Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUse
|
|
| Contents |
License is the wrong word
Could someone please change "license holder" to "copyright holder"? Someone with a license to a copyrighted work would not necessarily have the power to license it under such a liberal license. Also I do not see the necessity of the big red C. ---Dittaeva 08:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Changed to "copyright holder"; well spotted. However, I must admit to a certain fondness for the big red © -- and it was an attempt to move closer to the pleasant boxed img+text format that the Creative Commons tags have acquired. –Hajor 13:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I see. The Creative Commons tags is indeed a nice thing, but for me has a much more positive connotation than a red C. Anyway its not bad. ---Dittaeva 11:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Purpose of "license"
What is really the purpose of this license, if I may call it a license? Now that almost all countries are conforming to the Bern convention everything is copyrighted by default, and outside the USA there isn't really a notion about the public domain. So since everything is copyrighted by default, the first part is kind of self-evident. But then I guess it could be a point to point out that something is not in the public domain and thereby copyrighted: I'm concluding that the first sentence is OK.
Now what about the second part, "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose". First, I suppose "anyone" should also be bold, but my real problem here is what is not said. Does this mean that I can use the content with no strings attached? I don't have to give anything back to the creator? I don't have to attribute the creator? Are there really no strings attached?
If there really are no strings attached (as I would understand it) then one might as well write "This image has been given to the public domain". Since that isn't really understood (or even possible) outside the USA I suppose a better solution would be to add "conditionless", "with no strings attached", "with no further conditions" or something like that to the end of the last sentence to clarify that "that's it". Unless I am mistaken and you interpret it like there are further conditions, or strings could be attached (in the future?), if that is the case, the text really have to be changed.
Hope I made myself understandable---Dittaeva 11:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- My interpretation: as written it would have to be assumed that the user has to attribute the work to the copyright owner just like any other copyrighted work -- unless there's explicit instruction from the owner to the contrary -- which would vary by case (and hopefully noted on the description page). It's less clear to me whether attribution count as a "condition" for use. If so, then the notice should be left as is. i.e. Assume there is a string attached: the need to attribute as usual. A-giau 10:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think this license really does mean no strings attached. If attribution is required, use {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|...}}. See the entry at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#.22Any-purpose.22_copyright.
- There is no practical difference. The only difference is whether the work is copyrighted or in the public domain. A person cannot release their own work into the public domain currently in the U.S., so this is the best they can do. Deco 06:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Change red to green?
I think we should make the © sign green instead of red. After all, this is a free use license, so it should have a green sign (as in "go!"), not a red one (as in "stop!" or "attention!")... Lupo 10:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Since nobody commented, I've been bold and just gone ahead and made the change. Lupo 06:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Formatting
Somethings wrong: this thing looks terrible! Iñgōlemo (talk) 05:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect ?!!!
This template was changed into a redirect to {{PD-release}} today. Why? The two are different. I'd fix it, but the page is protected. Also, I notice that the edit before that changed the category to a "public domain" category. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this tag is not the same as releasing your stuff as public domain. dbenbenn | talk 22:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- How are they different? Neutralitytalk 22:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- See Talk:Public domain#PD versus "free to use for any purpose"?. I don't understand the difference; all I know is that people who seem to know what they're talking about think there is. dbenbenn | talk
- How are they different? Neutralitytalk 22:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
PD images do not have a copyright holder. CopyrightedFreeUse images do. It's an important legal distinction for the copyright-holder, although re-users (us) can treat these categories the same way. But some people are willing to allow others to use their images any way they like, but are not willing to release their images in the public domain. (I've been asking a number of artists to allow their work to be tagged ((CopyrightedFreeUse)). Many have agreed, who would not agree to releasing their images into the public domain.) So it's important to keep the distinction around.
In the future, please do not change a highly-used template to a redirect without asking around for consensus first. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Restyling suggestion
| This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. |
I think this looks better than the current template. If you change this, it's companion, Template:Tl, should also be changed. – flamurai (t) 06:15, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly misleading name
I was just bitten by the name of this template. I saw the license "unlimited free use" (a little abbreviated, but nothing I can do about it - [1] (http://www.777life.com/photos/index.html)) which I take to mean "unlimited non-commercial use" - which is not at all what the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template means.
I don't have a particular change I'd like to suggest, I'm just letting people know that this can lead to confusion. --Andrew 03:18, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Strengthening of language
I recommend the language of this template be strengthened to something like the following, so that both copyright owners and users know what they're getting into:
- The copyright holders of this image irrevocably release all rights to it, allowing anyone to use it indefinitely for any purpose.
It's a bit more verbose, but we don't want people thinking it's off-limits, or that they retain any sort of control or guarantee of credit over the work. Deco 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As there has been no dissent I now proceed to strengthen the language, based roughly on the CC Public Domain Dedication. Deco 22:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It makes me real nervous changing the text of a license tag that people have already applied to material - what if this isn't what they meant? I know it sucks, but maybe it would be better to create a whole new one with strengthened language. What do people think? --Andrew 04:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I took the view that I was just making explicitly what was implicit before, but you're right. Reverted. A good alternative in many cases is the new CopyrightedFreeUse-User template; for external works we would need a new one. Unwatching this page now, however. Deco 06:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Proposal for CopyrightedFreeUse to supplant PD-self and PD-user
Please see Wikipedia:You can't grant your work into the public domain, where I am proposing that Template:Tl and Template:Tl be retired and replaced with this tag wherever possible (or possibly a similar new tag including the user). The reason for this is because the U.S. Copyright Office and other sources have assured me that a work cannot legally be placed into the public domain by its owner, although they can release all rights to it. Deco 06:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Misleading name for another reason
This template should be called CopyrightedFreeUseImage (or some such) if it deals only with images. - dcljr 21:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's true, but if you take a look at Wikipedia: Image copyright tags, almost none of these tags include "image" in the name. It's just sort of an unfortunate convention. Deco 23:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is this page protected?
Is there concern about vandalism? The page history reveals that it was changed to more explicitly state what we interpret it to mean, then reverted by the same user when sie realized that changing the content of a tag is something one should be careful about.
The protection, apart from being anti-wiki, makes it difficult to (say) change the color of the copyright symbol (as was discussed here a while ago). --Andrew 20:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)