that says "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it." [1] For a list of changes in the CC 3.0 licenses, see [2]. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to figure out the exact syntax that's needed. It would also be worth advertising this on a village pump somewhere, as it will affect a lot of uploads. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Change

***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)
***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-2.5|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 2.5)
*** GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)
*** PD-self|You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it to the public domain
** Creative Commons licenses:
*** cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
*** cc-by-2.5|Attribution 2.5

to

***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, copyleft: Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older versions (2.5, 2.0 and 1.0)
***self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-3.0|Own work, attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 3.0)
*** GFDL-self-no-disclaimers|GFDL (self made -for things that are entirely your own work)
*** PD-self|You created this yourself, it is all your own work and release it to the public domain
** Creative Commons licenses:
*** cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
*** cc-by-3.0|Attribution 3.0

I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Switchover to CC 3.0.

NOTE TO THOSE COMING FROM THE VILLAGE PUMP: THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER CC 3.0 LICENSES ARE FREE AS IN FREEDOM IS OVER. SEE Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-08-13/CC 3.0.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, let's give it a week and make the change if there are no objections. The change will be made in all the appropriate places /en-ownwwork etc. - cohesion 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It's been a week and there have been no objections. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Phasing out GFDL from the upload form

Now that all Wikimedia projects are migrating to Creative Commons as the preferred licensing platform, we should phase out using the GFDL on the upload forms. GFDL was never an appropriate license for media files and was only an option because Wikipedia itself was GFDL. Now that that has changed, there is no reason for us to encourage people to use GFDL as a media license. To that end, I would like to propose that we begin to reduce the GFDL options on the upload form, giving preference to Creative Commons licenses and dual licenses. Specifically:

• remove "GFDL|GNU Free Documentation License"
• remove "self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL|Own work, multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older and GFDL"
• add ""self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|Own work, multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and older"

Please note that this still leaves "multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL" which is identical to the text licensing being adopted by all Wikimedia projects. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Which are the significant third-party image and media sites that use the GFDL as one of their licenses? +sj+ 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the last post here before this one was in 2007, you might want to try a more visible discussion forum. Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss it, it just needs to be widely publicised. FWIW, I think this is a good idea: we should keep the license that's equivalent to the text license for Wikimedia (CC-BY-SA-3.0&GFDL-2.0+), but otherwise, GFDL is useless for media. Happy‑melon 09:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to reiterate that this proposal is not about deprecating any licenses from use, it is simply about whether or not we still want to include all the GFDL options on our drop-down license list on the upload form. People can still manually upload images under any license they want or change the license tag after uploading to something different if they choose. Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is great idea that will cut down on headache in the future. People that know what they are doing can still add the tag, and people who are simply picking from a list won't. When licenses are presented in this way, people are going to assume that they are all appropriate and equally hassle-free. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone actually spam this? Happy‑melon 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just put it on the Village Pump. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this; keeping the appropriate Creative Commons licenses and the CC/GFDL that is used for text on Wikipedia makes the most sense to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is an appropriate change to make to the upload form! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a good idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should take off the "deprecated" licences of the Upload form. And we should do this in Commons too. There shouldn't be any new file using most of these and these licenses. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be complete support here. Should we wait until the 15th to remove the options or just do it now? It would save more conversion in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will yell us if it is changed now, anyway GFDL has never been a good media license. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Any admin should feel free to revert me without discussion if this was a bad idea or if I fowled up; I don't mind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A related note

Are images previously licensed solely under the GFDL going to be updated, or will they be staying the same? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that Commons is doing this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the ~200,000 GFDL images hosted locally should be updated. We've focused on figuring out Commons first since its 1.7M is a larger target. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Understandably; anyway, when things are ready to be done here I could request approval for my bot to help out (if it can be done using AWB, which it probably can from what I've seen). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: Adding missing items: PD-Text, Non-free computer icon, and others

{{Editprotected}} Hi.

It seems that the following items are missing from the list. Could an administrator please add them to the list?

• {{Non-free computer icon}} — Non-free computer icon
  (Non-free / fair use - read WP:NONFREE before using any of the following tags → Non-free computer icon)
• {{PD-text}} — Simple typefaces, individual words or geometric shapes
  (Public domain → Not covered by copyright → Simple typefaces, individual words or geometric shapes)
• {{PD-textlogo}} — Logos with only simple typefaces, individual words or geometric shapes
  (Public domain → Not covered by copyright → Logos with only simple typefaces, individual words or geometric shapes)
• {{Microsoft screenshot}} — Screenshot of a Microsoft product
  (Non-free / fair use - read WP:NONFREE before using any of the following tags → Screenshot of a Microsoft product)

Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think. Ping my talk page if I've totally buggered something up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made a mistake in my request about {{Microsoft screenshot}}. It should be place in:

→ Non-free / fair use - read WP:NONFREE before using any of the following tags

→ Screenshots

→ Non-free software screenshot|Software screenshot

→ Screenshot of a Microsoft product

Sorry. Please fix it, okay? Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorted? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a bit wrong. It has one asterisk less before the entry name; that is, currently, it's like this:

*** Microsoft screenshot|Screenshot of a Microsoft product

It should be like this:

**** Microsoft screenshot|Screenshot of a Microsoft product

Fleet Command (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "does it really matter?" but if it means I get another edit to the mediawiki namespace, it's all good! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

License Information

On a wiki I'm working on, I create the licenses wikipedia uses. However, How do I get the informitive box to show on the upload page. I am talking about the box that changes depending on the license you select, giving more information about that license. what is the code I use to get that appear on the wiki I'm working on? --Redbear81 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To do that, follow the red template links that appear below the license selection drop down menu on special:upload when you select a license from it and put info boxes in each of those respective template pages. Eg, if one of your license choices is "* Unknown | I don't know" then you want something informative in [[template:unknown]], see template:unknown. --Rogerhc (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-self}} -> {{Self|Cc-zero}}

{{editprotected}} Per this proposal please change * PD-self| to * self|cc-zero| on MediaWiki:Licenses and MediaWiki:Licenses/en-ownwork. Thank you, multichill (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - I'll do a test upload to check it works. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have worked (see File:PD test.jpg - I'll delete this in a day or so) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done for real - I've changed the description of the license to match. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. multichill (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 January 2016

Please add the following line below "Non-free television screenshot":

*** Non-free title-card|Title card of a movie or TV series

nyuszika7h (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Note, also added protection to that template. This seems straightforward and non-controversial; should any one disagree any admin can revert without consult. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Work released under the CC-Zero license

Content can be released under the public domain in which case it is eligible for usage on Wikipedia.

The following should be added right under "Public Domain" or "Freely licensed":

** cc-zero|Work released into the public domain under the CC-Zero license

There is already one of these (Kind of), but it is for your own work and sometimes the work of someone else might be already by itself released under the public domain. The cop clipart by AbiClipart is one such example. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Please change 1925 to 1926 under PD-US-expired. Please change Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others credit you and share alike to Allow non-commercial use, commercial use, and modifications as long as others credit you and publish derivative works under the same terms, this is more descriptive than just "share alike". Please move wikipedia-screenshot to Freely licensed as it is currently under Non-free / fair use > Screenshots but it is not non-free. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@JJMC89: would you mind looking at this (saw you've updated this page before). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done Updated the year for PD-US-expired. Unsure about the other two changes. — The Earwig (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the Wikipedia screenshots one to free. I don't think the other change is necessary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Don't know

Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file license template -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as non-admin keep. I suggest that all the licensing templates listed at this page include documentation stating that thye are part of the MediaWiki upload and licensing process, linking back to here (for listing and usage) and NFC (for policy) and FFD (for discussions) -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 June 2022

Please link WP:Nonfree on this page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done @BeenAroundAWhile: these labels don't support wikitext. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 2024-03-18

Please update "First published in the United States before January 1, 1928" to "First published in the United States before January 1, 1929" on the {{PD-US-expired}} line. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 03:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Second edit request 2024-03-18

Would someone please undo MSGJ's last change? This message does not support wikitext/templates, and the license dropdown on Special:Upload is not displaying correctly. Thanks. ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done ⟲ Three Sixty! ^Talk? _Work. 16:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)