Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the purposes of consistency and automated identification, all non-free images on English Wikipedia must be directly tagged with a template that begins with the prefix "Non-free". This will enable automated tools to detect such images by matching on the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free" or by consulting the templatelinks table in the database. Machine readability is required by the Wikimedia foundation licensing policy.

This page is an automatically updated list of templates which are used on media to indicate a non-free status.

Currently this page is being used to host information about the current project to rename these templates for the purpose of machine readability. Once this task is completed the page will be repurposed to document all of the non-free templates on the project.

See also Special:Prefixindex/Template:Non-free for a real-time list of the renamed templates.


A list of templates that have been completely moved to the new naming style, including fixing all of the template text on the images themselves.

Process related[edit]


Identifying marks[edit]

Copyrighted products or covers[edit]


Generic promotional materials[edit]

Art / Historic images[edit]

No longer used but kept around[edit]

TFD Pending[edit]

  • {{Fairusenoalternative}}
  • {{Trainweb}}
    • This one is a more or less free use template -- no explicit permission for derivatives, but I think that could be clarified with an email. Someone want to check? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I emailed him for clarification. He makes it clear that commercial use is permitted on his page, I suggested a creative commons license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What's about Besides, I see {{Cc-sampling}} tag on Use Policy page - this tag is non-free. Alex Spade 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot ready[edit]

  • {{Boardgamecover}} needs a bot to convert uses of the old name to the new name: {{Non-free board game cover}}. Currently there are 29 transclusions of it that need to be fixed. Back in June, User:MBisanz converted the (working) hard redirect that was in place to a soft redirect, thereby breaking, and hiding the licensing statements, on all 29 pages. It is important to leave the hard redirect in place until no new uses of it show up for, say 6 months. Then we can make it a soft redirect. Less than a month is far too short. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)



  • {{No_source_no_license}} to {{Non-free without source and license}} ?
  • {{No copyright information}} .. change to {{Non-free without copyright information}}?
    • I disagree with the two aboive, they should not be considered non-free copyright tags. Lack of required information makes the images candidates for speedy-ish deletion, but they are not nessesarily non-free and having bots treat them as such is A) redundant (they will either be fixed or deleted due to the presense of these tags), and B) confusing (if someone upload a PD image but does not include source info because they didn't understand all the Wikipedia processes it doesn't help matters if a bot comes along and demands a non-free use rationale). --Sherool (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think these should be orthogonal to licensing. In other words, none of these templates should be considered a statement regarding licensing. Content with one of these templates needs to have another (non-free) template that sets forth the actual licensing conditions on the content. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, well thats explictly the purpose of allowed in. I only added the reasoning stuff today.. perhaps I should take that out? The purpose of allowedin is access control... and nothing else really. But I do want people signing the entries to keep track of who authorized the use. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the very least all of the above should be merged into one, no point in 5 different templates now that we have optional parameters and parserfunctions in our template arsenal. --Sherool (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I've added support for multiple parameters in {{fair use in}} and redirected the others and theyr various redirects to it. Now we just have to figure out what to rename it to. --Sherool (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like replacing these with allowedin, but will that be retroactive? This isn't something a bot can do unless we're ok with some not having inline reasons. This is an improvement because I think it makes it clear that it isn't a license tag, but it could be quite a project. - cohesion 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't rely agree with the statement that these are not license tags. They are sure intended to be license tags and have been used as such for quite a while, and I don't rely see the problem as long as they have source and fair use rationales in order. Turning these into pure "access control" templates (meaning that any image tagged only with these would basicaly be considered untagged and subject to deletion) would IMHO be quite a big deal. Not saying it's nessesarily a bad idea, but if we just go and do it without some significant debate/warning beforehand you just know it's gonna turn into another one of those firestorms of controversy. Let's at least finish the fairly uncontroversial renamings and mergers first. --Sherool (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with Sherool. Incidentally, does {{allowedin}} work? --Iamunknown 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should replace them with non-free allowed in and add a generic FU template.. that doesn't imply that we'll start auto-deleting based on allowed in use without a lot more time and work. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{FairusewithNC}} NC isn't a license status that we care about. If something is also available under NC we can mention it in the text or on the talk page. Having a template looks like an endorsement. Should this go away? --Gmaxwell 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is useful to record information in a sanderdised way.Geni 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No because that would be too close to traditional NC. The whole point of the tag name is that you can only use it if there is also a legit fair use claim.Geni 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should have a {{non-commercial}} tag that specifies that it is considered a non-free license on Wikipedia, and that if a proper image license tag isn't given the image should be deleted. There are images licensed under both (either) the GFDL and cc-by-nc, so that a reuser can choose which license to use. Other images are cc-by-nc, but can be used here as an allowed non-free image. And others should be deleted. It seems to me that a single tag, {{non-commercial}}, should be usable in all three cases: with a {{GFDL}} tag, with an {{allowedin}} tag, or with a {{db}} tag. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is the most generic non-free one we have {{fair use}} and some other big ones redirect here. Not the best solution, but this tag is used a lot. Category:Fair use tag needs updating. - cohesion 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about we move it to {{Non-free}}? --- RockMFR 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{NoncommercialProvided}} - noncommercial with additional restrictions; should just be replaced with generic non-free template, NC status mentioned in description. Template already warns of impending deletion. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Agree, useless. 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • {{The Simpsons-screenshot-Ullman}} No context at all in the template proper.. no real difference from the regular simpsons screenshot template. --Gmaxwell 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is another one of those fair use templates that is improperly being used to categorize content. I'll break it out into the standard screenshot template and a category for the Tracey Ullman information. --Cyde Weys 04:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Gymnast ru image}}
    • "with permission", and I doubt the guy granting permission actually holds the copyright. Should be replaced with generic fair use for those who do not have other photos reasonably available. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • We shouldn't use them if we cannot determine who the copyright holder is. I've asked the creator, Cmapm (talk · contribs) about it on his/her talk page. I'll wait a little while before doing anything further. --Iamunknown 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Denver Public Library images}} - It tells us where it came from but nothing of the fair use justification for this media. --Gmaxwell 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Agree, useless. 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This should be preserved as a source-only tag, like smithsonian, especially because it contains parameters that can point people directly to the item in the collection. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Parody}} - Our use should never be parody. Yes, sometimes we'll make fair use of someone elses parody.. but our fair use rationale isn't because the work is parody (since our use isn't). Instead we should treat a parody like any other copyrighted work that we use, and classify it accordingly. --Gmaxwell 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{non-free media}} AFAICT, this template and all templates that transclude it are in Category:All non-free media (not just the pictures that use said templates) I'm just getting my feet wet with templates so I don't know for sure if there are technical limitations in play here, however I believe that conventionally templates are excluded from categories which are specific to Articles/Images/etc. (would wrapping the the category link in an <includeonly> block fix it for the template but not the templates that transclude it?) --Jeremyb 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we really need so many pokemon templates? In addition to all the generic ones which might apply (character, video game, card, comic, etc..) there are at least 9 others. Are they redundant? --Gmaxwell 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video game screenshots[edit]

Video game screenshots were all upmerged into the game screenshot template and given a category. Old discussion can be found here.

Other screenshots[edit]

  • {{Software-screenshot}} - {{Non-free software screenshot}}
    • I think, all game- and software-screenshot can be combine (into one) - there is no special difference between them. From image we can cleary see what is this - game or not game. While Film-screenshot must stay independent - some images with will be PD in future. Alex Spade 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Web-screenshot}} - {{Non-free web screenshot}}
  • {{Film-screenshot}} - {{Non-free film screenshot}}
  • {{Mac-software-screenshot}} - {{Non-free software screenshot}}
  • {{Windows-software-screenshot}} - {{Non-free software screenshot}}
    • It seems like these two should be merged into {{Non-free software screenshot}} and categorized by OS. What OS the screenshot is from doesn't make a lick of difference regarding fair use concerns. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • For the most part this is true, but there is a slight difference. A screenshot of proprietary software on Linux or FreeBSD is different from a screenshot of proprietary software on Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X. The window borders and icons are likely under the free software license of the desktop environment (KDE or GNOME), unlike on Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X where they're just as proprietary as everything else. Once WINE and GNUstep mature, on the other hand, there may be a preference for taking screenshots in WINE or GNUstep if feasible. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Does it rely matter? I mean if the software you take a screenshot of is not free licensed what good does it do to have a tag that point out that the titlebar is rendered by a GPL licensed window manager? As far as I can tell the wording of the OS-software-screenshot tags are pretty much identical anyway... --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You just destroyed a whole pile of careful categorization and tagging work that was done around Microsoft Windows images. Thanks. Much appreciated. You know, it wouldn't kill you to look a little more carefully at templates and how they're being used, before going ahead and damaging the encyclopedia with these broad brush strokes. -/- Warren 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It would be productive if rather than just complaining you provided a description of the problem. If in-fact something was broken it will be easy enough to fix... but it also possible that you misunderstand the change. As far as I can tell, all images are in the same categories that they were in before at this point and we now have the 'missing a rationale' feature for all screenshot images. --Gmaxwell 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Agreed, I don't seen anything broken either. If there is something broken I would like to try to fix it, but unless that is pointed out to me, I cannot do anything about it. Mindless complaining devoid of constructive information is useless. --Cyde Weys 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Musicpromo-screenshot}} - {{Non-free music video screenshot}}
  • {{Cvg-titlescreen}} - {{Non-free game screenshot}} + Category:Title screens of video games — A screenshot of a title screen is still a screenshot. Pagrashtak 19:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Linux-software-screenshot}}
  • {{Vodcast-screenshot}}
  • {{Web-software-screenshot}}
  • {{Video-screenshot}} - {{Non-free video screenshot}}
  • {{Mac-game-screenshot}} - {{Non-free game screenshot}}
  • {{Be-software-screenshot}}
  • {{Machinima-screenshot}}
  • {{The Simpsons-screenshot}} - {{Non-free television screenshot}} with added Category:The Simpsons Screenshots
    • Hmm, I'm still of the opinion that, though it makes sense to completely separate the image copyright tag from the categorization, it will result in a disorganized categorizing scheme to do so. --Iamunknown 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Actually, it will result in a much more organized and flexible category system. I speak from lots of experience over at WP:CFD. Bare categories are by the best way to handle categorization, as all of the bots can easily deal with them. Start passing in category names as template parameters, however, and you end up with situations where you have to code up a custom replacement regex for each template. It's absolutely hideous, tedious, mind-numbing work, and I hate it every time I see a job listed at WP:CFDW that uses categorization via passed template parameters, because they're just so damn unmaintainable. The bot should not need to have a full version of the wiki text parser inside of it to understand how categories are getting assigned, which is something that has been happening recently, especially with overuse of parser functions. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well it depends how it's done I guess. If arbitrary categories can be given as parameter values like with {{media}} or {{reqphotoin}} I can see the problem. However if a template is set up to add a spesific category only if a spesific parameter have a spesific value you won't have that problem since you can move all pages that use any given (valid) parameter by just editing the template. --Sherool (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • That's my thinking. While bots may mess up the templates, humans won't, and it consolidates the task of changing templates into editing a single template. --Iamunknown 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does the fair use justification for covers ever really differ? --Gmaxwell 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We could have {{non-free product cover|cereal}}. This would be really great because we wouldn't have to remember which templates are hyphenated, which have no spaces, and which have spaces! - cohesion 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further reflection, we should probably standardize all these, game screenshots, covers etc in the same way, whatever is decided above. - cohesion 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should standarise in way that stops people thinking that just because we have a category called X that all Xes are fine. As we don't generally have articles for DVDs, TIME magazine issues and the like their obliteration may be useful.. Secretlondon 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am strongly supporting the integration, unification and simplification, especially in license policy, especially for newbies. Alex Spade 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think more of these should be consolidated. I don't see how an album cover, book cover, DVD cover, or videogame cover are at all different in regards to fair use. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why just covers? What about a photo of a page of a book used to illustrate the page layout and general appearance?


Does our justification for logos differ so much that we need 23 templates? --Gmaxwell 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an idea. For the templates that are for the school logos, maybe rename them to {{non-free-education-logo}}. This includes K-12, Preschooling, universities, colleges, school baords, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think mostly they are useful to diffuse categories (same with the other sections). --Iamunknown 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMHO we should roll all these into {{logo}} (or I guess {{Non-free logo}}) and just throw in some parserfunctions if wording needs to be changed for scertain parameters. So use would be for example {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|olympics}} etc. Would be trivial for a bot or gang of AWB users to convert the existing templates into such a scheme. As a bonus we could easily get statistics on all logo types via whatlinkshere regardles of how they are categorized. --Sherool (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minor correction, that'd be {{Non-free logo|radio}}, etc. --Cyde Weys 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, an end goal is that someone can always tell if an image is unfree by checking the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free". Cutting down on the proliferation will make life easier, but once they are all prefixed with non-free at least we'll be able to find the darn things. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with reduceing the number of templates is that the catigories become imposible to manage which is why the fair use wikiproject split everything up in the first place.Geni 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, they split them up so they could have a fair use justification which made sense for the content... If we just want to keep the categories small we could use parserfunctions to use a single template but split up the categories randomly. In any case, the practice of using templates like this isn't working for splitting things up.. We have templates like logo with over 60k things in it then ones like MPAA-logo with 8 things in them, in effect the split up hides some of the content. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can keep all the category divisions (if they make sense, this might be a good time to review some of the less used ones), and even special wording if warranted. As mentioned above users would just enter {{Non-free logo|sports}} instead of {{Sports-logo}}, the template would be a great deal more complex behind the scenes with all the parserfunctions, but we will hopefully not have to edit it too much once it's up and running. --Sherool (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
should also be noted that there are a number of copyright free logos in {{Logo}} simply because sorting out the trademark issues was too much work.Geni 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes this is a problem I've been trying to correct now. I've been finding government logos, trivial logotypes, and freely licenced logos all carrying the non-free logo tag. People should really be careful to use the appropriate copyright tag. The {{Trademark}} tag can also be added. nadav 11:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is User:BetacommandBot tagging sports logo for deletion citing this page? The sports logo template was fine as it simply said this is a sports logo and will always be fair use, surely this bot should be converting to non Non-free logo|sports or something that doesn't involve use input (Gnevin 12:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]


Politician photos[edit]

Why would our fair use claim depend on the country the subject lives in? --Gmaxwell 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine its mostly to diffuse the categories; so, to answer your question, the country is irrelevant. --Iamunknown 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If people really want to keep them all I'd survive.. but I'd much rather see people doing {{Dutch-politician}}+{{Non-free public person image}} or + {{Non-free politician image}} .. or just apply the category directly plus a non-free template. As things stand what do we put on a free image of a Dutch politican? problably Dutch-politician-photo ... which is completely broken. ;) --Gmaxwell 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be nice to separate source tags from license tags. And now since we are re-designing the system, I say we do that. (I.e. I like your idea.) I'd prefer not even have a "Non-free public person image" tag, but if it is necesssary, then I concede. --Iamunknown 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't most of these images fail the first criteria, in that they only show what the person looks like and a free photo could be taken to replace them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I think that we should not move these to the new Non-free prefix yet; instead, go through the images and try to find free replacements, tag the images for speedy deletion, etc.; and then put the image copyright tags up for deletion. These tags IMO suggest that we accept without hesitation non-free media of living people, which we don't. If a non-free picture of a living person must be used, it should use {{fair use in}} (or whatever that tag is changed to) and have a very strong fair use rationale; a blanket tag would be inappropriate. --Iamunknown 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plus, they're inconsistent, some have wording about only using it for dead people, some are missing that. I'd recommend replacing the live ones with Image:Replace this image1.svg and the dead ones with a specific tag and rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comic stuff[edit]

  • Perhaps we should take one of these and rename it to "comic artwork" and upmerge all of them to it? Looking at them they are all making the same fair use argument .. I don't know if the panel vs scene web vs not-web is a material distinction for us from a licensing perspective. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not from a licensing perspective there are other reasons why we would want the stuff sorted.Geni 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a part of this effort. Separating licensing issues from attribution issues from content issues. Mak (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that some of these are pretty much exact duplicates and apply the same cats... I don't mind if people keep around an excessive number of the templates (since soon we'll at least know that they are all non-free).. but I don't want to do so unless someone really wants us to and can articulate a need. --Gmaxwell 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about upmerging all to {{Non-free comic}} for now, and then possibly upmerge to a more general non-free tag later? --Cyde Weys 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think having a distinct template for comics isn't too bad, but having seven probably is... Your suggestion is file with me. --Gmaxwell 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There appears to be an issue with the conversion of the tags related to comics. The special page Special:Uncategorizedimages has been flooded with comic related images that have the correct tag, but are missing a category.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Character art[edit]

I fail to see how Character-artwork and CopyrightedCharacter are significantly different to justify separate templates. --Iamunknown 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, the disney one can probably be merged with the general artwork one. The last one seems to be intended for figurines and action figures more than drawings. Might warrante a seperate tag, or maybe lump in with non-free 3D objects ... --Sherool (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-free Government[edit]

Money and postage stamps[edit]

Process related[edit]


Format is *CurrentTemplate - ProposedNewName.

random break 1[edit]

  • {{YuGiOhimage}} - {{Non-free Yu-Gi-Oh! image}}
  • {{Withpermission}} - {{Non-free with permission}}
    • This tag is deprecated and useless. Images with it must have another FU-tag, therefore it can be deleted painlessly. Alex Spade 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Agreed but I do not think that it would be deleted at TfD currently. I'll go through and remove inclusions where no assertion of permission (i.e. at least "Website owner gave me permission" at best a copy of the e-mail) is given. --Iamunknown 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd say keep it, because it's useful for noting the information, even if we don't care that much. Someone else might want to ask for permission, or ask for a free license release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It seems like a useless piece of metadata to me as Wikipedia is meant to me useful for downstream users as well. --Iamunknown 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Iamunknown that it's not likely to be deleted today. Lets rename it for now. I see that a lot of the images are bogus .. in many cases we got permission from people who weren't the copyright holders. :( --Gmaxwell 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Seal}} - {{Non-free seal}}
    • Be aware that there are free seals. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm looking over my shoulder for pinnipeds escaped from the zoo. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I moved this one for you. Your bot already changed all the uses of it to non-free logo, but I am nostalgic for the days of non generic fair use templates. Fix your bot. -Nard 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

random break 2[edit]

random break 3[edit]

random break 4[edit]

Other non-free templates[edit]

  • {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}
    • How the hell do either of these qualify as non-free? Only if the specific conditions overstep the bounds of what restrictions they allow is it non-free. The second is essentially a PD release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • See TfD for more information, the text of license was changed without notice of authors. For example, if somebody change GFDL-text to CC-BY-text in GFDL-templates, he will be named as Vandal. Alex Spade 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • First you must realize that they did not spend most of their life with this language.. people changed them willynilly several times. So we must consider the old language and because 'use' is not conventionally understood to allow derivative works or transferable redistribution rights (i.e. I can give it to you and you can give it to bob). I guess with the language of these templates, we could probably argue that we have the second of the two.. but the derivative works issue is harder. Really, I think if we look we'll find that a lot of these claims are totally bogus, at least thats what we find on commons. We should probably make a long term move to phase out these templates if we can.--Gmaxwell 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • it seems to have been phrased to allow modification since april 2005, so I don't think we can claim that's really being added ex post facto. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{GFDL-presumed}} - I think, images with this template is also non-free, bacause we haven't clear permission. Alex Spade 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This one needs to be cleaned out, not changed to a non-free tag. specific non-free tags may be necessary where it's improperly applied but a blanket switch won't solve anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes. Cleaned out.. ugh. Perhaps I should make a list of ones which are used on 'User:' pages which begain life in the article namespace and which are owned by inactive users? I think that would be a lot of them... A lot are images that were uploaded for vanity articles which we 'AGFed' and userifyed. --Gmaxwell 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • A blanket change to {{no license}} might work. I'm tagging some right now. MER-C 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{GFDL-invariants}} Invariant sections are nonfree and the gfdl is a terrible license that you should never use for anything as it fails to protect the freedoms it is intended to and instead is a vehicle for the FSF's own agenda and soapboxing. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{GFDL-self-invariants}} as above. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not that I think invariants are good, or that we should accept them.. but they aren't much harm from the freedom perspective: The GFDL puts a lot of weird stipulations on invariants to keep them from being used to really reduce the freedom of the document. For example, they can only be documents which describe the relationship of the author to the work, they can't be about the subject of the work themselves. The only purpose of the sections, really, was so that the FSF could require that folks who distribute the GNU manuals also distribute the GNU manifesto. Which isn't really that bad.. it's better than putting the manifesto in the license itself. --Gmaxwell 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Neither of these are used to attach invariant sections to any images, so we'd probably be best off just deleting them to simplify things.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are only two images with it. Plz, somebody, retag their and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is only one image with it and this image is on {{ifd}}. Plz, somebody retag or delete image and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Ireland-IDF}}
    • This is another attribution-only, no mention of commercial or derivative use. Someone needs to make a clarification. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{PD-US-patent}} - free at many cases, but not at all[edit]

What are we thinking about this? In some case patent is PD, in other is copyrighted. How can new ordinary user understand, does image (which he want to load or to use) free or not? The same problem was with {{PD-USGov-NARA}}, which is now on TfD. Alex Spade 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outstanding and tagged with the non-free internal marker[edit]


Would it have been too hard to put up a notice on the talk page of {{Scoutlogo}} before making these changes? The template put images into proper categories base on the parameter (as many do). Now that Cydebot is cranking away and doing a simple rename, we now have images in categories that don't exist and are the wrong name. I see where this is going, and it would not have been an issue if WikiProject Scouting had been given notice. It appears we are going to be hours fixing this by hand instead of editing. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested change in wording[edit]

In the 'Fair use' templates, the tag at the top of the template reads "Non-free / fair use media rationale for {Mineko Iwasaki}". I would like to suggest that the wording be changed to "Non-free / fair use media rationale for use in the article: {Mineko Iwasaki}" as a way to more clearly articulate what the information in the template is for. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]