Template talk:Copyrighted free use provided that

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template needs to maintain the {{{1}}} parameter; "provided that the use is non-commercial and that copyright is attributed" is only an example of the conditions the copyright holder might place (see Category:Conditional use images). Removing the parameter makes us claim conditions that are not those to which the copyright holder agreed. That's bad. —Tkinias 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, non-commercial use is not a condition the copyright holder might place. This tag places its images in a subcategory of Category:Free images, so the restrictions have to leave the image free. What restrictions are allowed, exactly? dbenbenn | talk 17:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green copyright symbol

For consistency with Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. The copyright symbol should be green. This suggests that this image is "ok". This tag should only be used for images that have restriction such as crediting the copyright holder, all images in this category should be freely distributable. — Zeimusu | Talk 13:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What conditions are allowed?

Would a 'no derivitive works' condition be acceptable under this license?-Localzuk^(talk) 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, absolutely not; not under this license nor under any other license usable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's free information policy expressly forbids no-derivatives restrictions.--Pharos 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modification must be allowed

This tag currently says, "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that {{{1}}}". But in order for an image to be considered freely licensed on Wikipedia, the copyright holder must also allow modification, and this tag doesn't mention that. The second sentence should say something more along the lines of "The copyright holder allows anyone to use or modify it for any purpose…" Editing the wording of the tag might be troublesome—there are over 2000 images that currently use this tag, and it's possible that some have been tagged without the tagger realizing that in Wikipedia culture this tag (in its role as a free-license tag) implies that the image may be freely modified. —Bkell (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree The use of images serves purposes other than mere illustration. The image here provides a graphic representation of data collated/compiled from the international literature. Cycle_path_collision_risks.jpg This tag was chosen for this image specifically to ensure that the image cannot be used in isolation from information as to the sources. Similarly the thrust of your suggestion could seem to imply that it is permissable for people to amend wikipedia images in a manner that misrepresents the reported findings. To my mind this would seem to undermine the whole purpose of developing a reputable encyclopedia. --Sf 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and one of the key points about being "free" here is that anyone can use or modify the content as they please. If you uploaded Image:Cycle path collision risks.jpg but are not willing to allow others to modify it, then this image is not free, does not belong here, and should be deleted, as it violates one of the core principles of Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree People may modify provided what they contribute is verifiable and sourced. The modification without due cause of existing verified and sourced material constitutes vandalism. --Sf 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if it's done in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is free content, so I should be able to download this image, modify it to my heart's content, and place it on my own home page, for example. The requirement of attribution is fine in Wikipedia's definition of "free"; so if I did this with your image, I would need to credit you and list those sources, as doing so is part of the license you have released it under.

I think you're confusing copyright and licensing issues (everything on Wikipedia is available for anyone to use or modify however they like, under free licenses such as the GFDL) with the idea of editing Wikipedia directly. The licenses of Wikipedia content must allow modification. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia must allow anyone to edit any Wikipedia articles on the site however they please, but it does mean that anyone is allowed to copy Wikipedia articles to their own site (or to a CD, or printed in a magazine, or whatever) and make any changes they want there. —Bkell (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And what protection is there if someone modifies the information in a manner inconsistent with the sources and then attributes that information to the primary creator - me in this instance? If wikipedia really does want expert contributions from reputable sources then this would need to be sorted out. Otherwise why would people bother? --Sf 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a possibility we all accept here. There's nothing preventing anyone from taking an article from Wikipedia, changing it so that it's ludicrously false, and then attributing it to some Wikipedia editor. The same goes for images. This is something that comes as a consequence of making all content on Wikipedia free. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. If it ever becomes a problem that someone claims you said something that you didn't, and it damages your reputation, I guess you can sue them for libel if you think it's worth it; you aren't waiving that right, only some of the exclusive rights granted to you by copyright laws. —Bkell (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a problem that's unique to Wikipedia. If you were a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, it's just as possible that someone could modify information from an article you wrote or an illustration you made and then claim you said things that you didn't. The only difference is that if you were a Britannica contributor, you might be able to sue them for both libel and copyright violations, whereas as a Wikipedia contributor you can only sue them for libel. —Bkell (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I feel a request for comment coming on. I am concerned at the idea that we should simply accept some things as a consequence of the fact that Wikipedia is free. The idea goes beyond mere issues of personal reputation and encompasses general issues of credibility. I have had a look at the Wikipedia:Copyright page and can see no clear discussion of this right to subsequently modify issue. It would help clear matters up if you could direct me to your source for your interpretation of this policy. Nor can I find any clear copyright policy on the use of scientific charts, graphs or diagrams to display data in wikipedia articles. As someone who takes an interest in copyright issues can you direct me to the relevant policy/discussion? --Sf 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Copyrights: "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)." Permission for modification is an essential part of what it means to be free content. —Bkell (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree The third paragraph of WP:NONFREE clearly states that for wikipedia to be encyclopedic, it needs to include some non-free content.

There are some works, mostly historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we cannot realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself. Because the inability to include these examples limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions, people may use such works under limited conditions without license or permission.

The goal of wikipedia is to make a completely free information resource. As long as there are copyright laws that cover widely used, iconic, easily accesible but owned, etc ... works, then for just so long there will be a need to include items on the site that are not completely free. We should not cripple wikipedia by effectively telling copyright holders that anything they give to Wikipedia is now Public domain. As a friend of mine often states, "Fair use is a defense, not a right." -- Jvv62 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The tag currently has a notice at the top which says:

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.

This is good enough for me. As far as I can tell, this notice must have existed in March too, when I started this whole debate, but I must have missed it. Anyway, the notice declares that anyone must be allowed to make derivative works, or the image should be listed for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Sorry for overlooking this notice and causing a big uproar. —Bkell (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)