Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sergeymila
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Where does the permission come from? The website nowhere mentiones GFDL or CC, as far as I can see. Always ask people to put license tags on their site if you convince them to use a free license, so the public, which is the licensor, can clearly see the license it has been granted. --Rtc 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I have notified the submitter of the template on hi English user page; I assume he can give better information. - Andre Engels 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. We have no right to dictate to the people who kindly agreed to license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects what they should or should not place on their own websites. Although I have not been active in your project for months, I remember that there was no such requirement when the template was created. I obtained the permission by sending a letter to the owner of the website, asking him the permission to use his images under certain licenses, to which he replied: "Андрей, добрый день! Очень буду рад, используйте мои фотографии для иллюстрации без проблем - дело благое :-) Ссылка на сайт и указание авторства не помешает, разумеется :-)" I have the original exchange (which continued for several days) stored in my mailbox. I also explained to the author how he may check which photographs have been uploaded to Commons. If you are persuaded that I am a certified lier, still you should have asked the owners before listing the template for deletion. Please remember that they are Russophones, though. --Ghirlandajo 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you've got a permission from the website owner then that should be fine. Just forward it to [email protected] and say that it's concerning Template:Sergeymila on Commons =) /Lokal_Profil 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not enough if people license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects, we want free licenses that permit commercial use and derivative work permission to anyone, not merely for wikimedia projects. The russian reply you cite talks about illustration purposes. I am not saying that you are a liar or that you have bad intentions. I merely contest that a genuinely free license has been given, which often happens not to be the case under these circumstances. --Rtc 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and repirmand Rtc for gross ABF. The author was explicitly asked whether he allows his pictures to be uploaded under GFDL and he expressly answers - yes. The uploader said so. Rtc's action implies accusation that Ghirlandajo is lying in stating that the author agreed to the license. --Irpen
- I am not saying that he is lying, but that he is reading the mail exchange in an incorrect way. Of course the word "GFDL" has been mentioned somewhere within the mail, but how can ordinary people know what that means if they are given the impression that this is about wikipedia usage? I see only one clear statement: "license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects", and that is not GFDL. It is neither use by anyone, nor commercial use, and not derivative work. I am assuming AGF, but only towards people's intentions, not towards that they don't err. --Rtc 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not up to you to determine or interpret the original correspondence. The author was asked for the right to use under a specific license. The author clearly answered that question. If your assumption that the author was duped or mislead by Ghirla or otherwise led to give an uninformed permission, please take it with the author and convince him to revoke his permission, but not to the deletion board. --Irpen 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is well up to me to determine and interprete the original correspondence as much as it is to anyone else, including the one who made the mail exchange and who created the template. --Rtc 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You have the right to interpret anything you want. Point is that your interpretation assumes that Ghirla deliberately mislead an author into approvin something that author in fact was not intending to approve. This is a gross ABF. If you have concerns of this sort, the right way is to take it to the author, explain to him your suspicions that he was duped and ask him to reconsider his permission, which he clearly gave for GFDL. You instead effectively post the set of images for deletion causing much annoyance and disruption. --Irpen 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- No! First of all, you can accidentally mislead an author into something without doing it deliberately! What is gross ABF is what you are assuming about my intentions here! I am assuming good faith about the intentions of the uploader; I am not claiming that the uploader had bad intents. I am saying that it is not enough if authors "license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects"; it must be licensed for any use, including derivative work and commercial exploitation. --Rtc 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author said in his email that he approves the usage of the images under GFDL. This is the most crucial part of his permission. GFDL=OK for Wikimedia by definition. Either he meant what he said or he was duped into saying something he did not mean. If you assume the latter, take it to the author and advise him to withdraw his consent if this is what your intention is. While at it, do not forget to contact every person who uploaded any image under GFDL as they also might have not known what GFDL means. This attitude implies that there are many fools around you who don't know what you know. You are entitled to think so. Don't be surprised, though, to find out what people think when encounter such condescending opinions of themselves. Happy edits. --Irpen 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The situation is entirely different for people who upload their own pictures, since it is on their side to ensure to have understood the license they are giving. I am not saying that there are fools around, I am just saying that license requests happen in a rather naive way. I am not saying that the author should withdraw his consent (he cannot, if he has really given), but that he didn't really give it. In any case, where is the approval email? Where can I, as a licensee, see how the rights were granted to me? How can I defend in court if the licensor should say that he didn't understood what GFDL means and assumed from the context of the mail exchange that it referred to a license that permits wikimedia projects to use his pictures in the way it is ordinarily done there? --Rtc 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The author said in his email that he approves the usage of the images under GFDL. This is the most crucial part of his permission. GFDL=OK for Wikimedia by definition. Either he meant what he said or he was duped into saying something he did not mean. If you assume the latter, take it to the author and advise him to withdraw his consent if this is what your intention is. While at it, do not forget to contact every person who uploaded any image under GFDL as they also might have not known what GFDL means. This attitude implies that there are many fools around you who don't know what you know. You are entitled to think so. Don't be surprised, though, to find out what people think when encounter such condescending opinions of themselves. Happy edits. --Irpen 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No! First of all, you can accidentally mislead an author into something without doing it deliberately! What is gross ABF is what you are assuming about my intentions here! I am assuming good faith about the intentions of the uploader; I am not claiming that the uploader had bad intents. I am saying that it is not enough if authors "license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects"; it must be licensed for any use, including derivative work and commercial exploitation. --Rtc 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You have the right to interpret anything you want. Point is that your interpretation assumes that Ghirla deliberately mislead an author into approvin something that author in fact was not intending to approve. This is a gross ABF. If you have concerns of this sort, the right way is to take it to the author, explain to him your suspicions that he was duped and ask him to reconsider his permission, which he clearly gave for GFDL. You instead effectively post the set of images for deletion causing much annoyance and disruption. --Irpen 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is well up to me to determine and interprete the original correspondence as much as it is to anyone else, including the one who made the mail exchange and who created the template. --Rtc 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not up to you to determine or interpret the original correspondence. The author was asked for the right to use under a specific license. The author clearly answered that question. If your assumption that the author was duped or mislead by Ghirla or otherwise led to give an uninformed permission, please take it with the author and convince him to revoke his permission, but not to the deletion board. --Irpen 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying that he is lying, but that he is reading the mail exchange in an incorrect way. Of course the word "GFDL" has been mentioned somewhere within the mail, but how can ordinary people know what that means if they are given the impression that this is about wikipedia usage? I see only one clear statement: "license their photographs for use in Wikimedia projects", and that is not GFDL. It is neither use by anyone, nor commercial use, and not derivative work. I am assuming AGF, but only towards people's intentions, not towards that they don't err. --Rtc 06:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless explicit release is obtained from the author of the images from OTRS Madmax32 11:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)- Comment There is no one word about GFDL, der.works and commercial use in the reply from web-site-owner(s). Alex Spade 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Permission not veryfiable. A.J. 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment : I contacted site owner directly. Please wait a week for answer. --EugeneZelenko 15:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The week is over. Did you get any answer? --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- He gave his e-mail address in answer, but I missed this reply. I'm very sorry for that. I sent next e-mail today:
Здравствуйте! Дело в том, что Вы разрешили Андрею использовать фотографии, но не сказали как. Закон об авторском праве по умолчанию разрешает только цитировать (т.е. нельзя произвольно модифицировать изображения). Цель Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org) - собирать мультимедиа-файлы, которые каждый может использовать в любых целях (включая коммерческие и создание производных произведений). Насколько я понял, Вам хотелось бы упоминания авторства работ. Для этого можно использовать лицензию Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY). Если Вы хотите, чтобы производные произведения тоже распространялись только в рамках свободной лицензии, то для этого есть Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA). Если Вам не очень хочется, чтобы Ваши изображения использовались в рекламе, то можно использовать лицензию GFDL (похожа на CC-BY-SA, но требует приведения полного текста при использовании (несколько страниц)). Вам надо выбрать лицензию (условия использования Ваших фотографий) и разместить на Вашем сайте или послать письмо с разрешением по адресу: [email protected]. Если у Вас будут вопросы, пожалуйста, спрашивайте. С уважение, Евгений.
- Reply from Segey:
Добрый день! Я готов выслать разрешение с лицензией CC-BY-SA на указанный адрес. Есть ли готовый образец - что нужно написать туда, чтобы все им было однозначно ясно? Сергей.
- My answer:
Здравствуйте! Образец можно найти на http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates (по-английски). Есть ещё одна тонкость: существует несколько версий CC-BY-SA, отличающихся юридическим языком. Последняя - 3.0, но на Wikimedia Commons рекомендуется лицензировать согласно всех версий 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, и 1.0 (я тоже так поступаю), чтобы, например, облегчить создание коллажей из разных изображений. Подробности можно узнать на http://creativecommons.org и http://creativecommons.ru. С уважением, Евгений.
- Sergey choose CC-BY-SA license. He will also select version and send permission to OTRS. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sergey sent e-mail to OTRS (I received a copy). --EugeneZelenko 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The template already says dual-licensed GFDL and CC-BY-SA-2.5. When this request is closed, the OTRS template should be included in Template:Sergeymila. Lupo 09:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission received, [1]. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)