User:Martyman/Canadacopyright
Deleted Discussion Restored Here From Template_talk:CanadaCopyright
Please do not edit
I think the non-commercial template should be there, to aid in keeping track of all non-commercial images. If not the template, I'd at least like to add the category. I understand that some of the images are legal here for other reasons(usually fair use), but that's okay. Just because the image is in the non-commercial category doesn't mean it will be deleted. Admins should check the description page before deletion, and if there is a valid fair use claim, they won't delete. Including non-commerical in no way threatens valid images. However, it makes it easier to track invalid ones. What do you think? Superm401 | Talk 18:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Adding just the category is a good idea. A lot of these images are valid under fair use. Many others are from the National Archives, most, but not all of which are PD or free use. - SimonP 19:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If they're PD or free use, a better template should be added instead of this one. I'll compromise with just the category, though. Superm401 | Talk 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to make fair use cases for the images using this template, then do so. The Canadian Crown Copyright, however, is clearly a noncommercial-only license, which is a license that is not allowed on Wikipedia per Jimbo's decree. The images will have to be deleted unless someone does make the fair use cases, including detailed "fair use" rationales addressing the four points of fair use. Lupo 08:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is quite useful having both templates. Fair use is only valid in the United States, so a DVD or print version anywhere else couldn't use any of those images. However if the DVD or print version was a not-for-profit venture then they could at least use those that were also Crown Copyright. - SimonP 13:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Simon, argue about this with Jimbo, not with me. I said about the same to him myself (well, wrote it on his talk page) when he clamped down on noncommercial images. He didn't agree. Lupo 13:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is quite useful having both templates. Fair use is only valid in the United States, so a DVD or print version anywhere else couldn't use any of those images. However if the DVD or print version was a not-for-profit venture then they could at least use those that were also Crown Copyright. - SimonP 13:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to make fair use cases for the images using this template, then do so. The Canadian Crown Copyright, however, is clearly a noncommercial-only license, which is a license that is not allowed on Wikipedia per Jimbo's decree. The images will have to be deleted unless someone does make the fair use cases, including detailed "fair use" rationales addressing the four points of fair use. Lupo 08:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- If they're PD or free use, a better template should be added instead of this one. I'll compromise with just the category, though. Superm401 | Talk 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This is silly. Use of these images would certainly found to be fair dealing or fair use in virtually any circumstance, including in commercial contexts, regardless of the Canadian govenment's request that use be non-commercial — the government's language doesn't hold any weight whatsoever in a determination of what constitutes a fair use or fair dealing. Please do not continue to unilaterally delete these images. Fawcett5 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Please also note the commercial provision of the licence are only invoked by making multiple copies for redistribution following language from [[1]] "Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution" — not sure how this might affect any interpretation of this licence. Fawcett5 19:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Every time a visitor goes to one of our commercial mirrors, another copy is made. Therefore, we still have a problem. As for your protestations regarding, fair use, you may very well be right. I haven't looked at most of the images and their contexts. For all I know, they may all qualify as fair use. If that's true, all that's necessary is a fair use tag and a valid rationale. Legitimate fair use images, including those which also have this tag, are not being deleted. However, we can not just assume all Canadian gov. images are fair use. An explanation is always needed. Superm401 | Talk 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was going to say the exact same thing myself. If the images under this tag are usable under fair use, then the a fair use tag appropriate to the provision in the fair use guidelines should be added, as well as a fair use rationale (per WP:FU#Policy). Or, if they're PD, then add the appropriate PD tag. I've updated the tag to state that. JYolkowski // talk 15:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Every time a visitor goes to one of our commercial mirrors, another copy is made. Therefore, we still have a problem. As for your protestations regarding, fair use, you may very well be right. I haven't looked at most of the images and their contexts. For all I know, they may all qualify as fair use. If that's true, all that's necessary is a fair use tag and a valid rationale. Legitimate fair use images, including those which also have this tag, are not being deleted. However, we can not just assume all Canadian gov. images are fair use. An explanation is always needed. Superm401 | Talk 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Final warning[edit]
This template has been listed for deletion for a considerable time now (after a thorough TfD debate), and is still used on approximately 70 images. I'm going to start actively orphaning it soon, a process that, owing to my boredom threshold, will probably take a few days. I am going to replace the tag with {{nolicense}}. Be warned that this renders them speedies 7 days from when the tag changes. -Splashtalk 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)