The center for all Wikitravel images!

MediaWiki talk:Licenses

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search

Dont know[edit]

I removed the first line; "*Dont know|Don't know". Please see MediaWiki talk:Edittools. -- Tatata 01:30, 30 July 2007 (EDT)


I'm thinking we should remove PD-old... I can't think of a single scenario where it would be relavent to have a 70 year old picture in a travel guide, WP does the history on places, we're concerned with what it currently looks like, right? – cacahuate talk 17:39, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Template:PD-old has already been used [1]. Though, it seems to me that some images are correct and some others are not. BTW, I and maybe other users took images from WP/Commons, they are released into the public domain by uploaders there and I tagged {{PD-creator}} to them when I uploaded them to shared. Is there guide that Template:PD-creator for images created by uploader and Template:PD for images already exists in the public domain? If we change Template:PD, I think it's better to do the same as Commons does; make it obsolete and guide uploaders to use other tag. As to images released into the public domain by uploaders of WT/Shared, how about to use Template:PD-self? -- Tatata 22:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
We do have images using PD-old, but from what I can see many of them are simply mislabeled, and others shouldn't be on Wikitravel anyway - I think it's a rare case that we should have an old image on WT. However, I'm only suggesting removing PD-old from this MediaWiki page, not deleting the template... although I do think we should go through and cleanup the mislabeled ones anyway.
As far as the PD's go, I see 3 valid types of PD for WT: created by the uploader (pd-creator), previously already in the pd (pd), and created by fed gov't employee (pd-fed). That's what I'm under the impression that they are all meant for... correct me if I'm wrong... but even if I am wrong, I think this is how we should use them :)
I don't think we should use the WP method, PD makes sense here for things that are already in the pd. WP has a much bigger problem in that there are so many different types of things and reasons for images to be in PD (postage stamps, old works of art, etc) that we don't have to deal with here... our images are much more simple – cacahuate talk 01:38, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I support removing the PD-old template from this mediawiki message, because it is so infrequently useful for our site. But we should keep the template, as Cacahuate suggests, because there are a handful of valid applications. --Peter Talk 02:10, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I've been thinking, we should provide some brief licensing information on Wikitravel Shared:How to upload files. I think it would be useful to have a list of the available license templates there with slightly more description than in this mediawiki message. While we should remove PD-old from the drop-down menu (because it is rare), we should include it as an option in the Wikitravel Shared:How to upload files page, so that for those rare instances in which it is useful, uploaders have a way of knowing about it. --Peter Talk 16:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, good idea. Another question just came up though... I'm going through pd-old images right now, and many of them are licensed as such because the subject of the photograph is very old... but the license only applies to the photograph of the old item right? Which in most of these cases is a newish photograph, and not pd-old – cacahuate talk 00:48, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes the license applies to the date the photograph was taken. Except in cases where the photo is a faithful replica of an existing formerly copyrighted work which is itself too old to retain copyright. An example of such a work would be Image:Palekh_Baklanov.jpg—the photo is merely a replica of the original work, which is itself PD-old. Of course, this is all from my spotty knowledge of US intellectual property law; perhaps we shouldn't be doing this out of concern about conflicting laws in other countries? --Peter 01:13, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
I agree to remove PD-old from MediaWiki:Licenses. Though I don't know the text of a law including the Copyright Act of Japan, I understand that PD-old will be used for both cases; 1) the image itself is old: 2) the subject of the photograph (the original work) is old and the image itself is not old, but no rights reserved by copyright holder of the image or the image is not under the protection of copyright law because it is not a work but a replica of the original work. Is this my misunderstanding? How about the case that site owner reserve all rights of his/her contents including a replica of the old original work? I think we can not use the replica from the site. -- Tatata 02:50, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Recent change[edit]

Two issues:

  • The new text for PD-creator is, I think, inaccurate. The template only says that the file was released into the public domain by the creator, not necessarily the uploader. PD-creator images are very often uploaded by contributors other than the original author, so I think we should revert this text to:
    **PD-creator|dedicated to the public domain by creator
  • Template:PD - First, what is the advantage of having this non-specific template? And second, even if it is of use, is it in our interest to offer such a non-specific template in the drop-down menu? Wouldn't it be a temptation for contributors who want to upload content without actually being certain about the licensing? My first inclination would be to delete the template and remove it from the pulldown menu, but perhaps I don't understand the reasoning. --Peter Talk 02:10, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, Let me clarify... my intention (and previous understanding) was that there are 3 classes of PD relevant to us:
  1. PD - something that is already in the PD, that someone stumbled across and thought would be useful to us
  2. PD-creator - something that I own the copyright too, and decide to release into the public domain
  3. PD-fed - gov't employee's work
Am I not seeing things correctly? – cacahuate talk 02:54, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, provided that I am seeing things correctly ;)
Both PD-creator and PD-fed are potentially licenses of files that someone can stumble across and think useful. I've stumbled across a lot of such files on commons. For example, I uploaded Image:Buryatia steppe.jpg as PD-creator, although I did not create it, because the original photographer chose this licensing upon uploading it to commons. It is PD-by-creator = PD-creator. Given the origin-unspecific wording of Template:PD, I could also upload this file as simply "PD", as it is already in the PD and I stumbled across it, but that would provide less information about the legality of the file.
The reason why the non-specific Template:PD is a bad idea is that it doesn't indicate the manner by which the file was released into the public domain (unlike PD-creator & PD-fed). If the uploader doesn't know why the file is in the public domain, they shouldn't be uploading the file in the first place.
In short, PD is a category that would include PD-creator & PD-fed as subcategories, but I don't see any advantages to having it as an option, only disadvantages. And the new wording of PD-creator does not capture all the files so labeled, for which the Wikitravel uploader and author are not one and the same.
Was there discussion about this on :en? I haven't been following any changes or discussion regarding our licensing practices over there. --Peter Talk 04:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I was under the impression that PD-creator was more like PD-I-am-the-creator, not that the original creator put it in the public domain. As far as travel-oriented images that are relevant to WT go, the only way one of those images will have legally gotten into the PD in the first place is by the original author (the one exception being PD-fed), which is why I thought good old {{PD}} was good for all general PD's that are already in the pd. Which brings me back to PD-creator... I think it's a totally irrelevant license unless it's used to say "I am the creator, and I am dedicating it to PD right now". And the only reason I would say that these shouldn't be just {{PD}} is that they don't really require a source to be given, whereas {{PD}} and {{PD-fed}} probably should.
All that said, while I think that's the most logical approach, if it's not the approach that others have been taking, then I suppose changing the wording on the license was unintentionally hasty. I'll revert it for now until we figure this out :) – cacahuate talk 13:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
OK, I see where you are coming from now. Perhaps the best way to go forward would be to:
  1. Remove PD-creator from the drop-down menu on the upload form, as it has been used to denote files brought into the PD by their creator, but uploaded by someone else;
  2. Treat PD-creator in its original wording as an outdated licensing template and discourage its further use;
  3. Then we could add a new template: PD-uploader, which would denote that the uploader himself/herself is the releaser; and
  4. Perhaps add a note to the "PD" and "PD-fed" options saying that source information is required.
The only problem that would leave is the overlap between PD and PD-fed (as the former contains the latter). Perhaps there is a way to word Template:PD so that it excludes the PD-fed usage? --Peter Talk 16:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a good solution... regarding pd-fed, as with all the licenses I'm sure people will continue to place the wrong one, we've got tons of mislabeled images as it is... but I don't see that as a particularly bad problem in that case, as technically the government employee is knowingly dedicating to public domain when he takes that picture on the clock, also making {{PD}} relevant but less specific. But once we have consensus to make this change, I'll also start wading through some of the various images and change any necessary licenses. I've already seen quite a few red herrings under PD-old :) – cacahuate talk 17:16, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
I think Template:PD should be outdated instead of Template:PD-creator and all variations of PD related templates should be listed in the wording of Template:PD to prompt uploader to use an appropriate template, since I agree with what Peter said "it doesn't indicate the manner by which the file was released into the public domain (unlike PD-creator & PD-fed)". As to a new template, I prefer Template:PD-self to PD-uploader becuase I think it's well-known name/meaning for users from WP. -- Tatata 03:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
But my point is that for images that are of interest to Wikitravel the only way that the images will be in the public demain is if they were originally dedicated by the creator - which is why I think {{PD}} is fine for most cases. The only 2 exceptions are PD-fed, and new images that are just now being put into the public domain by the uploader (which we can either use the existing template PD-creator for, or use a new PD-uploader template). Is that clearer? I know Wikipedia has a need for a lot more different licenses, but we have such a limited amount of images that are of use to Wikitravel and as far as I can tell they all fall under those 3 categories, so it would be nice if we could strip it down to just 3 options that users are faced with when they're uploading. We need to make a distinction between an image that was already in the public domain, and one that is just now being put in the public domain by the uploader, which is why I would vote for using PD and PD-uploader... if we keep PD-creator and PD-uploader I think it is more confusing – cacahuate talk 22:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Point taken, I think the main objection to Template:PD, though, is that it is so non-specific that it can be applied to PD-fed (or even PD-old) as well. There must be a way to name these templates so we cover the three categories without overlap between license templates. How about:
  • PD-fed - Created by the US federal government employee as part of his/her official duties
  • PD-self - I, the uploader of this file, am the creator of this image and hereby release it into the public domain
  • PD-by-author - This file was released into the public domain by its original author
That way we won't be forced to revise all the existing PD-creator-tagged images. I'm not at all set on the PD-by-author name though (maybe PD-other, PD-original-author, or PD-originator?). Would this scheme satisfy everyone? --Peter Talk 03:27, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good to me, since I have the same concern with Peter about non-specific of Template:PD. I think a short name is good for the new template. Just to make sure, will PD-old be removed from pull-down list but remain? -- Tatata 03:54, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Yes, PD-old will be removed from the pull-down list, but remain in use, since it does (rarely) have valid applications. I'm planning on revamping the licensing section of How to upload files to explain this and all other licensing options in greater detail. --Peter Talk 04:03, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

That sounds good then... also remember when uploading people see the description of the license not the actual name of the template, so it almost doesn't matter what we call them... but I agree, shorter is better... how about just PD-author instead of PD-by-author? – cacahuate talk 18:53, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

PD-author sounds good to me. So to sum up what is looking like our current consensus:
  1. Remove Template:PD-creator & Template:PD from the pull down menu, treat them as outdated, and discourage further use.
  2. Remove Template:PD-old from pull down, but allow continued use.
  3. Add PD-self & PD-author to pull down menu, using wording above.
Any objections to this? Or is it time to plunge? --Peter 03:00, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
I have no objection! I found Template:Pd-self which is a redirect page to Template:PD-creator now. So I'll change it to Template:PD-self later. -- Tatata 06:07, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
OK, I went ahead and made these changes, with roughly the wording above – cacahuate talk 22:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

New logos[edit]

I personally find the old green CC logo fairly ugly... and we have a couple different box designs around at the moment... I'd like to sync them all up... anyone like any of these new ideas? I think I kinda like #3. If not, feel free to mess around with em – cacahuate talk 02:26, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I like #3 as well. I've been thinking for a while now that it would be nice to get those attribution & share-alike icons on the template, as they are widely used outside of this site. --Peter 03:02, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Using icons is very nice! I like both #1 and #3. New template designs look fine by FF2, but background color looks odd by IE6... why? Maybe IE6 itself is very odd though. ;-) -- Tatata 06:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Nice! #3 is my pick as well, although #1 is also slick. Jpatokal 07:18, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I've gone with version 3 for now, feel free to tweak as needed! One thing that needs sorting... it would be nice to have a GNU logo for the two dual licenses: Template:Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-1.0 and Template:Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any. There's a couple on Commons, but couldn't really decipher the license that they're using... so we need to get ahold of that, and then figure out where to put the by-sa logo – cacahuate talk 22:09, 4 November 2007 (EST)


Any objections to changing the "default" to cc-by-sa ANY? This seems much more desirable for media than just 1.0 – cacahuate talk 11:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I like "Recommended" for {{cc-by-sa-all}}, since it is same as Tags#Licensing. And I think it's better to place the tag at the top of "Creative Commons license:" group. -- Tatata 20:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Agreed, we should encourage contributors to use a more flexible license — 1.0 is really backwards. --Peter 10:28, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, will move it to top barring any objections... I'll wait a few more days just in case any arise – cacahuate talk 14:52, 24 September 2008 (EDT)