Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Buddhist monk in Myanmar (1068571).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2016 at 16:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Buddhist monk in Myanmar
Lack of information about parental consent didn't seem to bother you when you cast this !vote a week ago. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: I was aware about this, but I decided for me, that this was a different situation and included a parents consent as part of the family income. I realized this situations by myself in different ways from my own travels to asia/south asia or south america. --Hubertl 08:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, the mother was steering the boat where the girl was sitting and the mother collected the money for taking photos. So if this is not a consent, what is it then? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: I agree that consent was probably implicit in that situation, and since you took the image I defer to your description of the situation. But the larger point is that this issue never came up in that discussion, i.e. no one ever asked you about it to satisfy their concerns (The only way we knew that you and she were both on adjacent boats was because someone asked you about the framing of the image). Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If !voters want to register ethical objections to the featuring of an image that would otherwise be featured, they have {{Neutral}} or (better yet) {{Abstain}} to make the point with without affecting the outcome. As for "viral" ... I think Ralf means that the CC-0 license, since it is not SA, does not require reusers to use it. It's a way of saying it's not easy enough to share, rather than too easy. And, frankly, that's a more tenable objection to the image, although one I don't think most of us (ahem) share. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no,if an ethical objection stops it being among our finest, so an oppose is justified. And ethics are imo far more important than some effort to force free-content ideology onto others. I know Ralf means "share-alike" but the problem is using the term "viral" makes many people think our CC images infect the works that contain them, and they actually don't. They don't even infect derivative works. I've seen people write to journals claiming they need to make a whole issue of their journal open/free because it used a CC image. -- Colin (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A license is viral, if every re-use must take the same license. But a picture with CC-0 can be re-used, whoever you want. The next use have no license and this is not viral. Once there was a basic principle here, to disseminate free licenses. CC 0 does not promote the spread of free licenses, it hinders the spread. Therefore, CC 0 is for me outside the project scope of Commons.--Ralf Roleček 08:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "viral" term is one rejected by the free-content community (it was coined by Microsoft in the days when it didn't understand) because it is quite misleading and unhelpful. Please avoid it and use "share-alike" or "copyleft". And no, our mission here is to provide free content that can be easily re-used. We aren't here "to disseminate free licenses" and that has never been Commons' mission. Are you going to start opposing PD works from NASA or old photographs just because someone is legally entitled to remix the work and create something non-free. Perhaps you should campaign to extend copyright for 200 years past your death just so your free licence can be perpetuated for even longer, rather than worry someone might create a non-free work in the year 2200. What an upside-down view of our mission. That's quite a disruptive reasons to oppose and one FPC should utterly reject. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]