Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights/Archive 4

3559:. Some more caution should be injected into this paragraph, because it incorrectly makes it seem that photos from .mil and .gov websites are always in the PD, which is unfortunately not true in a number of important circumstances worth highlighting. Something should be added which implies that you should 1. first check to see if the site has its own copyrights/permissions policy (they often do) which implies something other than it being in the public domain, and 2. one should try to verify as well as possible that the photograph itself was likely produced by the government agency in question (the Los Alamos one above is a pretty hard one to check as there was no obvious reason to suspect it was not produced by the government). -- 476:, the difference seems to me to be that the requirements for the transparent copy are not as stringent as for the source code. Source code should be the "preferred form for modification", where as a transparent copy can be plain text, HTML, LaTeX, PostScript, etc. So, while Wikimedia might conform to the GPL by providing the database source, I could publish printed Wikipedias with an HTML snapshot of the wiki available online. If there were GPL text mixed in, then I would not be able to exercise my rights under the FDL to do this. So, if we include any GPL content, we might as well have chosen the GPL with all its extra lawyerly goodness all along. Professing to be GFDL would be disingenuous. 3197:? Some of the diagnoses seem to be pretty uncopyrightable (eg. risk for infection), but others are less clear (eg. Ineffective community therapeutic regimen management). I've already started to work on some of this (as you can see), but I'd like to know what my boundaries are before I start putting too much effort into it. All the stuff I've generated so far was a) generated from multiple sources, b) paraphrased where possible (eg. the actual terminology wasn't paraphrased because the exact wording is important, though there are some variations that you do see from time to time.) If this is not the right place for this question, could someone direct me to where I could get an answer? 2177:

misinformation about copyright, you should do a serious check yourself. You're not a lawyer, but you were pretending to be one spreading blatantly wrong and bad misinformation that could have been proven wrong with a quick search. People will say "ooh, he's an admin and he seems very certain, he must be right!" Frankly, it's sickening and I strongly suggest you not even speak about copyrights in the future and discontinue any and all discussion on any copyright pages. I'll make a new law: those who make ridiculously specific laws based on personal encounters more than likely fall into the category of people they criticize with that law. -

3381:. The photographs weren't taken for any official purposes, but as part of an informal record of a training event. The land owner had no objections to photographs being taken of his land, but I didn't think to ask about the photos being used on the Internet. The photographs do not show any people, and do not show anything that could lead to the landowner being penalised by Defra. In the normal course of events, I would upload the image to the commons with a creative commons liscence ({{cc-by-sa-2.0}}), but as offical works of the UK Government are Crown Copyright would I be allowed to do this? 1745:, or other license in order that it might be usable elsewhere. Should a note possibly be added on this page that individual users may place the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA}} message on their user page in order to release their own changes under a dual license? A number of users with large numbers of edits have done this already. I understand the pros and cons of dual licensing, but since a number of people have done so, might it at least be advantageous to mention it? (See 722:, which is mark-up code and stricktly speaking not software, it will depend on the case and the given definition whether it is the "human readable" form of the work -e.g. for a web developer- or the "machine readable" form -e.g. for my granny who is only able to click in a browser window and type in text boxes, and leaves the interpretation of the HTML to the browser software). For GFDL the case is simpler, except that it is entirely unpractical for copylefting 1545:

what point an article would be free of GFDL-only material. Of course, in theory, a flesh-and-bone person could manually go through the page histories and make the decision themselves. This might work if someone wants to reuse an article in some manner, such as in a CC-based wiki. However, this would too time consuming and the possibilites for mistake are too great for migrating the entire Knowledge (XXG) to CC. So, basically, yeah, migrating to CC is

31: 1968:...if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy. If the original copy required invariant sections, you have to incorporate those into the Knowledge (XXG) article; it is however very desirable to replace GFDL texts with invariant sections by original content without invariant sections whenever possible. 1273:

Afghanistan-invasion page and in this case screen captures from for example Al Jazeera would be really handy. I have already tried to get pictures otherwise and even contacted the copyright holder of the publications of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan but the didn't want any of their pictures published on Knowledge (XXG). I am grateful for any tips concerning alternative locations of usable images.

2430:

policy page that says, "in most cases, you can't rip images off of other websites" would be a good deal more polite than what often amounts to a lecture on attribution. Users with a history of copyright infringement are unlikely to be making positive contributions to the Knowledge (XXG), but I've seen some very talented writers get scared off because they got a stern talking-to after posting an image of uncertain origin.

2104:. "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad." -- 995:

deliberately obfuscated his name by using an intracable nick, or a TCP-IP number that happens to be non-traceable). From the examples given above, and from personal experience that includes some more "cases" than what is mentioned above in this section, this seems not always to be possible: what can be done about that? Anyway, I'm willing to put my energy in this when someone has clues how this issue can be tackled!

2159:

of Berne, as above, to apply, and copyright protection for these works therefore remains in force outside the U.S. Individual U.S government publications, or the policies of individual government departments, are still able to release material for unlimited use, and often they do publish such explicit grants. In the absence of explicit statements, however, the default state is the automatic Berne protection. --

788:, under which both GPL and GFDL operate, than from what can be read in the license texts only (don't forget that these license texts both are a specific implementation of copyright law): citing from a copyrighted work in an effort to document it, and when citing your sources, is generally considered "fair use", unless when 3315:

Knowledge (XXG) does use some text under licenses that are compatible with the GFDL but may require additional terms that we do not require for original Knowledge (XXG) text (such as including Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts). When using these materials, you have to include

2433:

Having some sort of policy in place would make my job a good deal easier, too—it's draining to have to inform users that they're doing something wrong. It makes me squirm to see new users scramble to put PD or fair-use tags in their images while deleting the discussion of copyright infringement from

1681:

National Portrait Gallery has to accept the Bridgeman v. Corel decision. Works (photographic reproductions) made by federal employees are not copyrightable in the US. The only legal ground on their website declaration could contract law and thus might be a very dubious one. I would like to suggest to

1117:

This is an interesting case. UK and European data protection laws say that you have some control over the image, but this is primarly what is *not* done with it, rather than what *is* done with it (for example, the person who took the x-ray couldn't post it on wikipedia without your permission - even

673:

IMHO, it all hangs on the difference between "the preferred form ... for making modifications" (GPL) and "a machine-readable copy" (GFDL). With plain text, there is no difference. With images, again, not a problem if you distribute the original image format (conversion from .bmp to .jpeg would not be

554:

No, that's blatantly not true. The GPL and GFDL both say that the machine readable version should be provided in the form that the human works with (or something to that effect) - so in the case of a program, you have to provide the source code and not the binary. In the case of wikipedia, that means

3402:

Crown copyright subsists when a work is made "by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties". If they were not taken for official purposes then I would interpret that as not being in the course of the duties of an officer or servant of the Crown. Therefore the person who took the

2479:

The important part is that Bob Barr wrote that text in his official capacity as a federal employee. Material hosted by loc.gov is not a free-for-all -- you need to check for each individual item -- but that piece is a government work. It doesn't matter that Knowledge (XXG) is nonprofit, because text

2421:

Unfortunately, I've never encountered a situation where the user then noted, "I'm the original owner and release this under the GFDL." In around half of the cases, the user will find the Public Domain or Fair Use tags and stash them into the image without any further commentary. In the other half,

2265:

There are some edits which we normally would never mention but in this case can't do unless we're admins. One of them is to change "wikipedia:verbatim copying" to "Knowledge (XXG):Verbatim copying" near the start of the first section, "User's rights and obligations". Also (not so minor), "section 2"

1544:

I was one of the people who have proposed that the Knowledge (XXG) migrate to Creative Commons. One of the critics mentioned that the CVS that Knowledge (XXG) uses isn't fine-tuned enough to nail down exactly who contributed what. So there would be some difficulty in writing a script that decides at

1508:

on wikipedia and changes it under the GFDL, some wikipedians notice this and decide to merge it in wikipedia again, however the person that changed it did not dual licence it (as is his right, by defenition he can choose which licence if it is dual licenced) and thus the merged content and therefore

1047:

I would greatly appreciate a similar improvement from the Wikimedia Foundation, that is a sentence appearing on each page pointing clearly to a non-expert reader that the "history" link is the door to the author list. (Indeed my remark applies to every language version and I should have posted it on

2158:

Some further clarification: The relevant U.S. law is 17 USC 105, which states "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government" -- this is not a grant of public domain status in the international sense. It was carefully written to allow article 5

1724:

How are the rules if I translate a Knowledge (XXG) article in some language to a Knowledge (XXG) artcicle in some other language, for example translations from English to Danish or inverse? Do I have to follow the normal rules of GFDL in such cases, and if so what exactly is required to do so? (The

1523:

We would then have a situation where either we could not merge most of the content that people take from here and change or a situation where we could not copy content between articles on wikipedia. This is of course a bad thing and is why we stay away from the much proposed dual-licence nonesense.

1466:

Well, it is an issue for some, and I am pretty sure that the discussion has been had many times, although I don't know where. It would be a major pain to switch over, but would be (at least partly) possible to change if there was enough interest. Probably the drawbacks of the GFDL do not warent the

1449:

Difficult, certainly. The point I was making is that the issue probably hasn't arisen. Knowledge (XXG) was GFDL from day one. Whether to use the GFDL has no more been an issue than whether to use a Wiki, or whether to use the Internet. I guess you could ask Jimbo why he and Larry were interested in

994:

page gives clear instructions regarding what people have to do when they want to use content from wikipedia articles. As a GFDL requirement, and for whatever just reason that is imaginable, these same people ought to be able to find back any author that contributed to the article (unless the author

940:

It does look like copying and pasting anything that is not solely one author's contribution is against the GFDL. If you export the history that should be fine, and you don't need to link to wikipedia, likewise manually attributing to the authors in the history would be ok. If, however, you copied a

889:

This is a matter of some concern to me also. The issue of other encyclopaedias "grabbing" WP content is also pertinant. They shouldn't be allowed - WP "knows" who its contributors are, and has histories, these others do not. Bah! People getting confused between "copyleft" and "copyabsent". Sue them

800:

a problem than for traditionally copyrighted software, because extended citations of source code, or extended illustrations of the graphics used in a program, etc, are even less a threat to the copyright holders, when published under GFDL, than when a publisher publishes a manual like e.g. "Windows

2414:

I've encountered a number of cases of images that have been ripped straight off of personal webpages and stuck into articles. So far, I've been dealing with these without much of a policy: I generally remind the offender (who is, nearly universally, a first-time Wikipedian) that any uploaded text

1307:

How to label images such as the one on the right which have artistic content, yet a large part of them includes a copyrighted work -- in this case the style of the nose of the train, which I think falls under fair use. Given proper attribution etc and notices, and not using it against the company

1171:

In terms of privacy, I always thought a doctor/dentist/etc could use the photos without my permission, as long as I was not identifiable. It'll be quite cool to have my dental records on wikipedia, just in case i ever go missing. :-) I'll try to get a copy of the post-wisdom teeth removal if i can

1153:

In the U.S., for a work to be protected by copyright, there needs to be some creativity involved. A purely scientific photograph, that simply documents objectively is probably not elligible for copyright protection. Granted, not a lot is required for a work to be considered creative, but putting a

2834:

PD is not the same thing as the GFDL. What we don't want is permission that's specific only to Knowledge (XXG), nor permission that doesn't allow derived works -- we want WP content to be as free as possible. We don't want to use non-free images when there's the possiblity of getting hold of free

2115:

Filling in some more: Yes, these reports do matter, enven though they are annotations rather than the laws themselves. The courts do use them when trying to figure out what hairy language in laws is intended to mean. For example, this report is cited a few times in the Sony v Universal (Betamax)

1560:

to use Knowledge (XXG) material, not to mention the gobs of Linux documentation available under the GFDL, but our licensing scheme prevents this. So far, we've been asking the original authors of GFDL material for permission to use it under the CC-by-sa, but this is simply not possible to do with

1162:

Imagine this thought experiment. A professional photographer takes your photograph. He owns the copyright. If you step into a photo-me boothe, put your dollar in, and get the photo, who owns it? You, or the company that owns the boothe? I think you do. But what if there is a person opperating the

682:

I would think that including the source code of a program in a GFDL text would count as providing the source. The problem is that the GPL requires derivative works to be released under the GPL. The only way I could see this being legitimate is if you consider the text to be "mere aggregation of

3552:

necessarily true, i.e. Brookhaven National Laboratory has their own copyright policy separate from the fact that they are a DOE national laboratory, as does Sandia National Lab. Additionally, photographs on government websites may not have been produced by the federal government at all. I.e. Los

3475:

Are not these rules highly bizarre? The situations 1(3) and 2(3) seem at odds with one another. For example, if I own the copyright to an image and I wish to license it under a creative commons license and place it on en.wikipedia, then I may not upload it myself, but I can release it under the

2429:

Is there a policy for dealing with A) approaching new users about potentially embarrassing copyright infringements, and B) evaluating copyright tags that have been attached solely to cover someone's ass? This is the type of problem that new users get pretty upset about, and having a simplified

3230:

What is the copyright status of the Otto Bettmann Archive images which were acquired by Corbis a few years ago and vaulted in a mine in PA? Does Corbis now own the copyright on all these images as they claim? They have claimed copyright to images in the past to which they certainly do NOT own

1856:

I have a snapshot of Rudolph from the old-time movie produced back in the '50s. More recently, I recieved the snapshot through my local CBS affiliate's broadcast of the movie. I was wondering if the snapshot from the movie would be violating copyright laws, or if it is in line for fair-use.

3557: 3039:

Copyright The copyright in the material contained within the document you are about to view belongs to Transport for London. All rights reserved. Except solely for your own personal and non-commercial use, no part of this document may be copied or used without the prior written permission of

2176:

Raul, you would be one of those who DOES NOT understand copyright law. I recall you making statements earlier, with a very high level of certainty, telling people that the GPL and GFDL were compatible. They are not, even the FSF acknowledges this. Before you critcize people for spreading

495:

I discussed this with Anthony before (you might want to ask him about this) - he was advocating the use of the GPL for text documents. In my opinion, the big problem with GPL'd docuements is interpretation - interpreting the GPL for a text document instead of a program is mighty difficult.

1272:

My question ist : Can the use of Images captured from TV - possibly in low res - be considered fair use ? The specific case I am talking about is the fact tham I am looking for pictures to counterbalance a questionable impression given by the usage of photos from militaryphotos.net on the

1613:

would appear to indicate that they can't do this, atleast not under US copyright law, though UK copyright law might be different. Knowledge (XXG) operates under US copyright law, but would those from the UK who copy the work be then breaking copyright or are the NPG talking out of their

1760:

page with the later possibly adding a link from the Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights page to notify users of the potential for multi-licensing their contributions. I believe that many users would willingly multi-license their contributions if only they knew that such an option existed. --

1097:

I know the guy who did the x-ray (although i don't know if it was him or a student who pushed the button), so he could give me GFDL permission if he had copyright. The problem is that it was done at a Dental School, so do they have copyright over everything their employees produce?

674:

suitable for GPL, IMO, but from .bmp to .png would). One could interpret the GPL wording as permitting conversion to an equivalently-modifiable form, but anything that decreases modifiability (such as converting wordprocessor documents to plain text or HTML) would be problematic.

1130:

rather than ownership of the image. The doctor cannot publish your photo (x-ray, etc.) without your consent in the same way as he cannot publish your clinical data without your consent. He owns the x-ray in the same way as the person who takes a photo of you owns the negative.

1902:

I think it depends on how you obtained the photograph - whoever took the photograph probably owns the copyright unless they release it into the public domain, the copyright expires or the photograph is too old (in which case whoever took the photograph would be dead anyway).

1665:

is explictly based on English law as well as US law, so an English court might come to the same conclusion (i.e., that mechanical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art are not in themselves copyrightable). But as far as I know there have been no test cases in the UK.

1561:

Knowledge (XXG) articles - too many editors, too many of them are anons. So I've been following the situation pretty closely. We're thinking of lobbying the FSF ourselves on the issue. Does anybody have any suggestions on the best way to contact them or to argue our point?

1142:

If someone takes your photograph, sie owns the (copy)rights to it. In some juristictions, there are limitations to how it can be used, and that is especially true for clinical data, I believe. However, the person who took the photo definitely owns more than the negative. —

1167:

I've asked my friend to make a copy for me, and i'll try to get a nice digital photo of it. I think the best bet is to ask the dental school, although I don't think they'll actually care. It's unlikely that they'll ever want to publish my boring x-ray in any other source.

3290:

Hi, forgive me if this has been covered anywhere, but I can't find it. Does it still fall under free use for an album cover, book cover, etc. to edit it? For instance in an article on Joe Blow, can one provide a picture of Joe Blow cropped from the cover of the book

1933:

You don't want to try to use anything licensed only under the GFDL in a PowerPoint presentation. Its requirements regarding the copyright info are ridiculous (Noone would came to Knowledge (XXG) if it complied with the GFDL. I think it only really works for books.).

928:

The history information isn't exported in the cur dump, so it's really hard to get the information without downloading and parsing a multi-gig file. If Knowledge (XXG) wants individual authors credited, they should make this information more readily available.

1216:

I presume that it is ok to make quotations from copyrighted texts, as long as it is clear that it is a quote and a reference given to where it came from? What about long quotes, is there a limit on the length of quotes allowed before it infringes copyright?

1015:

if wikipedia web-usability is such that people with few Knowledge (XXG) experience immediately find where to click to find that list. Presently this appears to be all but true. What I propose is that a section "Copyright holders" would be added to the

3388:

What about photographs taken on a visit by Defra staff to a visitor attraction (which doesn't yet have an article) at a time when it was not open to the public? (i.e. they were taken in March or April, but the attraction doens't normally open until

3069: 1490:

One thing that we could do, is dual license all new contributions under the creative commons license. This would keep backwards compatability, and, eventually, allow us to move towards a position where much of the content was CC compatible. - see

1035:, see under "GFDL compliance and author listing"). Indeed I am among the minority who think that Wikimedia Foundation does not do enough to respect paragraph 4B of the GPDL. Looking throughout clones, I saw that one and only one of them, that is 1606: 920:

Yes, we should advertise this to make wikipedians more aware of the need of attribution. It is therefore also important to remember to use the edit summary to attribute to someone else when copy-pasting, for example by writing "merged from

360:("Su Pollard" and the Knowledge (XXG) URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on. 718:, is not void of meaning. Since GPL was written with software in mind, GPL can not be applied to other works than "software", unless both the equivalents of the "machine readable" and the "human readable" forms are defined (e.g. for 206:

Why is the word libre included in the text after "free" in the fair use section. We don't carry translations of other words and there is nothing underneath the link or in the text to imply any special legal significance of the word?

111:

09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)) If I take pictures at a concert which bans (in the programme, say) photos of the artists but clearly takes no action to enforce this; am I then able to release those pictures under GFDL for use in wikipedia?

2564:

So anyhow, I want to make extra sure every thing is ok before I start uploading images from her websites. Also I'm wondering what to label the images, since I'm not very aware of the various copyright types. Advice please, thanks,

2520:

There seems to be an assumption (even implied by our image copyright tags) that works derived from U.S. government works are also in the public domain. It's not so, derivative rights and license requirements still work as normal.

683:

another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium". If you keep the text clearly separated from the rest of the article, this might be OK.

335:("Foo" and the Knowledge (XXG) URL must of course be changed to match the article you are using.) For other acceptable notice formats, and more information on your rights and responsibilities under our copyright license, read on. 2425:

It's pretty clear that these images have been ripped off—in most cases, they're among the first images to pop up under Google Images. The problem is that I've now got images that have incorrect licensing information on them.

2604:

Indeed. You need to judge whether Sherry is the kind of person you expect to have done due dilligence. In the case that you don't, you're taking a big risk claiming fair use - many of the fair-use justifications (listed in

1986:

is what really matters. Can someone please clarify Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on invariant sections? And if there are actually articles with invariant sections, can someone point out where they are and how they are preserved?

590:

except that it's blatantly difficult to fully understand! :-( You may be right, but I can only conclude from the FAQ quote that the FSF consider this to be a problem with the GPL that users of the GFDL would wish to avoid.

2397:

which says that all images there are believed to be in the public domain. I have added a "fairold" tag to it, since the photo is atleast 57 years old, used for informational purposes, and a photo of a famous personality.

1003:

myself, I can nonetheless only agree with no individual authors needing to be mentioned (which they should if GFDL is applied in all its severity), when the list of authors of that content is only one (or maximum two, say

756:

Yes, anyone can compose documentation of GPL-ed software, and can publish it. The licence for that documentation should be GFDL, even if citing extensively from the software, regardless if these citations are exlusively

966:

I want to focus on the last part of this sentence (the part I put in bold), because I have some questions about it (and this is the only discussion I found that relates to some of these questions I have myself):

3403:

photos would probably own the copyright, rather than the Crown. However, it would probably be best to consult a lawyer about this as it has the reek of one of those nasty situations where law can catch you out.

2505:

we are unable to grant permission to individuals or groups wishing to mount images from our collections on their websites. Instead, we ask that links be created directing researchers to the site of the original

2401:

Could someone please take a look at the above image and let me know if the rationale I provided at the image description page is ok? And can we go ahead with using it under vintage fair use? Thanks in advance.

1607:

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/useOnWeb.asp?npgNo=NPG+267&title=Five+Children+of+King+Charles+I+%28Mary%2C+Princess+of+Orange%3B+King+James+II%3B+King+Charles+II%3B+Princess+Elizabeth%3B+Princess+Anne%29

2028:

to carry the material and hence it can place arbitrary restrictions (here: the material must be licensed under GFDL with no invariants, else it may not be submitted at all) for the material contributed to it.

916:

If they link to the wikipedia article, the edit history there. So no problem. As for images - I do think people should put a link in to the image description page on the other wiki ] 01:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

862:

function. However, are not all copy&paste edits (copy from one article and paste in another) violations if the original author/article is not mentioned? Also, I've come across a number of images stating

1450:

using the GFDL, whether they considered any alternatives and why they settled on the GFDL if so, but that's academic now IMO. It worked. As for the rest of us, the GFDL was a given when we started editing.

765:

or both, or whatever. Note that this was exactly the reason why the GFDL licence was created: FSF came to realise they couldn't publish documentation of GPL software, even if that documentation was only an

1112:

If X-ray photography follows the conventions of other professional photography, the person taking the picture has the copyright unless you agree otherwise with them. I do not know whether this is the case

998:

Presently it is Knowledge (XXG) policy that someone wanting to re-use wikipedia content only has to mention "Knowledge (XXG)" as source (besides all other obligations following from GFDL). Being a fervent

425:

For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the "source code"

3511:

Yes, this is covered above, situation 2(3). I still find it really odd that you can't upload them to en.wikipedia, and I don't know why this appears to be the case or what discussion lead to this policy.

1981:

if the text was licensed under the GFDL for some other purpose prior to being submitted to the wiki (preposterous, I think). I realize that the Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights page is not legally binding, and

738:, and what more, to start making an extra copy or a derived work. So there is no real issue of two mechanically different "forms" of a work for GFDL (and that is why it cannot really be used for software 846: 3332:

is taken from an Internet site. Since it is placed in a relevant article, I judged it to be fair use (such as images taken from movies). If I am wrong, please delete it. I just want to make sure.--

845:

PS: while for once in a while the topics treated below are not about what can go "in" Knowledge (XXG) exclusively, but on other important topics that relate to copyright too, I copy-paste this to:

3544:

is somewhat misleading. Photographs on .mil and .gov websites are only generally PD if they are labeled as having been produced by the federal government. However if they have been produced by

1257:

Sure, I agree to your concerns. I'll post something in that forum a bit later. Although, my question is because I have about 9 other articles waiting to be posted, all along the same lines.

3320:

I'd be interested to know what portions of Knowledge (XXG) use such text. Is there a canonical list somewhere? There probably should be, to facilitate replacement with less-encumbered text.

2100:

Well, there is more than a grain of truth to it. US govt. works are not eligible for copyright protection under US law, but they are eligible outside the US. That's the intention stated in

2041:'s (yes, as far as I know, there is no organisation called "Knowledge (XXG)") policy being: replace texts with invariant sections where possible, but otherwise, keep the invariant sections. 612:

Text should almost never be licensed under the GPL, and the GNU website says so. Contact your source and explain this to them, and hopefully they can be persuaded to change their licensing.

3040:

Transport for London. By clicking on the links above to view maps, it is understood that you have read this copyright notice and accept these conditions. Maps last updated: September 2003.

2422:

I never hear back and the images are left untagged. Occasionally, I'll see a user go and contact the copyright owner and post a proper release on the image page; but, this is quite rare.

2469:

Myrtle Hill Cemetery article was submitted to LOC by one Congressman, but its on public (.gov) site, so it should be free to use. Knowledge (XXG) is non-profit educational organization.

941:

chunk of text from one article to another within Knowledge (XXG), and failed to attribute it to it's author (or its constituent parts to the relevant authors) that would be a violation.

3193:. The wording of these diagnoses is specific. NANDA claims copyright on the diagnoses, is this valid and if so, what does it mean? Can I write articles about these diagnoses or make a 2044:

I think they are preserved simply by the idea that those who do modify them are breaking the law (questionable, since the Wikimedia Foundation is itself not complying with the GFDL).

1020:

page that in brief, but unambiguously clear & understandable terms, explains how lists of contributors can be retrieved. Is it OK that I start writing such paragraph on that page?

2268: 2245: 2214: 2137:

Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed

1983: 1031:

I may add a very concrete suggestion about this problem of authorship attribution ; I have been looking at the question today concerning Knowledge (XXG) clones (I posted comments on

144:

Image description pages can be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images, as described at wikipedia:image copyright tags. It is unclear what should happen

2351:" which is obviously not the same. Should I just tick the box and go ahead, even though I'm aiming to add the more restrictive licence immediately afterwards? … And now I see from 1501:

That is not a good idea like it might seem to you at first, what you get yourself into that is the situation where derived content from wikipedia cannot be merged back into it.

2057:

It should also be noted that governments outside the US often do claim copyright over works produced by their employees (for example, Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom).

3097:

the first occurence of the word "article" must be replaced with "content" and the second occurence must be replaced with "page", so that it takes care of images as well. --

661:, and I don't think they will prioritize to change it GFDL anytime soon, but I probably wont find any good use for it here either. I was thinking (now) about something like 3521:

AFAIU uploading free images to the commons is preferable, as it allows the picture to be used on all languages and projects, rather than just the English Knowledge (XXG).

3378: 2323:

The site clearly doesn't own the copyright to any of its images but claims either public domain or fairuse. Since it probably isn't pd because its a picture of a statue,

796:

software, without publishing the binaries; or publishing backwards-engineered source code of traditionally copyrighted software). For GPL-ed software there is generally

2133:

Also adding Berne 1971, article 5. "(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be

2008:

If you contribute material to Knowledge (XXG), you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

1954:

If you contribute material to Knowledge (XXG), you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

1426:

And this probably isn't the best place to ask what the differences between Creative Commons and GFDL are. And it's probably impossible to switch from one to another. --

1163:

booth - let's say loading the film and making sure you are sqaure to the camera, then pressing the button, in much the same way the X-ray technician does. Who owns it?

1580:

Hi, if I choose to directly licence text and photos I created under PD, is this possible? Or must anything I write or take be simultaneously licence with the GFDL? --

2024:

Or even a non-GFDL license that doesn't allow anything. However I believe that the non-invariance requirement makes sense here, since Knowledge (XXG) is by no means

1662: 1610: 3498:

I upload photographs that I have taken and want to release under a creative-commons liscence to the commons, and use the image from there. This seems to be fine.

3393:

If any of them are not possible for me to upload with a copyleft liscence, would it be allowable to upload them here as fair use or possibly copyright free use?

3348: 3341: 2873:

I can understand that. Given what info I've so far provided, what sort of status would the images have? Lets say I upload one now, what tag would I put on it? (

3480:

to upload it for me. So in this case the procedure for upload is more complicated for the copyright holder than for a licensee! What's the rationale for this?

2327:, I'm thinking that it could also be fair use under wikipedia, but I can't be sure. Uploader wasn't able to provide any clarification. Thanks for any help. -- 1892:

to his Knowledge (XXG) page? I figure it's better that I should ask this and wait a few days rather than assume and be wrong. Thanks in advance for any help.

1043:) had the excellent idea to link to the history page on the wikipedia with a text clarifying clearly the meaning of the nick list that is to be found there : 3243:

As regards section 4 of the GFDL, "MODIFICATIONS", does the article history as available from the "history" link constitute a "section Entitled 'History'" ?

2692:

Emailing her doesn't seem to be a problem, she is very friendly and replies quite promptly, but I don't know much about what "specific permission under the

3231:

rights....There are 11 MILLION pieces in the collection. It would be a tragic shame for the entire archive to be locked away under Corbis' thumb forever.--

171:

Image description pages can be tagged with a special tag to indicate the legal status of the images, as described at wikipedia:image copyright tags. It is

2524:

17 USC 403 expressly recognizes that copyright is afforded to such derivatives, provided that the government and original contributions are identified. --

1530: 1885: 3431:

I may upload the image to en.wikipedia, releasing it into the public domain, or releasing it under an equivalent license such as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}

3213:

Wikipedias a while back). I would argue that you can't copyright a certain terminology, but (DISCLAIMER) I'm not a copyright lawyer. Try asking at the

2628:

Well, the only images I'm interested in are her self portrait and advertisements for her book, so I think I can safely assume those belong to her. (

1926:

I was wanting to use lines from a wikipedia in a Power Point presentation for a class room and I'm wondering how I would place the copyright info.

1154:

piece of film at a fixed position in your mouth and pushing a button is almost certainly not enough. In my opinion, the x-ray is public domain. —

1568:, and our wiki is small enough that I've been single-handedly causing a Rambot Effect. I'd hate to think what a flood of GFDL material might do. 858:

Do I misunderstand the GFDL? I thought that the GFDL requires attribution to the author(s). Afaik, Knowledge (XXG) caters for this by having the

254:

There appear to be a number of images on pages relating to this years games that have been lifted directly from the official Athens 2004 website

94: 3025: 1536: 1527: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1525: 258: 960:

acknowledges the authors of the Knowledge (XXG) article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)

775:

Hey, is this not in blatant contradiction with the GPL license that says that any derived work (so also the documentation, because that

1478:. I remember there being some talk of working with the FSF to fix some of the brokenness of the license, but it's been a long time. -- 1032: 2339:

I have a publicity photograph for an author which she has given permission to use but not for third-party use: her preferred label is

1027:

Knowledge (XXG) contributors? Maybe there is, but I didn't find it yet? Can someone help me on this one? -- (End of this intervention)

2920:

My best guess is {{permission}} (from the email), and maybe {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|"you copy it right"}} from the website.

1475: 958:

Knowledge (XXG) content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and

519:

OK, I can accept that for plain text, the GPL and GFDL could well be identical. However, inclusion of GPL'd PostScript documentation

3140: 2088:

For every one person who knows something about copyright law, there are at least ten who don't, and two who think they do but don't.

2352: 2241: 1946: 1588:

All text here is GFDL. Images you can licence under whatever terms you wish, including public domain, despite what the edit war on

3159: 3139:

I think that the government does, because it's a visual reproduction of a printed work, similar to album covers and the like (see

3347:

We need better coordination of pages which deal with people who use our articles without permission. Can someone please link to

3013: 2975: 2882: 2804: 2759: 2637: 2577: 1345:

was chosen, the pros and cons of it, why other possibilities weren't used, etc. Is there an archived debate on this subject? --

1061: 283: 734:

in an electronic format that is modifiable by any common text processor, but if not, there are still Xerox copiers, scanners,

2415:

needs to have copyright information added to the file, and that a good way to do this is to release the image under the GFLD

2223: 2013: 770:

of the comment lines of the software, while this documentation could not be defined as software, and so could not be GPL-ed.

293: 288: 3385:

I assume that other photos I have taken under similar circumstances, but are taken from a public place would be acceptable?

3352: 3167: 2613:

the copyright owner - and if you're sure Sherry isn't and you don't know who is, making those assertions is difficult. --

2465:

Are texts from Library of Congress websites in public domain, so are they free to copy them to Knowledge (XXG)? example:

2499:

Is there a chance, that the American Civil War era photos are NOT in a public domain yet? Specificly, I'm thinking about

662: 2308: 1712:

I thought you could make an external link to any webpage; it doesn't matter whether or how that webpage breaks the law.

1757: 1516:, only this time the person modifying it modified it under the CC licence, same thing happens it gets merged back into 47: 17: 3032:

which is obviously and explicitly a portion from the tube map and tagged as fair use. I was under the impression that

2349:

I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Knowledge (XXG) copyright

1746: 1101:

It's my health information, so I own the 'information' (whatever that is), but the film is owned by the Dent School.

3029: 2787:

Isn't it possible for her to give us permission to use the image here, w/o it becoming public domain? I'm not sure

933: 792:

to circumvent copyrights (circumventing would be e.g. publishing the source code of a not yet published plug-in to

687: 658: 640: 411:? Any requirements? Reason I'm asking is that I'd like to include some documentation licensed under the GNU GPL. -- 38: 3452:

if the image is in the public domain or released under an equivalent license, then I may upload it to en.wikipedia

3369:

3052: 2446: 2324: 1246: 3485: 3273: 2083: 1786: 922: 108: 3214: 3144: 1226: 3194: 2059:

It should also be noted that the US Government is free to claim copyright over works which are PD in the US. --

273: 1865: 1118:

if he owns the copyright). I'd contact the dental school and ask them for permission, just to be sure though.

1000: 875: 874:;-) I mean making sure images are tagged accordingly or removed? (BTW, what do you think about this source: 185:

The meaning — as I understand it — would thus remain identical, but it would hopefully be slightly clearer.

3541: 3122:

article. Who owns the copyright to this? Me or the Queen in right of Canada since they own the passport? --

3094: 2226:(despite what the link points to), which is about the license, and does not contain a copy of the license? 1017: 991: 950: 930: 821: 684: 637: 278: 2606: 2592: 2360: 2012:

This doesn't make much sense to me. If it's your own material, you can license it to the public under the

828: 268: 2584:

The only advice I could offer is to first check to make sure that the images on Sherry's web site aren't

2355:

that I shouldn't even upload the picture at all if I'm aiming to add that tag to it! What should I do? --

1888:

screenshot and this is even more minor, but would it violate copyright law to add an image of biochemist

1861: 3355:

in a prominent way? All the relevant pages are hard to find in google, but I just put a link here from

3329: 3036:

were pretty keen on their copyright, so I went to the site and found the following copyright statement:

2588:

a copyright from another web site. If they are, you might have to upload them under the fair use tag. --

2060: 1683: 1326: 1245:

Quotations are a well-recognized form of fair use - the Berne convention explicetely reocgnizes it. See

946: 850: 832: 697:

23:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I suppose this discussion above was a bit more complex than it needed to be:

694: 177:

in cases where the same image got uploaded more than once with different respective copyright statements

2388: 2289: 1927: 1230: 1225:. There are no fixed rules on how long the text can be, but you should make it clear it is a quote and 867:

as source. This is probably true, but should there not be a link (and credit to the contributor), too?

636:

Images are different, because it's the position of Jimbo that images don't have to be GFDL compatible.

2101: 1670:

is intended to be used for (possibly copyrighted) reproductions of works of art in the public domain.

1293: 1008:

three) clicks away when opening the wikipedia URL that is prescribed for the copyright notice in that

831:: what I described above is another implementation of the principles described on that "meta" page. -- 824:, publish it in Knowledge (XXG) (and if not: publish it in one of Knowledge (XXG)'s sister projects). 3033: 2347:. However when I go to upload the picture I am apparently required to tick a check-box stating that " 2342: 2038: 1646: 1623: 1313: 1205: 3001: 2541: 2367:

Can someone change the "Government photographs" sub-title to "US governemnt photographs" please. --

1841: 3554: 3246: 3118:

I'm not the first person to do this, but I scanned the cover and front page of my passport for the

3009: 2971: 2878: 2800: 2755: 2633: 2573: 1276: 1049: 2500: 1973:

which is where it gets confusing. That could be interpreted to mean that Knowledge (XXG) articles

3333: 2529: 2485: 2164: 2146: 2121: 2109: 2082:

The latter sentence in the above statement is complete and utter nonsense - a perfect example of

1495: 1468: 1071:

That talk page looks rather crappy - for a better example (a non-controversial one at least) see

1281:

Surely, if these images were captured from a free-to-air broadcast, then their use is fair use.

2222:

Of course, that would normally be correct. But here, wouldn't that refer to the article called

1812: 1581: 1556:, which is a Creative Commons based (by-sa variant to be exact) Linux documentation wiki. We'd 817: 3404: 3257:

Can a sysop please add the following interwiki link to the page, directly after the th: link:

3218: 3198: 3190: 3148: 3106: 3081: 3056: 2589: 2376: 2356: 2296: 2276: 2199: 650: 238: 194: 2313: 1191: 3563: 3560: 3525: 3516: 3502: 3492: 3407: 3397: 3363: 3206: 2921: 2836: 2663: 2181: 2016:

with any combination of invariant sections, front-cover texts or back-cover texts you like.

1889: 1738: 1483: 1400: 1388: 1323: 1237: 976: 461:

It's odd, then, that the FSF should list that as a reason not to use GPL for documentation.

376: 2449:, which Jamesday and I wrote to explain copyright law to layfolk in plain, simple english. 2037:

As for external content, this appears to be an error by the authors of this page, with the

1060:

How exactly an author of a text copied into wikipedia confirms the permission? (See, e.g.,

431:

So, I'd say sadly no. Can you contact the copyright owner and ask them to dual-licence it?

3119: 2656: 2614: 2466: 2438: 1881: 1667: 1642: 1619: 1569: 1309: 1201: 907: 622: 211: 3556:

which I happen to know was taken by wire-press photographers and is held under copyright

2696:" entails. Have you seen the disclaimer on her site? It says right next to the copyright: 2723:"copyright 2005 SherryTalkRadio.com the only copyright I have is that you copy it right" 2560:"copyright 2005 SherryTalkRadio.com the only copyright I have is that you copy it right" 1368:

Thanks. However, that link, and the Nupedia and Knowledge (XXG) link, don't seem to say

1040: 751:

of GPL-ed software, and if so under what licence should that documentation be published?

3522: 3499: 3418: 3394: 3232: 3205:

The copyrightability of a language is unclear (we had problems over this regarding the

3044: 3005: 2967: 2874: 2796: 2751: 2629: 2569: 2403: 1999: 1823: 1808: 1793: 1774: 1589: 1320:

Hmm. I thought that pictures of logos displayed in a public place are fair game, BICBW.

1196:

are these still PD if has e.g. "Courtesy of Donald M. McPherson, 1971"? I want one for

675: 626: 592: 528: 477: 462: 432: 219: 1837: 3421:. If I have interpreted it correctly, the following is our policy for image uploads. 3360: 3300: 3269: 2525: 2481: 2470: 2368: 2160: 2142: 2117: 2105: 2067: 1742: 1593: 1173: 1155: 1144: 1132: 1105: 1065: 984: 925:" when doing a merge, using the links-in-summary feature. ] 17:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) 806: 785: 666: 613: 412: 299: 3462:

if the image is released under any free license, then I may upload it to the commons

1564:

In a way, this restriction is good thing. I've been incorporating the public domain

3171: 3131: 3123: 2450: 2328: 2254: 2227: 2178: 2090: 2075: 2045: 2017: 1935: 1915: 1904: 1869: 1762: 1750: 1713: 1706: 1633:

claims that reproduction is allowed if no changes are made. Does this violate the

1451: 1358: 1282: 1250: 1197: 1119: 1076: 1009: 654: 556: 497: 447: 116: 3299:" under free use? Does it matter at all if the book is referenced in the article? 784:

No, there is no contradiction, but that rather derives from general philosophy of

3073: 2135:

independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.

1911: 1726: 1565: 1479: 1427: 1407: 1395: 1392: 1373: 1346: 1234: 882: 621:

As an aside, there is other GPL material already in the Knowledge (XXG) such as

373: 186: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3043:

Please could someone confirm whether this is actually fair use or not. Thanks.

2662:

Any chance you could email her and ask for specific permission under the GFDL?

649:

Thanks for the enlightening discussion. I was thinking about a file describing

372:

I've replaced Foo with Metasyntactic variable since that what it redirects to.

3513: 3489: 3098: 2509: 2318: 1845: 1778: 1634: 1258: 891: 388: 208: 1910:

Of course, it's impossible for the photograph to be old in this case, unless

1308:

concerned, this shouldn't be a problem. However, how should they be tagged?

3356: 3210: 2240:

IMPORTANT: If you want to use content from Knowledge (XXG), first read the

2071: 1994: 1988: 1820: 1790: 3143:

for an example). DISCLAIMER: I'm not a copyright lawyer. Try asking at the

2394: 1737:

A number of people have chosen to dual license their own changes under the

1630: 1492: 1474:

Many of the problems with Knowledge (XXG)'s use of the GFDL can be seen at

1292: 420: 3449:

if the image is GFDL-licensed, then I may upload the image to en.wikipedia

1185: 706:

GPL can only be applied to a work for which the distinction between (1) a

665:. But there are probably many much more useful GPL resources out there. -- 218:

It's a clarification of free (as in speech) as against free (as in beer).

3374: 3264: 2194:

Please add the following translation to "Other Languages": pt:Copyrights

2030: 1896: 1671: 1300: 1222: 793: 365: 3377:(located on private land) while I was on a visit as part of my job with 146:

if different images have been uploaded with different copyright statuses

3413:

Please clarify our upload licensing policy - is it really this bizarre?

2480:

on Knowledge (XXG) must allow both nonprofit and for-profit copying. --

1702: 1698: 1520:

which from that point onward can only be licenced under the CC licence.

1354: 473: 469: 408: 404: 345: 320: 2445:

For dealing with first time Wikipedians, I suggest you direct them to

2434:

their talk pages. Does anyone have any hints for making this easier?

1701:

that does not infringe copyright when some other webpages on the same

814: 261:

it appears that we may be breaching their re-production guidelines.

949:

21:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC):) I just re-read the opening paragraph of

847:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights and Warranty Disclaimers (proposal)

442:

The GFDL has the same machine-readable requirement. And we provide

3373:

I have some photos that I took of the location of the monastry at

3186: 2545: 2139:

exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed

1840:

redirects here; there should probably be a link pointing users to

1509:

the entire article from that point forward is only under the GFDL.

1088: 2609:) require you to make certain assertions connected with whomever 2410:

How do I deal with obvious, but not provable, image infringement?

1553: 881:

Summa summarum, should we not take licensing a bit more serious?

730:

metaphore: one has a text, and possibly some images and lay-out,

392:. Why does she deserve this treatment? ] 23:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3553:

Alamos has a photograph on their website without a credit given

3277: 3163: 2693: 1638: 1615: 1342: 1072: 980: 586:

I don't think anything to do with the GPL could be described as

255: 3130:

I should add that there's no personal information given out. --

1947:

Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights#Contributors'_rights_and_obligations

1657:(which, if old enough, are in the public domain), but on their 3438:

upload the image to en.wikipedia under any other circumstances

3185:

I have a question about copyrights. There is an organization (

1844:

and any other WP: namespace pages with single-word C names. -

1517: 1513: 1505: 735: 311: 25: 3441:

I may upload the image to the commons under any free licence

2253:

Huh? Shouldn't we read the legally binding document first?

2213:

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "

625:- what's the official policy on inclusion of GPL material? 3189:) whose purpose is to develop a standardized language for 2556:

If you look near the bottom of the page, she also states

1984:

Knowledge (XXG):Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License

1391:

didn't exist at the time, but thats as much as I can say.

1192:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd77.htm

726:(and also was never intended for software): GFDL uses the 1353:

This decision predates Knowledge (XXG) going online. See

1036: 2233: 710:

of the work that is interpreted by a machine, and (2) a

555:

we have to provide the wiki-markup, not the postscript.

351: 3484:

I've been trying to find answers to these questions on

2552:"you can use any images off my sites you would like..." 1533: 1512:

Lets say this then happened with another article here,

3542:

Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights#U.S._government_photographs

1056:

How a webpage owner confirms that he gives permission?

975:, but also about wikipedia contributors/authors being 127:

In the "Image guidelines" section, it currently says:

3446:

If someone else owns the copyright to an image, then

3428:

I may upload the image to en.wikipedia under the GFDL

1693:

Question about external links, website versus webpage

1094:

I was wondering who owns the copyright on the x-ray?

1048:

Wikimedia, but nobody would have read it there...) --

1045:

The list of all authors is available under this link.

1041:

http://www.knowlex.org/lang/en/lexikon/Landscape.html

1963:

contain invariant sections. But then, it also says:

314:

page, just a redirect. Please would a sysop replace

3468:Is this correct? If so, then I have two questions: 2544:by email, asking for permission to use her image @ 714:of the work that is interpreted & worked on by 443: 3459:free license, then I may upload it to en.wikipedia 3295:, captioned as "picture of Joe Blow from cover of 2234:Shouldn't we read legally binding documents first? 1880:I'm not sure this is even worth asking, since the 1372:GFDL was chosen. That's what I'm curious about. -- 1091:of my teeth a while ago, I need my wisdoms out :( 849:, and propose to continue the discussion there. -- 527:provision of PostScript source for that document. 3349:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance 3342:Knowledge (XXG):Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance 1959:which I read to mean that Knowledge (XXG) should 326: 813:to start documenting and publishing examples of 701:What is the difference between "GPL" and "GFDL"? 1663:Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation 1611:Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation 870:I there a project working on image licensing? ( 355:Knowledge (XXG) article "Su Pollard"</a: --> 344:This article is licensed under the <a href=" 319:This article is licensed under the <a href=" 2325:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works 1609:are claiming copyright on paintings. However, 1467:teethpullingly traumatic process of changing. 779:a derived work) should be published under GPL? 3160:Image:British-passport-inside-front-cover.jpg 1289:GDFL images with significant fair use content 1104:I'd appreciate others thoughts/facts on this 115:I would say: Public place, yes, private, no. 8: 3417:I am confused by the text at the bottom of 103:Photos from concerts which ban photo-ing... 3267: 3089:Suggested modification to the project page 1653:They're not claiming the copyright on the 284:Image:Route of Olympic Flame Worldwide.gif 259:Media Guidelines & Contact Information 3425:If I own the copyright to an image, then 2607:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale 1705:does break copyright? Thanks in advance. 1697:Is it okay to make an external link to a 801:for dummies" under a traditional license. 349:GNU Free Documentation License</a: --> 324:GNU Free Documentation License</a: --> 3455:in fact, if the image is released under 2395:http://www.consciouslivingfoundation.org 1631:http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html 1180:US Navy History site: how PD are photos? 953:, and found this as the third sentence: 657:, its probably GPL because its in their 421:http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html 399:Using GNU GPL content in Knowledge (XXG) 350:. It uses material from the <a href=" 330:Knowledge (XXG) article "Foo"</a: --> 325:. It uses material from the <a href=" 3000:If anybody's interested, have a look @ 1720:Translation of Knowledge (XXG) articles 1186:http://www.history.navy.mil/warning.htm 294:Image:Route of Olympic Flame Europe.gif 289:Image:Route of Olympic Flame Greece.gif 264:Images that we may have problems with: 3307:Invariant Sections on Knowledge (XXG)? 193:I agree, and have made this change. -- 154:Can I suggest we change that to read: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3168:Image:French passport front cover.jpg 3026:King's Cross St. Pancras tube station 2052:US Government PD is not worldwide PD! 1725:license text is hard to understand)? 7: 3353:meta:Non-compliant site coordination 2353:Knowledge (XXG):Image copyright tags 1184:Although it states that they are PD 820:under GFDL, and if it is of general 346:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html 321:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html 2309:Image:Michelangelo.pieta.650pix.jpg 2244:section. You should then read the 1504:For example, someone takes article 663:List over USE flags in Gentoo Linux 352:http://www.wikipedia.org/Su_Pollard 3548:of the federal government this is 3316:those invariant sections verbatim. 1787:pl:Knowledge (XXG):Prawa autorskie 24: 3020:Portion of London Underground map 2207:Where is the copy of the license? 1747:meta:Guide_to_the_CC_dual-license 3472:Where is this policy documented? 1756:I am requesting a review of the 1661:of the paintings. The ruling in 1592:would have you know otherwise -- 1033:Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks 987:and its terminology, am I right? 29: 3030:Image:Tube map King's Cross.png 2546:http://www.sherrytalkradio.com/ 2516:Title 17 Sec. 105 is not viral. 1758:Knowledge (XXG):Multi-licensing 1062:Talk:Florin Popentiu Vladicescu 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Copyrights 3476:creative commons and then ask 3072:into interwiki, thank you :-) 2417:if you're the copyright owner. 2246:GNU Free Documentation License 2224:GNU Free Documentation License 2215:GNU Free Documentation License 1773:dear admin -- please add link 1749:and the discussion above). -- 1: 3536:US federal works and websites 3286:Editing free use covers, etc. 3053:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use 2503:. The librarian wrote to me: 2495:American Civil War era photos 2447:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright FAQ 2290:es:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights 2242:Users' rights and obligations 1977:have invariant sections, but 1295:File:Eurostar at Vauxhall.jpg 1247:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright FAQ 747:Is everyone allowed to write 468:On reading and comparing the 3141:Eleanor rigby single usa.jpg 3028:article is illustrated with 2393:I downloaded the above from 1221:This would often come under 407:text is compatible with the 327:http://www.wikipedia.org/Foo 3170:is in the public domain. -- 3016:) 15:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2580:) 16:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2303: 923:Knowledge (XXG):Village tap 865:from German Knowledge (XXG) 175:unclear what should happen 3579: 3488:without much luck so far. 3253:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 2978:) 14:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2885:) 14:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2807:) 13:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2762:) 13:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2655:That seems reasonable. -- 2640:) 13:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2363:09:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) 2304:Michelangelo's pieta image 1848:04:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC) 1807:Would an admin please add 1765:00:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) 1659:photographic reproductions 1349:16:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) 1333: 1268:Captured Images - Fair Use 1018:Knowledge (XXG):copyrights 951:Knowledge (XXG):copyrights 829:m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia 827:Just discovered this one: 274:Image:Athens 2004 logo.jpg 3486:MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext 3336:10:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3303:15:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3282:02:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3249:19:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3235:06:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3221:23:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 3201:21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3195:list of nursing diagnoses 3151:23:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 3109:23:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 3084:23:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 3076:15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) 3059:23:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) 3047:17:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) 2659:13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2548:. She wrote back saying: 2532:00:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2512:00:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2461:Library of Congress texts 2453:07:14, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC) 2441:06:59, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC) 2406:06:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2379:04:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) 2371:10:52, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC) 2331:09:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2257:06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC) 2230:06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC) 2093:10:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) 2078:10:18, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) 2063:14:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2048:10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) 2020:10:34, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) 1938:10:41, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) 1907:08:39, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) 1872:08:53, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) 1815:20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1811:to the Interwikis? TY, -- 1781:08:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1777:to interwiki. thanks! =} 1753:20:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) 1716:07:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC) 1709:15:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1649:16:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1626:16:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1601:National Portrait Gallery 1584:17:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1576:Direct licencing under PD 1572:07:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1498:03:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1486:03:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1476:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL 1471:02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1430:03:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) 1376:02:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) 1341:I'm just curious why the 1316:22:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1285:07:41, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC) 1261:22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1253:17:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) 1240:17:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) 1176:05:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1158:19:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1122:10:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1108:04:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1079:09:46, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC) 1068:00:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) 983:becomes "legal" by using 936:00:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) 885:21:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 876:Image:Michel-foucault.jpg 690:00:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) 669:22:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 559:19:50, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC) 500:19:40, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC) 450:19:26, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC) 415:18:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 379:16:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC) 368:11:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) 302:23:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) 214:10:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) 189:20:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 119:11:52, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) 3564:17:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 3526:18:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 3517:17:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 3503:15:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 3493:04:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 3408:17:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC) 3398:13:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 3239:GFDL History Requirement 3174:00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3126:03:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3101:08:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2927:14:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2842:13:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2795:to be public domain... ( 2669:13:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2617:22:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2597:18:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2488:16:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2473:15:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2299:06:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2279:06:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2202:06:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2182:22:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 2167:16:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2149:15:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2124:20:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2112:19:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 2004:21:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1930:17:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1918:08:52, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC) 1899:22:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1866:Template talk:Screenshot 1852:Old-time movie snapshots 1828:07:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1798:07:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1789:? I've added that link. 1733:Dual and Multi Licensing 1729:00:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1686:14:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1674:18:48, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC) 1596:02:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1538:18:02, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC) 1454:08:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1361:01:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1329:13:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1231:Knowledge (XXG):fair use 1208:19:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1147:19:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1135:15:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1083:Copyright on tooth x-ray 1052:17:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) 912:00:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) 835:15:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) 809:there is no impendiment 678:09:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 643:00:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) 629:20:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 616:20:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 595:19:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 531:19:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 480:19:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 465:19:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 435:19:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) 243:10:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) 222:10:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 197:06:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 3364:03:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC) 3217:for more visibility. -- 3134:03:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3070:th:วิกิพีเดีย:ลิขสิทธิ์ 2319:Site's copyright policy 2033:09:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1842:Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup 1552:I'm a moderator at the 853:15:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) 3226:Otto Bettmann Archives 2508:Can we use them then? 2070:means noone can claim 1876:Photograph of a person 1304: 1037:http://www.knowlex.org 979:, in the sense of how 362: 337: 279:Image:Footballlogo.jpg 123:syntax amelioration :) 3162:it is licensed under 1357:for some background. 1298: 1233:for more about this. 1126:This is a problem of 805:So, summarizing: for 341: 316: 269:Image:Archerylogo.jpg 42:of past discussions. 3297:The Life of Joe Blow 3293:the Life of Joe Blow 3034:Transport for London 2467:Myrtle Hill Cemetery 2335:Publicity photograph 2266:(of the GFDL) -: --> 2039:Wikimedia Foundation 1922:Power Point projects 1886:Attack of the Clones 1549:but very difficult. 1387:Well for one thing, 992:wikipedia:copyrights 971:It's not only about 403:Does anyone know if 250:2004 Summer Olympics 229:Surely it should be 109:William M. Connolley 3330:Image:Branstock.jpg 2116:SCOTUS decision. -- 1862:Template:Screenshot 1785:I assume you meant 1023:Is there a list of 257:. On reading their 3311:From the article: 2536:Copyright question 2389:Image:Mkgandhi.jpg 1942:Invariant sections 1809:it:Aiuto:Copyright 1775:pl:Prawa autorskie 1305: 522: 3281: 3191:nursing diagnoses 3181:Nursing diagnoses 2925: 2840: 2667: 2540:I have contacted 1039:(example page at 977:copyright holders 520: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3570: 2923: 2838: 2665: 2249: 1949:currently says: 1890:Rupert Sheldrake 1739:Creative Commons 1410: 1405: 1398: 1389:Creative Commons 1296: 947:Francis Schonken 906: 905: 902: 899: 851:Francis Schonken 833:Francis Schonken 695:Francis Schonken 623:Image:Smiley.png 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3578: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3538: 3415: 3371: 3345: 3326: 3309: 3288: 3261: 3255: 3241: 3228: 3183: 3120:Passport Canada 3116: 3114:Passport images 3091: 3066: 3041: 3022: 2791:want photos of 2538: 2518: 2497: 2463: 2412: 2386: 2337: 2306: 2286: 2263: 2239: 2236: 2209: 2192: 2179:Nathan J. Yoder 2066:Huh? I thought 2054: 2002: 1944: 1924: 1882:Christopher Lee 1878: 1854: 1835: 1805: 1771: 1735: 1722: 1695: 1668:Template:PD-art 1603: 1578: 1408: 1401: 1396: 1339: 1294: 1291: 1270: 1227:cite the source 1214: 1182: 1085: 1064:Is it enough?) 1058: 990:Presently, the 903: 900: 897: 896: 872:tough on images 841: 761:or exclusively 614:Derrick Coetzee 401: 308: 252: 204: 125: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3576: 3574: 3537: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3506: 3505: 3482: 3481: 3473: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3460: 3453: 3450: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3439: 3432: 3429: 3419:Special:Upload 3414: 3411: 3391: 3390: 3386: 3370: 3367: 3344: 3338: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3308: 3305: 3287: 3284: 3259: 3254: 3251: 3247:Andrew Rodland 3240: 3237: 3227: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3182: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3158:If you look at 3153: 3152: 3136: 3135: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3090: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3065: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3051:Try asking at 3038: 3021: 3018: 3002:Sherry Shriner 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2966:Cool, thanx. ( 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2599: 2598: 2562: 2561: 2554: 2553: 2542:Sherry Shriner 2537: 2534: 2517: 2514: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2462: 2459: 2457: 2455: 2454: 2411: 2408: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2365: 2336: 2333: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2288:Please add ] 2285: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2262: 2259: 2235: 2232: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2113: 2095: 2094: 2084:Raul's 4th law 2053: 2050: 2035: 2034: 2000: 1997: 1971: 1970: 1957: 1956: 1943: 1940: 1923: 1920: 1877: 1874: 1853: 1850: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1804: 1803:InterWiki it: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1770: 1767: 1734: 1731: 1721: 1718: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1676: 1675: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1590:Special:Upload 1582:DF08 (English) 1577: 1574: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1521: 1510: 1502: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1363: 1362: 1338: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1321: 1290: 1287: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1255: 1254: 1242: 1241: 1213: 1210: 1181: 1178: 1165: 1164: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1137: 1136: 1115: 1114: 1084: 1081: 1057: 1054: 1050:French Tourist 1029: 1028: 1021: 996: 988: 964: 963: 943: 942: 914: 913: 890:all I say :o) 856: 855: 840: 837: 803: 802: 781: 780: 772: 771: 753: 752: 744: 743: 703: 702: 680: 679: 647: 646: 645: 644: 631: 630: 618: 617: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 466: 454: 453: 452: 451: 437: 436: 429: 400: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 381: 380: 358: 357: 333: 332: 307: 304: 297: 296: 291: 286: 281: 276: 271: 251: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 224: 223: 203: 200: 199: 198: 184: 182: 181: 167: 166: 157: 153: 151: 150: 140: 139: 130: 124: 121: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3575: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3535: 3527: 3524: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3479: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3448: 3447: 3445: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3420: 3412: 3410: 3409: 3406: 3400: 3399: 3396: 3387: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3380: 3376: 3368: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3359:as a start. 3358: 3354: 3350: 3343: 3340:Need link to 3339: 3337: 3335: 3331: 3323: 3321: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3306: 3304: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3285: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3266: 3258: 3252: 3250: 3248: 3244: 3238: 3236: 3234: 3225: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3180: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3125: 3121: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3100: 3096: 3088: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3075: 3071: 3064:Interwiki th: 3063: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3046: 3037: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3019: 3017: 3015: 3014:contributions 3011: 3007: 3003: 2977: 2976:contributions 2973: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2926: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2884: 2883:contributions 2880: 2876: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2841: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2806: 2805:contributions 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2761: 2760:contributions 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2668: 2661: 2660: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2639: 2638:contributions 2635: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2579: 2578:contributions 2575: 2571: 2566: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2547: 2543: 2535: 2533: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2515: 2513: 2511: 2507: 2502: 2494: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2460: 2458: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2440: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2409: 2407: 2405: 2399: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2370: 2364: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2344: 2334: 2332: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2310: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2283: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2270: 2260: 2258: 2256: 2251: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2231: 2229: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2216: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2189: 2183: 2180: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2123: 2119: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068:public domain 2064: 2062: 2061:134.130.68.65 2058: 2051: 2049: 2047: 2042: 2040: 2032: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2003: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1976: 1969: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1962: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1948: 1941: 1939: 1937: 1931: 1929: 1921: 1919: 1917: 1914:is possible! 1913: 1908: 1906: 1900: 1898: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1875: 1873: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1851: 1849: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1802: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1780: 1776: 1768: 1766: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743:public domain 1740: 1732: 1730: 1728: 1719: 1717: 1715: 1710: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1692: 1685: 1684:134.130.68.65 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1608: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1583: 1575: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1497: 1496:Mark Richards 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1470: 1469:Mark Richards 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1411: 1406: 1404: 1399: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1348: 1344: 1336: 1334: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1302: 1297: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1211: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1187: 1179: 1177: 1175: 1169: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1157: 1146: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1121: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1107: 1102: 1099: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1082: 1080: 1078: 1074: 1069: 1067: 1063: 1055: 1053: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1011: 1007: 1002: 997: 993: 989: 986: 985:copyright law 982: 978: 974: 973:author credit 970: 969: 968: 962: 961: 956: 955: 954: 952: 948: 939: 938: 937: 935: 934:(see warning) 932: 926: 924: 918: 911: 910: 895: 894: 888: 887: 886: 884: 879: 877: 873: 868: 866: 861: 854: 852: 848: 843: 842: 838: 836: 834: 830: 825: 823: 819: 816: 812: 808: 799: 795: 791: 787: 786:copyright law 783: 782: 778: 774: 773: 769: 764: 760: 755: 754: 750: 749:documentation 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 704: 700: 699: 698: 696: 691: 689: 688:(see warning) 686: 677: 672: 671: 670: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 642: 641:(see warning) 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 615: 611: 610: 594: 589: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 558: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 530: 526: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 499: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 479: 475: 471: 467: 464: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 449: 445: 441: 440: 439: 438: 434: 430: 427: 422: 418: 417: 416: 414: 410: 406: 398: 391: 390: 385: 384: 383: 382: 378: 375: 371: 370: 369: 367: 361: 353: 347: 343: 342: 340: 336: 328: 322: 318: 317: 315: 313: 305: 303: 301: 295: 292: 290: 287: 285: 282: 280: 277: 275: 272: 270: 267: 266: 265: 262: 260: 256: 249: 242: 241: 236: 232: 228: 227: 226: 225: 221: 217: 216: 215: 213: 210: 201: 196: 192: 191: 190: 188: 180: 178: 174: 169: 168: 165: 164: 160: 159: 158: 155: 149: 147: 142: 141: 138: 137: 133: 132: 131: 128: 122: 120: 118: 113: 110: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3549: 3545: 3540:The section 3539: 3483: 3477: 3467: 3456: 3435: 3416: 3405:David Newton 3401: 3392: 3372: 3351:and perhaps 3346: 3327: 3319: 3310: 3296: 3292: 3289: 3262: 3256: 3245: 3242: 3229: 3219:Slowking Man 3215:Village pump 3184: 3149:Slowking Man 3145:Village pump 3117: 3107:Slowking Man 3092: 3082:Slowking Man 3067: 3057:Slowking Man 3042: 3023: 2999: 2792: 2788: 2610: 2593: 2585: 2567: 2563: 2555: 2539: 2523: 2519: 2504: 2498: 2464: 2456: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2413: 2400: 2392: 2387: 2377:Slowking Man 2366: 2348: 2340: 2338: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2297:Slowking Man 2287: 2277:Slowking Man 2264: 2252: 2238: 2237: 2221: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2200:Slowking Man 2193: 2190:InterWiki pt 2138: 2134: 2102:H.R. 94-1476 2087: 2065: 2056: 2055: 2043: 2036: 2025: 2011: 2007: 2006: 1991: 1978: 1974: 1972: 1967: 1960: 1958: 1953: 1945: 1932: 1928:164.104.1.36 1925: 1909: 1901: 1894: 1884:page has an 1879: 1859: 1855: 1836: 1824: 1806: 1794: 1772: 1769:interwiki pl 1755: 1736: 1723: 1711: 1696: 1658: 1654: 1628: 1604: 1579: 1563: 1557: 1551: 1546: 1543: 1473: 1465: 1402: 1369: 1340: 1332: 1306: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1263: 1256: 1215: 1198:smoke-screen 1195: 1190: 1183: 1170: 1166: 1156:David Remahl 1152: 1145:David Remahl 1127: 1116: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1086: 1070: 1059: 1044: 1030: 1024: 1012: 1010:derived work 1005: 972: 965: 959: 957: 944: 927: 919: 915: 908: 892: 880: 871: 869: 864: 859: 857: 844: 826: 810: 804: 797: 789: 776: 767: 762: 758: 748: 739: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 692: 681: 655:Gentoo Linux 648: 587: 524: 444:exactly that 424: 402: 387: 363: 359: 338: 334: 310:There is no 309: 298: 263: 253: 240:Helpful Dave 239: 234: 230: 205: 195:Slowking Man 183: 176: 172: 170: 162: 161: 156: 152: 145: 143: 135: 134: 129: 126: 114: 106: 75: 43: 37: 3561:Fastfission 3546:contractors 3478:anyone else 3265:Minh Nguyễn 3095:section 3.3 3068:Please add 3004:. Cheers, ( 2343:copyrighted 2269:section two 2261:Minor edits 1912:time travel 1846:Sean Curtin 1682:sue NPG. -- 1566:Jargon File 1310:Dunc_Harris 1202:Dunc_Harris 1006:in extremis 763:binary code 759:source code 306:Bad example 36:This is an 3328:The image 3263:Thanks. – 2657:John Fader 2615:John Fader 2586:themselves 2439:Milkmandan 1635:Holy Grail 1570:crazyeddie 1212:Quotations 1001:wikipedian 822:importance 811:whatsoever 794:copylefted 732:preferably 389:Su Pollard 386:Poor poor 366:Dmn / Դմն 95:Archive 10 3523:Thryduulf 3500:Thryduulf 3395:Thryduulf 3357:Copyright 3324:Branstock 3233:Deglr6328 3211:Toki Pona 3045:Thryduulf 3006:Sam Spade 2968:Sam Spade 2875:Sam Spade 2797:Sam Spade 2752:Sam Spade 2630:Sam Spade 2570:Sam Spade 2437:Thanks -- 2295:Added. -- 2284:Interwiki 2072:copyright 1655:paintings 1629:But then 1605:see e.g. 1534:Bjarmason 1087:I had an 839:Licensing 818:USE flags 790:intending 720:HTML code 676:PhilHibbs 651:USE flags 627:PhilHibbs 593:PhilHibbs 529:PhilHibbs 478:PhilHibbs 463:PhilHibbs 433:PhilHibbs 237:. :) — 220:PhilHibbs 173:currently 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3375:Athelney 3361:Lunkwill 3301:Gzuckier 3274:contribs 3105:Done. -- 3080:Done. -- 2835:images. 2526:iMeowbot 2482:iMeowbot 2471:Darwinek 2451:→Raul654 2404:ashwatha 2375:Done. -- 2369:SGBailey 2275:Done. -- 2198:Done. -- 2161:iMeowbot 2143:iMeowbot 2118:iMeowbot 2106:iMeowbot 2091:→Raul654 2026:required 1594:BesigedB 1547:possible 1531:Arnfjörð 1324:James F. 1301:Eurostar 1277:Turrican 1251:→Raul654 1223:fair use 1133:Pfortuny 1066:Mikkalai 807:Dittaeva 724:software 667:Dittaeva 557:→Raul654 498:→Raul654 472:and the 448:→Raul654 413:Dittaeva 364:Cheers. 300:Scraggy4 3207:Klingon 3172:Spinboy 3132:Spinboy 3124:Spinboy 2922:— Matt 2837:— Matt 2664:— Matt 2594:phoenix 2506:images. 2255:Brianjd 2228:Brianjd 2076:Brianjd 2046:Brianjd 2018:Brianjd 1936:Brianjd 1916:Brianjd 1905:Brianjd 1870:Brianjd 1821:—No-One 1791:—No-One 1763:Ram-Man 1751:Ram-Man 1714:Brianjd 1707:Andries 1703:website 1699:webpage 1637:of the 1452:Andrewa 1359:Andrewa 1355:Nupedia 1283:Brianjd 1128:privacy 1120:Darksun 1113:though. 1077:Brianjd 931:anthony 860:history 768:extract 740:as such 685:anthony 638:anthony 588:blatant 525:require 409:GNU FDL 405:GNU GPL 202:"Libre" 163:Tagging 136:Tagging 117:Brianjd 39:archive 3434:I may 3334:Wiglaf 3166:. And 3074:PaePae 2924:Crypto 2839:Crypto 2793:myself 2666:Crypto 2384:Gandhi 2314:Source 1819:Done. 1727:Byrial 1554:LQwiki 1480:Cyrius 1428:Golbez 1374:Golbez 1347:Golbez 1327:(talk) 1235:Angela 1229:. See 883:Kokiri 815:Gentoo 716:people 523:could 426:later. 374:Angela 354:": --> 348:": --> 329:": --> 323:": --> 233:, not 187:Ropers 3514:Lupin 3490:Lupin 3389:May). 3379:Defra 3187:NANDA 3099:Paddu 2590:Death 2510:Pibwl 2501:these 2141:." -- 1825:Jones 1795:Jones 1779:kocio 1616:arses 1337:GFDL? 1303:train 1259:PZFUN 1172:too. 1089:x-ray 893:zoney 521:would 419:From 339:with 235:libre 231:liber 212:|talk 209:BozMo 16:< 3278:blog 3270:talk 3209:and 3199:Matt 3164:GFDL 3147:. -- 3055:. -- 3024:The 3010:talk 2972:talk 2879:talk 2801:talk 2756:talk 2694:GFDL 2634:talk 2574:talk 2361:Talk 2357:Phil 2329:Aqua 2014:GFDL 2001:HELO 1995:leif 1979:only 1864:and 1860:See 1838:WP:C 1833:WP:C 1813:M7it 1643:Dunc 1639:GFDL 1620:Dunc 1558:like 1528:Ævar 1397:siro 1343:GFDL 1073:WJRE 981:GFDL 909:talk 798:less 728:book 712:form 708:form 474:GFDL 3550:not 3457:any 3436:not 3093:In 2789:I'd 2271:". 2031:SLi 1975:can 1961:not 1897:BDD 1672:Gdr 1518:bar 1514:bar 1506:foo 1370:why 1025:all 1013:and 945:(-- 878:?) 736:OCR 693:(-- 659:CVS 653:in 470:GPL 312:Foo 3276:, 3272:, 3260:] 3012:| 3008:| 2974:| 2970:| 2881:| 2877:| 2803:| 2799:| 2758:| 2754:| 2636:| 2632:| 2611:is 2576:| 2572:| 2530:Mw 2486:Mw 2402:-- 2359:| 2345:}} 2341:{{ 2217:". 2165:Mw 2147:Mw 2122:Mw 2110:Mw 2086:- 2074:. 2029:-- 1998:☺ 1895:-- 1868:. 1741:, 1641:? 1618:? 1524:-- 1494:- 1299:A 1249:. 1200:. 1188:, 1075:. 777:is 446:. 207:-- 91:→ 3280:) 3268:( 2750:( 2568:( 2528:~ 2484:~ 2267:" 2248:. 2163:~ 2145:~ 2120:~ 2108:~ 1992:~ 1647:☺ 1645:| 1624:☺ 1622:| 1484:✎ 1482:| 1409:o 1403:χ 1394:— 1314:☺ 1312:| 1238:. 1206:☺ 1204:| 1174:T 1106:T 904:█ 901:█ 898:█ 742:) 428:" 423:" 377:. 356:. 331:. 179:. 148:. 107:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Copyrights/Archive 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index