Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates

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

Hi. Recently User:Rtc claimed that a lot of license templates on Wikimedia Commons are unfree and did make a unilaterally mass change on these templates after some ranting at Commons village pump. I did tell him several times that his disruptive attitude is not the way it works but a collaborative review here is the right one (also in order to update our license policy page directly as a result in order to solve the issue once and forever and as he simply has not the knwoledge on licensing and copyright he claims to have - he is fallen as well into copyright hysteria as I got demonstrated by him on IRC). Of course we need a review of our license templates and I have no doubt that there are accidentially some unfree license templates so I place the following templates for dispute here. Please comment rational and in a polite manner on every single one. Arnomane 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence do you have for unsubstantiated claims as "he simply has not the knwoledge on licensing and copyright he claims to have"? 1) Where did I claim to have knowledge on licensing and copyright? 2) Where have I been wrong?
I request Admin Arnomanes heated and obviously emotional reverts[1] on all templates to be undone. Contrary to his claims, he did not revert an "unilaterally mass change". What he reverted was merely an additional informative warning on these templates, which otherwise were unchanged. Nothing that hurts in any way. The warnings are appropriate and to hide the fact that these licenses are disputed and potentially dangerous to use is ethically questionable. Image users should know there is a possible problem with these licenses.
Let us see the facts.
  • Similar cases, such as German CDU party with "public domain" really meaning "journalistic context+nonderivative" and "Der Spiegel Cover" with "GFDL in Wikipedia" really meaning "fair use" have shown that great caution is necessary about "free use licenses". For my opinion and some court decisions where at least for software, "public domain" has already been enforced as a nonderivative license, see COM:VP#Common Misconception.
  • Commons:Deletion requests#Lots of pictures already has some information, basically:
    • {{Euro banknote}}, {{Euro coin common face}} and {{Eurocoins}} have conflicting clauses.
    • Clarification for some tags were requested kindly to the rights holder by User:555. He received reply for {{Agência Brasil}} which he quoted as "O uso do material é exclusivamente para fins de cobertura jornalística. Não há qualquer autorização para derivações e uso comercial." (Use of the material is permitted exclusively for journalistic coverage. Derivations and commercial use are not authorized.) Despite of this strong evidence, Arnomanes reverted the template and locked it. I consider this abuse.
  • licenses of lots of these templates merely refer to 'free reproduction'. It should be clear that reproduction does not mean modification, and thus such permissions are nonderivative.
  • "Free use" is ambiguous, as clearly demonstrated by the {{Agência Brasil}} case: It can mean anything upto nc-nd.
I hope we agree that Commons, to be on the safe side, has to check for the rights holders intention, not for an optimistic interpretation of some words on some website. Thus no 'collaborative review' is needed at all! One simply needs to ask the rights holder to fill out the Commons:Email templates. Arnomane has opposed to using this template on IRC strongly because in his eyes 'legal babble' might 'disturb' the rights holder. But it's the only test that can prove him wrong! He is trying to secure his position against any attack on it and crisicism and evidence of the contrary. That's not rational at all. On the other hand, I, immediately upon receipt of a Commons:Email templates permission by the rights holder, would immediately drop my suspicions that the respective license is problematic. --Rtc 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are aware that I know myself that Euro-banknotes are possibly unfree as I have contributed to that topic in de.wikipedia some time ago? Nontheless it is necessary documenting this to others and not saying "I am the license god. You have to follow every single word I say." Would it be also worth consider the fact that you might do something wrong if even very active people working in the licensing area at de.wikipedia say the very same that you're off the road and make nothing but trouble with your attitude? Arnomane 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know you are doing wrong, you may do wrong? What a strange logic. "I am the license god. You have to follow every single word I say." Where did I say such crap? I am well aware of being fallible, you seem not. "even very active people". Which active people? Where did they say? If they said so, what does it have to do with the problem? Because very active people think I am wrong, I must be wrong? (Argument from authority.) Because you cannot imagine I am right, I must be wrong? (Argument from ignorance.) Please see that all your argumentation is based on unsubstantiated, personal attacks, misquoting and emotional hate. You are far from your demand to be rational. On the other hand my argumentation is based on facts, see above. Please stop your personal attacks and start proving me wrong by showing Commons:Email templates for the tags in question. --Rtc 11:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arnomane when criticizing the behaviour of Rtc. After having attacked in de Rtc he is now molesting Commons. He has no sense of consensus which is a central value of all Wikimedia projects. I recommend using Commons:Email templates when asking permission for single pictures but each license template must be discussed carefully. I have found several times that the legal opinions of Rtc are worthless. User Lupo could be of greater help here (although he might not like to read this again) --Historiograf 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly does produce any argument at all except ad hominem arguments. There is exactly one sentence with something substantial and this is the reference to Commons:Email templates. I strongly agree. Unfortunately, the template is now being suggested to be weakened substantially (see Commons talk:Email templates) since someone opposes the negative feeling. It would then be useless. My legal opinions mostly based on common sense might be worthless compared to the Historiograf legal opinions mostly based on literature study, but I still think my objections to these templates are all substantial. I would appreciate much being proven wrong. --Rtc 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, protection of Template:Agência Brasil is a abuse of sysop privilegies and a discrimination against sysops from another wikis. Here is the prove of obvious copyvio! 555 20:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of templates in question (Moved here from Commons:Deletion requests)

[edit]

Please work towards getting this permission if you make requests. The only relevant proof that some tag refers to a free license is if you can show this permission.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
  • {{Agência Brasil}} User:555 has requested a clarification of the license and received "O uso do material é exclusivamente para fins de cobertura jornalística. Não há qualquer autorização para derivações e uso comercial." (Use of the material is permitted exclusively for journalistic coverage. Derivations and commercial use are not authorized.)
    I have found a page pt:Wikipedia:Recursos_no_domínio_público where people claim this as public domain. So regardless of the result, we need some pt.wikipedians involved in order to get them involved as well as otherwise we will have the images in no time again if their are unfree. So I have made a call for participation at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esplanada. Please do the same for the various other ones grouped by language in order to solve the issue not just for the moment but as well for the future. Arnomane 22:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre.

As fotos da página são apenas amostras, e para ve-las ampliadas clique na que desejar. Atenção: para baixar as fotos em tamanho original (Download) clique na letra "B" e salve como quiser. De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.

La Agencia Brasil pone a su disposición, gratuitamente, la cobertura fotográfica. Las fotos de la página son sólo muestras, para verlas ampliadas haga clic en las que desee.

© Todas as fotos poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte e o nome do repórter

Source: http://img.radiobras.gov.br/Aberto/index.php/Imagens.Principal.00.0.2006-05-14 --gildemax 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, since they now have a clear Creative Commons statement on their website. --Rtc 00:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used babelfish on the phone call report. I don't completely trust the interpretation as a free license, resp. that they really understood what they were asked for (Can you please translate this?): "(não sei se eles sabem o que é isso)" seemed suspicious to me... "Inclusive me informaram que para os vídeos, no caso de uma reexibição na televisão, por exemplo, é preciso pegar lá uma autorização especial." seems very, very suspicious, it is a restriction which is not compatible with a free license, since it asks for special authorization for certain kinds of usage. Make sure you ask them for an exhaustive account on what one is not allowed to do with the pictures, especially which non-journalistic use. Ask them why they don't simply replace the unclear statement on their web site by a clear CC-by-sa license if they really mean what they say. If they just did not know about CC, ask them to put such a tag there. That would clear confusion once and for all. And: A phone call is not enough for a clarification since it is not verifiable. There is bad experience with phone calls; a German party said Public Domain but intended a 'publication purposes' license. --Rtc 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's invent an office: RTC well please make two hardcopies of everything. One will be kept in the archives and one will be sent through our legal department on which you seem to volunteer. I hope you get what I mean. Making a transcript of a telephone call, noting the person and the date and sending all this ideally to permissions@wikimedia.org (or publishing it in the wiki) is enough. Period. I herby abuse my dictatory powers and declare this as a Wikimedia Commons law. Arnomane 09:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Eurocoins}} "Where the information is incorporated in documents that are sold (regardless of the medium), the natural or legal person publishing the information must inform buyers, both before they pay any subscription or fee and each time they access the information taken from the ECB's website, that the information may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website" is a condition incompatible with commons licensing policy. If you wanted to sell a CD with these pictures on it, the seller had to inform the buyer beforehands that he can get these pictures for free on the website referd to. This asks for much more than just an attribution. It is not acceptable.
    • GFDL asks for a complete license to be published with every image, this asks just for a single line like "please go to ecb website to get it for free" So it should be perfectly fine, it's just a license with some minor restrictions -- Gorgo 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read what I wrote: No, it does not ask for anything to be published; it is not about including a text (e.g.) as a file on a CD with the picture (like GFDL would demand) either. It is about the seller of the CD being obliged to inform the buyer before he accepts money. If we have 1000 pictures on a disk, each with such a license, the seller had to inform the buyer of 1000 web sites to get the pictures from for free, while for 1000 pictures with a GFDL-like license, he only needs to include 1000 text files on the disk. Such conditions can't be accepted, since they are intolerable for the seller and are not free license compatible. --Rtc 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • he could just include it in the contract, write it in the article description or whatever, I don't see why it's such a big deal. But actually I don't care that much about it, shouldn't be too hard to find (make) pictures of Eurocoins ourselves (except for the really rare ones like vatican, etc. I guess). If we really decide to delete them I would suggest to keep them temporarily and just add a warning sign and ask for a replacement picture, if that's uploaded the old one can be deleted. -- Gorgo 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The coins themselves are protected by copyright and thus publishing a photo of them is generally copyright violation. In many countries there is a special 'unwesentliches Beiwerk' exception. According to such exceptions, photos with coins in them may be used for nearly any purposes, however only if the coins are not in any way essential to the picture. But this exactly rules out free use of a photo of coins as central aspect of the photo. Such a photo may only be used in the context of fair use. The photographer may publish his photo as such under any license he desires, yet the copyright protection of the photographed coin prevents the picture from being used for anything but fair use. --Rtc 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs}} "peuvent être reproduites" reproduction is not modification.
  • {{DutchRoyalNavy}} "Bedankt voor uw reactie. Zoals we al op de pagina's in de fotogalerij vermelden, het is toegestaan om één van de getoonde foto's te gebruiken voor publicaties. Ten overvloede, en misschien ter verduidelijking, wensen we nog te vermelden dat bij gebruik als volgt bronvermelding dient plaats te vinden: « BRON: KONINKLIJKE MARINE" »." [emphasized by me] That means it may be used for publication purposes if credit is given. Publication purposes generally refers to contexts of journalistic or historic writings that talk about the event depicted on the picture.
  • {{EU image}} This one is a non-free license since "This is a copyrighted image from the European Union web site. Reproduction is authorized for personal use. Derivative works and commercial use are not authorized. (info)"
  • {{ItalyDefense}} "Tutte le informazioni fornite su questo WEB sono considerate informazioni per il pubblico e possono essere distribuite o copiate"[emphasized by me] = All information on the site is public information which may be copied and distributed. Copying and distributing does not mean modifying. While nonderivative is without question, it additionally most certainly refers to a "for journalistic purposes" permission.
  • /{{Kremlin.ru}}"All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels and Internet sites." This clearly refers to unmodified journalistic use and reproduction clearly means not modifying.
Question of possibility of creating unrestricted derivative works still open. Unfortunately Russian and English terms of use are unclear. I'll write e-mail with request for clarification. I hope they'll answer :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{MdB}} "This image was produced by the Brazillian Navy. The Navy's Public Relations Service states that all the images from the Navy's website are not elegible for copyrights, since that the source is cited." That's nonsense; law defines what's eligible for copyright, not the Brazillian Navy. But the intention is quite obvious, they really mean that copying is not disallowed if the source is stated. copying does not mean modifying.
  • {{RIGIS}} "Prohibited Use -- Unauthorized Distribution. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of RIGIS digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of the Licensor." [2] It is not compatible with Commons:Licensing
  • {{SejmCopyright}} "All rights reserved. Reproduction without reference to source prohibited." [3] Talks of reproduction, not of modification.
  • {{PolishSenateCopyright}} In fact, I could not find a permission at all on this web site.
  • {{PromPerú}} "Respondiendo a su solicitud, le informo que accedemos a la utilización de las imágenes de la web a condición de que se cite la fuente." = their pictures may be used, but there is no clear statement of which use they refer to and if it includes unrestricted derivations and commercial use. es:Wikipedia:Autorización para insertar material de PROMPERU con Copyright
  • {{RomanianGovernmentCopyright}} "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged" "Reproduction" does not mean "Modification".
  • {{FinnishDefenceForces}} "The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged." [4] "Reproduced" does not mean "modified".
  • {{OAS}} The website states: "Photographs of official events are available through OAS website and can be used, free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged" [5] however this is clarified in terms and conditions as "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS." [my emphasis] [6]
  • {{AerialPhotograph-mlitJP}} I refer to the provisional English translation by User:Sekicho (Template talk:AerialPhotograph-mlitJP). There is no indiciation that derivative work is allowed. It contains the significant clarification in its conclusion "Reprinting is permitted as outlined above." and reprinting does not mean modifying.
  • {{Trainweb}} "You may post TrainWeb photos to other websites or use them in print media without charge and without any further permission from TrainWeb." [7] Which quite clearly refers to reproduction for publication purposes ("print media"), which does not include modifying.
  • {{Euro banknote}} "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes" is a condition in conflict with licensing policy, which requires a permission for unrestricted display.
    • This probably applies to all banknotes still in use today and is actually more or less a legal restriction not a license one. If we want to keep images of notes we should allow that restriction in this case. -- Gorgo 02:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such criminal law clauses are independent of copyright, which means, they can be enforced additionally by copyright. This is the case here, unfortunately. If you want to prove me wrong, get a template permission from them. --Rtc 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Euro coin common face}} "reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro" There are three conditions in conflict with licensing policy: 1) an ideological one ("diametral to the image") 2) a restriction on the format of use ("format without relief") 3) nonderivative ("reproduction").
  • {{PolishPresidentCopyright}} Translation "Using, copying and reusing materials from internet service of Polish President is allowed if their source is indicated." is unclear and does not indicate clearly of derivative work is allowed. Perhaps a polish speaking user can check the original and translate it more accurately and perhaps someone can send a request for clarification.
  • {{Ókeypis vefkort}} "Which roughly translates to that they may be used for various purposes without special permission." which "various purposes"? I don't understand the original text, but since the permission for modification is not mentioned, it looked suspicious enough.
  • {{Flphoto}} Is not a copyright license (which the archive cannot grant, because it is not copyright holder), but a de:copyfraud clause for pictures with expired copyright, for which the archive demands credit. For those pictures with copyright protection, one must, of course, additionally get permission from the rights holder: "The user must assume any and all responsibility for obtaining appropriate permission for use or assurance of adherence to copyright restriction."[8] If the picture's copyright has expired, one can use {{PD-art}} instead of this tag anyway. (Besides: Even if it were a license, it talks of 'reproduction', which does not mean modification.)
  • {{IPPAR}} "Os dados podem ser utilizados livremente desde que se faça referência ao IPPAR como fonte de informação, agradecendo-se que, sempre que se detectarem deficiências, lhe seja comunicado, de modo a proceder-se à respectiva correcção. Estas informações deverão ser transmitidas através do e-mail: ippar@ippar.pt"[9] [emphasized by me]. If I understand this correctly, basically, if you detect some error in the work, you are obliged to contact them by email. This is a condition in conflict with commons licensing policy. Also, "utilizados livremente" (free use) is ambiguous.

I have requested the deletion of all pictures with these tags because all these licenses do not include the permission for creating derivative works, and some additionally have other non-free restrictions. This is not an exhaustive description of the problems. Some of these 'licenses' might simply be legal information that fair use is permitted by law, not a permission at all. --Rtc 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FML hi 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Free use" is ambiguous, it usually does not include the permission to modify. --Rtc 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do it right. Use Commons:Email templates. --Rtc 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you five-five-five. FML hi 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with {{Euro banknote}}, {{Euro coin common face}} and {{Eurocoins}} ? It explicitely states that it may be used "for any purpose, provided that: ECB is cited as the source and the information [that it] may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website" Which is even less restrictive than GFDL for example. -- Gorgo 17:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions such as "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes" ({{Euro banknote}}), "reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro" ({{Euro coin common face}}; reproduction also means changing is not permitted) and "Where the information is incorporated in documents that are sold (regardless of the medium), the natural or legal person publishing the information must inform buyers, both before they pay any subscription or fee and each time they access the information taken from the ECB's website, that the information may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website" ({{Eurocoins}}) are incompatible with commons licensing policy and are more restrictive than GFDL. --Rtc 19:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions like "As long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes" just mean it is not legal to print "money" at home, this is law everwhere, and there is no point in deleting this template because of that! "reproduction in a format without relief (drawings, paintings, films) provided they are not detrimental to the image of the euro" is also obvious: one is not allowed to slander the image od the Euro, the same way one is not allowed to slander someone at all. About the las one, it would be enough to write on the media that this information may be obtained free of charge through the ECB's website. They only want to be sure that the buyer knows that some of the information he's buying may be obtained free of charge. Of course, probably the rest of the information he's buying (a book, a CD, etc) is NOT free of charge. IMHPOV, these are no reasons whatsoever not to use this templates. --Mschlindwein 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Don't waste time discussing. Show the template permission. Prove that these criminal law clauses are not enforced additionally by copyright here. Prove that modification is permitted. Contrary to your claim, "slander the image of the euro" (entirely different from "slander someone at all") is not disallowed by criminal law. Only slandering people can be a criminal offense, never slandering objects. This shows clearly this is a copyright restriction and not simply refering to criminal law! "Write on the media" is not enough, the buyer needs to be informed before he buys. This is not acceptable as a free license. Be rational, one goal of commons is to put stuff easily on a CD with text files that contain copyright notices and licenses, and sell it, without the need to print for certain pictures certain warnings on the cover or something similar. Such non-free clauses are contrary to the purpose of commons. --Rtc 00:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full reply is O uso do material é exclusivamente para fins de cobertura jornalística. Não há qualquer autorização para derivações e uso comercial. 555 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all warnings on the templates were removed and the template for which we have proof ({{Agência Brasil}}) was even locked, because some admin does want to defend these templates as being free licenses despite of the proof of contrary. I hope somebody takes care of this agressive behaviour, not going to star a stupid edit war now which I can't win since he is an admin. --Rtc 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This very admin (me) did tell you several hours on IRC (after others ignored you already for ages) what was wrong with your mass edit. Have a look at Commons talk:Licensing on solving the issue. I never said that I will keep nonfree licenses that's your interpretation. By the way I am not agressive I am just fed up with you mixing up everything without even considering some consequences and a more friendly attitude towards the work of others. Arnomane 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah just because you told me several hours on IRC and others ignored me (which is their right) my edits were wrong? That's laughable. *I* told *you* for hours that your behaviour is disruptive and can lead to problems for other people trusting the copyright information in commons. *I* am fed up with *your* mixing up everything. But I am not an admin to enforce my opinion on you and that is also something which I wouldn't do. While you, despite claiming "I never said that I will keep nonfree licenses" and despite of being proven that {{Agência Brasil}} is actually a nonfree license, keep reverting and locking this template where I tried to just reflect the previous warning which now proved correct in the tag. Where is you considering your consequences of removing mere warning messages that don't hurt anybody? Where is your friendly attitude towards the copyrighted work of others? Where is your friendly attitude toward my work of all these single checks and warning tags? Where is your "assume good faith"? I assume good faith and assume you know no better or there is some misunderstanding on your part, I even assume perhaps you are right and me not, and perhaps you can prove me wrong with email templates, I don't even revert your obvious mistakes. Please, start being a bit more rational instead of trying to get me out of your sight. --Rtc 01:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A case-by-case explanation, why the corresponding statement of commons-compatibility by the template is incorrect, would be very useful. Exactly: It would have been mandatory to explain this when putting the deletion request here. So please do it now to have a base for discussion. --::Slomox:: >< 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I have done so. I have done the following rough: classification: if the permission has clearly some incompatibilties to licensing policy, if a request for clarification is undergoing or no understandable license could be found, if the permission is unclear since it has some ambiguous "free use" statement, which might refer to reproduction only. But the situation is described in detail for each picture. Some of these detailed descriptions were already previously on the 'disputed license' tags on the templates, which were however reverted by an admin. --Rtc 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnomane, see here for that e-mail. Thanks. 555 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS THIS TOPIC ON A SEPARATE PAGE, NOT HERE? Thanks --Historiograf 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved now from Commons:Deletion requests to Commons talk:Licensing now, so Historiograf's concern is solved. Arnomane 21:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've not read every tag and the text with it, but I tend to stick with Arnomane, mainly because I can not take someone seriously who is willing to delete the eurocoins. That's just paranoia: if that has to be deleted, then we can kiss Commons goodbye: every other image (or license tag) will have restrictions on it, and you could nominate half the images from Commons. --Tuvic 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you "take someone seriously who is willing to delete the eurocoins"? Yes, many pictures may be deleted, because of dishonest and wishful interpretation of license tags. I can't take someone seriously who is using "That's just paranoia" as an argument. Only clarifications from rights holders are an argument. Some are afraid they could be negative (and the one received so far was negative). Let's get rid of the pictures and especially rid of the tags better sooner than later. --Rtc 00:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah? Well, add {{PD-USGov-money}} to your list also: rectrictions on how to use an image of a dollar bill: not free at all. Also for the coins: you're also not free to do with it what you want, so not entirely free -> delete. NASA: You may ... if it is for educational or informational purposes,.... Mmm, commercial isn't mentioned: so not entirely free: get rid of it! Did I mention {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}? It can't get any clearer than that.--Tuvic 08:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please not discuss {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} at the same time as these other licenses, it's obviously a special case that should be discussed separately. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{PD-USGov-money}} has a restriction independent of copyright. I am only talking about copyright, and I am actually for reading the commons policy strictly in terms of copyright of the work itself, not personal rights, trademark, criminal law etc. Otherwise, for example, we had to delete pictures of non-prominent persons, since by personal rights, independent of copyright status, these people need to give their consent for almost every usage separately, and even pictures of prominent people may not be used for promotional purposes. At least in Germany. I'd even accept copyright protection of photographed things that is independent of the copyright protection of the photo itself, for photos shot under some limited legal exception, as, in Germany, 'Panoramafreiheit' and 'unwesentliches Beiwerk'. Both do not allow those parts to be modified; the former additionaly does not allow a depicted sculpture to be reproduced as a 3d object for example. The latter does not allow the picture to be modified in a way to undo the 'unwesentliches Beiwerk' status, such as taking it out of the context of the photo. The euro coins however have a restriction which is a) on the work itself and b) by copyright. Often one sees personal rights, trademark, criminal law being enforced additionally by copyright. This is not acceptable. --Rtc 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general idea for a policy, independent of these licenses now: I suggest license tags for web sites with custom permissions to be entirely neutral. A free license should not be implied, neither by color nor by icon. The tag should plainly state: "This picture was taken from the web site http://www.example.com/, which states 'you may use the picture freely'[exact quote] Please note: While it is believed that the picture may be used legally on Wikipedia, there is no certainity that this is a free license, since the intended permission may or may not be compatible." That would be objective and honest and prevent tags from representing only a wishful interpretation. --Rtc 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License

[edit]

I would like to expert or professional take note that i survey many comercial company are using the term or name related to my personal work such as native programming language i am the author for many projects , its true its my sincere contribution for the foundation and org. But not for those comercial company. Because just recently some personal party file to court over bitcoin ownership , i also one of the bitcore maintainer or author, i feel unfair for my teammates and myself where people trying to take it as their personal used i hope sir/madam can look into this matter therefore i already file to apply for copyright for some project where its my own work ,i think shall be in progress . Thank You for giving me a chance to speak out . Steven Ang. Stevenans5895 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Licensing/Review_of_license_templates&oldid=708172363"