Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:Licensing

Commons discussion pages (index)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

Archived discussionsEdit

Template protection after reviewEdit

There are many country specific copyright templates on commons that need review and should be protected thereafter. Many images on commons use these templates and changing something in the template like accidentally adding a hot cat category would affect all of these and would require mass purging for all images. We should have a review department reviewing each available template and after discussion protecting it. We should discuss the layout of PD templates: Should they include why they are PD in the USA or should this be handled in another template like {{PD-Egypt}} and {{PD-Egypt-1996}}. With the URAA laws the copyright laws of a country doesn't mean that much without an explanation on why they are PD in USA. Something like {{PD-China}} doesn't work for commons because it doesn't specify why it's PD USA. And should there be templates for country specific templates for each case like found in Category:Egypt-related tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs) 14:06, 2009 April 23 (UTC)

நான் சொந்தமாக எடுத்து இணைக்கும் படங்கள் எந்த வகையில் Copyright violations ஆகிறது?Edit

நான் சொந்தமாக எடுத்து இணைக்கும் படங்களை ஏன் நீங்கள் நீக்குகிறீர்கள். அவை எந்த வகையில் Copyright violations ஆகிறது. புதிதாக யாரும் கட்டுரையோ படங்களையோ இணைக்கூடாது என்று நினைக்கிறீர்களா? எங்களுக்கு வேறு வேலை வெட்டி இல்லை என்றா நினைத்துக்கொண்டு இருக்கிறீர்கள்.... நீங்கள் அனுப்பிய இந்த செய்திக்கு என்ன பொருள். எதற்க்காக last warning. உடன் பதிலை சொல்லுங்கள் திரு. ஆலன்O.

"Hello Velu66. It has come to our attention that you have uploaded several files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful.

This is your last warning. Continuing to upload copyright violations will result in your account being blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions."

Is CC-by-sa a reason to delete?Edit

Is a CC-by-sa licence (as opposed to CC-by-sa-2.0 / CC-by-sa-4.0) a sufficient reason to delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: Not without discussion of history of the individual file, because clearly someone wanted a license there, and the reason it's not showing up is probably a combination of bot errors or interwiki misunderstandings, and probably not because the user didn't actually want a license. Long answer: If someone placed {{cc-by-sa}} on a file before 2016-12-30, that certainly meant the same thing as {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} (or {{cc-by-sa-old}} if you wish). It was replaced with the current warning, without discussion or community consent, on 2016-12-30, as you probably remember from Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/01#Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files. Considering the circumstances under which Template:cc-by-sa was changed without consent, I have no reason to believe that "In order for this license to be valid, a version number must be given", regardless of whether it's in bold, since that claim is written by the same editor that was illogical enough to falsely remove a proper license from thousands of files over 10 years with one edit merely he didn't like how short the template's own name was. And regardless of whether a version number "must be given", that template was valid for 10 years, and probably still is valid on some wikis, and so the license version the uploader saw and used is probably discernible for each file that has that tag. --Closeapple (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a 2014 file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.jpg
Here: User_talk:Green_Giant#License_review_question we have an admin and a 'licence reviewer' claiming "Without a version number, we cannot host it, nor can we assume which license it might be." Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Those are two instances where the licensing originated off-wiki and was already ambiguous at the time the licenses were issued (2014 and 2015). What a mess! I've left opinions on both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloudmaze.jpg. General rule, in my opinion: Each case needs to be traced back to the original conditions when it was licensed, to see if it was really ambiguous at the time. Then, if it was truly ambiguous, then one might explore whether every possible interpretation leads to a legal path to the same specific version of a specific license. (In the case of CC-BY-SA lacking a version number, I don't think every possible interpretation can lead to the same specific version: versions 2 and later allow version upgrades only for derivatives, and version 1.0 doesn't even allow that.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Licensing".