Wikivoyage talk:Copyright-related issues

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is spam, please revert it[edit]

A spam bot likes to spam the first section of this article, so this section has been added as a way of notifying editors that a spam contribution was made. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:49, 17 April 2006 (EDT)

International copyright issue[edit]

I'm translating the Copyleft page into German. For me, a big juristical question has risen: What law is aplicable when a German contributor transmitts his work onto an US-American Server, German or US law? This not unimportant since there also exist German and Austrian adaptions of the Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Licence. To where should I link now??? -- (WT-en) Hansm 09:05, 2004 Sep 13 (EDT)[edit]

Swept in from the Project:Travelers' pub:

There is a lot of material from As there is also a lot of references to edirectory (against ext guide policy) the anon user just might be the copyrigtholder, but I doubt it. Also he renames Learn to Money, etc. --(WT-en) elgaard 10:19, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

That's a clear-cut case for reversion. He has to actually say he's the copyright holder in order to do this. It could always be recovered if he says he's the copyright holder. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:20, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)

See also[edit]

In case someone thinks removing the following relevant links is helpful, please pause to think. Research into what is actually legal for us to copy is necessary. The following are valuable research leads and references. Please do not remove them from this Talk page.

  • Wikivoyage uses a Creative Commons copyright while Wikipedia uses a Gnu Free Documentation License. Nevertheless, much relevant and well presented research about copyrights may be found on Wikipedia's copyright and copyright discussion page:
  • Universal Copyright Convention as revised at Paris on 24 July 1971:
Per section
One whole (searchable) page


Swept in from the pub

The upload process for Wikivoyage has licensing options for Commons 3.0, etc. but not 4.0. This should be added so giving appropriate credit is possible. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose the list just hasn't been updated, so I am adding the licence now. Could somebody who does local uploads check the change works as it should?
I do not understand the "so giving appropriate credit is possible" part. If you upload images taken by others, then there is a zillion of possible licences. Is there something in the CC-BY-SA 3.0 that hinders giving "appropriate credit"?
If there are technical issues, the talk page is MediaWiki talk:Licenses.
--LPfi (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left the old version. I suppose the selection of licences is small by design, so having two versions of the same licence could be regarded redundant. On the other hand CC-BY-SA 3.0 is the licence used for text on WV, WP etc., and I for one have not studied the changes introduced in the new version and am thus not confident enough to use it for general licensing. --LPfi (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding CC4.0. The selection now implies that CC2.0 is only for Flickr images when it could be used for those based on older commons files (maybe it has always done this). It is missing a public domain licence, although if an image is public domain, then you are free to upload it using one of the CC licences. I don't think that we have much use for the more specialised licenses that commons allows. It would be good to have a page which explain licenses linked from the upload page. AlasdairW (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added the 4.0 ones at "Creative Commons License". I supposed the Flickr licences were Flickr specific. Having the same licences twice (ones for licence source, once for image source) makes little sense, so I merge the lists.
Licensing a PD image with a CC licence is copyright fraud. While it seems not to be criminal in USA, I think we should not do something that seems like encouraging the practice. The questions is whether {{PD}} is enough or whether we should offer several PD tags.
The question about "specialised licenses" is whether we want to support upload of images which are under some other licence. As long as the uploader is the copyright owner, it is easy to require the use of one of a small set of standard licences, but if we want to use a photo that is licensed under any other licence, we have to either do without or accept that licence, however "specialised" it is. I think "Something else" has to be offered for those cases. I will add that, and corresponding language to MediaWiki:Uploadtext.
--LPfi (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason is that, per "appropriate credit", the box with the information about the license is necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning the licence is an additional requirement to that of giving appropriate credit, a requirement of many more licences than those in the drop-down. The other licences have to be handled by inserting the template by hand, or writing name and link by hand for those licences lacking a template. But as CC-BY-SA 4.0 has become the recommended licence on Commons, it is good that we offer an easy way to use it. --LPfi (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I'll try the "Upload file" now to make sure it works, but the code that I saw looked good. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it okay to use pictures using the GNU license for banners? I've never really paid attention to it before, because beneath it in Commons are always Creative Commons licenses, but just checking. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it the GFDL is inconvenient for reusers and therefore generally not allowed as the sole license for new uploads to Commons (see here). This doesn't really matter for us directly. The only reason for us to avoid the license, as far as I can tell, would be to make it easier for people to meticulously follow the licensing requirements when reusing our content in offline/printed materials. Files that are dual-licensed under GFDL and CC are absolutely fine, we (or other reusers) can just use the CC license and ignore the GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. In my cases, I believe the files had both GNU and Commons licenses listed, so when uploading the cropped version of the file, I cited the Commons license. Thanks for explaining! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and thanks for making all those changes to "North Macedonia". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]