Wikipedia talk:Example requests for permission/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Model letters need slight re-casting
I think they should be as simple and short as possible—like, three-quarters of their current length. The danger is always that a busy recipient will put it aside unless the message is easy and quick to digest.
May I suggest that these models include a subject title at the top (an attention grabber), and that even the formal letters use contractives such as "won't". I think that in some respects the language of these letters can be friendly and formal at the same time.
Tony 05:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
American English formal
This is an adaptation of the British English version (mostly spelling changes). Please feel free to correct.
Dear Sir or Madam I am writing to you on behalf of the Wikipedia project <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, an endeavor to build a fully-fledged multilingual encyclopedia in an entirely open manner, to ask for permission to use your copyrighted material. Your organization has on its website content which would undoubtedly enhance communication with our target audience; in order to do so, I should like to ask for your authorization to use such content, namely the [photograph|illustration|etc] located at [URL], under the terms of Wikipedia's license. Wikipedia licenses all its content under the license developed for purposes of free documentation by the Free Software Foundation, the text of which can be found at <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>. It should be borne in mind that if you choose to allow Wikipedia to use the stated [photograph|illustration|etc], it will remain copyrighted to you; however, the said license stipulates that third parties must be permitted to reuse the licensed work so long that they retain the license of this work and any derivatives from it. Consequently, you may wish to consider carefully whether you are prepared to compromise some of your rights granted to you by copyright law by licensing your work as suggested. That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble end of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; naturally enough, only if you agree. If that is the case, could you kindly fill in the attached form and post it to [where?]? We shall greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully [name surname]
Wikiacc (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Confirmation of permission
Hi everyone - I just noticed. This page contains contradictory instructions relative to the WP:CP page. On WP:CP once we have permission we send an email to permission at wikimedia dot com and put {{Confirmation}} on the talk page. We don't list things on Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission, which seems an unnecessarily redundant step. But, of course, I'm glad to change my mind :) --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 02:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Casual request for images?
There isn't a boilerplate for a casual request for images - the current casual boilerplate seems to be for text. Andjam 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Impreciseness in informal image request?
This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely
Does "your materials" sound a bit ambiguous, as if it's suggesting every work by the requestee would be made available (whereas the requestee has the option of licensing some but not all of his/hers images)? How about "the licenced materials"? Andjam 12:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Version of "Casual" in Tajik
There is a version of the "Casual" letter in Tajik that can be found courtesy of tg:User:Ibrahim here. Should it be linked, is there a page for multi-lingual versions ? - FrancisTyers · 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No permission requests for Public Domain
The provided examples only mention requests for releasing an image under the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license. This Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial page also talks about releasing an image in the public domain. Shouldn't this be included as an option? Prodoc 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Real Examples
If anyone is interested, I uploaded an image (MichaelShermer1.jpg) and requested GFDL permissions from the copyright owner (who is also the subject of the image). I included the full email trail on the image page which might serve as an example for others. I used a rather informal approach, but made sure that the owner understood the full ramifications of the license. It helps a great deal if you are simply honest and straightforward, since the owners are, after all, doing us all a favor. In addition to securing permission for the image, it appears as though I introduced another person to the wonderful world of Wikipedia who did not know about it previously. — Loadmaster 18:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The letters are missing something
If you received one of the sample letters, would you know how to properly give the required permission? Probably not. The letters need to include instructions to the copyright holder on how to respond. Each of the sample letters should be modified to include something like:
One way to give your permission to use the image: <URLs> is to reply to this letter with the statement:
"I own the copyright to the image mentioned in your letter and located at <URLs>. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, no Back-Cover Texts, and subject to disclaimers found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ." --Jreferee 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I added my sample form here. Please feel free to review it. -- Jreferee 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Free Images
Images can be divided between free and non-free ones. Recently, there has been a push to eliminate the non-free ones that, apparently, can be recreated. However, until now I have seen many places with suggestions about how to request free images, but not a project to coordinate efforts. Because of this I am giving the first push to WikiProject Free Images, aimed at centralizing discussion about free images. Currently, it is situated at my userspace, User:ReyBrujo/WikiProject Free Images, but with enough positive feedback and help, it will be moved into the Wikipedia namespace.
The WikiProject aim is broad: first and foremost, educate users about the benefits of free images, but also to teach the differences between free licenses when applied to images. Aside this, the WikiProject will focus in replacing the current fair use images with free ones of good quality, by contacting the media, agencies, publishers or other copyright holders as necessary. It would keep a list of requested images to different organizations, with the different steps that had been taken and the different replies. It will also have an index of all the images that had been donated by these organizations, so that they are able to review their contributions. Also, the members of the WikiProject would review the usage of these images in Wikipedia, verifying that attributions are applied at all times when requested by the copyright holder.
This WikiProject was given as a thought during the Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos discussion, and since apparently there has not been a similar one, I decided to try it out. With some luck and effort, it should be possible to replace many of the current fair use images with free ones of similar quality.
Please drop by and give some thoughts in there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Erroneous info in this page
Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#What_not_to_ask_permission_for is blatantly erroneous. It makes it sound like solely GFDL images are usable in WP. In point of fact, there are multiple ways a person may release an image and it be used on WP. Here are just two examples besides the GFDL:
- Creative Commons-Attribution
- Copyright by [Name of Person]. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that [Name of Person] is attributed as the author and derivatives do not deface the piece in any way.
CyberAnth 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sufficient permission for WP?
"These photos are free of charge with the mention ©Council of Europe" [1]
I don't think that'd be sufficient permission but just in case... is it? Yonatan (contribs/talk) 14:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- They are free of charge, but can they be modified? If not, it's not sufficient. Garion96 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Permission query
If someone gives permission to use their photos from flickr but does not change the license, can we use the photosMuntuwandi 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Depends. If the person gives permission to use the photos on wikipedia, no. If the person by e-mail licenses the photos under a free license, yes. If the latter, you can forward that e-mail to the permissions OSTR. Garion96 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I sent an email using one of the templates(casual). The user said I could use his photos but the OTRS said no because he has not changed the license.Muntuwandi 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- What did he said in this e-mail? Did he specifically stated "I release the images found on http:// etc on a creative commons cc-by license? Or something similar like that? Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- he said "feel free to use the photos". I sent the email with all the details about wikipedia image policy.Muntuwandi 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Feel free to use them" is not clear enough. Please ask him to specifically state a license. He does not have to change the license on flickr. I did it often enough myself, where the license on flickr is unfree, but by e-mail I got the permission to use under a free license. Like this image. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that wikipedia policy is too complicated and too legal for many of the typical photographers. Many have given permission to use their photos but when I ask them to change a license or submit a statement, they are intimidated and disappear. Something needs to be done to simplify the process. Most people would be happy to have their images on wikipedia but have limited understanding of licensing and so when the see long phraises like "GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2" they are freaked out. If wikipedia truly intends to be a "comprehensive knowledge base that is not only available at no charge," then something must be done to streamline the process of acquiring images. Apparently flickr has over 230 million photos[2], of these only about 5 million are suitable for use on wikipedia. Which means the pool from which one has to search from is extremely small and is highly skewed to pop culture or other more westernized concepts. I think wikipedia policy is doing a disservice to itself.Muntuwandi 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sqaring RfP w/ User privacy // Photos of living people
I'm confused about how requesting permission for use of an image squares w/ anonymous user names for editors. It's hard to see how one could send a request & document it here w/o sacrificing privacy as an editor. Conversely, it would seem easy for an editor to claim verbal or written snail-mail permission, or even falsify an email granting permission w/o ever getting caught unless the copyright holder sues. As such, the legal value of such "permission" seem pretty dubious to me.
More generally, I have trouble understanding Wikipedia's policy. Take bios of live or recently deceased people: For any even marginally notable person, any reader can view hundreds or even thousands of pictures of them free of charge just by typing their name into Google Images. Hardly any of these web pages contain any copyright info, or even attribution. But when I upload an image, taken from a page expressly marked "Digital Press Kit" at the site of the subject's PR firm, and claim Fair Use, I instantly get a template from an Admin stating that the image "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information." Where would such a "free image" be found of a living person for which Public Domain or other free license is at all demonstrable? --Turangalila (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Questions
- Why this line is written like this: "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", but not like this: "permissions-en@wikimedia.org"?
- Where does one send permitions in other languages?--Vaya 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This has also bothered me. Seems very confusing. I admit to actually typing out @ and . the first time, since I assumed the page new what it was talking about. I see no benefit to spelling the symbols out. Drewcifer3000 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- To stop Spambots. See here for other languages. Garion96 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Question
How is this supposed to work if you don't necessarily want one specific image (i.e., you want someone to donate a picture of themselves but you don't care which one) and/or you aren't asking for a picture that's already posted on the internet?--P4k 01:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put some examples for this kind of request at Wikipedia:Requesting free content. Have had some good results with this. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.--P4k 01:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me if this slight variant on the license statement is OK?
I can't think why it wouldn't be, but I want to make sure:
"I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photo.
I agree to publish that work under the creative commons attribution-sharealike license 2.0.
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER"
--P4k 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- For completeness you should include a link to the license deed at creativecommons.org. 193.95.165.190 (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify - the copyright holder doesn't have to email the WMF themselves?
The copyright holder doesn't have to email the WMF themselves, right? I thought this would have to be the case, since people could just make up false permissions otherwise. But I guess the copyright holder can always complain if any turn out to be false. Richard001 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No mention of grant form
As a newbie, I sent out one of the example letters and received a reply stating "I give full permission to use xyz on Wikipedia with no charge."
I later found out (elsewhere in the documentation) that this was not enough and that I should have got the author to fill in a specifically worded and unambiguous grant form. EricT (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Have added the following to the lede:
Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") it is advisable to attach to your enquiry email a standard declaration of consent. See Wikipedia declaration of consent or Commons email templates. EricT (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why GFDL?
I notice almost all the requests refer exclusively to the GFDL, which is a stuffy, unsummarized license and additionally stifles the reprinting of images by requiring the license to be printed as well. Why not change to or include alternatives using CC licenses, which just require a URL and have a user-friendly explanation there? 193.95.165.190 (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- +1. GFDL is really a bad idea for new images submissions. Okki (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
<REAL NAME>?! <FULL NAME>?! Aren't you forgetting something?
You people are totally missing the point here. What about one of the most important principles of Wikipedia, privacy? What about coming up with a method with which an user could request an image without disclosing his identity? Most of us need even to disclose our IP addresses in order to send e-mail. Wikipedia/Wikimedia can surely do better than that! It would be nice to be able to send such requests through our Wikipedia accounts using the Wikipedia servers themselves, and signing with our usernames. I don't understand these HOWTOs I've been reading: "First of all: Have a professional userpage". No, you shouldn't need a professional user page for this. It's generally in a person's reasonable interest to have their picture inserted in Wikipedia. They can also always say no.
I would appreciate some work with this issue. --Betternottocare (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Get a gmail account and use your user name instead of your real name. Chances of success are probably less, but it can't hurt. Garion96 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Help
Hello all please someone help me I am new at this.
The photo in question is this: http://www.kagakukan.sendai-c.ed.jp/ikimono/honyu/mogura/02big1.htm
Please help me upload it! I have been trying and I can't figure it out.
I just got this reply from the copyright holder:
Start quote of e-mail:
Dear Mr. Christopher Russell
I'm sorry. I am not good at speaking, and writing English. We wanted to write as follows. "We understand the purpose for which the picture will be used. We have been given permission from the copyright holder for this photograph. We permit this use of this photograph." We are wishing to use it effectively.
Sendai Science Museum Mitsuhiro Saijo From: Christopher Russell [3] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:02 AM To: 西城 光洋
Subject: Re: From Sendai Science Museum - Hide quoted text -
Hello Sendai Science Museum curator;
Terribly sorry, but I think you meant to say this:
"We understand the purpose for which the picture will be used. We have been given permission from the copyright holder for this photograph. We permit this use of this photograph."
Please let us know if this is what you want to say.
We are sorry to ask for this clarification, but Wikipedia editors can be very strict about such things and everything must be unambiguous or an editor will refuse to allow us to use it without clear permission. For a complete understanding of the purpose, as you may have already done, I encourage you to visit the English language Wikipedia article called "Urotrichini" and you will see exactly where the picture is to be used. It is to be next to the picture of the Japanese Shrew Mole and captioned in the same way.
If your system permits, you may be able to access the page by clicking this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urotrichini.
If not, you can navagate to this address by going to English language Wikipedia and searching for Urotrichini.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Christopher Russell
Ps. If you or someone there enjoys this hobby, I encourage joining in improving the article. Anyone may easily edit this article or discuss the article on the discussion page. The article is very new and I think it must have some mistaken information or gaps in information, and people at your institution or associated with it must enjoy learning about Himizu and would enjoy helping to improve it. We welcome you. End Quoted E-mail --- Please help me! Do I not have everything in order? What must I do next? 72.230.11.240 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
short n' simple
I write for magazines. When editors ask museums for permission to reproduce an image, they do so succinctly. Almost always the museums say "okay if you give us the credit." Like "Courtesy: New York Public Library Digital Gallery," or "reproduced by permission of the Peabody Essex Museum."
I posted on the main page a sample Mariners' Museum e-mail permission request which received a kind, prompt, and favorable response. It states which image I want, where it will go, and under what restrictions. That's all you need. Longwinded letters could well elicit a 'no,' just because all those words are scary, with hedgings and caveats and booby traps. Too much to sort through, for a busy museum curator.
Once you have permission, on WikiCommons an image which requires crediting a museum goes under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Don't forget to e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org a copy of your correspondence confirming permission. FrederickFolger (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Slightly modified, with two places to edit
The following is what I came up with from one of the versions there. The only changes I made were to delete the slightly obsequious language and mark clearly the two lines that need changing. Otherwise this seems general, simple, and quickly customisable. —Zujine|talk 03:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), a Web-based collaboration and one of the most popular websites on the internet. [MODIFY THIS LINE ] I recently created the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Tibet - to find that I do not have any images to use. I respectfully request your permission to use images from your Web site as Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a multilingual open-content encyclopedia that strives for complete and reliable content. Volunteers from around the world collaboratively create content, but Wikipedia depends upon images such as yours to clearly illustrate that content. [MODIFY THIS LINE ] I believe images at http://www.tchrd.org/photos/ would offer great insight into the human rights situation in Tibet for readers. For Wikipedia to use your material, you must agree to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (often referred to as CC-BY-SA). In essence, CC-BY-SA allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read the complete license at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License". If you grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work, state that it is used with your permission, and provide a link back to your website. I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise me of your decision by email and I will forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you. Sincerely, Zujine
Possible typo in formal letter 1.4.1
After reading through the letters here- because I am interested in how to legally request permission for material on others sites as well- I found what may be a typo in one of the letters.
It is /* FT2's email to Transocean */ Transocean[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission%7CSince Wikipedia aims to be a repository of images and information that anyone can use, even in nations where generous United States "fair use" provisions are inapplicable, we can only use images that is not released under a so-called "free license", which permits anyone else to use, modify, or deal commercially with the image concerned if they wish, provided there is appropriate attribution and that any modifications are released under an identical license. ]]
I would like discussion on whether it should say 'we can only use images that is not released under a so-called "free license"' or rather should say 'we can only use images that are released under a so-called "free license"
Since the not there seems to indicate we can not use "free license" material, I do not think the letter means what we really mean. Changing not to are seems to me to be what we want to say, and it also tales care of the grammar issue of images that is.
However, in case I am misunderstanding this, I do not want to make the edit to a letter that people use without getting discussion from other people. Could people weigh in?
thanks, Gramery (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
help me ask for permission
OK. I'm going to ask someone for permission for an image. I think the answer is likely "yes" since it's an individual who already has some generous comments about other people using images. I've never done this before. Just want to make sure that I do it right, so I don't have to go back to the person (don't want to be a pain in the ass). Don't want to get tripped up by the image policy gateguards, when I say I have permission!
- Do I have to (or should I) give the person my real name?
- Do I have to give WP my real name, when saying I got the image?
- Do I just say I got permission, or do I have to copy an email from the person or what?
P.s. For context, I want to ask this person (http://copyright.pamrotella.com/) for this image (http://www.pamrotella.com/animals/sadturtles.html) for this article: Painted turtle
TCO (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Help, this is exactly what I didn't want to happen!
So, I follow this procedure perfectly. Wrote a skillful letter to the copyright owner, followed a format here, citing and linking to the CCSA3.0 and even explaining the key issues (given away and others can use even commercial, attribution, etc.). The guy writes back and says "yes you may use it". I put it on Commons, submit the email (forwarding the chain of emails), etc. And the gatekeeper says, "well he has to say specifically which licence". I mean if I cite the license and he writes back and agrees, is that not sufficient? If he has to "say a specific phrase", then we ought to have that in the boilerplate. Bothering people going back and forth to them, when they are doing us a favor is NOT a good idea. Honestly, I feel good that the guy agreed to the licensing. But if he has to repeat a specific sentence, then that ought to be in the boilerplate! Of course, I'm pushing back on the gatekeeper and maybe he just did not read down. But if he is really following policy, then we need to put something in the boilerplate that says EXACTLY what the fellow has to "repeat back" to pass go.TCO (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
In the trenches, how this really goes down
You can follow the boilerplate perfectly and still not pass muster with the permission guys. I think we need a boilerplate that tells the person on the other end to give a repeatback of a "magic phrase" that will pass muster with the gatekeepers. Also, just enclosing some declaration of consent. what's the point of that? Is the person supposed to physically sign it? electronically sign it? Say a magic phrase? We need to make this more smooth and foolprof. Wasting people's time with going back and forth is even worse than just asking for the image. TCO (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Asking permission for a tweeted image
I would appreciate any help with this, because I am new to this process and I have no idea how to email a Twitter user to ask for media use permission. Specifically, I am trying to get permission to use this image of the Rawlings S100 Pro Comp batting helmet for use at batting helmet, where it is stated that this is the new standard in batting helmets, required for use in MLB this year. The image is attributed to @RawlingsSports on Twitter. Anyone have experience requesting permissions from Twitter users? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Asking for a portrait
Could anyone please check my basic level of english. Thanks! -- Cherubino (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
|
General Repeat Permission
Having checked out OTRS and Example requests for permission the query = is there provision for granting Repeat Permission ?
Intention is to upload maps from website Old Maps and getting permission for each upload is laborious. Have already got the OK from Old Maps - now needing Wikipedia sort out.
Thanks Tfitzp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfitzp (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Peer review and document improvement request
This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.
Mahitgar (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Personality rights
Freely licensing works doesn't require or imply the relinquishing of personality rights. I think the boilerplate letters should state this! Consensus? --Elvey(t•c) 04:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Template for inheritors of copyright
I know someone who has inherited some very interesting photographs taken by her relatives. I'm sure there are lots of other people in that situation, and more will be in the future. Is there a template available for someone to be able to assert that they are the heir for a particular relative and have authority to release images taken by that relative, if not could someone create such a template? ϢereSpielChequers 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Another suggested format: Stiffly-formal, Impolite, Rambling, Stentorian, and Anonymous
(Comments welcome.)
Date
City
EYES ONLY
BY REGISTERED AND CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dear sir or madam,
I am highly honored (ahem) to have the privilege of establishing an emissarial relationship with your person, on behalf of a world-wide, soon-to-be-authoritative, group of Web-based Wiki scholars (just shut up for a second -- I'll explain more about Wiki in a moment, if you please -- beg pardon) with the noble purpose of documenting every shred of human information, however trifling, and disseminating it to all God's creatures, with a complete revision history, editorial comments, and a transcript of all on-line disputes, allegations, and arbitration attempts within the cult-like, highly-evolved community that created it. I am its Editor.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I will begin: I am an unemployed office worker in New York City, living in fashionable Kew Gardens, Queens, on a quiet tree-lined street. Although I intend to take another position in the administrative arts in the near future, I would one day like to break into show business. Perhaps one day you will know my name. For now I'm on the Internet a lot, and rent is in arrears, but duty calls.
Now that I have your attention, I am pleased to inform you that you have been pre-selected to receive the distinct honor of being asked to release something that belongs to you into world-wide use by anyone who damn well wants it. Plus, they can change it. You may or may not be credited, but if you are and your name is spelled correctly, perhaps you too will become famous like I hope to be, and show up on Internet search engines among the first ten results. In other words, I'll Google you if you Google me, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more.
Our project is extremely important, so please respond before four o'clock this afternoon, as this article is going to be nominated as a featured article, and I have some shopping to do. Mostly groceries, but if I can get to the bank before three that would be nice. It's my local branch, just around the corner, so that shouldn't be a problem (like you care).
What we want is the photograph on your blog, that you took of your next-door-neighbor Mindie Schultz, who auditioned to appear last year on a reality television show (working title: HOUSE FULL OF CRAZY BRAZILIAN ASS-KISSERS) which is currently in workshop and hopefully one day pitched to UPN. I understand you are a member of Mindie's fan club. Get a life. I mean, really. (Do you have her number?)
I am going to create a new page called Mindie Schultz to announced her intentions to appear on HFOCBAK, a note about her childhood, and her favorite bread (pita). It will provide complete documentation, including a link to her Yahoo! Group, to UPN's site, and my original research. Although I can't imagine it will, there is a slight possibility it will be nominated for deletion, in which case I could use as many Keep votes as you can manage. Watch the page (a Bureaucrat or Admin can show you how). You have a few days, you'll be able to vote quite a few times. Forty will probably be enough. Make sure they're all registered through different accounts.
Please visit our Web site (it's called "Wikkaapedia, the on-line Pictionary" -- you can find it on a Google search), go the page about copyrights (if you have trouble I suggest you register, log-in, and leave some requests for help on various talk pages -- you'll figure it out), read the stuff about copyrights, select the proper tag, insert it between the two funny-looking squiggly-type-deals that appear above the left and right brackets on your keyboard, and upload it. There's quite a learning curve at Wikkapedia, so I suggest you set aside the afternoon.
Please realize that we are doing YOU a favor, so get right on this so we can continue with our reseach.
A. Friend
(Oh, if you do stick around, leave a note on my talk page. But don't edit my stuff.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Klenk (talk • contribs) 09:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Too friendly. Otherwise OK. pumpkin97 10:34 Aug 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Amusing, but too many in-jokes. I fear this would confuse and mislead anyone who wasn't already familiar with Wikipedia. But then I have been unsuccessful so far at getting permission letters answered, so what do I know? Bovlb 15:09:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
Template for using images out of published books or articles
Hi, I'm looking to get permission to use images out of published books or articles. Some of them are so old (1960s and up) that I'm not even sure the copyrights are in force anymore. Is there a template to for asking permission on using published works; as opposed to content on the internet? Thanks!B1deroo (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Advance notice of some intended editing of example requests for permission
As has been pointed out quite often here, some of the examples on this page need to be comprehensively edited. Despite the well-founded motto, "Never volunteer", I intend to edit the ones that seem to need it most. I envisage rationalising a number of them, which may result in some deletion of content. I'll "be bold". Please post if you have any comments to share before I start (which will be in 1–2 weeks), esp if you have been a contributor to this page and place particular value on elements of the contribution. Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Social media question
Typically, lately, I've used Facebook (or another social media site), since that's usually the only contact info I have. If I do that, do I still need to require they directly email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Can I have them simply reply to me, with the appropriate consent, and then I can copy/paste that into an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? In general, do copyright owners need to directly email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, or can I relay the message. If I can relay, than we could add a somewhat simpler example message to this page.
Also, another simplifying approach, is to ask people to add an appropriate copyright statement to an image they've already posted to Facebook/Instagram/whatever. For example, add text to the photo caption saying "Photographer: So-and-so / License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" For this, I would want to know, what is the absolute shortest amount of text needed to include in the image caption.
I'm not adding any of this to this page myself, since I'm not sure it would be accepted and work with Commons. Hoping someone who knows can assist. --Rob (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, @Thivierr: here's my 2 cents' worth for your questions:
- Do I still need to require they directly email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?
Wikimedia Commons administer this element very closely — understandable, given the amount of fraudulent/dishonest traffic that goes on. I can't see them agreeing to a change. - What is the absolute shortest amount of text needed to include in the image caption.?
Distinctive imagename] -- copyright Firstname Surname 2020 (CC BY 4.0).jpg. However, there are seven undertakings in the standard copyright consent that cannot be covered in a filename.
- Do I still need to require they directly email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?
- For some time I've been refining a process to minimise detail the photographer / copyright owner is faced with if they get to see the release generator -- which many find off-putting (I know this because I follow them up and ask for feedback). I really don't think that task should be asked of them (which is similar to the wish behind your questions). Earlier I wrote up the procedure I've developed for requesting Flickr images, (here), with that in mind. In a week or so I'll be uploading a comparable procedure for images other than those on Flickr. Three elements are common to them:
- 1. An e-mail, as brief and clear as possible, asking whether the photographer (or copyright owner) will agree to letting their image appear in Wikipedia and which one of three available licences they prefer.
- 2. If they agree to license the image, a second e-mail with instructions for sending the chosen copyright consent (which I write and attach to the e-mail for them to copy) to Wikimedia Commons.
- 3. An e-mail of thanks.
- I've concluded that this is the best way to minimise inconvenience to the photographer under Wikipedia's current policies. Maybe someone else will be able to show a simpler way once I've written up my notes in the coming week. Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Alternate language versions of permission request templates
Hello,
I would like to request a release from someone who does not speak English, and I do not feel 100% confident in translating the existing document due to the sensitivity of the legal context involved. Are there alternate language versions available? Thank you Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Going to edit this a bit
I also am not happy with the tone of this email. I'm going to try some bold edits -- please feel free to discuss or edit in return. This needs some collaborative effort put in on it. Catherine 06:28, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've done it -- comments welcome!
- I like it. Made a minor edit that seemed to indicate that Wikipedia was in the public domain. --mav 08:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
More work done
Been tweaking the Text version today -- I hope that it sounds reasonably polished and coherent. Some specific areas I'd like feedback on:
I am seeking your permission to use the text you have written, either directly, or as a reference for my original writing on the subject.
I know we don't need permission to use the site as a reference for factual information (since facts can't be copyrighted), as long as we're not copying text verbatim, or copying creative presentation. It seemed a courtesy to mention that we might use it as a reference if they didn't like us using their text directly, but the more I think about it, the more this gives them the option of saying "no, don't use my site as a reference, either", which would leave us in the position of having to explain that facts can't be copyrighted, arguing with and disenchanting a potential contributor, and appearing 'grabby' about something they worked hard to create and present. Our only other alternative would be not to use info at all from a site that was good enough to prompt the request for permission in the first place.
Perhaps something like: I am seeking your permission to use some or all of the text that you have written. We would be delighted to hear an answer of "yes", and we will happily respect an answer of "no". A third alternative would be for you to use your talents to compose new text on the subject which would not be the same as copyrighted material on your website you might wish to protect. Our final alternative would be for our editors to write an original article on the subject, properly citing your work as an academic resource and providing a link to your site.
I feel it may be getting too long already, but I want to make the benefits and "risks" as clear as possible. Any ideas for tightening, rearranging or polishing the text are welcome!
This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely.
I fear this section might gain us a lot of "no" answers, especially the commercial part, but I think it's important to make this clear to contributors from the start, especially with a potential print editions coming in the future -- anyone who thinks they're just donating to a "non-profit website" and ends up seeing their words or photos in a book may feel they have a legal bone to pick with us.
Which reminds me that we should probably mention our non-profit status somewhere in the letter....
Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your <copyrighted?/original?> materials will *not* be used at Wikipedia -- we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.
Again, this seemed courteous, but may not be necessary. If you think it is helpful, should we use "copyrighted", "original", or something else? Again, I was trying to imply that we might still use the facts there, just not their copyrighted presentation of it.
<You are obviously <very interested/an expert> in your field, and we invite your active collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might be attractive to you. If you are interested, please see:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers for more information!>
Optional section; I've just run into some people who would make great contributors, and wanted a simple text for inviting the to actively join us. Is there a better/cleaner link to a welcome/entry page? That one's a little ugly....
Thank you for your time.
Kindly, <WIKIPEDIA AUTHOR> LOL -- Catherine 00:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Too friendly
This request not only sounds too friendly, but im not sure if it portrays the sender as "professional." I dont know if the request is purposely written this way for individuals with homepages. Mabye there could be a link to a "Boilerplate for larger organizations," which sounds more professional and doesnt start "Hey I really liked your website." Greenmountainboy 14:04, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Indeed. I find the introductory portion of the text as... almost juvenile. Way too informal, in any case. -- Fennec
- Indeed, i had to write my own to send to a goverment website. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:28, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
- I agree, This current text is not usable for large organizations, which are likely to have the images we want. cohesion ☎ 19:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Request for help
Hi, a new user (User:Raj2004) asked me for help with contacting a website or some such in regards to quotations. They might very well be fair use for all I know. Any help is appreciated. Here is a link to his request on my talk: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Dvaita_and_Visatadvaita. I will direct him here, and a couple other places (like the pump, and Wikipedia:Fair use). Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A minor alteration
Would anyone object to all instances of replaceable text being placed inside angle brackets? When copying and pasting into a plaintext email, bold and italics are lost, and it makes it tricky to pick up with that much text. Akchizar 08:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Go for it -- I'm not sure when it changed to italics; this was originally meant to be very easy to copy into email. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 21:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Response template?
Would it make sense to provide a template at the bottom of requests for permission, for people to use to respond -- something that could then be pasted into the Talk page or Image Description page as evidence that the creator wishes to license their work? Something along the lines of this (please edit mercilessly):
IMAGES As the creator and copyright holder of the image currently named <TITLE.EXT> (found at <URL> as of this date), I hereby licence said image under the GFDL, as a contribution to Wikimedia and its downstream users." <NAME>, <DATE>
TEXT As the creator and copyright holder of the text found at <URL> as of this date, I hereby licence said text under the GFDL, as a contribution to Wikimedia and its downstream users." <NAME>, <DATE>
As the creator and copyright holder of the text found at <URL> as of this date, I hereby licence that portion of the text included in this email under the GFDL, as a contribution to Wikimedia and its downstream users." <NAME>, <DATE>, <TEXT>
Please comment -- this ought to be legal and bulletproof, and I'm no copyright expert. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 21:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another email
I won't put this on the main page myself, but here's something I used for an email.
Hiya. Quick question about <<COMPANY>> images:
I'm starting to write an article on Wikipedia, an internet encyclopaedia, about <<COMPANY>>. I wondered if you had any images which we might use to illustrate the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<<COMPANY>>
It would be ideal if you could consider releasing an image such that it can
be used without restriction by other projects ('GNU Free Documentation
License' or similar), but any offer to let Wikipedia use an image would be
great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
There's more information on what Wikipedia is about, if you'd like to have a browse, and you're welcome to make changes yourself of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Best regards
<<NAME>>
Ojw 23:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Richard Bey
The Wikipedia page about the show doesn't feature the show's title cards. Also I'm trying to find where I can find my image I uploaded. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertFL1992 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)