Community Central talk:Copyrights

Chinese translation is Wikia 著作權, not "zh:Wikia 版權" - Danielwang 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is Russian translation of this Page: Авторские права. Please, insert link.--Egor 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The link to Desencyclopedie:Project:Copyrights should be Desencyclopedie:Project:Copyright; there are also a number of templates for Désencyclopédie copyright tags on Desencyclopedie:Project:Modèle. (Note that Désencyclopédie is just one of many Wikia which attempt to translate the Uncyclopedia into other languages.) --carlb 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Images not allowing derived works
On the Spanking Art Wikia, we recently had an image uploaded, whose license was unclear. It eventually became apparent that the artist would permit anyone to repost the image, provided that his site logo stayed intact, and that the image was not modified. Creative commons has a license for exactly that (CC-NO derivs) but it is not one of the Wikia approved licenses, so we reluctantly deleted the image. See and.

However I think we might want to consider allowing such licenses. There are surely more free than fair use images, and it is not unreasonable for an artist to want his work to appear unaltered, even when s/he permits it to be freely reused. -Mercy (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) noch was jetz hat jeder 200 hundert level und das sag ich administrator
 * Licenses that prohibit commercial or derivative use are not free. The definition of free content being created at freecontentdefinition.org follows the policy that Wikia and Wikipedia use that says text and images must allow certain core freedoms, and one of those is the ability to modify the work. This is especially important on a wiki, where the aim is to work collaboratively. You can't do that if you're prevented from changing something that someone else uploaded. If artists don't want their work to be changed, there are many other websites where they could put that, and then your Wikia could link to it instead of including it directly on the page. Angela (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet they wiki has no need to alter the image to profrom it's fuction, as the work need to only be an example of what's being talked about. and in no way impacts on being collaborative effort. Roguebfl 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that a license that deos not allow derivitive use is not fully free. I would, however, point out that in this case, and in many simialr cases, the artist did not particualrly desire to post his work on a wiki, people from the wiki were asking permission, because the image was a good illustration of a wiki article. It seems not unreasoanble for an artist to say "You may use my work freely, but if it is to be presented, it must be presented unmodified." -Mercy (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For Wikia Use Only?
On the Stargate Wikia, some images were posted with permission from the original site for Stargate Wikia only. It seems to me that this would not be allowable under GFDL, but I'm not certain. Could you please confirm - either way? --CocoaZen 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses non-GFDL images alongside GFDL text, so I can only assume that part of it is ok. However, Wikia is meant to be for free content and permission-only images can not be freely resued. Unless the images are also considered fair use, they're not suitable for that wiki. Angela (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Screen captures
Law is not my specialty, so forgive me if I'm asking an already answered quesiton, but are screen captures allowed? -- SFH 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They probably wouldn't be GFDL, but it's up to you if you want to claim they are fair use. I'd recommend you reduce the size of them to 250px or less rather than uploading a full size image since this is less likely to cause problems from the point of view of the copyright holder. Angela talk 06:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Glad I finally have some answers on this. -- SFH 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution templates on templates?
If I copy a template, such as Template:wikipedia from central wikia, do I need to put an attribution template (inside NOINCLUDE tags) in that template to show that I got that template from central wikia? -Afker 05:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally think of templates as being uncopyrightable since they're such small snippets which themselves are based on other templates. Attributing Wikipedia in the edit summary when you copy it over should be sufficient. Angela talk 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken link
Under heading "Attribution templates" it reads:
 * See this thread on one of Wikipedia's mailing list in 2006 for an example.

I believe the link should be:
 * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054771.html

--JohnBeckett 11:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo
There's a typo under GNU Free Documentation License: "content will, therefore, will remain" should read either "content will, therefore, remain" or "content, therefore, will remain". —Sasoriza 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons
Wikipedia is going to adopt the Creative Commons licenses. See wikipedia because GFDL is not good for text licensing.

I wonder if Wikia will make that change too. While the Creative Commons-sa can be easily adopted by most wikis, a Creative Commons by-nd license would be really helpful in the Creative Wikis, as GFDL has cut the grownth of most of them, except Illogic, Althist, Fiction and Conworld. Frequently, when I am trying to take users to the creative wikis from external blogs, chatrooms and forums, I am asked about the protection against plagiarism. Some of the authors, even although they would like to create free content, expect to probably use some of their ideas on thei own professional works, and they do not want to have their ideas used on other works without their approval. When I told them there is no any protection against plagiarism, then always lose interest on joining.

If Creative Wikis were allowed to let users to select the better licenses for the different contents (i.e. some users would agree using CC-sa, others would like to implement CC-by-nd in their works) the creative wikis would be by far more succesful. I just say... If Wikipedia is going to implement Creative Commons, why not Wikia?Eros del Fuego 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer a Creative Commons license to the GFDL one. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For further discussions, visit Forum:Creative commons licences Share a like 2.5, Forum:Why is "wikia.com" using GFDL? Only because of copying from Wikipedia? Or are there other reasons?, and Forum:Creative Commons for wiki licenses?. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Freely licensed source code?
Would it be possible to allow source code under other free licenses, like the GPL, instead of the GFDL, possibly using a license tagging scheme, as is already possible for images? I'm particularly thinking of this scenario: __ Wikia article explaining __   __ Code snippet adapted __ |  programming topic (GFDL)   |  |   from GPL source code   | |                             |  |                          | |  Lorem ipsum, quia dolor     |  |  lorem Ipsum(quia Dolor) | | sit, amet, consectetur,     |  |  {                       | | adipisci uelit, set [Link]>|      sit Amet;           | | quia non numquam eius modi  |  |      Consectetur;      | | tempora incidunt, ut.       |  |      adipisci = Velit; | |______________________________| |__________________________| Since this is already possible for images, the intention is to keep the code free, it isn't always possible or desirable to relicense the code under the GFDL, and since the GPL protects the freedom of software better than the GFDL does and as such is in line with Wikia's policies, could this be made possible?

Other issues to think about: What if code is transcluded, much like including a GPL image in an article? Should the license tag be in a comment, or rather on a code description page (which itself would presumably be GFDL'ed) like is done for images now? 82.139.86.37 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)