Wikibooks talk:Media

PD-PhilippinesGov

G'day, {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} poses a interesting problem. Images using this license tag (there are two at present) aren't really public domain because they may not be used for commercial purposes without permission of the authors. As such, would they be acceptable under this policy? Webaware ^talk 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, but I've clarified the public domain section of this proposal to make that clearer. --darklama 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Much what I was thinking. The seal could possibly stay under Fair Use provisions, if it is actually necessary (although a quick glance at the only page using it suggests that it isn't necessary). The banner is purely decorative, however, so I might notify the uploader that their image will be deleted soon. Webaware ^talk 07:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Approval as policy

We should approve this as policy. A link to the Foundation resolution for the sake of convenience: foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I don't find any serious fault with this proposal as written. It's a pretty good match to the de facto way we've been handling images now for a long time. In essence, I dont think that this policy is going to change anything, and it will help to cover our assess if the foundation decides to try to enforce that resolution that mike linked to. Without a media policy (called an "EDP" in the resolution), we are not allowed to have any fair use images, and so all of our existing fair use images would need to be deleted. The alternative to this policy, which I think maintains the status quo, would be a massive purge of fair use images. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I modified the screenshot clause slightly, as some licensees make certain demands on how their screenshots are used. Webaware ^talk 23:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support - This really does describe what we've been doing in the past. Plus it makes sense. I'm very happy with the explicit rejection of allowing a fair use claim on media a user has created themselves, media used with permission, and "commissioned" works. There are several media files which would be excluded by this policy coming into force, and getting rid of them is absolutely the right thing to do. As well, the rejection of decorative uses of non-free media is great, and so is requiring the deletion of unused non-free media. Finally, there is an implicit requirement to use {{Fair use rationale}} to provide that, but I'm going to make it explicit in order to comply with the resolution linked above.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  What was wrong with the requirement for a fair use rationale? If there is discussion about this, can it please take place in the open (i.e. talk pages), not in cloistered hallways? Webaware ^talk 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think there was a problem with using a rationale, I think the problem was in requiring people to use that particular template. I think I agree with Mike though, using that template will help to keep things standard, so I think we should require it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  No, that requirement is still present in the current revision in 2 separate places. The change I made then reverted would have required a particular template be used, which wasn't non-controversial and should therefore be discussed first. I hadn't gotten around to explaining that in full here; I got distracted. I still think we should require the use of a template (actually a single template for consistency's sake) because A) it makes good sense (this is what templates are for) and B) I believe that is the intent of the "machine-readable" clause in the Foundation resolution. Either way, I'd support this policy, but I think the change I made (then reverted) would be an improvement.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Nobody that I know of is questioning the need for rationals. I think requiring rationals is something too new for Wikibooks to be saying only one specific template must be used in order to be acceptable. There may be many ways to supply a rational that may work, and the community should be free to experiment with that. I don't think it makes good sense to limit our options right now, when as a community there is no history for the use of and the requiring of rationals to determine what is acceptable or not. I believe the intent of the machine-readable clause is about making sure rationals are supplied in a computer format that is easily accessible to anyone using any computer or OS, rather then for instance suppling a hard copy only, providing a rational upon request over the phone, or providing a rational in other way that would require extra work to supply on a computer. In short its a single template only verses allowing many possible templates disagreement rather then a disagreement over rationals. --darklama 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - also support Mike's suggested change. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Sure. --Az1568 ^(Talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed policy should be revised as there are inconsistencies on its text, a lot of legal babel that could and should be avoided. There is no need to define specific interpretations of licenses on the proposed text (the use of wikipedia links would suffice and reduce errors. As an example I point out that "Public domain works are works not protected by copyright laws" is not correct (see Public domain). Removing that extra fat from the text would make it more readable and simplify its use. --Panic (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Darklama reverted my changes I also point out that at Wikibooks we don't use the GFDL but the GFDL with some restrictions (that is 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, and no Back-Cover Texts ), this distinction on this proposal text isn't very important but we should aim to make this clear to users and the text deals with specific licensing issues. --Panic (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read w:Public domain? It says in the section on "No legal restriction on use":

“

A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. For instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws.

”

I don't know what legal babel your talking about. There isn't anything in this proposal about legal issues or legal talk, only a brief summary of what public domain is, what non-free use is, and what free licenses are as it applies to this project and to Wikimedia projects on the whole. I don't think the information on public domain is incorrect, nor do I see any "extra fat" in this policy.

This policy isn't about specific licensing issues, as that is a legal issue. This policy is about what types of media content is acceptable for use on Wikibooks. We've already been over the fact and established that we disagree on the interpretation of the GFDL enough. Don't try to turn this into an issue over trying to prove a point. --darklama 14:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And ?!? PD works are under protection of the copyright law, they are public property but their use may also have some restrictions, like the obligation in providing information about the original author, there are many nuances to PD, In PD the authorship of the work doesn't change, the creator is the same only the ownership defaults to the public. One case were copyright law can be called upon to protect PD is to establish authorship of a work (I can't see any other instance were any other user, change or alteration would cause problems).

The problem is that the summary isn't brief or even needed on the proposed text, all could be done under a generalization of the final objectives and links to wikipedia could be given to enable users to learn more about the specific licenses so they could check about them if they need to. --Panic (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how any of this is relevant to approving the policy. Panic: Are there requirements or prohibitions in the proposal that you disagree with? If so, which ones? If not, please don't drag us off-course and towards territory adequately discussed in the past, and best left alone. If you insist on discussing this again, please do it elsewhere, as it has no bearing on this proposal. Let's keep our eyes on the ball.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I do support the policy and this discussion should address the proposed text as is, besides those minor correction I pointed out (that in no way would change the spirit of the policy) but never the less should be corrected before I'm able to support it. So we understand each other I repeat that the mention of Wikibooks use of the GFDL should be corrected and the verbosity of the text should be reduced, I don't see the point for it to include some phrases like "These freedoms may not be restricted, and attempting to restrict these freedoms for an image or media file is grounds for immediate deletion of that file." it is unnecessary since anything uploaded would have to respect the previously mentioned freedoms (there is no way around it open for abuse). --Panic (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely. Reece (Talk) (Contributions) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

As there was enthusiastic support, and the comments from Panic are vaguely supportive as well, I have declared this as now being policy.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Updates

I updated this for the license transition, but it also needs to be updated to reflect that we now point uploads to Commons by default, and allow only fair use media on Wikibooks. Users who have read and understand this policy and can show they have a need to do so can request local upload rights for those media files. As well, we should think about updating the upload form to reflect all of the above.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Template:Bigwelcome. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)