Property talk:P275

Documentation

copyright license
license under which this copyrighted work is released

Description

License that the content produced by the organization is released under

Represents

license (Q79719)

Data type

Item

Template parameter

Wikipedia (Q52) <licensed under> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (Q6905942). Wikidata (Q2013) <licensed under> Creative Commons CC0 License (Q6938433)

Domain

According to this template: work (Q386724), and particularly computer program (Q40056)

According to statements in the property:
work (Q386724), data (Q42848), database (Q8513), fonds (Q3052382), collection (Q2668072), item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264), photo library (Q1574516) or fictional entity (Q14897293)

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Allowed values

license (Q79719), and particularly software license (Q207621) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Example

Inkscape (Q8041) → GNU General Public License, version 2.0 (Q10513450)
MediaWiki (Q83) → GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later (Q27016752)

Commons example

→ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (Q18199165)
→ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (Q14946043)

Tracking: same

no label (Q42533375)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P275 (Q20989972)

Scope of property[edit]

I still have concerns about the scope of this item, which have grown now that YMS has added a constraint restricting it to work (Q386724).[1] Do we mean to rule out applying this property to simple photographs (w:de:Lichtbildwerk), databases, and most software? That's how I would read the constraint, anyway. --Avenue (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that question, I just thought from the current description that creative work would be right. However, none of my constraints is meant to live forever. If it turns out to be too narrow, too broad or simply wrong, adjust or remove it. --YMS (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several properties to which I added that constraint yesterday have the issue that they are frequently used with a lot of things that currently are not classified as creative works (computer programs, newspapers, laws, film genres, sometimes buildings, etc.). I am going to do a more detailled review of my changes later today, but possibly my understanding of what is a creative work and what is not, isn't deep enough to judge in all cases. --YMS (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse?[edit]

I've used this in a few places to mark works as unlicensed and still under copyright. (Not many items and I've stopped now.) Example: The God in the Bowl (Q3792660)copyright license (P275)copyright (Q262283) It's not quite appropriate but seems to be the best way I could find to represent this quality. Is there a better way? Would setting it to "no value" work? Is there a property or item that corresponds to "still under copyright"? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to say "negation", not "inverse"; inverse would be a property like "this license is used for work:". SamB (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright situation differs for each country. I have add public domain for The God in the Bowl (Q3792660) with jurisdiction the European Union, and copyrighted US, not sure if this is the best way. I have the feeling 'license' is a bit misused as it is meant for licenses on a copyrighted work. --Hannolans (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is also wrong. There are (most likely) a license for The God in the Bowl (Q3792660) – just not a public one. But some publishers have a license to use it. Also it's in general hard to source the not-existence of anything. So I wouldn't use this format but just assume when no copyright license (P275) is set it's not available under a public license. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add dataset to allowed type[edit]

I would suggest that data set (Q1172284) also be allowed as an instance of (P31) value. It's useful to add license to datasets used to ingest information to wikidata and I wouldn't feel comfortable with trying to fit datsets into work (Q386724). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ended up being done in [2] by D1gggg but I think is a serious mistake. This covers copyright licences, not general licences. Data "licences" are not under copyright but under sui generis database rights like Q688416 or similar. This property being over-loaded like this seems unhelpful. (It also doesn't cover e.g. fishing licences.) (CC André Costa (WMSE) and Jarekt, from discussion on Property_talk:P6216#data_as_an_allowed_domain?) James F. (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain[edit]

I am planning to write public domain (Q19652) in this property when a work is public domain worldwide (old paintings). Is that allowed for this property? I see that this property is used that way. --Hannolans (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is used currently, so you can use it too ;) – but it's wrong. Public domain it not a license, but the absent of copyright and by that the absent of any license. I think we need a new Property "Status of the copyright" that we can then set to public domain (Q19652) or "protected by copyright" (item to be created). This would than also allow to use qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582) to indicate when it was/will enter public domain and with country (P17) (or similar) for with country the claim is valid (since a work can be still protected in US and be public domain in EU and vise versa). -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/FLOSS -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For public domain date we now also have public domain date (P3893) with as qualifier applies to jurisdiction (P1001). As that public domain date differs per country, I would promote to use public domain (Q19652) only if it is public domain worldwide. That would mean works published 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940705) (Mexico) and published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828) (US). a new Property "Status of the copyright" would be great to have, and we can have a status 'worldwide copyright protected', 'in some countries copyright protected', 'uncertain' and 'public domain', automatically calculated from the public domain date. I didnt propose that property yet as this is a 'current state' property that seems not implemented yet, but probably we should opt for it? --Hannolans (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't knew public domain date (P3893). My first thought was that this solves the issue already. But after thinking a day more about this, I got some doubts: ~~1.) SPARQL has no "now-Function" (at least I havn't found any) – so it's impossible to write a sparql-query to get what's Public domain today.~~ 2) Age is not the only reason for something to become public domain. In some country you can put things to pd yourself, most copyrights have exceptions for work by the government and a threshold of originality (Q707401). 3) There are also other forms of intellectual property (Q131257). So for those three reasons, I think indeed we should have a property that states if a work is protected as described above (but generalized for all forms of intellectual property (Q131257)). Should we start a property-proposal? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: SPAQRL 1 had no now-funktion, but SPARQL 1.1 has. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extend the scope of this property and rename to "Copyright tag"[edit]

We need a property that allows specifying copyright status of an object. On Commons that is accomplished with Copyright tag which can be either a copyright license template or public domain rationale template. Half of this functionality is accomplished by P275 property, however in case of public domain objects word "license" is wrong as discussed in the discussion above. I would like to propose to change the name of this property to "Copyright tag" and description to "license under which this copyrighted work is released or rationale used to determine that work is in public domain". More discussion in here. --Jarekt (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A rationale or 'public domain' with a qualifier as rationale? And what if we know that the item is copyrighted? Should we use a copyright status with copyrighted/public domain and this property for licenses and rationales, or should we map the licenses/rationales as a subclass of 'copyrighted' cq 'public domain'? --Hannolans (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how to deal with this. I have created an item copyrighted (Q50423863) with instance of (P31) under a new created item copyright status (Q50424085) and added statements under it as a subclass. But if we look at public-domain-equivalent license (Q25047642) we are dealing with works that are copyrighted (Q50423863) but with a license waived to the public domain (Q19652). Probably there is a difference between US and EU law as in EU law it is not possible to declare something public domain (Q19652). but license it as public domain (Q19652) and strictly speaking legalwise the work is copyrighted (Q50423863). So, we have probably the copyright status (Q50424085) and the use possibilities of an item declared in the license or law (publication right, reproduction right (the right to copy), adaptation, and the conditions attribution (Q2132119) and share-alike (Q2672228)). --Hannolans (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannolans, during this discussion I was thinking about renaming copyright license (P275) to "Public Domain rationale or license", but changed my mind since in favor of the term "Copyright tag" used in c:Commons:Copyright tags, but maybe something like "License or Public Domain rationale" is a better name. For example we currently have 818 items, like Crime and Punishment (Q165318), with copyright license (P275)public domain (Q19652) and as someone pointed out public domain (Q19652) is not a license. That is why I think we should expand this property to allow public domain statements. Also statement like Crime and Punishment (Q165318)copyright license (P275)public domain (Q19652) are not very informative because I do not know why is this item in public domain. We could create items for different reasons like "public domain due to expiration of copyrights 70 years after authors death" or just link to existing items like Template:PD-old-70 (Q6535634). For this to be useful we need to specify:

copyright status, possibly new property taking copyrighted (Q50423863), public domain (Q19652) or public-domain-equivalent license (Q25047642) as values
what is the license or what is the reason something is in PD: I was thinking about using this property for that
constraints where and when above statements are valid: start time (P580), end time (P582) and applies to jurisdiction (P1001) used as qualifiers

How are those values organized is less important. We could use P275 property as the main statement and require that all items used as values have "copyright status". or we could use "copyright status" as the statement and use copyright license (P275), start time (P580), end time (P582) and applies to jurisdiction (P1001) used as qualifiers. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you propose to have a separate property 'copyright status'? Should we fill that with subclasses? For example freedom of panorama (Q918113) gives the freedom to publish a building we have in wikidata in a film or photography, but not to reproduce it. We should probably be able to tag that building in a country with freedom of panorama (Q918113) with something like '(copyrighted, but )copy in 2D allowed' as a subclass of copyrighted. A Creative Commons license also broadens the rights and based on the license we could fill the copyright status it with 'copyrighted, but re-use allowed under attribution condition, or simply 're-use allowed under attribution condition' and assume every item is copyrighted unless copyright status is 'pulic domain due to expired copyright term' and 'public domain as not copyrightable' etc as subclass of 'public domain'? Probably we could start to create items based on the Berne convention, for example the defined exclusive rights and see how we can all map this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#The_minimum_standards_of_protection_relate_to_the_works_and_rights_to_be_protected --Hannolans (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we need a property to easily and clearly indicate copyright status, the property would apply to license item, object item or both. The case of freedom of panorama could be handled by copyright license (P275)freedom of panorama (Q918113), distribution format (P437)two-dimensional space (Q222032), applies to jurisdiction (P1001)Germany (Q183) qualifiers, assuming P275 gets renamed to broaden it a bit. What would be the best name to rename it to? I see:

"Copyright tag" - shorter, follows nomenclature used at c:Commons:Copyright tags
"License or Public Domain rationale" - more natural extension to current "License", more clear to me
Other options?

--Jarekt (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I do think we need a property to easily and clearly indicate copyright status" yes, as information for end users (individuals and data services like google). The rationale could indeed be a qualifier of the legal situation or the license. We could call a property something like 'Usage rights', as Google has named it. But if we use licenses as an optional qualifier for a status, I do think we need a property for license or rights statement as a seperate property. If we import licenses from external sources, without, we can't easily import them as a qualifier for the usage rights as we have to convert them to the correct usage rights. --Hannolans (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved With creation of copyright status (P6216) the issue addressed here was resolved through alternative approach. --Jarekt (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status[edit]

Hi, Please comment and vote there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and extend[edit]

@Jarekt, MichaelSchoenitzer, André Costa (WMSE), SamB, AdamBMorgan, YMS: Hi, I propose to rename this property to "licensing" and extend it to cover "public domain". See Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status for the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be happier with a property that is for use on Commons only. --- Jura 05:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Commons only" property. See c:Commons talk:Structured data/Get involved/Feedback requests/Statements#Relation to Wikidata?. Beside this is also useful for Wikidata. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just means that you can't create them directly in Commons. --- Jura 05:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there won't be properties in the Commons Base, according to RIsler (WMF). Regards, Yann (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is that you can create properties at Wikidata that will only be used on Commons, not on entities such as items at Wikidata. We even have a constraint that allows to limit use by entity type. We can easily define that for the new Commons media-entity type. --- Jura 06:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: why would this property should be commons only - it also concerns litterature, and thus all wikisources, and wikisource items... --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just wrote that Yann might be happier with a (new) property for Commons. --- Jura 07:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some details examples for the proposal showing how this might be used for specific items. A generic approval for nonspecific changes doesn't sit well with me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: The main difference is that "public domain" as a value would be allowed. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a use example nor details. We already have several properties in play, some of which are already being badly misused because of a lack of suitable examples. We don't need more misunderstood property usage, and to halt the growing proble, we need examples to model usage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EncycloPetey: There are currently 845 items which use this property with "public domain". Is that sufficient? Yann (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because none of the 845 items have been provided as model examples. Nor is there verification that (1) all the items are using the property correctly, nor (b) that the collection of these items together span the complete diversity of possible correct usages for future use. If the proposal is to change the way this property is being used, then the obvious questions are (a) what is the correct usage, and (b) what will the implemented change look like? I don't have the answer to either question right now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we should combine license and public domain status. We could have works that are both public domain (in some countries) and licensed (for other countries). The public domain status is a value calculated according to the public domain date and will change over time. It would be great if we calculate the status automatically and set to public domain with some rules. --Hannolans (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support a rename and extend. Copyright/PD might seem like too much of a binary, but I have not seen a situation that couldn't be dealt with by appropriate qualifiers.--Pharos (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i tend to oppose, see my comment at [3] Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: We're actually proposing that here, to extend the meaning of this property to cover all kinds of rights.--Pharos (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but no. When you talk about the author's rights (Q38746) linked to a specific artwork (item), you have to define one of the conditions : "is the work in Public Domain (without any rights protection)?" , "is it All right reserved (with full right protection)?" or "does a specific license apply to this artwork? (with some rights protection)". The scope of copyright license (P275) absolutely don't go so far, neither in Wikidata nor in any legal jurisdiction, for the simple fact that something without license can be de facto in the Public Domain or de facto All right reserved, depending on the conditions of publication or even by the simple fact of their creation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC) in summary if the scope of an item is extended as to be also a property then at least it should the right (or the best possible) item. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the discussion at Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status#Three Options seems to be reaching a consensus that this slight broadening of definition here is the right choice. I'd like to propose the following specific changes: (1) Change main English label to "licensing", (2) Add "usage rights" and "license" as aliases, (3) Change the English description to "rights governing usage of this work". Note I believe the constraints have already been modified to allow "public domain" as a value (as it is currently used). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I made the change proposed above yesterday; however there is discussion continuing at the "copyright status" proposal on additional needs in this area. I think it would help to start fresh with a new proposal that includes any new properties that may needed to model these rights properly (for Commons or other uses) so we have a clear view of what the issues are. Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new related property: P6216[edit]

Property copyright status (P6216) was created today with intention that it will be a property for handling both Public Domain and Copyrighted works. Because of this this property could go back to being only for copyrighted works, possibly as one of the qualifiers. See Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status for more details. --Jarekt (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

URL to full license[edit]

Rationale: Some licenses commonly have minor modifications in language or wording, eg BSD licenses (Q191307). Other licenses may be modified in ways that are not readily identifiable to a casual reader. In either case, it is helpful to verify the precise original license given for a work.

Current practice: I sometimes use full work available at URL (P953) as a qualifier to copyright license (P275), with its value being the URL of the actual license file included with the subject work. I think I may have also sometimes used URL (P2699). Both of these are flagged as violating constraints.

Proposal: I propose that full work available at URL (P953) should be a valid qualifier to copyright license (P275) in all cases. Daask (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will remove "none of constraint" with value "public domain"[edit]

The constraint clarification says "Public domain is the copyright status (P6216), not the license (English)". This is in contradiction to the value type constraint which includes P6216 and introduces constraint violation errors on items (e.g. SBCL). Trilemma2 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that copyright status (Q50424085) needs to be removed from the value type constraint. I checked and looks like the constraints won't go through the roof so I went ahead and removed it. Multichill (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "as a service" as a valid value[edit]

@Edelsheim: you added copyright license (P275)property constraint (P2302)value-type constraint (Q21510865)class (P2308)as a service (Q25036597) but I see no discussion for it. I'm removing it. If there was discussion please link to it and add it back. If you still think it should be a valid value and there was no discussion create a proposal here. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

License statement requires "copyright status" statement constraint is broken[edit]

@Multichill, Uzume:, constraint Property:P275#P275$31264ea5-4eb4-ec28-5179-cd62f3d2da56 you are trying to enforce generates a ton of unhelpful violations in constraint checking tools. To be precise, there are currently 127 615 statements with copyright license and 119 711 of them trigger that constraint violation. Many of them are not needed to be solved, e. g. all items about software have license, which in 100% of cases defines copyright status. I agree that there are many cases where copyright license should be used together with copyright status (e. g. GLAM), but these cases should be checked by custom SPARQL-based constraint. --Lockal (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's peanuts, this property is used over 51 million times without violations. Multichill (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockal, Multichill, Uzume I've come up against the same thing - mainly for journal articles. Can any assumptions be made for mass edits? E.g. any journal article that has a creative commons license of some type would de facto be copyrighted? Indeed, I'd have though that almost all articles (that aren't so old they're public domain) would be copyrighted. Would it be fair to add that to instances of journal articles with publication dates after a certain year? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to use something like inferred from (P3452). Multichill (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P275

Contents

Documentation

Scope of property[edit]

Inverse?[edit]

Add dataset to allowed type[edit]

Public domain[edit]

Extend the scope of this property and rename to "Copyright tag"[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status[edit]

Rename and extend[edit]

new related property: P6216[edit]

URL to full license[edit]

Will remove "none of constraint" with value "public domain"[edit]

Removing "as a service" as a valid value[edit]

License statement requires "copyright status" statement constraint is broken[edit]

Navigation menu

Property talk:P275

Documentation

Scope of property[edit]

Inverse?[edit]

Add dataset to allowed type[edit]

Public domain[edit]

Extend the scope of this property and rename to "Copyright tag"[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status[edit]

Rename and extend[edit]

new related property: P6216[edit]

URL to full license[edit]

Will remove "none of constraint" with value "public domain"[edit]

Removing "as a service" as a valid value[edit]

License statement requires "copyright status" statement constraint is broken[edit]

Navigation menu

Search