Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, JeanOhm!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

File:Rab6ELKSc.jpg

edit

Hello,

I see that you attributed a CC BY-SA 4.0 license to the image File:Rab6ELKSc.jpg, although the material from which it is extracted is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license. I'm not sure if your modifications to the material generate a distinct copyright or allow the attribution, to the resulting image, of a license different from the license of the original material, per sections 1(a), 1(b) and 3(a)(4) of the CC BY 4.0 license. If I may make a suggestion, I think it would be more simple to use the same license as the original material, as that would avoid the problem and would also make it easier for reusers. Also, for Commons, keeping the same license allows an easier license review. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Asclepias: Thanks! I just learned the differences between BY and BY-SA from the cc website. I'll be more careful in the future. JeanOhm (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Asclepias: I just uploaded 3 more BioPlex files
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BioPlexADH1Bc.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BioPlexAP2B1c.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BioPlexMed1c.jpg
I couldn't find a way to add the line "permission=http://bioplex.hms.harvard.edu/bioplexDisplay/help.php#copyright" during the initial upload, so I figured out that I could subsequently edit the file and add that line. Hopefully, I've done this right (even though I suspect I shouldn't have!) and that it saves some time durng the reviews. I intend to name all of the bioplex image files starting with BioPlex, so hopefully it will become routine for you folks to review them. JeanOhm (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's all right to add information after the upload, and yes it will probably help the reviewers and other people find the licensing information. If you want a source reviewed for licensing, you can add the template LicenseReview to the page. The source license will then be reviewed by a license reviewer. It can take some time. It is a prudent thing to do, in case the information becomes unavailable or changes at the source. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply