Commons:Deletion requests/File:Okładka Wikipedii wydanej na DVD przez Helion.jpeg

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:Okładka_Wikipedii_wydanej_na_DVD_przez_Helion.jpeg

[edit]

There's OTRS ticket, probably from Helion. I don't believe that biggest IT publisher in Poland donated their logos and design to GFDL (it was previous license, deleted by IP). Even if they did it, then all photos on bottom are from Wikimedia Commons, so Helion can't release it to GFDL. We don't know authors of those images, we even don't know if licenses of files are compatible. The DVD wasn't supplied with GFDL license, so I guess all of the photos were on CC. But if it was CC-BY-SA and Helion released their logos (and somebody's photos) to GFDL, then we have a license conflict. Also, if they released somebody's work as their work then their permission isn't trustworthy. I'll try to find those photos. Herr Kriss (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cover states that all images are on CC-BY-SA. So the only possiblity is that every file is mulitlicensed. But there's still the problem that Helion releases somebody's rights, so OTRS ticket is not vaild.
File:Palmyra ruiny.jpg - only CC-BY-SA 2.5
File:Patrouille de France, French tricolor turn, Radom AirShow 2005, Poland.jpg - only CC-BY-SA 2.5
File:Pocket PC.jpg - multilicense with GFDL; nominated for deletion
File:Robal.png - only CC-BY-SA 2.0
File:Hirtshals DK 2005 by tsca 05.jpeg - multilicense with GFDL
File:Colored pencils chevre.jpg - multilicense with GFDL
File:Halit-kolejny.JPG - only CC-BY-SA 2.5
File:Muzeum Sułkowskich - Zabytkowy Witraż.jpg - multilicense with GFDL
File:730px-Woda-4 ubt modyf.jpg - multilicense with GFDL
File:Sitta europaea wildlife 3.jpg - multilicense with GFDL
OK, found them all, I've added one to deletion requests. It looks that's not allowed mix of licenses. Herr Kriss (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Added File:Polska Wikipedia na DVD z Helionem (krążek bez tła).png. Same issues as earlier. Herr Kriss (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I'm just wondering whether Helion obtained the permission from WMF publishing the logo under CC (or GFDL or what was the license of that DVD). Anyway - Commons:Collages#Compatibility - this collage cannot be presented as an entity under any available license, because its part have their licensing incompatible. Masur (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Helion as a company released several books under GFDL and promoted the license, so they are definitely aware of what they are doing. Don't defend Helion from Helion. Also, Helion has a formal agreement with WMF (as in: an official contract signed by both parties) allowing them to use the WMF-owned trademarks (logos) in connection with promoting the DVD release. Don't defend WMF from WMF. As for the images, they are obviously used in accordance with the intentions of their authors; one cannot reasonably assume otherwise - they are used under a free licence, in a free (also of charge) product, in an encyclopaedia. Don't defend Wikimedia contributors from Wikimedia contributors. There is not one honest reason to delete the images. // tsca (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ~ Comment I think you didn't get the point. Template says that: All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., which is not correct, because at least partially this collage consists of freely licensed images. Theoretically it would be possibly to grant a free license for it as well, if not the fact, that source images have incompatible licenses. Therefore: (1) one cannot restrict (with "All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation") free (original) images, because most of them were -SA; (2) unfortunately a collage is not possible, because their licenses do not match to each other. Masur (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (3) This change also puzzles me. So what is the license, what does OTRS ticket say? Anyway - bottom images are from commons and at least these under CC-SA cannot be restricted or re-licensed. Masur (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they probably want to keep their logo copyrighted, aren't they? It doesn't matter right now, tho. Do they have permission of WMF to release Wikipedia logo on GFDL? Do they have premission of authors to release their images of license that they didn't choose? You've wrote a lot of lines, but nothing serious. Don't defend, don't defend - big words, but we aren't here to philosophize about free licenses. There's facts you can't deny. CC-BY-SA 2.5 doesn't mix with GFDL. Wikimedia Foundation didn't allow them to release their logo on GFDL. Face the facts. Herr Kriss (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as Masur said - GFDL and CC-BY-SA are virus licenses so everything should be both on CC-BY-SA and GFDL. But we have copyrighted image, images on CC, images on GFDL... I bet you know a lot about free licenses and about their rules. So please accept them and don't make your own rules. It's not up to you. Herr Kriss (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Yesterday they tried to persuade me that free licensing (no NC, no ND) is the only way to go because it gives rich fat cats their chance to re-sell wikipedia material to the poor folks in the jungle. Today, commons denies hosting to the "biggest IT publisher" for doing exactly this - reprinting images from wikipedia. Rright. Incompatible licenses. But this cover is the first and only proof that someone actually trades wikipedia printouts to the natives. For real. 21st century beads. This is the only evidence backing up those "no NC, no ND free license" spells. And you want to delete it precisely for crossing the ritual line? NVO (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I need to restate the obvious: 400 pixels / 10 images = 40 px. average image length. Not thumbnails but pinheads. Kudos to Hr. Kriss for digging the sources, but I have strong suspicion that he had a full-size copy at hand (did you?).
    • A gentle 2px Gaussian blur will render the images completely illegible. Have you considered this option instead of deletion? NVO (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have full size copy. But as Masur said. They release whole cover on GFDL - both images on CC and Wikipedia logo. They can't do it of course, so their permission is not vaild. Anyways I'd want to see full permission from OTRS. Herr Kriss (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's nothing about "ritual line", but about law and free license rules. And it's not the only or first proof. We don't talk about their greatness. People agreed to certain license, not any other. That means we have to obey it. We don't have right to do decide for them. The only way is to persuade every author to change images license to CC-BY and Helion to release their logos on CC-BY too. Herr Kriss (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per NVO and Tsca. Where did you throw your common sense, guys? Yann (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Okładka_Wikipedii_wydanej_na_DVD_przez_Helion.jpeg&oldid=57090052"