Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:C

See also:

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions - ask all questions about whether you can use an image here
Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Credit repair - case study relating to external links and attribution
Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations on history pages
WikiProject Copyright Cleanup – see how you can help

Commons:Licensing – Related at Wikimedia Commons

US minors

In the US, do minors have the authority to license their own works under the license that Wikipedia requires for article contributions and uploads? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See m:Talk:Legal and Community Advocacy#Minors on Wikimedia projects (very long). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC 4?

Are there any plans to migrate to the version 4 of CC? Or will CC4 licences be available for uploaded files in the near future? After a bit of research I have growing objections against the harsh termination clause in CC 3 and earlier, according to which any usage of a file granted by the licence beyond standard copyright becomes illegal after even a single, temporary and accidental licence violation. Only an explicit statement by the copyright owner can "cure" the licence, while a simple re-download doesn't, as descriped in this CC Wiki FAQ. This could lead to serious "runaway" problems since any slight licence break would grow with time in legal severity. In German law, this could lead to a severe case of a long-lasting copyright violation which can be prosecuted ex officio, and thus possibly even against the copyright holder's interests.

CC4, however, includes an automatic reinstatement if the violation is stopped within 30 days of notice. For this reason, I would like to migrate all my uploaded files to the 4.0 version as far as time permits, but this would require an official OK for these licences in Wikipedia/Commons. Meanwhile, could a simple statement that, in addition to the rules of the actual licence, the licence termination is automatically cured under the rules of CC4 (or simply that the termination clause is entirely omitted for my works), help to avoid the legal runaway effects described above?--SiriusB (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has templates, see Commons:Template:Cc-by-4.0 and Commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0. If you wish to migrate your files to the 4.0 licences, consider adding 4.0 templates in addition to the existing templates, but keeping the old licence templates in case someone prefers to use your files under those licences instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manuals for things no longer being sold

Does it qualify as fair usage to website that host old computer manuals? It came with the product, which is no longer for sale, so no possible loss of revenue for them. I suggest we add a bit in the article to state that manuals for anything no longer being sold, are acceptable to link to. For manuals to things that are being sold, such as modern video games, then you still probably wouldn't have a problem, since people don't buy the games just to read the manuals, and anywhere you could download an illegal copy of a game would let you download the manual as well, so a site with nothing but manuals archived shouldn't be a problem. Any article talking about electronics would benefit those who are interested in such things and understand the tech side of them, by having a link to the manual that came with the product. Dream Focus 19:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Input wanted: orphan works

We're looking for examples of how the unavailability of orphan works (works under copyright where the rightsholder is unknown or uncontactable) hurts the mission of the Wikimedia projects. Please see WP:VPM#Input wanted: orphan works. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple image license grant

I'm pursuing a license grant on several photos. I see that a release listing a single license for images is acceptable (two for text). For simple, non-commercially viable photos like mine, which is suggested, GFDL or CC-by-sa-3.0? Also, the executive director of my organization is willing to grant such licenses, as they have published these photos previously. Can he do a combined release via e-mail to OTRS for a set of these? Or must he write a specific response e-mail for each one? Jax MN (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this text copyrighted or public domain?

I was just looking at an ITV press release webpage (here:[1]) where they provide a brief plot summary for an episode of Law & Order: UK. Above the summary they have written this: "The information contained herein is embargoed from press use, commercial and non-commercial reproduction and sharing - in the public domain - until Tuesday 30 July 2013." Now maybe I am just dumb, but it is not clear to me whether they are saying that after the date given that the text becomes public domain. Does anyone understand this better that I do? Also, if the text is in the public domain now, does that mean that the Wikipedia page with information about that episode can copy it verbatim? Any input is appreciated. 99.192.73.179 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]