Template talk:Non-free Crown copyright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note that this licence has recently become non-free. Images uploaded which are still under Crown Copyright must have a Fair Use rationale to remain on Wikipedia. Images which are no longer covered by Crown Copyright should use the {{PD-BritishGov}} tag instead.

Also note that not everything on a UK government web site is actually under Crown copyright and that the Royal Arms, departmental and agency logos are not covered under the typical terms of use for a website. They cannot be used without specific permission.

List of copyright notices[edit]

Related copyright notification pages[edit]

Non-commercial or otherwise a little odd, need separate page[edit]

For official HMSO guidance on the matter see Guidance Note 13 on their website.

Discussion[edit]

In the template list, all other templates in the same section as this have a copyright symbol in it, so I feel this template should have the same article.

 © 



--TwelveBaud (disusered) 01:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does crown copyright really allow this?[edit]

At least in Canada, Crown copyright appears to permit nothing of the sort ([2]). Could we have some references indicating that (for example) commercial use of Crown copyrighted images is legal? --Andrew 21:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

British Crown copyright does, and the licence is referring to British sites. Its naming is rather UK-centric but it's probably too much work to move things now. David Newton 22:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?[edit]

I would like to fix the wording to indicate that it is specifically protected by the British version of Crown copyrigt, which is free, rather than (say) the Canadian, which isn't. --Andrew 23:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

national maritime museum[edit]

any solicitors out there want to take a crack at what this means to us?

usable crown copyright? fair use? run away, run away?

National Maritime Museum copyright notice

Seasee 06:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since this was posted, but the relevant section is this:
Permitted use
Access to and use of the Website is permitted only by individuals for personal and/or educational use or non-commercial purposes. Subject to certain limitations there is no infringement by 'fair dealing', e.g. using material for research (non-commercial) or private study, criticism or for news and current affairs.
You may access and download the Content and store a copy on a temporary basis for the sole purpose of viewing such Content without alteration or addition. You may print any Content (other than third party copyright) in whole or in part provided that such reproduction is to be used for personal and educational purposes only.
ie. {{NonCommercial}}. So no, it's not acceptable. However, as it states, fair use (or fair dealing) guidelines may allow for the use of some of the images in the correct context. GeeJo (t)(c) • 11:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

I think it would be useful to add a <noinclude>...</noinclude> section to the bottom of the template page to the lists of site we can and can't use with this template at the top of this talk page. Maybe something like:

<noinclude>----The licensing terms described in this template do not apply to all British Crown Copyright sources. Please check if the site you are taking images from is included in the list of sites this template applies to, found on the [[Template talk:CrownCopyright|talk page]], before using this template.</noinclude>

AJR | Talk 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Court Service now Her Majesty's Courts Service[edit]

The link above for Court Service is defunct, the new HMCS website has this page [3] which I imagine is the relevant one. May we interpret

"The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. "

as ok for use on wikipedia? Kurando | ^_^ 09:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is essentially the same wording as many of the other sites, and matches what the template says, so I'd assume so. -- AJR | Talk 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

List reviewed[edit]

I have gone through the list of allowed sites, above, updating links, etc. There were some where the current statement on the deptartment website would put the site into the "can't use" list - I have struck through these entries. In these cases, where the permission has been changed, do we have to track down images used from those sites and delete them, or does the permission from when we took thos eimages apply? -- AJR | Talk 12:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I updated all such images that I uploaded myself with a detailed fair use rationale. I'd recommend that this be done with any others that these changes apply to. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Please note that there is a dispute at Image talk:Kingcrown.jpg regarding an image from www.royal.gov.uk. The image is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (for the second time) under January 26, 2006. Enforcement of Crown Copyright is requested. User:Noisy | Talk 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Register Office (Scotland)[edit]

I can't see anything on the [4] copyright notice provided by the site that would preclude use by third parties other than Wikipedia. It seems that all they require is attribution and that the copyright status be acknowledged. If I've missed something important that would prevent images from the site being used, please let me know. Lacking any response, I'll shift the notice into permitted two weeks from posting this message. GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the link to the 'click-use' licence site, it seems to say that you actually have to apply for the licence, even for the two categories that are free. I think it's unclear. Better to play on the safe side. Noisy | Talk 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bold[edit]

Perhaps an idea to make 'not' bold within may not be relicensed. In my opinion this could prevent misreading. --Hardscarf 10:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-free licence?[edit]

After having a look around, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this license is ever free enough for Wikipedia. Every single instance of the licence includes the clause "subject to its reproduction being accurate". I'm assuming that this is equivalent to disallowing derivatives. All other licences banning derivatives (such as the Creative Commons licenses {{Cc-nd}}, {{cc-by-nd-2.0}}, etc.) are in the category Category:Non-free image copyright tags, and a note is placed on the template to reflect that. This'd mean that all images in the Crown Copyright category would need to have a fair-use rationale appended. Thoughts? GeeJo (t)(c) • 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The design of the template seems far too lenient considering the conditions for using works under Crown Copyright. I added a red (C) and also added this to the non-free templates category, since derivative works are not permitted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fortunately there seems to be only 263 images in the Crown Copyright category, so this is something we should be able to deal with easily. Personally I would tag all the images with a no-license-speedy-delete warning and notify all the uploaders giving them 7 days to make a fair use claim. ed g2stalk 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or we could convert it to a "very safe fair use" tag. --Fastfission 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Images that were licensed under the Canadian Crown Copyright were either deleted or relicensed, so I think we should follow that example with this category of images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've nothing against keeping the tag itself, expecially since Fair Use tags add that you need to give all available copyright data. It also allows for easy checking when images fall out of Crown Copyright. The tag just needs to make explicit that it's not enough on its own, and needs a Fair Use rationale alongside. GeeJo (t)(c) • 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So seeing as this isn't a valid license, everything needs to be tagged with no-license and re-evaluated... ed g2stalk 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tag redesign[edit]

To make it more obvious that the license is non-free, could the design be changed to resemble {{EU image}} (possibly as shown below)? GeeJo (t)(c) • 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Red copyright.svg

Nuvola apps important.svg

This image is protected by British Crown copyright. Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. HMSO has explicitly stated in official correspondence that material under Crown Copyright may not be relicensed under the GFDL.


This is a non-free license, since modification is not permitted

Flag of the United Kingdom.svg
I've gone ahead and made this change to discourage the use of this license. I had already added the red (C), but the previous design was still a bit "soft". I wonder if this can even be used at all without the conjunction of a fair use tag, such as {{withpermission}}. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as this is not a valid license, I suggest all applicable photos be tagged with {{nld}}. ed g2stalk 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
ed g2s, I think you are mistaken. It is a fair use tag, not a license tag, so a fair use rationale is needed, not {{nld}}. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Images with this tag automatically fall under WP:FU. I recommended adding the following to the template:

'''To the uploader''': please add a detailed ''fair use rationale'' for each use, as described on [[Help:Image page]], as well as the '''source''' of the work and copyright information.

Such wording seems to have become a standard rubric on fair use tags. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit[edit]

See Template:CrownCopyright/Proposed. To make it clearer that this is a "fair use" template. Peter O. (Talk) 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Ashibaka tock 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, but I'm afraid the notes below the template don't have a "noinclude" around them, see e.g. Image:101sqn-600.jpg, and also some categories are repeated twice in the template. Please fix these problems. Peter O. (Talk) 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, I should hope. Ashibaka tock 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks much better. Peter O. (Talk) 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request[edit]

Please add interwiki for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Шаблон:КрунскоАуторскоПраво]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} done. CMummert · talk 11:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: Add a sortkey to Category:Crown copyright images[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please change line <includeonly>[[Category:Crown copyright images]]</includeonly> to <includeonly>[[Category:Crown copyright images|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>. Thanks, Iamunknown 00:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Need for this template?[edit]

Is there a need for this template? As we cannot use these images outside fair use anyway, why not just use an appropriate fair use tag instead? Seems to me that this tag is unnecessarily confusing and does not seem to add value.--Konstable 08:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon inspection seems to me the reason for it's existence is historical. I suggest it be labelled as deprecated and removed from all the pages listing image tags.--Konstable 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. {{CrownCopyright}} is a license tag. Every image needs it, one per image. If you deprecate it you should use a different license tag instead. The fair use rationale is a separate requirement, once per insertion of an image in an article page. See WP:FURG. So if you deprecate this license tag you'll need to tell people to use a different license tag but they'll still need fair use tags in addition. Wikidemo 06:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm yes, of course it is a license tag. By "removed from all the pages listing image tag" I meant pages like: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. The reason for this is that people no longer use it for new images. I am saying that this tag should not be used for new images because: 1) it does not provide any benefit over a more specific fair use license tag 2) causes confusion through the long intro - goes on for a whole paragraph on the conditions of use which do not apply 3) British crown copyright offers no exceptions to Wikipedia than any other copyrighted image 4) quite a large number of images using this tag are not using it correctly. If this tag needs to be kept as active for some reason, then we should at least remove the following irrelevent and confusing bit from it:

Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to, its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

--Konstable 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 27 June 2010[edit]

{{editprotected}} Hi.

I'd like to suggest the copyright logo in this template to be replaced with this new version:

NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg

To do so, simply replace this portion of the code:

| image      = [[Image:Red copyright.svg|52px|Copyrighted]]

With:

| image      = [[File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg|64px|Copyrighted]]

Fleet Command (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia info could probably be shortened.[edit]

It sounds as though an image is partly free despite failing Wikipedia's free content guidelines. If that's the case, the second paragraph could probably be shortened to:

This is not an edit request at this time, but it's worth consideration. mechamind90 16:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Government License[edit]

In light of the Open Government license which covers Crown Copyright material (with a few notable exceptions like OS Maps) , this template and the media covered by it needs review.

If the material can be re-released under OGL, It should be as OGL IS Commons Compatible :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Request to reword template[edit]

Reword to: {{imbox | type = license | image = [[File:NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg|64px|Copyrighted]] | imageright = [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|64px|]] | text = This work is subject to a British '''[Crown copyright]''' and is not covered by the Open Government License. Limitations on its distribution may be defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to, its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright]] status (including Crown Copyright) acknowledged. This is a '''Non-free media''' for the purposes of Wikipedia, as modification is not permitted. In addition to this tag an 'appropriate' non-free license tag should be added as well as a detailed fair use rationale for each usage. }}{{category handler|file=[[Category:Crown copyright files]]}}{{Non-free media}}<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>


Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all clear from the above just what the desired changes are. Thus, I've created a /sandbox copy for evaluation. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Tweaked the sandbox into the intended re-working..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Question: these seem to be significant changes; where was this discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Here. Boldly! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but changing the wording of media licenses can have legal consequences, so I can't see WP:BOLD applying to something as potentially controversial as this. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done We can't change a licensing text without prior evaluation for legal consequences. This should be looked into by an expert before it gets implemented. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012[edit]

As far as I can tell, the change to this template made by SchuminWeb on November 19 was never discussed, and thus there was no consensus for it established. This makes it a Bold edit. I would like to take the next step in WP:BRD and Revert it, but I cannot, since I am not an admin. Therefore I request that an admin revert SchuminWeb's edit of November 19. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Template talk:Non-free video game cover#Edit request on 17 December 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. See discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes in the wording of "Non-free" templates. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Requested move 22 September 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free Crown copyrightTemplate:Non-free Crown copyright UK – This template only applies to UK crown copyrights, there's no indication of this limitation in the name of the template. This name is exhibiting WP:Systematic bias in assuming that British is the only Crown copyright. Relisted bd2412 T 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as nominator. This lacks WP:PRECISION in it is ambiguous, and there are other templates for other Crown Copyrights, and this is not a generic template for all crown copyrights. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until some evidence is given that the term "Crown copyright" is used for other copyrights with templates. Otherwise there is no ambiguity and no need for extra verbiage. With no ambiguity, WP:BIAS is irrelevant since title is internal only. —  AjaxSmack  00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the discussion section already shows {{Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright}} so, it was already mentioned here prior to October 8. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • How is the Turkish crown copyright used? In the "What links here" section, it only seems to be used for one file. Is there a similar template for Commons? And exactly which crown is it referring to, the defunct Ottoman crown? --Article editor (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It's an example of a different "crown copyright" licensing template on Wikipedia, which was what you objected to not having, yet it was already apparent in the discussion prior to your lodging your opinion. (like the three other crown copyright templates now also linked to in this discussion) If we're going to discuss how to use the Turkish template, I suggest we move that discussion over to its talk page. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Particularly, {{Non-free Turkish Crown Copyright}} show non-Britishness already found on Wikipedia -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Non-free AUSPIC}} is also a crown copyright licence template, for Australia; and per the Turkish mention above, non-British templates were already here in the RM discussion before the opposes of October 8 appeared. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming the category[edit]

-- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)