Wikipedia talk:Donating copyrighted materials

February 2005

Great idea, Jmabel -- excellent and much-needed resource. Please be sure to note something about Wikipedia:No original research here, if you would -- don't want people thinking this is another avenue for crackpot theories. (Don't want to interrupt your "in-use" editing to do it myself.) — Catherine\^talk 20:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about other kinds of permission?

I'm concerned about photos of minors. Even the person who took a photo does not necessarily have the right to release it to public domain in situations where they ought to have permission from people in the photographs. Where can I look to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding photos of underage individuals who are not public figures? Wryspy (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

nothanks

God resource. I've been looking for something like this for a while. I have proposed adding a link to Template:nothanks. Bovlb (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"someone will contact"

In the Granting us permission to copy material already online section, it says to post to the talk page, and "Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission". How does this process get started? I'm specifically referring to User:ITU-T, who had posted copyvio material to the page Malcolm Johnson (Director) and now has a permission statement on their userpage. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"someone will contact" redux, suggest revising

Currently, this document says:

“ If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or on your user page if your site covers a number of topics). This does require that your site have a posted email contact, or some other similar means for us to verify that we really do have the relevant permission. Someone from Wikipedia will then contact that email address to confirm the permission, and we will be able to add your site to a list of those from which our editors may freely draw. ”

This is less than ideal for many reasons, not the least of which is that few (if any) of the editors addressing copyright concerns are members of the Communications Committee. Wikipedia's editors and administrators must follow the same procedure as other contributors, going through WP:Permissions process to first obtain a letter of clearance from the webmasters and then forward it to the Communications Committee. Adding this middle man creates pointless delay. I believe that this document should be updated to suggest that the copyright owners send the letter themselves, as it is already recommended at WP:IOWN. Accordingly, I suggest:

“ If you want to grant Wikipedia permission to use material from your site, but don't want to place a statement to that effect on your site, you can leave us a notice to that effect on the article's talk page (or talk pages, if more than one article) and send an e-mail confirming this from an address associated with the site to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" (an OTRS address). Your e-mail should include the source Internet URL and the name of the article(s) on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information, including an example declaration of consent which you may find useful. Note that the material must be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, as "Requesting copyright permission" sets out. ”

I've removed the bit about listing of sites from which we may freely draw. Unless an OTRS ticket is added to the title at that list, it doesn't seem to be usable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten and updated much of the page [1] to reflect how things are actually supposed to be done now. It was all pretty wrong before, not to mention confusing, mixing info about text and images without really distinguishing which parts applied to which content. I also removed a redundant section that was partially incorrect. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good to me! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

Are some of the references to GFDL on this page outdated? For example, should we retain the description of GFDL as one of many option for images but not suggest it for textual contributions? I think the advice can be improved, but I'd rather leave the exact wording to an expert than boldly get it wrong myself. Certes (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I may not be following you precisely, but if you are suggesting that we eliminate reference to GFDL from text donations, we really can't if we are to comply with wmf:Terms of Use. It is required that copyright holders (unless they are coholders of copyright) license material under both CC-By-SA and GFDL. If that's not what you mean, could you be more specific about your concern? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's answered my question. I was unsure of the exact status of GFDL for text, now that standard page footers etc. have been changed to mention only CC-by-SA explicitly. In that case the existing text looks fine. Certes (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell

Can we get a "In a nutshell" paragraph for this page, so that potential donors don't have to study the whole article to get the idea? I've written a proposal below.

Diego (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've tweaked the first line, as OR is not the extent of what we don't want and as the phrase is rather idiosyncratic. I think it's easier to understand in context below. What many might think of as "original research" is fine with us--if an acknowledged expert in a field wants to donate previously published material with us, that's great. :)

I've removed the second bit for now because of this part: "Write an explicit donation that can be referenced with the article" I don't understand what you mean. The final sentence is quite likely true for text, but seldom is for images. I'm not sure that it's a good "nutshell" reference above since it's not really reflective of the contents, though I'm inclined to agree that it's important to communicate that clearly to donors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence is more or less "you must give explicit permission for the content to be used freely (either in Wikipedia or elsewhere)". This can be either by using a free license, or by writing a non-exclusive license for the content to appear in derivative works (such as Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat or others). I'm not sure how to redact this idea concisely and without using Wikipedia jargon. Diego (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "You must give explicit permission for the content to be used under acceptable license (see below)"? I don't think it's too burdensome for them to read below to see what an acceptable license is. Given the diversity, I'm not sure we could do a nutshell otherwise. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the email required to be from the external site to verify the person sending is not just anyone?

"If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site."

Doesn't this need to say something like (bolding for emphasis):

"If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact email from an email address containing the domain name of the external site, thus showing your authority to donate, permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuhghettaboutit (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 February 2010

More permissive licenses?

I have a number of websites at which I release all content under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver (CC0). My intuition is that this material really ought to be available for use on Wikipedia, but this page doesn't mention anything about more permissive licenses. So my questions are:

• Is CC0 an acceptable license (or waiver statement, rather) for text to be used by Wikipedia?
• Is CC-BY (without multilicensing under GFDL) an acceptable license for text to be used by Wikipedia?
• What other licenses might qualify?
• Should these be listed as alternative options on this page?

Thanks for any input. Dcoetzee 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#More_permissive_licenses.3F --Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78#More_permissive_licenses.3FLeadSongDog come howl! 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Interests of commercial photographers

I wrote a blog post, Open-licensing your images. What it means and how to do it, to encourage people to make images available to Wikipedia and WikiMedia Commons. An interesting debate about doing this, vs. the interests of commercial photographers, has developed in the comments. Further input is welcome (as would be pointers to any previous discussion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Permission to copy content not already online

This document needs a going over to allow for the possibility of permission from print sources, as we occasionally do have book and journal authors who import their content here. I'd like to develop a new section called "Granting us permission to copy offline materials" that will talk about some of the ways these authors can verify. This is slightly more complex, since they can't easily put a note on the website, but some of the ways that can work include (a) emailing from an email associated with the author, if s/he has a clear online presence (as with university professors) or a statement on that website; (b) emailing from an email associated with the publisher (journal or book authors) or a statement on their website. I assume that we can trust them if they say they have the rights; while I know of one significant and painful case where we had to remove content of a published author because his publisher objected, this has only happened once that I know of and legally we should be protected by the authorization of the author, I think. I'll propose what I come up with here, of course, but before I start working on it just wanted to share my thoughts and see if anybody else had any others. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Previously published

The note at the top of the page reads "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work." In U.S. copyright law (among others) there is no requirement that the work be published in order to attract copyright protection. Would it be prudent to change the wording to reflect the situation more accurately? Something like, "This page is for editors who would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own existing work."? ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't previously published, it may be difficult for them to verify ownership and would seem to be unnecessary in most cases. While, for example, we often compose text on the fly, people who take photographs and upload them are always going to be adding "existing work". :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Club Alpbach Croatia

Hi there copyright minded people. I recently CSD'd a page: Club Alpbach Croatia for unambigous copyright infringement. The copyright owner contacted me regarding the fact that they owned the copyright. I directed them here and they contacted me to tell me they have added a copyleft notice here: http://kah.hr/cro Would someone be able to confirm if this is all that is necessary for me to remove the CSD tag? I still have concerns about the notability of the subject in general but would like to be able to remove the G12 speedy. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Granting us permission to copy material already online

Is it applicable to granting us permission to copy material already on facebook pages or groups? Can we consider facebook pages or groups as “site”? --Anton^{·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠·} 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the owner of an individual Facebook page can release that content. Obviously, they cannot release the entire site. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sister project and communication

I would like to know that how to communicate for granting us permission to copy material already online, particularly for other Wikipedia such as Tamil Wikipedia. The section suggest to send email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Does this email applicable to all Wikipedia projects such as Tamil, etc? I do not see WP:DCP page at many Wikipedias. Actually, I have been asked by a user for granting us (Tamil Wikipedia) permission to copy material already online. As far I know Tamil Wikipedia uses an gmail ID for communication. How could it be possible for an official communication? --Anton^Talk 20:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Anton. Speaking as an OTRS volunteer, I do not believe that there's any eason you cannot use permissions-en@ as long as the communication is in English - the mailing address is not specifically for matters related to the English Wikipedia, but for all contacts in English. That said, English speaking volunteers may be less familiar with the Tamil Wikipedia and might be nervous about logging the permission in an unfamiliar environment. The best thing is if they are willing to put the release on their website. This is a very transparent approach, as anyone can see and confirm the license. Some people prefer not to host the license perpetually - that's okay. They need to understand that even if they stop publishing the license, it remains in effect. What we typically recommend in such cases is taking a snapshot of the license and storing it on the talk page. Template:Text_release talks about how to do this under "usage" via an archive URL. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl for your explanation. --Anton^Talk 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "donating" the best word?

Donation implies giving something up. I thought about "releasing", but it shares the same potential problem in misunderstanding. Wouldn't it be better to retitle this page to "Wikipedia:Sharing copyrighted materials"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Donating is a little misleading for the reason you describe, but I'm afraid "sharing" may not make clear the scope of the release. If I were going to rename it (about which I have no strong feelings, as I haven't really ever encountered any questions or confusions about this in my years working in this area), I'd probably just be frank about it: "Licensing your copyrighted materials". OTOH, the page does define pretty quickly what it means. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'Donating your photographs' section

The above mentioned section gives a list of license templates that is not the same as the one found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#For image creators. I suggest removing the list from this page and replacing it with a link to WP:FCT instead. Having the list in a single place makes maintenance easier. —capmo (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ownership vs copyright

I think we should make it clear that owning a physical copy of a work does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Especially the "photographs" section would benefit from this. I'm suggesting this as one user at Commons has complained about lack of such guidance which in turn led to an invalid OTRS ticket and much dismay. Particularly I would like to suggest the following change: "If they are your own photos, you will probably want to use one of the following" → "If you are the photographer, you will probably want to use one of the following". De728631 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a valid rephrasing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have now changed this phrase. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kibrit Creative Solutions

Wiki tags this article as Coppy right item etc. however Im the owner of this creative studio which all text are already my own and I would like to add on wiki. (Oliviadurak (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)).

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

CC-BY v4

If content is available CC-BY under v4 of the CC licenses am I right in thinking we can import it here with attribution, but It can't go the other way as we require SA? Or is there a problem moving between v3 and v4 of the licenses? ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Appropriate Copyrights

Hi! I have doubts about the Creative Commons Licenses and Copyright Donation Processes. I uploaded an article to Wikipedia and it was deleted with a speedy deletion tag under the G12 Unambiguous Copyright Infringement category. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Illicit_Alcohol) Now, the original paper is on the Euromonitor website, as well in Tracit.org.

The question is: where the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be? Has it to be explicit in the paper (both websites or in the original site of publication) or in a specific place on the website, so that once the information is published in wikipedia, it is fulfilling all the copyright requirements?

There is it any other type of license this document could have or is the referred ones (CC Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 and the GFDL) the mandatory ones for it? Is there a license that allows the content to keep uploaded on Wikipedia, without the document being permitted to be modified and adapted by any other person, website and organization?

Once the author has done this licenses processes, where in Wikipedia exactly has to be the link that confirms this article has the appropriate copyright to be uploaded?

The paper is an information to be downloaded at the Euromonitor WebSite and in Tracit.org it is in the following link: https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf

Thank you very much for your help, very appreciated. AlcoholEducation (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AlcoholEducation. Hopefully I can help.

The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) should be disclosed specifically as relates to the content in any linkable place on the website of the copyright owner. It does not have to be on the same page where the publication is, although that's the easiest. But, for example, it would be permissible for the copyright-holding site to post on a subpage a notice to the point that:

The text located at <specific URL where the content is hosted> is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

There are some pitfalls with doing that instead of putting the notice on the bottom of the page where the text is displayed, including that if the page still contains the blanket copyright claim the material may be inadvertently deleted by somebody who doesn't notice the license.

Whether the license is published on the same page or elsewhere, the copying should be acknowledged on the talk page of the article on Wikipedia with a link to the license and on the bottom of the article itself, unless you yourself are the copyright holder. In that case, the process is a little different. Usually the posting on the article includes a citation to the source and an additional note something like, "This article incorporates text taken directly from this source, which is licensed under CC-By-SA 3.0 and GFDL." Within that statement, you would link to the appropriate release.

No license more restrictive than CC-By-SA 3.0 and GFDL are accepted for text donations to Wikipedia. All acceptable licenses allow both modification and commercial reuse.

You say that the paper is hosted on two sites. I do not know which owns the copyright, but that is the one that must publish the license. If copyright is shared, I would recommend that they both do. If one owns the copyright and the other is using it by permission, it may cause confusion if both are displaying copyright claims. So, for instance, if it is owned by Tacit, it could complicate matters if Euromonitor posts it under full reservation and copyright claim to themselves. In that case, it would be far easier if Euromonitor hosted it 'By permission of Tacit' and acknowledges that the copyright belongs to Tacit.

In any case, you would want to post a link to the release or releases. Avoiding confusion will help avoid issues.

Please note that if you are including images, these need to be uploaded independently of the text in the article, and each image will need to include a link to the release and full copyright and licensing information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Broken tool

The donation engine (linked by a big, prominent blue button on this page) is not working, as part of the toolforge deprecation. Update needed. Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)