Commons:Deletion requests/File:EpidermisPainted.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:EpidermisPainted.svg

[edit]

Derived from en:File:EpidermisPainted.jpg, a CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed image, by User:Denisgomes, but has incorrect license (PD-self, should be CC-BY-SA/GFDL). Because only the original uploader can update the license, we have no option but to delete as a copyright violation. There is the possibility that the original image may be {{PD-ineligible}}, but I doubt it - I think the wavy line (which was copied precisely) may make it copyrightable. The user's other uploads may also require investigation. (Other notes: I don't believe our past practice of updating license tags based on a user's supposed intention is legally defensible. This work is also easily reproduced.) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the author released all the work he did under a PD license, I really can't see the harm in making this one CC-BY-SA. They were willing to give up *all* their rights; just respect the original authors rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But by retagging it, you're not only noting the license of the original work, which would be fine, but also releasing the new author's contributions under CC-BY-SA without their agreement. I for one routinely release works under CC0 and would be deeply upset to have one of my works re-released under CC-BY-SA without my permission. CC-BY-SA imposes conditions and restrictions that I wouldn't want to impose on others - I would rather recreate the work than release it under such a license. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List two licences, then: original work = CC-BY-SA, changes = PD. If someone is able to extract only the changes from the original CC-BY-SA work, the CC licence can be ignored. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep They gave a PD license; that means that you can do anything you want with it, including include it in a CC-BY-SA contribution. We aren't changing the license on any separable part of their contribution, which is still PD-Self, but noting that the whole is CC-BY-SA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that any separable new contribution is PD-self (although I don't see any such contribution except maybe comments in the SVG). But we can't release the work as a whole under CC-BY-SA since we aren't the copyright holder - the uploader is. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we accept the license given us at face value (and I realize it may be for technical legal reasons more complex), the uploader is not the copyright holder; he has divested himself off all rights. Secondly, he's definitely not the sole copyright holder, and while he can dictate license on his part, the final work has to respect the underlying copyright. A CC-BY-SA license for the whole just respects the licenses on all the copyrighted parts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Either make it CC-BY-SA or, if the wavy line is copyrightable, someone could change the wavy line to a new wavy line. Deleting this file is just silly. -- ZanderZ (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change the new file to CC BY-SA. It is a derivative work which doesn't meet the threshold of originality over the original, so it should automatically assume the old license. InverseHypercube 02:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:EpidermisPainted.svg&oldid=76882477"