Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  •  Info I've modified the text so as not to be so threatening and the request has been closed. Please reconsider your vote! Otherwise, you might as well delete all some thousands of my images, because they all have the same license preamble. The rest of the text has been discussed at length on a number of occasions and found acceptable. It's perfectly fine and in keeping with the GFDL. When you have as much trouble as I do with people stealing your work, you'd understand the need to help people understand that the "Free encyclopedia" does not mean you can copy it without any thought. -- Ram-Man 00:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the tone but really the text. You are the author, so the only one allowed to put the line and to say how it is possible or not possible to use your pictures. Then, if the line is inside the Commons field, that's ok and if your line is outside it is not a problem to delete all your uploadings. But you cannot be both in and out :
  • 1. You say (first section) : You may NOT use this image… …unless you release this image and any derivative works… …by following the terms of the following license, and then you explain (second section) : If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image or prints of the image…. For anyone juridically, this condition makes stuff of the license, for you said in the first section the following license and not the GFDL License. So the special permission may apply to any use ! Afterwards you put the GFDL license tag but the relationship with the 1st and 2nd sections of your text is not clear. That is why I say you are in and out.
  • 2. You use a template for your «single-license». So, if you change one word in your text, it changes on all your pictures. But people have the fundamental right to know what are their rights at the very moment they make use of them. So a license text can't change. You have to fix it with the uploading.
Generally, a license tag is first of all to explain what you're allowed, but not what «you may NOT use». I would have say instead :
«You may re-use this picture according to the GFDL1.2 license and only this one, strictly and thoroughly. This picture is not in the public domain and rights of the author are preserved. Read attentively all the conditions and note they are restrictive. Among these conditions, the GFDL requires all the following:
  • 1. Inclusion of all copyright notices in the original image (this I am not sure it is said this way in the GFDL license text, inclusion should be with not in), including the author's name.
  • 2. A notice stating that the GFDL v.1.2 license applies.
  • 3. A physical copy of the license text itself (if printed) or the full text of the license in digital format. Providing the link to the official text is insufficient.
  • 4. In general, the entire document containing the image must be licensed under the GFDL, not just the image itself. The idea is that if you use one of the pictures for free, it is only fair that the document using the pictures must also be free.
If you do all of these things, you do not have to seek special permission to use the image, although I appreciate it if you let me know when and how the images are used.
Any other use, without my specified authorization, will be considered a breach of copyright law and prosecutable. Please do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like a special authorization to use the image, prints or derivatives out of GFDL 1.2 license, please contact me or email me first to ask.»
As you can see, I used your guidelines because they are clearer and I agreed when you mentioned possible prosecution for thieves. I am not against you and your pictures are fine.--B.navez 09:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reading of my license is nothing short of ridiculous. The licensing preamble cannot be seriously considered a standalone license. I didn't say "a license", I said "the license". There is ONLY ONE. Also, I give no licensing terms in the preamble, only notes and clarifications. It would take a willful intent to violate my license for any other reading, and I'm more than happy to deal with those infringers as required, but that is way outside the scope of the commons. As for the special use, you are absolutely correct, a user can ignore all the listed terms if they receive permission directly from me. This is my intention, and not a problem in the slightest. This is of course just rehashing very basic copyright law where the copyright owner can do whatever he wants with his work.
  • I am perfectly permitted to change licensing terms whenever I please. The only time it matters is if it becomes incompatible with the Commons, in which case they would be deleted, not reverted. This has been done to numerous images by many people and it is legally fine. I have been involved in very long discussions on Commons talk:Licensing on this very issue, and I don't intend to suddenly change because one user is making a fuss in the wrong forum. This is not the first time that I've come under scrutiny. I really have nothing more to say about this issue. I'm the copyright holder and I have a right to license each image as I please. I can relicense my works (and this happens all the time on the commons), and there is no requirement that a potential license will last forever, only that copies do. If you copy the image it is your responsibility to duplicate and document the terms of the agreement. The license only applies to COPIES made. If no copy has yet been made, then the license does not apply. For this reason, changing a license is perfectly acceptable. This is why, for example, images under old versions of licenses can be updated without maintaining support for the old version.
What I clearly understand is that you intentionnally stay on the border line, using Commons as a promotion gallery at the opposite of the purpose of the project. You have possibly this right but your position is enough unclear to make my opinion against your nominations. If you might change the license at any time(1), that's enough a reason not to support.
(1)Though this position is not acceptable as you have read it when uploading your works (Special:Upload your own work step 3 This donation is non-revocable).--B.navez 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying that I've never seen the page you mentioned. I always use Special:Upload for all my uploads. More importantly, such a notice does not exist to my knowledge on Commons:Licensing where policy on Commons licensing belongs. The fact that it is on a special, non-editable page, is suspect at best. Can you point me to where this policy discussion took place? Has a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer stated that it is legally safe for the commons to restrict an author's right to control their own work? We give a user full access to an image page and to a court this would appear as if Commons were merely a host for the author. A license only applies when a copy is made, but if the author is making the copy he has the right to change that license. He cannot revoke the license to any copies made, but since he controls the work, he can change the license. Restricting this right may not be legal, but I've never seen any foundation lawyer comment on this issue.
The idea that licensing is fixed and cannot be changed is a common enough idea, but every time I've discussed it in the proper forum, there has not been a resolution to the subject. We change licenses all the time for a variety of reasons, and this is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is done by the copyright holder.
-- Ram-Man 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you upload your work, you are giving the Commons an implicit, non-revocable permission to host your work, regardless of the license they choose. Copyright law only applies to copies of original works. Make no copies and the law does not apply to you. You can't upload a picture and then sue the commons for hosting it, because you put it there. The commons can't infringe, because they didn't make the copy, you did. The foundation has protection under the DCMA because of their status as a content provider. If they suddenly become a controller of property instead of a passive provider, this may change their legal protection under the law. -- Ram-Man 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Swamp_Milkweed_Asclepias_incarnata_Flowers_Closeup_2800px.jpg&oldid=11650085"