 |
This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion. |
|
 |
The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Even free images may still have restrictions independent of their copyright status, but they are still considered free. |
Some materials on Wikipedia may be subject to additional legal restrictions when they are used in particular circumstances or in particular ways. These limitations may arise from laws related to trade dress, trademarks, patents, currency, personality rights, political censorship, or any of many other legal causes which are entirely independent from the copyright status of the work.
Wikipedia's content policies discourage or outright forbid content which is not sufficiently unrestricted for reuse. However, non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to Wikipedia's freeness requirements,[1] and the content policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations.
Non-copyright restrictions and WP:NFCC
As educational and journalistic works, Wikipedia and many reusers of its content enjoy a strong position under US law with respect to most of these non-copyright restrictions. Our use of non-free content is restricted by the non-free content criteria, which in turn is defined by the Definition of Free Cultural Works. But, restrictions independent of their copyright status can still impair the use of a work for "any purpose". For instance in an extreme example, it would generally be illegal to print off a Wikipedia article and use it to commit murder, but this fact does not mean that the Wikipedia article is non-free. Likewise the legal prohibitions on using a registered mark or an image of a well known personality to mislead consumers are not considered to impact the freeness of the work.
As educational and journalistic works, Wikipedia and many reusers of its content enjoy a strong position under US law with respect to most of these non-copyright restrictions. Reusers who are in other jurisdictions, or who are using material in a considerably different manner than Wikipedia may find themselves with a less favorable position, but in almost all cases replacing an image with another substantially similar image would not change the situation, which is entirely unlike concerns arising from copyright considerations. While Wikipedia's licensing is intended to respect the public's freedom, our ability to do so is generally limited to copyright. It is neither possible, nor desirable, for Wikipedia to release people from all laws which they may find inconvenient.
Although we do not consider these restrictions relevant to our policies we do occasionally add disclaimers such as {{trademark}} and {{insignia}} as a general public service. The omission of these disclaimers should not be taken to indicate an absence of possible legal obligations. As always, Wikipedia can not provide legal advice specific to your circumstances.
Examples
Exceptions to the above guideline are very rare indeed. If you find yourself deleting a page, media file, text or link because of a legal restriction other than copyright, read this whole page carefully, think twice, and talk it over with other editors. It is very unlikely indeed that the law in question applies to Wikipedia, and there are only a few specialized exceptions. The following examples should be interpreted very narrowly.
Location of editor
- See also: Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content
If you are from (or visiting) a jurisdiction where rules are more strict than Florida, you may violate local law by uploading, transcluding or even viewing restricted materials. However Wikipedia is not censored. For example, in Germany usage of the Swastika and other Nazi symbology is restricted outside of scholarly contexts.
Hate speech, violence and sexual exploitation
- See also Wikipedia is not censored
Hate and harm usually depend on context. Aim to build an encyclopedia; don't appeal to prurient interest, and don't aim to cause or abet harm and offense. Articles that do nothing but hate and harm will quickly get deleted anyway. Consider putting the most potentially misused images that are legitimately hosted at Commons or English Wikipedia on the MediaWiki:Bad image list.
Trademarks
Image:Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911.png is in the public domain, but it is a trademark, so don't use it to link to Encarta. Don't make a confusing text link, such as:
[[ Wikipedia | Britannica ]]
- See also: Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks
See Also
References
- ^ "Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work."[1]
|
