Talk:Allrightsreserved

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What sort of files should be allowed on Wikimedia projets?[edit]

Before we create a new site and make changes to make it possible for the Wikis to use files from 3 different sites (own wiki, Commons and Allrightsreserved) I think we should discuss what files should be allowed on Wikimedia projects.

We have different kind of files:

  1. Official logos.
  2. Old logos.
  3. Suggested logos.
  4. Funny logos.
  5. Screenshots where logos are included.

Official logos: The official logos should be hosted somewhere. We do not have many official logos. Some of the logos are or should perhaps not even be marked as unfree.

The original Wikisource logo File:Wikisource-logo.jpg is licensed freely but the derivate is not File:Wikisource-logo.png! Logo for Wiktionary File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png is just text and was originally licensed as GFDL (licenses are not revocable). Logo for Wikiquote looks rather PD-ineligible to me File:Wikiquote-logo-51px.png.

So perhaps we should start by checking the copyright status of the logos.

Old logos: Logos that is not used anymore is "just" a part of our history. But does that mean that we should keep them? If the files were fair use the answer was "delete".

I think that we should keep our history. Either on Commons or on Allrightsreserved.

Suggested logos: Suggested logos is logos that was never used. It is "just" a part of our history or maybe just a result of what a single wikipedia or commons user created. Should we keep such files?

Fun logos: Logos are copyrighted by Wikimedia and are therefore not allowed to use. But still users create funny logos like File:Wikimikolaj.png. What should we do with files like that? Should we nuke or allow fun?

Screenshots where logos are included: We have a lot of screenshots where logos are included. Screenshots can be used for different purpose:

  • As a part of a guide on Wikipedia.
  • To document a historic moment.
  • To illustrate something - used in an article.
  • To illustrate a problem with the way a page is displayed.
  • To be used for fun in a userpage.

If it was fair use we would demand that unused files was deleted and logos was only shown if it was really needed. So should we demand the same for files on Wikipedia and Commons etc.? Or should fun be allowed?

Alternatives? Another way out is that Wikimedia relicense the logos under a free license. Out goal is to share files but we do not want to share our own files. Is that the signal we want to send? Just a question.

Once all the questions above have been answered we would know how many files that will be left to move to Allrights reserved. Is it 100 or 10.000 files?

I think this should be resolved before we nuke hundreds of files on Commons. --MGA73 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


  • The creation of an unfree screenshot can be done either:
    • with permission from all the article writers, because the text is released with a "share alike" licence, which does not allow to create unfree derivative works.
    • under a "fair use" rationale for release in specific countries like the United States, where fair use is allowed.
  • Fun logo File:Wikimikolaj.png is OK as long as the Wikimedia management, who owns the logo does not dislike it. But we could imagine a rule making compulsory to release the hat as a standalone public domain picture before the combined picture can be uploaded. (public domain has no "share alike" condition, therefore combining "public domain" and allrightsreserved is legal [I dislike it, I don't think it should be encouraged, but I have to admit that it is legal]). Teofilo 11:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We could imagine a rule that DerivativeFX is always used for file combinations including allrightsreserved. For example I tried to combine an unfree logo and a free hat with Derivative FX and had the following message :

Sorry, your images can't be merged! The licenses are incompatible or the licenses can't be detected. See above for all license tags the tool found for this images: * File:Wikipedia-logo.png o {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} * File:Princely_Hat.svg o {{Cc-by-3.0}}

If we had a rule to upload separately each part of the screen, provide the authors and licence for each part, then use DerivativeFX, when uploading a full screenshot on Commons, we would have fewer problematic files being uploaded. Teofilo 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Teofilo 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again we need to discuss what is acceptable and what is not. If you think that it is not ok to combine free text with unfree logos then moving the files to Allrights reserved is stupid waste of time.
Creating fun logos is ok if Wikimedia management does not mind. Well do we know if they mind? If they allow us to use the logo why not let everyone use it. If they do not think it is ok then it is stupid waste of time to move them to Allrightsreserved.
If logos are PD-ineligible or is actually free because they once was free or because they are a derivative work of a free file then the files are free and it is nonsens to delete them as unfree or to move them to Allrightsreserved.
As for DerivativeFX it is just a tool. Who desides what we should do? A creator of a tool? Well I can move fair use files from enwiki to Commons with my bot. Does that make it ok for Commons to host fair use files? --MGA73 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it is not OK on Commons. Allrightsreserved could have less tight rules. Or not.
  • I think it is easier for "them" to allow "us" here (revokably) because, it is more simple for them to delete here in case they feel they have too.
  • You are right that a tool is just a tool. I just wanted to point out that in my view, that specific tool is the kind of "good practice" that should be encouraged. People doing file-merging without that tool should always have in mind the question "would DerivativeFX allow me to do that?" and make suitable conclusions. Teofilo 16:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)