Wikipedia:Copyrights is permanently protected from editing because it is a page that should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit protected)) to notify an administrator to make the requested edit.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copyrights page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:C WT:COPY

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

Related: 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is a long list of changes, so I apologize in advance. Updating to align with the new Terms of Use and CC-BY-SA license, in effect as of June 7.

• You should then read the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License -> You should then read the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
• Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) -> Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
• Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License -> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
• A copy of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" -> A copy of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License is included in the section entitled "Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"
• For this purpose, a suitable URL is: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -< For this purpose, a suitable URL is: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• For further information, please refer to the legal code of the CC BY-SA License. -> For further information, please refer to the legal code of the CC BY-SA License.

Thank you in advance! Sennecaster (Chat) 20:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please change “utilizes” to “uses” as well, and replace instances of “our” with “its” or “Wikipedia’s”. Thanks! Frostly (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See somewhat related mostly technical stuff at: MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyright — xaosflux ^Talk 13:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not strictly certain these suggested edits are correct. There has been some discussion previously on the point of what exactly is licensed as what (Nosebagbear I think knows where, probably in the 4.0 RFC). My understanding of things is that:

1. Many old revisions are GFDL, up to date X. Pages are licensed exclusively as GFDL.
2. Many revisions between date X and date Y are CC by 3.0 where page is new and using totally new content, and dual licensed CC by 3.0 and GFDL for old pages or page is new but using old content. Pages are thus licensed exclusively as GFDL (pages edited before date X and not after), or GFDL and CC by SA 3.0 (pages existing before date X but edited after, or pages existing only after but edited using contribution from a page existing before), or CC by SA 3.0 only (pages existing after and containing only new text). (Consider ancient user pages as a modern day case of GFDL only, and most events and newly-notable people since date X as the dominant modern case of CC by SA 3.0 only.)
3. Many revisions from date Y are CC by 4.0 (we're around now). Now we have the previous cases for pages (yes, we still have stuff licensed only under 3.0, because no changes have been made to them since date Y), plus various permutations of CC by SA 4.0. The licensing for a page ends up looking like one of the potential following:
   1. GFDL only.
   2. CC by 3.0 only.
   3. CC by 4.0 only.
   4. GFDL + CC by 3.0.
   5. GFDL + CC by 4.0.

Where date X is transition from GFDL to CC by SA 3.0 and date Y is transition from CC by SA 3.0 to 4.0. Izno (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: Izno (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno: It is unreasonable for this edit request to be declined when Legal has affirmed that the current license is 4.0 and the page footer also confirms the fact. If you are concerned about the legal status of the relicensing, you may email legal@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Frostly (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you can either substantively comment on my points or you may take that opinion of things. I declined this because it was clear and obvious no one was going to do so after multiple weeks. Please feel free to respond to them. I would expect, at a minimum, some discussion in a modified edit request regarding these points, or some actual pointer elsewhere where this interpretation is wrong.

I have no fundamental issue with the license being 4.0 for contributions since date Y, to use the same nomenclature. I have an issue with an assertion, that such an edit here would make, that 3.0 contributions are relicensed automatically to 4.0 contributions as would be implied by a simple swap from 1 to the other. Especially when the GFDL crossover to CC by SA 3.0 was a "one time deal", which is what hung up Legal if no others up on making this upgrade in the first place for a long time. Izno (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FSF permitted large collaborative sites to relicense from GFDL to CC licenses for a period of time, which is why the GFDL --> CC relicensing could happen. The 3.0 to 4.0 relicensing is permissible because of this mechanism. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns! Best, Frostly (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not edit war over |answered=. Thanks. You can have a conversation with someone without setting that flag back and forth.

Yes, that is when the GFDL -> CC by 3.0 additional license was allowed.

Thank you for linking there. You should read the entire section and you will see my exact point made there: only adaptations are licensed CC by SA 4.0 (as modified in the TOU regarding database rights -- which is also relevant to the modification requested in this section). Izno (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to WT:CV (permalink)

Primefac (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been looking at an album of photos taken by my father (deceased 40+ years), showing places across Scotland in the 1930s-40s. The prints are small (people did tend to economise on photo paper) and may not scan well. And a lot of the views haven't really changed, so his photos would be superfluous here. But I am wondering about the status if I do identify some that for scanning and uploading. They are not my own work but have fallen to me through the family: what license could I put on them? AllyD (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are the statutory heir of the photographer, you are able to release them under any license you choose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page states, However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work The creator is not always the copyright holder. I believe that this section is actually intended to prohibit linking to works posted in violation of copyright regardless of who holds the copyright. Therefore, I suggest rephrasing to: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Buidhe and Pppery: I think this has the potential to cause more confusion than it solves - explicit permission isn't always needed (eg when it's CC licensed) and people often misunderstand that. Would suggest the much simpler solution to the issue buidhe raises would be to just strike "the creator's" from the original wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think that a CC license is the copyright holder giving permission. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree, but unfortunately not everyone understands that ;-) and if we have the opportunity to avoid that confusion, that is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did think of this hypothetical confusion, but the previous one is already causing issues since people assume it's OK to link a postprint research paper posted by an author. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is why I think just removing creator fixes it - it's an issue of violating copyright no matter who holds that copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reopening, per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the CC BY-SA 3.0 license to CC BY-SA 4.0 license, as WMF changed the license of text a few months ago. Awesome Aasim 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done if I missed any, please ping me. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To use a copyrighted photo as a ref to support a fact. I know that photos make poor refs, but they're allowable I think. The last paragraph of WP:COPYLINK is the part of the rule that comes closest addresseing this I think, and it says:

Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use.

Alright, if you want to prove that Joe Shmoe starred in (or was said to star in anyway) some movie, and you've got an article which doesn't say so but does include a picture of a copyrighted movie poster that does say so (they are presumably using the picture of the poster under legit fair use), then link to the article and not the photo. Well and good.

But what if the copyrighted photo has no meaningful context?

An example would be, say, a photo on a photo gallery site which is selling photos. They took the photo and own the copyright. So they're not displaying them under fair use. Let's say the context is minimal, such as "Get an 8 x 10 of this cool photo for $10, enter your credit card and address if you want one". There's no context to remove, basically. You're not linking directly to just the photo (like "htpps://photoland/coolphoto.gif"), but almost.

(We are leaving aside for now the question of the url being possibly unstable, and that photos are probably poor refs generally. Different issues.)

My take is that it'd be OK according to rule anyway.

Except: Photoland is serving the page explicitly and solely to sell copies. All or essentially all of our usual refs are different; an article in the "New York Times" is not served explicitly and solely to sell copies of that article. So it's different (altho there is very often a pecuniary motive, in this case maybe that the Times wants to draw people to their site so they can sell subscriptions).

FWIW, both the Times and Photoland would be glad to have more visitors go their page, one would think, to sell subscriptions or sell more copies of the photo, respectively, if that matters (commercial considerations do matter for uploading a picture for fair use, but that's different from linking.) But we can't 100% assume that Photoland would be happy to have their page being used as a reference rather than just being visited by people looking to buy photos. Maybe it messes up their page counts which they use for figuring what pictures to feature, or something. (Technically we don't have to care about that I guess, only about the law. But still.)

My take is that even considering this difference it'd still be OK, by both the spirit and text of the rule. Am I correct? Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we add a brief note on this page to cover translations and link to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Translation? I have seen multiple people mistakenly translate content without realizing they were creating a derivative work? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names. Given the comments that have been made so far, it would be helpful (in my opinion) for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution policy/requirements for copying within Wikipedia. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly of value?

• "Court of Appeal ruling will prevent UK museums from charging reproduction fees—at last". The Art Newspaper. 29 December 2023.

Fyi only. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This sentence in the section "Linking to copyrighted works" appears to be incorrect:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder, do not link to that copy of the work.

The last bit should be removed:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.

Thank you for your time. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 06:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't exactly like the use of the broken HTML in this matter when there is a template that formats the notice much much better. It is not even center aligned. For example:

Important note: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts or illustrations. It is therefore pointless to email our contact addresses asking for permission to reproduce articles or images, even if rules at your company, school, or organization mandate that you ask web site operators before copying their content. The only Wikipedia content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about are the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission. Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms (see below and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for specific terms). Images may or may not permit reuse and modification; the conditions for reproduction of each image should be individually checked. The only exceptions are those cases in which editors have violated Wikipedia policy by uploading copyrighted material without authorization, or with copyright licensing terms which are incompatible with those Wikipedia authors have applied to the rest of Wikipedia content. While such material is present on Wikipedia (before it is detected and removed), it will be a copyright violation to copy it. For permission to use it, one must contact the owner of the copyright of the text or illustration in question; often, but not always, this will be the original author. If you wish to reuse content from Wikipedia, first read the Reusers' rights and obligations section. You should then read the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

How would this look on the page? Awesome Aasim 18:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]