File talk:Right Arrow.png

Licensing and Other Things

Hey, where are the licensing templates? - GP _talk 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, is this okay? Just used what I had on my computer; Tango's was too small. Are we going for a certain colour? - GP _talk 09:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

The license are available in the drop down box on the uploaded page, as pictured to the right. Or, you may look at this related category.

It's fine to upload this. One day, however, I do plan to replace it with something more original. Still, it will do for now. Thank you for uploading it.

Tacopill (Talk) 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

What I meant is, they're all content templates, not specifically to indicate licensing. If you look at the file description, you'd see I said it's LGPL: where are generic licenses like fairuse, free and public domain? - GP _talk 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to make myself out to be a noob here, but: What is the difference between content licence templates and generic licence templates? Tacopill (Talk) 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

The templates in that category indicate the content of the file: in some cases it's always going to be, say, fair use, but in others, the template either assumes the file is copyrighted or gives a list of licenses it might fall under. This is ambiguous and not very flexible: if license is not defined by the content, it should be clearly stated on the description page what the distribution terms of the file are. Take this image: the obvious template, according to its content, is "Wiki File", but that assumes fair use, which is not the case.

Also, what's with the silliness on {{License/Wiki File}}? And {{License/Copyright Nintendo}} is a different style to the others and overlaps with a lot of their use-cases. - GP _talk 09:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, wouldn't that make it more flexable? :D. ALso, how would it a "Wiki File". It was not generated to be a wiki exclusive, such as this one or this one was, i believe to be.

As for it's sillyness, It was designed to be a mock template of the fair use templates, since anything created exclusively for the wiki wouldn't be subject to copyright, unless they filed for it.

Anyway, would you do me a huge favor and create the missing licence templates, and fix the one's we currently have?

Tacopill (Talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Oh, I assumed a 'wiki file' was a file for use on the wiki, but not as part of article content - logo, favicon, banners, etc.. Having a template for files exclusive to this wiki is a bit silly, 'cause there's no way you can promise it won't be used anywhere else, especially if, as you say, you don't expect them to be copyrighted files.

AFAIK, copyright doesn't work like that: if you create something and say it's copyrighted, then it's copyrighted.

I guess I could. I also don't like the inconsistency in capitalisation in template names: what should the standard be? (My opinion: do it how Wikipedia does it (every word lower-case except for proper nouns (and the first letter, of course))). - GP _talk 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could switch the use of the "Wiki File" to being as you stated: Files for the Wiki's use, but not for article content. (Sounds boring, but o well).

Last i checked, one can only have a copyright when one files for it....with a Copyright Agency. There's also implied copyright, which you get for by time-coding an idea; but I'm not sure this would be the case. I mean, if i could just create something and automatically copyright it, what would be the purpose of copyright agencies?

When you speak of inconsistency of templates, do you mean overall or just the license templates? if the former, feel free to move them to the appropriate titles, since i am not the best at anything that comes to language. If the latter, then what do you mean? they are all capitalized :D.

Tacopill (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration". And as you can see, this covers most of the world. Maybe you're confusing this with patents/patent offices?

Yeah, I meant with all templates - all pages, in fact (excepting user sub-pages and files, of course). - GP _talk 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so, based on this, this and this. Specifically, note that one of them say "The U.S. still provides legal advantages for registering works of U.S. origin.". AS far as i know, this is why Nintendo of America still registers copyrights with the US office, instead of just bringing the Japanese copyright over here. Then again, i'm not a lawyer. I just know, in order to have a work of mine protected legally, i had to pay a company some money to file for a copyright in my name. (it was part of the publishing fee, if i recall correctly).

Ah, ok. Understood. And as i said, move templates to standard names. As for all the page names, you may want to talk that over with RAP (Talk), and see what he says.

Tacopill (Talk) 20:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Point is, it's not necessary, so it wouldn't be crazy to have wiki files under fair use. And not everyone lives in the USA, of course. - GP _talk 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what would be the point of having the fair use clauses at all? Also, if the copyrights are automatic, as you say, couldn't we have a template that reserves the right to copy to the author? Basically, they would be saying something like, "I, the holder of the copyright of this file, authorize this wiki to use the work. Please contact me for other uses." or "This wiki recongizes the copyright of the original author of this file. Please contact them if you wish to use it for other uses.". I mean, they may of created the file for use on the wiki, but i want to protect their rights as the author of the file. Tacopill (Talk) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Well, yeah, I was just replying to 'anything created exclusively for the wiki wouldn't be subject to copyright, unless they filed for it', which I took to mean you thought nothing created exclusively for the wiki would be subject to copyright because no-one would bother filing for it for something so minor. Either way, it's not important. - GP _talk

Oh, one last thing, before I do anything: why are the templates all License/*, especially considering the existing ones are content and not really license templates? Would the intention be to just have them under normal names, or put ones that actually contain license information only under License/, and the content ones under something else? (IMO, categorisation is sufficient for organising pages, and you don't really need it in the name.) - GP _talk 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. *Knowledge Earned*. Anyway, what would you recommend we do? I don't feel comfortable having the file without some kind of tag/license. Is my suggested quotes above good enough?

Um.... what's the difference between License and content? Anyway, the templates are meant to be trancluded into this template: {{FileSourceCitation}}; which also help categorize the file by use.

Tacopill (Talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC).