Commons talk:License selector

Big Thanks

Copied from User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:

Excellent feature! I especially like the hierarchical list view. Very nicely done!--Eloquence 04:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea, a Big thank you from me too. But I was wandering if it would be possible to include templates with parameters in the dropdown: the currently recommended way to license one's own work is {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5}} - which should be in the dropdown at a prominent location. One solution would be to create a parameter-less template for this... but that's kind of ugly, and also problematic if that template is changed later, for instance to include a new version of the GFDL or CC license. What do you think? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've created Template:Self GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5 for a start, and added it to MediaWiki:Licenses. But I think parameters need some more thought - for instance, I belive that the "self" template should really contain the name of the creator explicitely. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 10:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It supports template paramaters in CVS now, should be on the servers soon. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

More licenses?

Should we also have {CopyrightedFreeUse} somewhere? ed g2s • talk 11:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem depending on browser

Image:Wrong-license-click.png: The appearance of the selector in some browsers, including IE, causes uploads with actually no license chosen by accident - and users don't notice that.
Please compare MediaZilla:3318 and vote for if you want! --:Bdk: 09:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Encouraging naming the author

The license selector allows subst:. Thus, we can coopt this feature to not only put a license on the image description page, but other text. For example, if we replace

**** GFDL|GFDL

with

**** subst:License selector GFDL|GFDL

in MediaWiki:Licenses we could define Template:License selector GFDL to be

The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

---

To the uploader: Indicate who the author of this file is! If you didn't produce it yourself, say where you got it in as much detail as possible!

Opinions? dbenbenn | talk 21:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Writing the name of the author must not be just encouraged but should be oligatory. The transclusion of Commons information on the different projects does not include the uploader, which, when an image states "Author: self" makes absolutely no sense. Thinking that people will further click to get the information on Commons is asking a bit much. Is it a possible technical implementation that the form includes at least an "uploaded by" part, so that when the author field is "self" it actually makes sense? notafish }<';> 09:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Argentina's Law 11723

There's an error at the combo box selector. It says for all fotographic works 25 years after their first publication.

The 11,723 lay actually says 20 years and not 25. The {{PD-AR-Photo}} tag is correct.

Mariano 08:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No es ningún error. La ley efectivamente habla de 20 años, pero Argentina suscribió el convenio de Berna, que pone como plazo mínimo los 25 años. Mira es:Usuario_Discusión:Patricio.lorente#PD-Argentina y Commons:Café#Consulta sobre imágenes en dominio público (legislación argentina) Sanbec ✉ 11:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

-OK, I didn't see that before. Mariano 12:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Less licenses?

Could someone please fix this usability nightmare of zillion of options in the license selector? People seem to confuse source and license, the selector should only be used for the license and consist of just a few options: GFDL, CC-by, CC-by-sa, PD, Copyright Wikimedia and Unknown. A lot of newbies who turned away from commons in panic will be grateful. --Elian ^Talk 01:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The question should be which templates are used most by people don't knowing a lot about them, especially about their names at Commons. It's not important how many license tags we have, but it's important to find them and use them as it should be. First there's the question wether or not the image ist selfmade. If it is (small question above the License selector?), there should be only license tags like "PD-self" but no further bothering with things like "PD-USGov". Another question is if they are "new" or moved from other projects (usage of f.e. "PD-user" prefered). Questions on language/country could be important for licenses with codes like -de or -fr versions and also country typical licenses. Things like "Copyright Wikimedia" are not really important, they are few and their uploaders should knew the license tag. --Saperaud 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the selector should list all of them, with the most frequently used ones at the top of course. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Next year we could have thousands of them, do you want to drag them all in? --Saperaud 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If we have many of them, then we will have to update the selector have steps PD|-Per Country|-Argentina|-25 year old Fotograph->{{PD-AR-Photo}} Mariano 12:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Installing on Norwegian Wikiepdia

This system with a dropdown box is very good, and we'd like to implent it on the Norwegian Wikipedia. What should we do to do that? Does a developer have to enable/install it or something? Jon Harald Søby 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Argentina PD license

Please, add the {{PD-AR-Presidency}} option to the License selector. Thanks, Mariano 12:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That is too specific fot the license selector box. Not all avaiable licenses are in the selector box, just the more commonly used ones. --Pmsyyz 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish PD license

Please add the {{PD-Poland}}

This photograph is in the public domain because according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements: it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States, it was in the public domain in its home country (Poland) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published.

option to the License selector. Mikkalai 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)