![]() | Wikipedia Help NA‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | VRT | |||
|
Great idea, Jmabel -- excellent and much-needed resource. Please be sure to note something about Wikipedia:No original research here, if you would -- don't want people thinking this is another avenue for crackpot theories. (Don't want to interrupt your "in-use" editing to do it myself.) — Catherine\ talk 20:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy ( talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
God resource. I've been looking for something like this for a while. I have proposed adding a link to Template:nothanks. Bovlb ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Granting us permission to copy material already online section, it says to post to the talk page, and "Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission". How does this process get started? I'm specifically referring to User:ITU-T, who had posted copyvio material to the page Malcolm Johnson (Director) and now has a permission statement on their userpage. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently, this document says:
“ | If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or on your user page if your site covers a number of topics). This does require that your site have a posted email contact, or some other similar means for us to verify that we really do have the relevant permission. Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission, and we will be able to add your site to a list of those from which our editors may freely draw. | ” |
This is less than ideal for many reasons, not the least of which is that few (if any) of the editors addressing copyright concerns are members of the Communications Committee. Wikipedia's editors and administrators must follow the same procedure as other contributors, going through WP:Permissions process to first obtain a letter of clearance from the webmasters and then forward it to the Communications Committee. Adding this middle man creates pointless delay. I believe that this document should be updated to suggest that the copyright owners send the letter themselves, as it is already recommended at WP:IOWN. Accordingly, I suggest:
“ | If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or talk pages, if more than one article) and send an e-mail confirming this from an address associated with the site to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" (an OTRS address). Your e-mail should include the source Internet URL and the name of the article(s) on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information, including an example declaration of consent which you may find useful. Note that the material must be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, as "Requesting copyright permission" sets out. | ” |
I've removed the bit about listing of sites from which we may freely draw. Unless an OTRS ticket is added to the title at that list, it doesn't seem to be usable. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Are some of the references to GFDL on this page outdated? For example, should we retain the description of GFDL as one of many option for images but not suggest it for textual contributions? I think the advice can be improved, but I'd rather leave the exact wording to an expert than boldly get it wrong myself. Certes ( talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we get a "In a nutshell" paragraph for this page, so that potential donors don't have to study the whole article to get the idea? I've written a proposal below.
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
Diego ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact [email protected] for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site."
Doesn't this need to say something like (bolding for emphasis):
"If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact email from an email address containing the domain name of the external site, thus showing your authority to donate, [email protected] for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site"? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk •
contribs) 13:54, 8 February 2010
I have a number of websites at which I release all content under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver (CC0). My intuition is that this material really ought to be available for use on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't mention anything about more permissive licenses. So my questions are:
Thanks for any input. Dcoetzee 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote a blog post, Open-licensing your images. What it means and how to do it, to encourage people to make images available to Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons. An interesting debate about doing this, vs. the interests of commercial photographers, has developed in the comments. Further input is welcome (as would be pointers to any previous discussion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This document needs a going over to allow for the possibility of permission from print sources, as we occasionally do have book and journal authors who import their content here. I'd like to develop a new section called "Granting us permission to copy offline materials" that will talk about some of the ways these authors can verify. This is slightly more complex, since they can't easily put a note on the website, but some of the ways that can work include (a) emailing from an email associated with the author, if s/he has a clear online presence (as with university professors) or a statement on that website; (b) emailing from an email associated with the publisher (journal or book authors) or a statement on their website. I assume that we can trust them if they say they have the rights; while I know of one significant and painful case where we had to remove content of a published author because his publisher objected, this has only happened once that I know of and legally we should be protected by the authorization of the author, I think. I'll propose what I come up with here, of course, but before I start working on it just wanted to share my thoughts and see if anybody else had any others. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The note at the top of the page reads "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work." In U.S. copyright law (among others) there is no requirement that the work be published in order to attract copyright protection. Would it be prudent to change the wording to reflect the situation more accurately? Something like, "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own existing work."? ... discospinster talk 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi there copyright minded people. I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it applicable to granting us permission to copy material already on facebook pages or groups? Can we consider facebook pages or groups as “site”? -- Anton ·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know that how to communicate for granting us permission to copy material already online, particularly for other Wikipedia such as Tamil Wikipedia. The section suggest to send email to [email protected] or [email protected]. Does this email applicable to all Wikipedia projects such as Tamil, etc? I do not see WP:DCP page at many Wikipedias. Actually, I have been asked by a user for granting us (Tamil Wikipedia) permission to copy material already online. As far I know Tamil Wikipedia uses an gmail ID for communication. How could it be possible for an official communication? -- Anton Talk 20:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Donation implies giving something up. I thought about "releasing", but it shares the same potential problem in misunderstanding. Wouldn't it be better to retitle this page to " Wikipedia:Sharing copyrighted materials"? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned section gives a list of license templates that is not the same as the one found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#For image creators. I suggest removing the list from this page and replacing it with a link to WP:FCT instead. Having the list in a single place makes maintenance easier. — capmo ( talk) 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should make it clear that owning a physical copy of a work does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Especially the "photographs" section would benefit from this. I'm suggesting this as one user at Commons has complained about lack of such guidance which in turn led to an invalid OTRS ticket and much dismay. Particularly I would like to suggest the following change: "If they are your own photos, you will probably want to use one of the following"
→ "If you are the photographer, you will probably want to use one of the following"
.
De728631 (
talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Wiki tags this article as Coppy right item etc. however Im the owner of this creative studio which all text are already my own and I would like to add on wiki. ( Oliviadurak ( talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)).
If content is available CC-BY under v4 of the CC licenses am I right in thinking we can import it here with attribution, but It can't go the other way as we require SA? Or is there a problem moving between v3 and v4 of the licenses? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I have doubts about the Creative Commons Licenses and Copyright Donation Processes. I uploaded an article to Wikipedia and it was deleted with a speedy deletion tag under the G12 Unambiguous Copyright Infringement category. ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Illicit_Alcohol) Now, the original paper is on the Euromonitor website, as well in Tracit.org.
The question is: where the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be? Has it to be explicit in the paper (both websites or in the original site of publication) or in a specific place on the website, so that once the information is published in wikipedia, it is fulfilling all the copyright requirements?
There is it any other type of license this document could have or is the referred ones (CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 and the GFDL) the mandatory ones for it? Is there a license that allows the content to keep uploaded on Wikipedia, without the document being permitted to be modified and adapted by any other person, website and organization?
Once the author has done this licenses processes, where in Wikipedia exactly has to be the link that confirms this article has the appropriate copyright to be uploaded?
The paper is an information to be downloaded at the Euromonitor WebSite and in Tracit.org it is in the following link: https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf
Thank you very much for your help, very appreciated. AlcoholEducation ( talk) 16:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The donation engine (linked by a big, prominent blue button on this page) is not working, as part of the toolforge deprecation. Update needed. Pete Forsyth ( talk) 18:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)