Overview

Metopedia is built from public contributions, citations, archived sources, original research summaries, analysis, quotations, tables, files, code, page histories, and revision records. Copyright policy protects contributors, outside authors, rights holders, readers, and the integrity of the site.

Unless a page or file states otherwise, Metopedia text is available under the license stated in the site footer. Contributors must have the right to submit the material they add. Reusers must follow the applicable license, preserve attribution where required, and respect any separate notices on pages, files, templates, datasets, or code.

Metopedia uses a preservation-first editorial model, but preservation does not excuse copyright infringement. Material may be removed, hidden, replaced, shortened, summarized, attributed, relicensed, or restricted when a credible copyright issue is identified.

Plain-language summary

Do not paste large copyrighted passages unless a lawful basis supports the use.
Use short quotations for criticism, commentary, research, source comparison, or documentation.
Summarize sources in your own words when quotation is not necessary.
Cite the source of quotations, files, data, images, audio, video, code, and documents.
Upload files only when source, author, license, and use rationale are clear.
Public-domain and open-license material may be used, but the status must be documented.
Fair use is context-dependent. Use the smallest amount needed for the analytical purpose.
Translations, remixes, adapted charts, annotated images, and derivative works may carry copyright obligations.
Copyright complaints should identify the page or file, the allegedly infringed work, the rights holder, and the exact material at issue.
Counter-notices must provide the information required by law and are forwarded according to the applicable process.

Scope

This policy applies to:

article text;
talk-page material;
templates and modules;
uploaded files;
images, charts, diagrams, screenshots, audio, and video;
transcriptions and translations;
datasets and tables;
code snippets and applications;
captions, metadata, file descriptions, and source notes;
archived excerpts;
imported pages;
copied material from external sources;
reused Metopedia content on external sites.

This policy does not grant permission to reuse third-party material beyond what the third-party license, public-domain status, fair-use analysis, permission, or applicable law allows.

Default text license

Unless a page states otherwise, text contributions to Metopedia are licensed under the license stated in the site footer. Contributors grant Metopedia and downstream reusers the right to copy, edit, archive, quote, export, index, translate, adapt, and redistribute their contributions according to that license.

Contributors remain responsible for ensuring that their contributions can lawfully be submitted under the relevant license. Users should not add text copied from copyrighted books, articles, websites, databases, paywalled material, private correspondence, unpublished manuscripts, or institutional documents unless the use is supported by permission, open license, public-domain status, fair use, or another lawful basis.

Contributor representations

By contributing to Metopedia, a user represents that at least one of the following is true:

the user wrote the material;
the material is public domain;
the material is openly licensed and the license terms are followed;
the material is used with permission;
the material is a limited quotation or excerpt used for a lawful analytical purpose;
the material is otherwise lawful to submit and publish.

A contributor who does not know whether material can be copied should summarize it instead of copying it.

Attribution

Attribution is normally preserved through page histories, usernames, timestamps, edit summaries, file pages, source notes, and citation records. Reusers of Metopedia content should credit Metopedia and the relevant page history or authors when required by the applicable license.

Users should not remove attribution from open-license material, copied public-domain editions that require source identification for verification, translated material, adapted tables, code, images, or files. When attribution is uncertain, mark the uncertainty instead of guessing.

Page histories and licensing

Wiki page histories serve two functions: attribution and accountability. Because contributors license their text through public contribution, the page history helps preserve who contributed what and when.

Deleting text from the current page does not remove earlier contributions from licensing history. Revision hiding or suppression may be used for copyright violations, privacy issues, safety risks, legal concerns, or other policy reasons, but ordinary editing does not erase the licensing record.

Quotations and excerpts

Short quotations may be used when they support analysis, criticism, documentation, education, source comparison, fact-checking, translation review, or historical context. Quotations should be:

clearly marked;
cited;
limited to the amount needed;
integrated into analysis rather than used as page filler;
accompanied by commentary, comparison, or explanation when possible;
not used as a substitute for the original work.

Long copied passages should be avoided unless the source is public domain, properly licensed, permission has been granted, or a strong legal rationale supports the reproduction.

Fair use and limited use

Metopedia may discuss copyrighted works for criticism, commentary, research, documentation, education, parody, historical analysis, technical analysis, or source comparison. When relying on fair use or a similar doctrine, use must be limited, relevant, cited, and tied to the analytical purpose.

Fair use is not a label that automatically makes copying lawful. It depends on the purpose, nature of the work, amount used, and effect on the market for the original. A Metopedia page using copyrighted material should explain why the material is needed when the reason is not obvious.

Examples that are more likely to be acceptable

Quoting one or two sentences from a public speech to analyze the claim being made.
Showing a low-resolution book-cover image in an article about that book.
Reproducing a small crop of an image to analyze a specific visual feature.
Quoting a short passage from a policy document to compare wording across editions.
Including a brief code excerpt to explain a bug, vulnerability, algorithm, or method.
Using a short clip description rather than embedding a full copyrighted video.
Transcribing a small passage from a historical document for translation or source comparison.

Examples that are more likely to be a problem

Copying an entire article because it is interesting.
Uploading a full copyrighted book when only a few passages are being discussed.
Reposting a paywalled report to avoid the paywall.
Uploading a high-resolution copyrighted photograph when a short description or low-resolution analytical crop would be enough.
Copying large sections of a website into Metopedia without permission.
Using copyrighted images decoratively rather than analytically.
Publishing a full song lyric, poem, article, screenplay, or chapter without permission.
Recreating a chart from a copyrighted report without attribution, permission, or independent data.

Public domain material

Public-domain material may be used when its status is documented. A page or file should identify:

source;
author, if known;
publication date, if known;
jurisdiction or reason the work is public domain;
edition or scan source;
archive link where available.

Public-domain status can vary by country. A work may be public domain in one jurisdiction and protected in another. When jurisdiction matters, identify the basis rather than relying on a vague statement that the work is “old.”

Open-license material

Open-license material may be used when the license permits the intended use. The page or file should identify the license and follow its terms. Common obligations include attribution, link to license, indication of changes, share-alike licensing, non-commercial restrictions, or no-derivatives restrictions.

Material licensed under a no-derivatives license should not be altered unless the license or law permits the change. Material licensed for non-commercial use may not be suitable for every reuse. Share-alike material may require derivative works to use the same or compatible license.

Uploaded files

Files uploaded to Metopedia must include enough information for later review. A file page should normally include:

Field	Required information
Source	Where the file came from, including URL, archive link, scan source, repository, publication, or creator statement.
Author or creator	Person, institution, agency, publisher, photographer, artist, programmer, or uploader where known.
Date	Creation date, publication date, upload date, scan date, or best known date with uncertainty marked.
License or status	Public domain, open license, permission, fair-use rationale, site-created work, or unknown status needing review.
Rationale	Why the file belongs on Metopedia and how it supports an article, source record, method, or analysis.
Modifications	Cropping, annotation, compression, color adjustment, transcription, translation, cleanup, or other changes.
Article use	Pages where the file is used or intended to be used.
Archive link	Preserved source link where legally and technically possible.

Files without adequate source, author, license, and rationale may be tagged, hidden, replaced, or removed.

File-license templates

Metopedia should use standardized file notices where available. Typical notices include:

public domain;
own work;
Creative Commons license;
government work;
permission documented;
fair-use rationale;
source needed;
license needed;
author needed;
copyright review;
replace with lower-resolution version;
remove if unused.

A file notice does not make the file lawful by itself. The facts on the file page must support the notice.

Screenshots

Screenshots may be copyrighted. They may also contain trademarks, private information, interface elements, messages, usernames, profile images, or security-sensitive details. Screenshots used for documentation should be limited to the relevant portion and should hide private or irrelevant information when possible.

Screenshots are more defensible when used to document a public statement, user interface, error message, source condition, takedown notice, platform behavior, visual inconsistency, or historical record. Decorative screenshots should be avoided unless they are properly licensed.

Images, figures, and charts

Images, figures, charts, and diagrams should not be copied from copyrighted sources merely because they make a page look better. Use them when they are needed for analysis, identification, comparison, criticism, documentation, or explanation.

If a chart is based on underlying data, the data source should be cited. If the chart is recreated independently, say so. If the chart design is copied from a source, credit the source and ensure the use is lawful.

Code

Code may be copyrighted. Code added to Metopedia should identify the source and license unless it is original to the contributor or too small to raise copyright concern.

When discussing code from an external project, quote only what is needed to explain the method, bug, security issue, algorithm, or comparison. Link to the repository when possible. Do not paste large third-party files unless the license permits it and the use is appropriate for the page.

Data and databases

Facts are not generally copyrighted in the same way as creative expression, but databases, datasets, data selection, data arrangement, API terms, and compiled tables may carry legal restrictions. Users should cite the source of datasets and follow licenses, terms of use, and access restrictions.

Do not scrape, import, or republish restricted databases in a way that violates law, contract, privacy, or site policy.

Transcriptions

Transcriptions of copyrighted works may create copyright issues because they reproduce the original expression. Transcriptions should be limited to what is needed unless the source is public domain, openly licensed, permissioned, or otherwise lawful to reproduce.

Transcriptions of public-domain manuscripts, government records, inscriptions, archival material, or user-created scans should identify the source image, edition, folio, page, column, line range, or archive identifier where possible.

Translations

Translations are derivative works. A translation of a copyrighted work may require permission unless fair use, public-domain status, license terms, or another lawful basis applies.

For source-analysis pages, a short translated excerpt may be acceptable when the translation is necessary to analyze wording, compare interpretations, or document a claim. Full translations of copyrighted works require a documented legal basis.

When using non-English sources, cite the original source and identify who translated the passage when known. Machine translation may be useful for orientation, but it should not be treated as authoritative where wording matters.

Derivative works and adaptations

Derivative works include translations, remixes, annotated images, edited photographs, adapted diagrams, modified charts, audio edits, video edits, reconstructed tables, abridgments, dramatizations, and altered code. A derivative work may require permission even when the new work includes original additions.

Before adding a derivative work, identify:

the original source;
the original author;
the original license;
the changes made;
whether the license allows adaptation;
whether the new work must use the same license;
whether a fair-use or similar rationale applies.

Do not present an adapted work as an original source. Mark the changes clearly.

Trademarks and logos

Trademarks, names, logos, seals, badges, icons, and product marks may be used for identification, commentary, criticism, or documentation when relevant. They should not be used to imply sponsorship, endorsement, partnership, or official status without permission.

Use the smallest and clearest version needed for identification. Avoid decorative use of marks.

Moral rights, privacy, and publicity rights

Copyright permission does not automatically resolve privacy, publicity, defamation, harassment, or safety concerns. A file may be legally licensed but still inappropriate if it exposes private information, targets a private person, misrepresents a living person, reveals security details, or violates the Metopedia:Code of Conduct.

Biographical pages and living-person material require heightened care.

Importing material

Imported material from another wiki, repository, archive, or open-license project must preserve required attribution and license terms. Import notes should identify the source project, page, revision, license, and imported date where possible.

If the source license is incompatible with Metopedia's default license, do not import the material unless the page clearly marks the different license and the use is lawful.

Reusing Metopedia content

Reusers must follow the license on the relevant page or file. Proper reuse normally includes:

page title;
link to the Metopedia page;
link to the page history or author list where required;
license name and license link;
indication of changes;
preservation of attribution notices;
compliance with any separate file license.

Content copied from Metopedia may include third-party quotations, files, or excerpts that carry separate restrictions. Reusers are responsible for checking those restrictions.

Copyright complaints

Copyright concerns may be sent to:

[email protected]

A useful copyright notice includes:

signature of the rights holder or authorized agent;
identification of the copyrighted work claimed to be infringed;
identification of the Metopedia page, file, revision, or material at issue;
enough information to locate the material;
contact information for the complaining party;
a statement that the complaining party has a good-faith belief that the use is not authorized by the rights holder, agent, or law;
a statement that the information in the notice is accurate and that the complaining party is the rights holder or authorized to act for the rights holder;
any registration, publication, source URL, archive link, or ownership evidence that helps verify the claim.

Metopedia may request clarification when a notice is incomplete, overbroad, ambiguous, abusive, or directed at material not hosted by Metopedia.

DMCA-style takedown process

For United States copyright claims, notices should follow 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3).^[1] The U.S. Copyright Office explains that online service providers seeking safe-harbor protection must designate an agent and publish contact information for that agent.^[2]

Metopedia's ordinary copyright contact is [email protected]. If a separate designated copyright-agent page or address is published, notices should follow that page.

A typical process is:

Metopedia receives a copyright notice.
The notice is reviewed for completeness, specificity, and apparent credibility.
The affected material may be removed, hidden, shortened, replaced, attributed, or kept pending review.
The uploader or contributor may be notified where possible.
The action may be logged in a transparency record when publication is lawful and safe.
A counter-notice may be submitted if the affected user believes the material was removed by mistake or misidentification.
The material may be restored if the counter-notice process and applicable law allow restoration.

Metopedia may act before completing every step when the issue is clear, urgent, legally sensitive, privacy-sensitive, or connected to repeated infringement.

Counter-notices

A counter-notice is a response by a user whose material was removed or disabled after a copyright complaint. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3), a counter-notice generally must include:^[3]

physical or electronic signature of the user;
identification of the material removed or disabled;
the location where the material appeared before removal;
a statement under penalty of perjury that the user has a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled because of mistake or misidentification;
the user's name, address, and telephone number;
a statement consenting to the jurisdiction of the appropriate federal district court;
a statement that the user will accept service of process from the complaining party or the complaining party's agent.

Counter-notices may disclose personal information to the complaining party and may carry legal consequences. Users should not submit a counter-notice casually.

Repeat infringement

Users who repeatedly violate copyright rules may lose upload rights, editing rights, account access, or other privileges. Severe infringement, bad-faith infringement, legal-risk conduct, or attempts to evade copyright enforcement may lead to immediate restriction.

A repeat-infringement review may consider:

number of violations;
severity;
whether the user acted after warning;
whether the user misrepresented source or license;
whether the user uploaded the same material again;
whether the user attempted evasion;
whether the user corrected the issue.

False, abusive, or overbroad notices

False copyright notices, abusive takedown demands, attempts to suppress criticism, impersonated rights-holder claims, and overbroad claims may be rejected. Metopedia may preserve the notice, publish a transparency entry, request proof of authority, or seek additional review.

Copyright cannot be used to remove criticism merely because the criticism is unwanted. It also cannot be used to claim ownership of facts, ideas, names, short phrases, methods, discoveries, public-domain works, or material owned by others.

Restoration and replacement

When material is removed for copyright reasons, editors should consider whether the page can be repaired by:

replacing copied text with summary;
using a shorter quotation;
adding attribution;
linking instead of copying;
using public-domain or open-license alternatives;
recreating a chart from lawful data;
uploading a lower-resolution analytical version;
adding a fair-use rationale;
removing decorative material that is not needed.

The goal is to preserve the article's research value without preserving infringing material.

Copyright review tags

Pages or files may be tagged for copyright review when:

source is missing;
author is unknown;
license is unclear;
copied text appears too long;
a file appears decorative rather than analytical;
a fair-use rationale is missing;
a quotation lacks citation;
a translation may reproduce a copyrighted work;
an uploaded file appears to come from a restricted source;
a page imports material from another site without license compatibility.

Review tags should identify the issue clearly and should not be used as a weapon in ordinary content disputes.

Copyright and archives

Archiving a source may create copyright issues. Editors should use lawful archive tools, cite existing lawful archives when possible, and avoid uploading entire copyrighted works when a link, citation, short quotation, or summary is enough.

If an archive copy disappears or becomes legally unavailable, the page may cite the original source, use a bibliographic reference, preserve metadata, or use a short quotation where lawful.

Copyright and transparency reports

Metopedia may publish summaries of takedown requests, copyright complaints, removals, restorations, counter-notices, and related actions when lawful and safe. Transparency entries may redact private information, legal addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, signatures, security details, or information that would create avoidable harm.

No legal advice

This page explains Metopedia's copyright policy. It is not legal advice. Copyright law varies by jurisdiction and context. Users with legal questions should consult a qualified professional.

Contact

Copyright notices, counter-notices, file-license questions, attribution concerns, reuse questions, and upload-review requests may be sent to: