Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

See Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUse. In short: "license holder" should become "copyright holder". And why is this protected? Lupo 13:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This template looks like an inferior version of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. Can we either duplicate the better text here or set up a redirect? Can someone unprotect this, at the very least? --Fastfission 13:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added the text to this template and changed {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} to point to this one. I don't see why this template is protected in the first place, but I'd suggest opening a discussion on WP:RFPP with regards to getting it unprotected because I have very controversial views on page protection (-: . JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I requested it to be unprotected. I'd like to play with it a little bit. --Fastfission 19:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Must be licensed for Commercial use"

Why? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a non-commercial organisation/project.
--Chaosfeary 19:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is there some cogent reason for the recent changes to this template?

Is there some cogent reason for the recent changes to this template? and if so then why was the "Please check etc" stuff not simply given it's own template?

--Sf 14:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment out "Please check" stuff

I've commented out the "please check etc" stuff as 1) It's purpose was unclear 2) It was trashing the Image licence etc information 3) What is the point of having a "Please check" tag that cannot be removed once such such checks have been carried out?

--Sf 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First: Please look at such edits twice. You've destroyed several image description pages (these |} are needed). Second: everyone could write down everything in this license tag, so it's not like with other ones which are f.e. public domain if {{PD}} is used. Every person who wants to use these images has to check if the license allows that, without any automatism. --Saperaud 22:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it your assertion that the amendments to this template are directed at ensuring people read the licence? If so then what is the point of a tag that trashes that licence information? What also is the point of the please check and list for deletion stuff if they cant be removed after such checks have been made? In my opinion, your explanation makes no sense.

--Sf 11:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision to version as of 23:18, 14 September 2005;

I have reverted this template to the version as of 23:18, 14 September 2005. The reason is that the changes made after that date trashed the licence information. I checked the top 37 images in the "what links here" list, and of these, 28 or 75% had had their licence information trashed (see list below those marked with a T had their licence info trashed). Despite requests, those reponsible for this have so far chosen not to offer any explanation for the changes that were made. --Sf 12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Image :Fgm map.gif
  • Image :B 097.jpg
  • Image :WHOGeneva017WEB.jpg T
  • Image :Ems.jpg T
  • Image :MER art (large).jpg T
  • Image :Inflation-1923.jpg
  • Image :Willy-brandt-1965.jpg
  • Image :Jon Postel.jpg T
  • Image :Colombia.CesarGaviria.01.jpg T
  • Image :Guatemala.AlfonsoPortillo.01.jpg T
  • Image :Paraguay.NicanorDuarte.01.jpg T
  • Image :Italy.CarloAzeglioCiampi.01.jpg T
  • Image :Nicaragua.EnriqueBolaños.01.jpg T
  • Image :Peru.AlejandroToledo.01.jpg T
  • Image :OAS.Logo&HQ.01.jpeg T
  • Image :OAS.Logo&HQ.02.jpeg T
  • Image :OAS.Logo.Eng.01.jpg T
  • Image :OAS.MainBuilding.WashDC.01.jpg T
  • Image :DomRep.HipolitoMejia.01.jpg T
  • Image :CostaRica.AbelPacheco.01.jpg T
  • Image :Argentina.FdoDelaRua.01.jpg T
  • Image :Nicaragua.ArnoldoAleman.01.jpg T
  • Image :CostaRica.AbelPacheco.01.jpg T
  • Image :Argentina.FdoDelaRua.01.jpg T
  • Image :Nicaragua.ArnoldoAleman.01.jpg T
  • Image :Uruguay.JorgeBatlle.01.jpg T
  • Image :Criccieth.castle.arp.750pix.jpg T
  • Image :Pholcus.jpg T
  • Image :Brown recluse.jpg
  • Image :London Guildhall Corp of London.jpg
  • Image :London Mansion House Corp of London.jpg
  • Image :Robert Finch Lord Mayor of London Corp of London.jpg
  • Image :Brazil.LulaDaSilva.01.jpg T
  • Image :Mexico.VicenteFox.02.jpg T
  • Image :Derwent.jpg T
  • Image :Mukhda1.jpg T
  • Image :Sir syeds grave.jpg T

[edit] Undo redirect from CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

I've reverted the redirect from {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} as this was trashing the licence information for images using that template (19 trashed out of 20 checked). --Sf 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki update

Please update the interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is now

[[sr:Шаблон:АуторскоправоСлободнаупотребаПодусловом]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 13:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. NCurse work 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

Can someone add this template to Category:Image copyright tags or similar, please? Just to make it easier to find, thats all. Cheers, CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. JDtalk 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edit

The words "the original image author and image description are credited" are superfluous here and should be removed or at least made the default text if a condition isn't given. Peter O. (Talk) 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, they seem crucial to me. —Mets501 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention that the licensing terms must allow derivative works

{{editprotected}}

This template needs to include a mention of the fact that licensing terms must allow derivative works; otherwise the image is not considered free under Wikipedia criteria. Here's the note at the top of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat:

NOTE: The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do.

—Bkell (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Change seems to have been made. CMummert · talk 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the change has not been made. This template currently says:
NOTE: The above conditions may not include terms which restrict third-party use, such as "non-commercial" or "educational use only".
The note at the top of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat says:
NOTE: The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives.
This template does not mention that licensing terms must allow derivative works, but it should. —Bkell (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree Bkell's suggestion is already the subject of an unresolved debate over at Template_talk:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat (see modification must be allowed). Jvv62's contribution of 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) provides a clear rebuttal of Bkell's arguments. --Sf 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please work this out, and once there is agreement you can add another editprotected tag. CMummert · talk 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion at Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat seems to be over. I have added the editprotected tag, requesting the note at the bottom of this template to be changed to be identical to that on Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat (in particular, wording that states that the licensing terms must not prohibit derivatives). —Bkell (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled the editprotected tag. I don't see consensus on the page provided (Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat). Additionally, if the desire is to have the two pages be identical, why not merge them? It seems like there are more issues to be resolved... Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The way the templates use parameters make it tricky to merge the templates. Anyway the ability to make derivatives is a basic requirement for something to be considered a free license, so I have added it to the note. Also included a long-winded explanation of the basic licenseing requirements on Wikipedia in a hidden structure that can be expanded on demand in case people need more details. --Sherool (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wil this work?

If an image on the web has this copyright tag, is it OK to use it with the copyright free use provided template? It is from here.

We grant the rights to use any or all of our copyrighted material to anyone who wishes to use it, subject to these conditions:

  • You must include a credit acknowledging us as the creators of the material.
  • You must not use the material in any manner that is detrimental to marine turtles. We reserve the right to decide whether a particular use is detrimental.

I'm guessing no, because that would disallow derivative works, but I thought I would doublecheck. --Joelmills 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)