Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old photo album[edit]

I have been looking at an album of photos taken by my father (deceased 40+ years), showing places across Scotland in the 1930s-40s. The prints are small (people did tend to economise on photo paper) and may not scan well. And a lot of the views haven't really changed, so his photos would be superfluous here. But I am wondering about the status if I do identify some that for scanning and uploading. They are not my own work but have fallen to me through the family: what license could I put on them? AllyD (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the statutory heir of the photographer, you are able to release them under any license you choose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

The page states, However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work The creator is not always the copyright holder. I believe that this section is actually intended to prohibit linking to works posted in violation of copyright regardless of who holds the copyright. Therefore, I suggest rephrasing to: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Buidhe and Pppery: I think this has the potential to cause more confusion than it solves - explicit permission isn't always needed (eg when it's CC licensed) and people often misunderstand that. Would suggest the much simpler solution to the issue buidhe raises would be to just strike "the creator's" from the original wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a CC license is the copyright holder giving permission. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but unfortunately not everyone understands that ;-) and if we have the opportunity to avoid that confusion, that is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did think of this hypothetical confusion, but the previous one is already causing issues since people assume it's OK to link a postprint research paper posted by an author. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I think just removing creator fixes it - it's an issue of violating copyright no matter who holds that copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 October 2023[edit]

Please update the CC BY-SA 3.0 license to CC BY-SA 4.0 license, as WMF changed the license of text a few months ago. Awesome Aasim 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done if I missed any, please ping me. — xaosflux Talk 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to link to photo archives?[edit]

To use a copyrighted photo as a ref to support a fact. I know that photos make poor refs, but they're allowable I think. The last paragraph of WP:COPYLINK is the part of the rule that comes closest addresseing this I think, and it says:

Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.

Alright, if you want to prove that Joe Shmoe starred in (or was said to star in anyway) some movie, and you've got an article which doesn't say so but does include a picture of a copyrighted movie poster that does say so (they are presumably using the picture of the poster under legit fair use), then link to the article and not the photo. Well and good.

But what if the copyrighted photo has no meaningful context?

An example would be, say, a photo on a photo gallery site which is selling photos. They took the photo and own the copyright. So they're not displaying them under fair use. Let's say the context is minimal, such as "Get an 8 x 10 of this cool photo for $10, enter your credit card and address if you want one". There's no context to remove, basically. You're not linking directly to just the photo (like "htpps://photoland/coolphoto.gif"), but almost.

(We are leaving aside for now the question of the url being possibly unstable, and that photos are probably poor refs generally. Different issues.)

My take is that it'd be OK according to rule anyway.

Except: Photoland is serving the page explicitly and solely to sell copies. All or essentially all of our usual refs are different; an article in the "New York Times" is not served explicitly and solely to sell copies of that article. So it's different (altho there is very often a pecuniary motive, in this case maybe that the Times wants to draw people to their site so they can sell subscriptions).

FWIW, both the Times and Photoland would be glad to have more visitors go their page, one would think, to sell subscriptions or sell more copies of the photo, respectively, if that matters (commercial considerations do matter for uploading a picture for fair use, but that's different from linking.) But we can't 100% assume that Photoland would be happy to have their page being used as a reference rather than just being visited by people looking to buy photos. Maybe it messes up their page counts which they use for figuring what pictures to feature, or something. (Technically we don't have to care about that I guess, only about the law. But still.)

My take is that even considering this difference it'd still be OK, by both the spirit and text of the rule. Am I correct? Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add translations to this page?[edit]

Can we add a brief note on this page to cover translations and link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation? I have seen multiple people mistakenly translate content without realizing they were creating a derivative work? Rjjiii (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names. Given the comments that have been made so far, it would be helpful (in my opinion) for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution policy/requirements for copying within Wikipedia. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees[edit]

Possibly of value?

  • "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last". The Art Newspaper. 29 December 2023.

Fyi only. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

This sentence in the section "Linking to copyrighted works" appears to be incorrect:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work.

The last bit should be removed:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.

Thank you for your time. — gabldotink talk | contribs | global account ] 06:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use the mbox template for the intro blurb?[edit]

I don't exactly like the use of the broken HTML in this matter when there is a template that formats the notice much much better. It is not even center aligned. For example:

How would this look on the page? Awesome Aasim 18:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet archives"[edit]

The text currently reads:

The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear

This is confusing for two reasons:

  1. "Internet archives" actually goes to web archives
  2. "Internet archives" is easily confused with "Internet archive" which is the name of a specific web archive provider, and one so large and dominate (over 90% of enwiki) that one might be easily mistaken.

I see no reason to use a non-standard name for "web archives". Recommend simply changing to:

The copyright status of web archives in the United States is unclear

..because "web archives" is what they are called. -- GreenC 16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done along with some additional text scope clarifying there. — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested[edit]

There is a discussion that may be of your interest including the topic proprietary services, at Template talk:GeoTemplate#Splitting Global/Trans-national services. Your input is welcomed. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]