Wikipedia talk:GFDL standardization

But the images are subject to disclaimers

Our disclaimers apply to everything on the site, and that includes images. It's not clear why removing a sentence that says the disclaimers apply would have any effect. -Amarkov moo! 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing statements for images are seperate from the licensing statements for text (otherwise all images would necessary have to be GFDL). The way the GFDL is written the merger occurs when disclaimers accompany the licensing declaration. I would argue that if the disclaimers are removed from the tag then they are no longer bound to the image, since they are no longer part of the license declaration for the image. Dragons flight 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct; everything on Wikipedia is subject to disclaimers. The distinction as I understand between linking to our disclaimers at the bottom of each page and including "Subject to disclaimers" in the copyright license in the standard GFDL image copyright tag is that the latter constitutes a copyright license which, given the right set of circumstances (which I cannot currently imagine), could result is legal action regarding copyright infringement. We want our images to be free as possible and, in order to do that to the best that we can, we should have the standard image copyright tag be without the text "Subject to disclaimers". --Iamunknown 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are different from text in that text on Wikipedia is combination of the work of many people, normally an image will be unchanged and stay as originally posted. My principle with images that I post on Wikipedia or elsewhere is that I do not mind them being used by others but I expect to be credited and informed of their use particularly if used commercially. It is very annoying to go to a website and think that some images are familiar then find that they are your own that have been used but credited to another person. --jmb 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem with from fromowner templates

This change creates the problem that anything uploaded prior to 24 March 2007 is now miss labled.Geni 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while pretty much anything uploaded before that date should have been deleted or moved to other cats by now I'm not certian.Geni 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this has happened everywhere. The Wikibooks GFDL template originally had no dislaimers, then had the en.WP disclaimers, then the en.WB disclaimers and now it has none. *sigh* I think that everything uploaded before that date should be moved into a different category. --Iamunknown 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image. Do I do anything?

I uploaded Image:Bridge, Blackett New South Wales.JPG. The bot changed the licence from {{GFDL-self}} to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. I changed {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} to {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. Was that the right thing to do?

If it was, this needs to be clearly spelled out to uploaders somewhere obvious - otherwise the licences will be left at {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} because people don't know they changed, or what difference it makes. I think I've only ever uploaded one image, and working out what licence to use was a challenge for me - I am happy for anyone to reuse, modify, sell etc if that rocks their boat, after all it's low res and I'm not that great a photographer...Ga rr ie 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an appropriate thing to do. (Not really "right" or "wrong" because its not an ethical choice. :P) Cydebot has the "per Wikipedia:GFDL standardization" in the edit summaries, so I assume thats how you came here. Instructions are inconspicuously at the bottom of the page, but I will add a more conspicuous {{nutshell}} template at the top of the page. --Iamunknown 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would have saved me some confusion. As long as it wasn't the incorrect thing to do I'm happy enough!Ga rr ie 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we are at it, I should thank you for changing the tag; it is a great thing for everyone, because then reusers of the image do not have to reproduce (i.e. print) the Wikipedia disclaimers. So it will make reuse (which is one of the goals of the GFDL license) more easily done. Again, thank you! :) --Iamunknown 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-half of stage one completed

I have migrated all images that previously transcluded {{GFDL-self}} to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. Then I changed the {{GFDL-self}} tag to use the same language as {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. The final step will be moving over everything that transcluded {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to {{GFDL-self}}. Should I start this final task? Oh, and I'm also almost done with the first stage on {{GFDL}} as well. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please :) --Iamunknown 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long you check Whatlinkshere to make sure you really eliminated all of the old transclusions (which you appear to with GFDL-self), then I would say go ahead and convert to the new and move things over. Thanks. Dragons flight 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, stages one and two are now completed on {{GFDL}}. I'm currently finishing stage three on {{GFDL-self}}, then I will go through and finish up stage three on {{GFDL}}, and then we should be done! --Cyde Weys 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change required to instructions?

I assume given the change made here that we're now into the second stage, and therefore the instructions on how to remove disclaimers should be swapped to say that {{GFDL}} and {{GFDL-self}} are now the appropriate tags? JulesH 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For {{GFDL-self}}, yes. Not for {{GFDL}} quite yet, but I should have those done by the end of the day. --Cyde Weys 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request change in template

Should we add "If you are the copyright owner of this image, please consider changing the license to {{GFDL-self}} to remove disclaimers. See GFDL standardization." or something similar to the {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} tag to raise awareness? Pagra shtak 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised this suggestion did not get more attention. If {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} is the source of the problem being addressed here, should it not be modified to indicate that it is deprecated or something similar? Ipoellet (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo credits

I do not believe it is too much to ask to specify that a photograph is properly credited to its creator and properly captioned, on Wikipedia and whenever used in the future. All of the Flickr users I have contacted have agreed to release their photo to be used for any purpose, in perpetuity, by anyone, if their photo is properly credited with their name. Thus, I believe this proposed restriction is misguided in this regard and should be reconsidered. Badagnani 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia places image credits on the image description page, which is reachable by clicking on the image wherever it is used. Do the users you have contacted object to this? —Random832 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Them

I'm quite good at English but it's not my native language, so when I read the first sentence of the nutshell ("This page in a nutshell: If you are the copyright holder for any image that has disclaimers, then you can remove them.") I thought that "them" referred to the images. If anyone else misunderstood the text the same way, then maybe thte text could be changed. Samulili 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright holder requests an article be deleted I doubt anybody would argue. By the same token - if a user can demonstrate they are the copyright holder for a particular image then they would be within their right to remove the disclaimer. So either interpretation of "them" would fit.Ga rr ie 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Could a procedure be created for a user to be asked to place themselves on a list of users who give permission for the "with disclaimers" to be removed from their GFDL licenses, and their (sole contributor/GFDL-self) uploads can then be processed by a bot? —Random832 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrestled a bit with how to ask users to remove disclaimers from their licenses themselves - in the context of copying images to the Wikimedia Commons. What I came up with was Template:License disclaimer notice. You can see the template in action at User talk:Jbermudez#License for Image: 2IndianPark.jpg. Any comments welcome. Ipoellet (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL-retouched

Not sure if anyone is watching this page any more, but {{GFDL-retouched}} includes disclaimers. Should we migrate all images with that template to {{GFDL-retouched-with-disclaimers}} and then change the terms of the license to remove the disclaimers? Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-GMT

The license template {{GFDL-GMT}} also bears a disclaimer but it's not used by many images. But should'n it be easily be removable? The program used to create this map is GPL so should images created by this Sogftware not be GFDL without any additions like disclaimers? --Denniss (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC-by-SA

Can't all these problem images be transferred to CC-by-SA now? As long as they are not "GFDL 1.2 only" they are licensed under all future versions of GFDL, and the most recent allows for transfer to CC-by-SA. Can't we just do that? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relicensing provisions call for the site operator to exercise them. Only the WMF can make the decision to adopt CC-BY-SA. Dragons flight (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the desission have been made there is a relevant TFD debate here Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 10#Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers, someone created a CC-by-Sa license that copy the disclaimers stuff over. Mike expressed no opinion with I take to mean we are not compelled to propegate the disclaimer when re-licensing so hopefully that template is deleted. --Sherool (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded before 2004

I just wondered if images uploaded before "that date" in 2004 could not be changed to "no-disclaimers". Disclaimers did not excist at that time so they could not have been on image when uploaded and since license is non revokable it should not be possible to add disclaimers. I found one example here File:Phutball jump.png. It should be possible to find all old images and remove the disclaimers. --MGA73 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick count gave 849 hits so if we agree that images uploaded before February 20, 2004 should not have disclaimers then 849 images could be changed to no-disclaimers. If count was correct :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm fixing it now. Better fix it before images are uploaded to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]