Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
User:Fir0002/credits[edit]
This template calls out license terms that do not conform to Commons requirements. CC-BY-NC prohibits commerical use. While the GFDL license permits commercial use, thjis template requiremes that either the full text of the license (3,400 words) be included with the image or be hyperlinked. A hyperlink is impossible for print use and printing the full text with the image is impossible for most print use -- certainly no one making a tee shirt, booklet, or other simple print use can include 3,400 words of text. Even a book publisher is unlikely to be able to do that.
The closing sentence:
- "If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms."
makes it clear that User:Fir0002 understands that commercial users will find these restrictions unacceptable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We've been here before, I don't see the need to recross this bridge. Commons:Deletion requests/Fir0002, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/12#Custom user license tags, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/11#Licensing conflict?, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 21#How to interprete "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable"?. I could go on and on, I can't find the recent discussion (last year) were it was a agreed with the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-NC compo was fine to use, since it still had a "free license". Bidgee (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like recrossing bridges any more than you do, but I ask the question:
- "Why do we allow use of a license that effectively prohibits almost all print use?"
- I'll withdraw this in a instant if someone can answer that question. Commons is not just a repository for the Internet -- it is a repository for use of our images in all media. Two thirds of my Commons images that have been used outside of WMF were commercial use in print. Those uses would not have happened if the only license available had been this one -- you can't print the GFDL on the back of a refrigerator magnet or add a page to a calendar with nothing but fine print on it.
- I don't like recrossing bridges any more than you do, but I ask the question:
- I would also be happy to withdraw this if someone would suggest a better place to discuss the issue. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant as long as GFDL in all its variations is still a valid license. Commons require content uploads to be available for everyone and every usage but does not restrict this to licenses easier to use for commercial re-users. And these re-users always have the option to directly contact the creator. --Denniss (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep GFDL 1.2 permits so-licensed files to be used on the various on-line Wikimedia projects. Many files so-licensed are high quality and valuable illustrations. Additional non-free license(s) do not detract from the free license. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- True, but not sufficient. As I said above, Commons is a repository for all use, not just WMF or the Internet. The GFDL license is not usable for most print uses, so images with this license cannot be used in many places. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For now. I agree with Denniss. While I certainly agree that the license in the credits is immensely unpractical for commercial reuse of image files in, e.g., printed media, what should be addressed is really cases where GFDL is used as the only commercial license om image files since GFDL, although free is not suitable for licensing image media types. I would support prohibiting the use of "GFDL as only commecial license" image uploads, but I do not think it would be fair to make it retrospective as users can be said to have uploaded "GFDL as only commercial license" image files in good faith as they are still allowed. However, such a stop for "GFDL as only commercial license" image uploads needs to be thoroughly discussed on, e.g., COM:VP or COM:L. If such a proposal would be agreed upon, templates such as this can as a corrolary be deleted - as it is only used for substing on new uploads and thus will not affect old uploads. The discussion will probably result in much heat and controversy such that the recent proposal to implement a rule forbidding "GFDL as only commercial license" on images nominated as Featured Picture Candidates on the English Wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn per Slaunger's suggestion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)