Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rose des vents à Toulouse Blagnac.jpg
Comment I made the deletion request (below). After much discussion (see below) the uploader now changed the license to Template:Licence Ouverte which is probably appropriate, so that this one file could stay. "Probably" only because I don't understand legal French enough to be sure. I have no reason to doubt it. --Skopien (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
.................................
This is a file that was made by a commercial weather company. There is no reason given why this should be available under a CC license. Skopien (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
:@Skopien: MeteoFrance is a public office, not a commercial company. Its data are freely available to French citizens. Please stop your harassment. Bien cordialement. --Desman31 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Desman31: I am not harrasing you, I am trying to prevent legal trouble for Wikipedia. Please stay polite and then we can sort this out. Can you please explain why the license you selected cc-by-sa is appropriate? Does it say somewhere on the web site where the original is coming from that the image is published under that license? If so that would be great and we can keep the image. --Skopien (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Skopien:
I gave the link to the website on the page of the media. This website once again is well known and provide weather data free of use. It states in French : "Météo-France met à disposition via ce site un recueil complet des connaissances (phénomène, méthode d’analyse, climatologie) et des données climatologiques sur les tempêtes observées en France métropolitaine." In English : With this website Météo-France provides the public with a complete record of knowledge (facts, methods for analysis, climatology) and weather data about storms in continental France.
Because I loaded a couple of screenshots from a TV channel (which I agreed to be removed), you think all my contributions are bad and need to be deleted. Sad... --Desman31 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Desman31: Dear Desman31, I have really no idea what your history on Commons is, and I don't care. You are making up motives for me. I was writing de:Autan (Wind) when looking for images, that is how I noticed. I would love to keept your images, so I could use them in my article, alas... Concerning Meteo France, what they apparently don't say is "Content provided may be reused under a Creative Commons license." And if they don't do that, it is not legal to reuse the content. Unfortunately, it is as simple as that. I wish it was not. A possible exception would be if there were a law in France that would say content from Meteo France is free, like for government agendies in the US. But I don't think there is a law like that, or is there? --Skopien (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe there is a solution, see: fr:Licence ouverte (État français) and Template:Licence Ouverte. If meteo france should include that very image under 'licence ouverte' we could keep it (the license would have to be changed, but that is minor). However, my French is not good enough to understand, if the file that you uploaded falls under this license ouverte. Could you check that on their web site? --Skopien (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Skopien: I already said twice this is open data. But you don't trust me, so here you are :
Éditeur : Météo-France Hébergeur : Météo-France Établissement public administratif sous la tutelle du ministère du Développement durable Siège : 73 avenue de Paris - 94165 SAINT-MANDÉ CEDEX Open Data Conditions d'accès Sans redevance sous Licence Ouverte d'Etalab. La source à indiquer est "Météo-France". Quelques suggestions : "Source : Météo-France" ou "Informations créées à partir de données de Météo-France". Droits de reproduction Licence d’utilisation En accédant à ce site ou à l’un de ses éléments, vous acceptez une licence concédée par Météo-France aux conditions définies ci-après. Article 1 Au titre de la présente licence, est exclusivement concédé un droit d’usage privé, individuel et personnel, ou à des fins pédagogiques, scientifiques ou documentaires, excluant toute exploitation commerciale ou publicitaire. Les documents téléchargés ne doivent faire l’objet d’aucune altération et doivent conserver la mention de leur origine. Article 2 Est interdite, sauf dispositions contraires expressément exposées dans les sites web de Météo-France, et ne concernant pas les liens hypertextes et les documents téléchargeables, toute représentation et/ou reproduction même partielle du contenu de ce site et/ou de l’un de ses éléments, et notamment sont interdits : - toute utilisation – excepté utilisation à caractère pédagogique et/ou éducatif – de l’un des éléments du site dans un environnement informatique en réseau, - le fait de copier les mots-clefs utilisés dans ces pages pour référencer un autre site et le faire ainsi entrer en concurrence avec Météo-France ; - l’extraction non autorisée, répétée et systématique, d’éléments, même non protégés, du site, causant un préjudice à Météo-France. --Desman31 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Skopien: Ok the link in your last update refers to "Licence Ouverte Etalab". This is the same name in the Licence text I just copied and pasted up there.--Desman31 (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Desman31: No, you did not say it was open data. You said it was provided free - which means you don't have to pay to see it. Maybe a language problem. However, open data still does not necessarily mean, that it can be used for commerical purposes- which is a requirement for upload to commons. So even 'open data' is not necessarily good enough. As I said, my French is not good enough for the legal stuff. Does the text you pasted mean that this particular image is qualified for the Template:Licence Ouverte? If so, please replace the CC-BY-SA template that you chose during upload with the other template, and the issue with that image is solved, as far as I am concerned.
For atmosphere, it would help if you'd admit that you did a few mistakes with these images, instead of suggesting I had unfair motives (harrasment accusation). In general, it would be great if, with your next uploads, you are more careful when selecting a license. There is plenty of help pages and also discussion forums where questions can be asked. While on it, if you also would choose appropriate categories, so that images are easy to find. It is not good style to let others clean up. I'd much rather do some productive article work, than to argue on license issues. --Skopien (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Skopien: Sorry if there is a misunderstanding, but when in my first reply I wrote "data are freely available" that means to me open data, not just that you can display it on your screen.
- About mistakes : I'll let other users make up their mind who had admitted its own, and who had not.
- About licenses : unfortunately the licence system in Commons is like a white elephant, this is one of the main problems of Wikipedia. 95% of users don't understand the subtle differences between CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND or others. I took the chance to upload a picture which I knew was free of use, choosing the "default" license in the uploading page. Innocently I thought that if a user spots a problem with the license, he will correct it, and not merely delete the media. I think Wikipedia as a collective work, not a place to check who's done right and who's done wrong.
- In general, it would be great if, with your next proposals for deletion, you are more careful when selecting a media. It is quite easy to check on google for famous public institution providing open data. --Desman31 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Desman31: Ok, let's see:
- of the four files from you I looked at, none had a correct license, and as it stands right now, three were indeed illegal. So concerning mistakes, I'd say the sucessrate for my “proposals for deletion” is higher than your upload rate, don't you think? I am not proud of it, it would have been nice to use those images for article work.
- the one that might be legal - you still did not confirm that it is, see above - still has a license assigned to it that does not fit (or is not shown to be applicable).
- You yourself said that you had problems with previus files that were deleted. That might have been reason enough to have a look at all those informations which are displayed during upload, to help users avoiding copyright infringements, no?
- There would be no need to search about licenses on Google if the uploader would select a valid license in the first place. Which you did in how many of those cases? right, none.
Now you are suggesting you did not make a mistake. That is irony, right? Please tell me this is irony.
Anyway. This is not over yet, because you still did not enter the correct license for the file. IF you confirm that the file is subject to the licence ouvert, you still have to put the Template:Licence Ouverte into the description page. You are mentioning that you don't know which license to chose, but I told you already above what probably would be the right license. You are ignoring it. And no, I am not doing it for you, because I do not understand the legal French, so I can not confirm it is the right one. Else, you would have to show that the website allows publishing under CC-BY-SA 4.0, the license that you chose during upload. The text you pasted above does NOT say “images on this website are published under CC-BY-SA 4.0”. Yes, it is complicated. But Wikipedia did not make the laws. --Skopien (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Skopien: Ok, I am getting really tired about all this, you get irritated all of a sudden, but I am the one that should be because you coming back again and again with the same argument, it's like you don't read my replies.
- Let's see, for the last time :
- "of the four files from you I looked at": Yep, you proposed to delete the four files you've seen, sould I say ALL the files you've seen, writing every time the exact same comment, without noticing they are of different nature and from very different sources (3 from commercial private companies, 1 from a well known government agency). You should not be proud about it, this is doing without thinking.
- "the one that might be legal - you still did not confirm that it is": That is the one file linked to this discussion : YES I did confirm a number of times the legal use of it. Just here above, just a mouse scroll away! Hence your false argument confirms you didn't read my previous replies, or want to pretend you didn't ?
- "You yourself said that you had problems with previus files that were deleted": NO, I never said that. Please read again. I have only talked about your 4 requests.
- "There would be no need to search about licenses on Google if the uploader would select a valid license in the first place.": I am not sure to understand. How are you supposed to check a license is valid if you don't search for a bit of information ?
- "Now you are suggesting you did not make a mistake.": Not for THIS file, for sure. I've proved above the use of it is legal. For the other files yes I confessed I may be wrong, the interpretation of the rules for this type of files being ambiguous. But apparently you didn't read that too. And at the same time you forgot about your own mistake, I mean your original lie : you said this was from a commercial weather company, while it is from a gvt funded public agency.
- Let's sum up : You look at a file, you don't understand where it's from or you don't know the gvt agency it is from, which means you didn't look at/click the link given below and you didn't notice the logo displayed on it. You ignore the license permissions of free use attached to the file. But because you previously came across another of my file that was "illegal", and despite there is not link between both of them, you decide that one is illegal too. My conclusion is your not sincere. Bye, Have a nice day. I don't have any more time to waste on this... --Desman31 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- edit: Don't know if it is allowed but I changed the license CC-BY to "licence ouverte", i.e. Etalab.
- Quote, FYI : The Licence Ouverte / Open Licence is a French free licence published on October 18, 2012 by Etalab on October for open data from the State of France. The license was designed to be compatible with Creative Commons Licenses, Open Government License, and the Open Data Commons Attribution License.[1] --Desman31 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: The website used as a source does not mention the "licence ouverte". In contrast, it is stated "Au titre de la présente licence, est exclusivement concédé un droit d’usage privé, individuel et personnel, ou à des fins pédagogiques, scientifiques ou documentaires, excluant toute exploitation commerciale ou publicitaire." The image cannot be used for commercial purposes, which is not in line with the policies of Commons. All images on Commons can be used for commercial purposes (except perhaps trade marks). Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- As it is quoted above, the file is under licence called "Etalab", hence allowed to be used on Commons... --Desman31 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
