Got a question about this topic?
Head on over to the Discussions!

  • You can use this space to suggest improvements to the help page.

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#Copyleft_et_attribution. (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[edit source]

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 [1] and [2].

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?[edit source]

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? [3] --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[edit source]

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?[edit source]

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[edit source]

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:


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

Typo[edit source]

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[edit source]

Wikipedia is going to adopt the Creative Commons licenses. See wikipedia:wikipedia#License_and_language_editions 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?[edit source]

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? 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

move to CC[edit source]

Is Wikia moving to CC or do individual wikis have to do that on their own? Agathoclea 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See Forum:Licensing update. At this stage, we are waiting for more information from Wikia. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch translation[edit source]

The Dutch translation should be added to the list (http://nl.wikia.com/wiki/Nederlandse_Centrale_Wikia:Auteursrecht) and Wikia:Licensing/nl. Tedjuh10 - Talk 20:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just added. Thanks! If you're interested in translate more of our new features to durch, drop me a note. --Avatar 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I sure will :)! Thanks for the quick response. Tedjuh10 - Talk 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Could the Dutch link have a update, it should now link to "Auteursrecht" in stead of "Project:Auteursrecht". Thanks! Mark (Tedjuh10) - Talk 10:58, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Avatar 11:01, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Using public domain text[edit source]

If Joe publishes something elsewhere and declares that it is public domain, what happens to Joe or it if I then copy it to a CC-BY-SA wiki?

See http://c-evo.org/forum/p-482-1-1.html, a forum post that refers to recent (very welcome) material added to the Civilization Wikia.

Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:57, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Those versions then are CC-BY-SA licensed insofar as any subsequent versions aren't in the public domain anymore but only under CC-BY-SA. Also Joe has to be attributed as author, or the CC-BY-SA license becomes invalid (it is to note that Joe hasn't agreed to a WMF like attribution, so he should best be attributed as defined on [4]).--AB 01:30, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Non-text files"[edit source]

Freely licensed or public domain images are strongly preferred on Wikia.

Does this mean wikis can choose to use unfree images even without a fair use context, as long as they attribute copyright?--AB 01:30, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that merely attributing the copyright owner is sufficient. It is certainly necessary but not sufficient. My interpretation has been that you must either:
  1. have permission to use the material or
  2. satisfy the test for "fair use".
If you investigate the simple test for fair use then you will discover that it is very easy to satisfy. The page I used to get all this legal mumbo-jumbo straight in my head while setting up the various Licensing templates is w:c:vsk:Project:Licensing_guide#Uploading_the_work_of_others. It is simply what made the most sense (to me) as I considered the rights of all parties concerned. -- najevi 04:12, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
The wikis I'm around don't have fair use for an option. I've also come across Wikians who claim exactly what I question above. The usage of non-copyleft respectively exclusively licensed images is also an interesting question, though.--AB 19:52, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Chinese translation[edit source]

I just completed the Chinese translation of the policy inzh:Wikia中文:內容授權方式.Please add the interlanguage link.Thank you.--Ffaarr 07:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Using images from Wikimedia Commons[edit source]

Although it is great we can freely copy images from Wikimedia Commons and upload them to our own Wikia, I find this solution kind of cumbersome. Isn't there simple way to insert an image directly from Commons?

Some wikis do have this option. It's not something we offer by default. If you'd like this for your wiki, please contact Wikia staff about it. Angela (talk) 21:31, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fanon wikis[edit source]

I have a question. What about fanon wikis? Wouldn't the creator of a character own tha tcharacter? -Universal 00:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Wikis normally have their own policies about use of other user's characters, but - they mainly boil down to politeness - I don't think Wikia have made an official stance on this matter RandomTime 00:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Link to repair[edit source]

Hello, while reading I found a broken link into the section "The CC-BY-SA License". There is a suggestion as replacement "https://wiki.creativecommons.org/". I din't swapped it myself, because I was not feeling autorised to move that kind of content without a conversation first. So anytime someone stop by,please

  1. ) Repair the link
  2. ) delete this topic ;) thk.

Polish version[edit source]

Polish version is available here. Can you add interlaunguage link to it? Thanks, Final Cannon 12:41, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Russian version[edit source]

ru:Викия:Лицензирование. Please, add it. SkorP24 13:41, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

I have a complaint.[edit source]

Your Kyo Sohma page is very inacurate and false. There is a great deal of information on the page that is no where near to the truth ,and I as a writer myself, could not bear to leave be on a subject i am very strongly ingrossed into.I ask that you please fix the information ,or that you open that page to allow others to edit it.


sincerely, LIbby Sherwood

Hello is unfair you can black and we cant also barbossa of pirates of the caribbean was born in 1850 i can proove it also jack sparrow has 50 years because in real life he does have 50 years so please change where they were bornm

--Gilver Akashiya 17:45, March 10, 2012 (UTC)[edit source]

Hey,guys. Can guys tell me to how I can free from someone blocked me about create nor edit the page and i want my page back?

May I ask why I was banned someone banned me for and unknown user describeing Daniel123Shaw123 who is he please unban I have nothing to do with this. 19:47, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Why is my wikia page doesn't have a protection log????

Jenny953 01:14, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I got banned of Red Dead Redemption Wiki for being underaged which it was a mistake as im 14 I typed 2 instead of 2 please help? Daniel123Shaw123 20:37, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Alterations[edit source]

In the "Importing text" section, should "In addition, you may not contribute to a wiki that uses a license that restricts commercial uses unless you hold the copyright to such contribution or otherwise have the right to grant the Commercial Use Waiver with respect to such contribution." not read "In addition, you may not use content from a wiki that uses a license that restricts commercial uses unless you hold the copyright to such contribution or otherwise have the right to grant the Commercial Use Waiver with respect to such contribution.", as that's what you seem to go onto describe.

In the "attribution" section, should " a) attribution through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you contributed to" not read " a) attribution through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article or articles you are re-using" (why put a hyperlink on the article you're contributing to that leads to the article you're contributing to, and as per this)--Category:Acer4666 15:34, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Acer, thanks for taking the time to think about this. The text is correct as it is.
In the "Importing text" section, the situation described is someone contributing content to a wiki with commercial use restrictions. The text is making sure that they have the ability to grant Wikia a waiver to use that contribution for commercial purposes. The focus is on making contributions to the wiki, not using content from it.
In the "attribution" section, the text is referring to the ways in which other people will attribute you as the author, not the ways you must attribute others. "URL to the article or articles you contributed to" refers to what other people have to include in order for you to be attributed. The focus is on being attributed, not attributing. --semanticdrifter WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 21:20, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response:
In the "importing text" section, if that is the intent of what that section is, then it shouldn't say "you may not contribute to a wiki that uses a license that restricts commercial uses unless you hold..", it should say "you may not contribute to any Wikia wiki unless you hold...". You can't put non-commercial use content on any wiki without explicit consent, not just wikis with non-commercial clauses in their license.
(eg, if you take a chunk of work from Memory Alpha (CC-BY-NC) without explicit consent, the current wording seems to state that it's ok to stick that on a CC-BY-SA wiki, but not on another CC-BY-NC one)--Category:Acer4666 17:06, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
The focus of this part of the paragraph is to address the requirements for adding content to a wiki with commercial restrictions. The key part of the sentence here is "...you may not contribute to a wiki that uses a license that restricts commercial uses unless you hold the copyright to such contribution or otherwise have the right to grant the Commercial Use Waiver". It's about making sure that when someone adds to an NC wiki, they do not use material that they cannot grant a waiver for. It doesn't say that you can add CC-BY-NC content to a CC-BY-SA wiki, but rather that if you add a chunk of work to a CC-BY-NC wiki, you have to be able to grant Wikia a waiver for the noncommercial clause. Because CC-BY-SA wikis don't require a waiver, they are not explictily mentioned in this sentence.--semanticdrifter WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 18:17, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
"CC-BY-SA wikis don't require a waiver" - really? If I take a chunk of content licensed under CC-BY-SA-NC and want to put it on a CC-BY-SA wiki with adverts, I surely need to get a waiver to do that?--Category:Acer4666 18:45, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
We're discussing the Commercial Use Waiver, specifically granting one for your contributions. CC-BY-SA wikis do not require a Commercial Use Waiver. You would not be required to grant one when you contribute content to a CC-BY-SA wiki, since the nature of the CC-BY-SA license allows commercial use, as long as there is attribution. However, if you contribute content to a CC-BY-NC wiki, you need to be able to grant Wikia a Commercial Use Waiver for that content. This sentence does not address obtaining a waiver or other permission from the source of the content. That is contemplated in the first sentence of the section: "If you want to provide contributions in which you do not own or control the copyright, you may only do so if you originally received such contributions under terms that are compatible with the license used on the wiki to which you intend to provide the contribution." --semanticdrifter WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 22:05, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I understand there's a difference between contributing to a non-commercially licensed wiki and a normal CC-BY-SA, but to me that's a point for the contributions section. I really think the focus of the "importing text" section should be on the license of the source of the copied content. All the cases I am describing, which apparently you do not want addressed in this section, are the ones I see most commonly misunderstood and disobeyed throughout Wikia (often by staff members). While technically what is written is correct, after you've clarified quite extensively what you're going for, I think it's very narrowly focussed and unclear, as evidenced by the labours you've had to go to in order to explain it.--Category:Acer4666 23:21, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

WOTwiki has had an author request us not to repost blogs[edit source]

It is my belief and understanding that this assertion of copyright invalidates any use of Creative Commons licensing, and this we have begun deleting the offending pages. An earlier solution was to place a 'copyright' notice on those pages but that has no force of law that I can see. Please advise if I am incorrect, but for now I am erring on the side of caution. -- nae'blis 17:33, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

If you are reusing content that is not from a Creative Commons (or compatible source), it doesn't really matter if you place a copyright notice on the page or not because you are still reproducing someone's material. If it does not come from a CC-type source, then it under general copyright and attribution is beside the point. There are exceptions for using parts of text or images in a way that illustrates or illuminates the subject (fair use), but if you are importing whole blog posts this likely does not apply. Generally, as a host for user-generated content Wikia responds to claims of copyright infringement according the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If the author of the posts sent us a notice, we would likely remove the content. Uploading copyrighted material is also against our Terms of Use. The fact that he has reached out to you directly, means that you can take affirmative steps to address the issue before that happens. --semanticdrifter WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 20:56, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Intro needs update, too[edit source]

The last sentence ought to be removed.--PedroM (talk) 16:54, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on October 20[edit source]

In the section "Editing at Wikia" on the short two sentence paragraph there are two periods;

  • By editing or otherwise contributing to a wiki that uses the CC BY-SA license, you agree to license any text you change or contribute under the CC BY-SA license. .
  • By editing or otherwise contributing to a wiki that uses the CC BY-SA license, you agree to license any text you change or contribute under the CC BY-SA license.

TidesOfLife (Talk) 10:22, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Original Productions and Copyright Protection[edit source]

I'm not sure where to find guidance on how to reserve original material to my own use within a Wikia. There seems to be a great deal of text concerning the proper use of others' works, but little help in the production and protection of original works. As Wikia moves away from media consumption to media production, more visible help would be useful. If anyone can point me to material already here, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you. 

ThatOneCH00B 16:57, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Good question. When it comes to text, there isn't really a means for "reserving" it. You do retain the copyright, but you also release it under the CC-BY-SA , which means anyone can use, reuse, or remix it in any way as long as you are attributed. This means that highly personal works or works that you wish to exercise a tight control over may not be appropriate contributions. --semanticdrifter (help forum | blog) 17:38, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.