Template talk:No rights reserved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 License cat 2 Description text 3 Difference compared to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} 4 This is mine, you can have it 5 Uncopyrighted sign 6 Copyrighted, but no rights reserved? 7 Merge with PD-release

[edit] License cat

Shouldn't there be a license category added to this template just like most other license templates have ? --Denniss 22:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough to me, so I added one - Category:Free use images is, I believe, the correct one. If there's a good reason not to have this, someone can always revert it. Mike1024 (talk/contribs) 15:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Description text

If no rights are reserved, then it isn't really copyrighted is it? Isn't this the same as releasing it into the public domain? --Pmsyyz 08:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! The trouble is it seems that as the law currently works a copyright holder can't actually explicitly do that. All you can do is say "I hold the copyright but I don't mind what you do with it", which is what this is. It only becomes proper Public Domain 70 years after your death (well, probably a lot longer in the case of most people here, since that number keeps inching up for Mouse-related reasons) or if you produced it in the process of working for various government agencies whose products are automatically PD. See Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain. Bth 17:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think that in some cases there is a difference, for example in some countries you might only be able to claim authorship if it is copyrighted, even if you give up all other rights. Although in the UK at least, the moral right to assert authorship is separate from copyright. Unless we have an offical legal opinion from the Foundation that giving up all rights to a work is legally the same as putting it in the public domain, I think we still have to use this to avoid potential snafus. (As ever, IANAL.) Hairy Dude 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference compared to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}

Is there a difference at all, apart from No_rights_reserved trying harder to explain what it means? —Bromskloss 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is mine, you can have it

I'd like to say that this template really expresses a nice attitude. It starts out forcefully, stating, in boldface, that the work is someones property, it's copyrighted… This is mine, I have all rights to it, and I have the right to decide any conditions of use of it in any way it pleases me. I decide that you may do anything you want with it, use it precisely as you see fit, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it! Amusing. :-) —Bromskloss 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncopyrighted sign

Could there be an uncopyrighted symbol along with the green symbol or omit the green symbol since the category would be for stuff in the public domain? Pronoun 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Normally, a green symbol means the work is copyrighted, but is free to use for any purpose. Peter O. (Talk) 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We do have tags specifically for public domain. —Bromskloss 08:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted, but no rights reserved?

This is a contradictionary. I don't like this license tag. If it is copyrighted, then it is not suitable for wikipedia, unless under the term of fair use. This template is prone to be abused. — Indon (reply) — 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, copyrighted material can be perfectly fine on Wikipedia. Most material is copyrighted, because as soon as you create something, it's copyrighted! Actually, copyright is a necessity to be able to use a license (such as GFDL), because if it werent for the copyright, no one would be forced to comply with the license you (the creator) specify. The reason for saying "this is copyrighted, but you can use it anyway you like" I think is because it might not be legally possible to give up copyright. Using this tag, I guess, achieves the same effect. —Bromskloss 17:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with PD-release

Legally, there is no difference between this license template and Template:PD-release. Both renounce all rights to the work. Whether it is called "public domain" or "copyrighted" makes no difference. If all rights are renounced, the licensing status is legally equivalent no matter what jurisdiction you're talking about. Whether or not it is actually possible to renouce all rights is immaterial. We don't need one template for people who believe it is possible and another template for people who don't. That only servers to confuse people, as evidenced by the hundreds of images that now using both templates, which is a waste of bandwidth and processing power. This template should be merged with Template:PD-release. Kaldari 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In case there is confusion, "public domain" is not a magical legal term. It simply means works for which no rights are reserved, which is exactly what this template describes. Kaldari 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actualy that's not a bad idea. It's hardly a magic bullet, there are plenty of people who think that anything that is accessable by the public is in the public domain or take the notion of self-created works a bit too far and "release" the the screenshots they just created into the public domain and such, but still... Might deter some of the people who keep using this to tag stuff that where they have gotten some kind of limited permission to use an image for something.

Might be better to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or some such "central" place though... --Sherool (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Kaldari 05:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Templates_for_release_to_the_public_domain. Please continue the discussion there. Kaldari 05:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)