Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:KOGL

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.

Files in Category:KOGL

[edit]

I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is {{KOGL}} free?

I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...

In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.
— User:Martin H. 20:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs.

List too long

— regards, Revi 16:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Pity. But if that's what needs to be done, nothing going around it. It would be good however to ask the Korea portal for users who directly work with this if they have any last arguments before proceeding, because this is quite a substantial list. Gryffindor (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the KOGL uploaders (including me, huh) were notified of this DR because their uploads are in the list. — regards, Revi 16:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you insist, Korean Wikipedia had same discussion after that, twice, in 2016 and 2017. No results were drawn at both discussion. — regards, Revi 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think some logos there (Republic of Korea governments) can fall under {{PD-Ineligible}} (i.e. File:Emblem of the Ministry of Education (South Korea) (Korean).svg), but I'm not sure if this fall under TOO. — regards, Revi 16:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So let me understand:
You've participated in a seclude discussion in Korean that do not reach a conclusion, as far I can see.
Then instead of contacting any of the juridical departments working for Free Culture (including WMF juridical department) or even open up a discussion in a Village Pump (in English) to bring attention of the whole community or even restart the conversation and ask for a conclusion from people there - you opened a massive deletion based on uncertainty?
Humm... do you agree that is not the best approach?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is multilingual project, I do not believe I require a English VP thread before opening a DR. — regards, Revi 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I think we should settle the things with OTRS before we start a massive deletion process--BugWarp (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the question was not solved in one restricted language, should be discussed in a more accessible just to increase the contact area. Accessibility is one of our flags.
What you believes do not matters, we are not in a point of technology that allows me write in Portuguese, you answer in Korean and the discussion will fluid.
Again, this is not the best approach, and if you want to spend energy in this issue, the energy should be focused in find a solution, not to stablish a turf war in the community.
Nothing more to add here. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-licensed two files (File:Emblem of the National Assembly of Korea (1948-2014).svg and File:Emblem of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea.svg) with what appears to be a more correct license. As for the new set of governmental logos (ie: File:Emblem of the Ministry of Education (South Korea) (Korean).svg), I think those would fall under PD-textlogo. Fry1989 eh? 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The English page of the KOGL terms [1] explicitly states:

KOGL can be used selectively with other free licenses such as Creative Commons License.

Sharing and use through on/off-line possible

Public institutions may change the license terms of public works. However, users who already use prior to the change shall be allowed to use according to the license terms before change even after it is changed.

That is, the KOGL terms are at least compatible with the Creative Commons License terms. The definition of "share" in the Creative Commons License includes redistribution rights. Also, as stated above, any usage under the previously established KOGL terms is not revoked even if there is a change in the license terms of the original source. There is no reason to delete the massive amount of contributions having reasonable free usage grounds. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons' principle is to ensure re-users are guaranteed same right when they reuse it. ("the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." @ COM:SCOPE.) While Wikimedia Commons retains the permission as per that clause, we have no guarantee if re-users will be granted same rights. How can you be so sure about that? — regards, Revi 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because these licenses don't change retroactively, yes Wikimedia Commons is a host but it's placed here with the original license, if you decide to change the copyright © of your website from "free" to "non-free" all old imported images will remain to adhere to the original license. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in KOGL licence says the license is "permanent" and "irrevocable". So it is not guaranteed that "old images retains free status with {{KOGL}}". — regards, Revi 03:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The third clause I quoted delineates the irrevocability of the materials under the KOGL terms. Ex post facto revisions do not apply to the already shared materials under the previous terms. Thus, once cited in Wikimedia Commons, it retains the share rights to copy, redistribute, and reuse permanently without being revoked. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when are license changes retroactive? Yes, the South-Korean government can change their licenses willy-nilly but these things aren't retroactive. I have imported thousands of images from Verizon's Flickr using Flickr2Commons and if an image was free to import yesterday that license stays valid even if the author changes that license today as Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. If the South-Korean government will change this license in the future this won't make any image on Wikimedia Commons under their open government license "non-free". From what I can tell the KOGL license is currently compatible with Wikimedia Commons so if this would ever change in the future 🔮 this should prevent new imports, but not be grounds to delete old imports. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, File:Emblem of the Government of the Republic of Korea.svg‎ is probably copyright-ineligible under the laws of the United States according to the Best Western standard... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Note that the [2] page is irrelevant. It isn't the "English page" but a completely different licence: it disallows modification, derivative works, etc so is similar to -ND). The one the images link to is [3] which you can read via Google Translate and does allow modification/derivatives. However it clearly says it is not irrevocable "The terms of use of publicly traded NLs are subject to change. However, if the user has used it before changing the terms of use, he / she can continue to use it without changing the use of the copyrighted works." Irrevocable is required per Commons policy. The question asked by Donald Trung above "Since when are license changes retroactive" rather assumes licences are inherently irrevocable". They aren't. We insist they are to be allowed for Commons, and for example the CC ones explicitly state they are. Cyberdoomslayer claims the clause "if the user has used it before changing the terms of use" makes it irrevocable. I don't believe this is so. This applies only to publication (use) of the image, not sharing. Commons is a repository of images that may (in future) be used by anyone for any purpose. And Wikipedia is a free-content project, not just a free-to-use website, so it can't host them either. This is the mess one gets into by accepting amateurish licences. -- Colin (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep until there is a clear reputative answer. Mass deletion on "we don't know for sure" is absolutely destructive non plus ultra. For example File:Emblem of the National Assembly of Korea.svg is used 2202 times and PD-ineligible. -- User: Perhelion 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Now got an official response from the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (responsible for the KOGL). They are not directly posted on Commons because their response is All Rights Reserved. Here it is. They have not clarified if their "request to follow the new license" MUST be observed, so I will call them tomorrow to clarify them. — regards, Revi 13:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well one of the reasons seems to be "we screwed up and the image (or parts of the image) wasn't ours to licence and the owner has complained". Which can happen no matter what licence someone offers and any properly written licence would make it clear it only extends to the content the licensor actually owns. But another one of the reasons the licence apparently must be changed is "licence needs to be changed". Circular and open to abuse. It very much sounds like they are amateurs and have no idea how to write a usable licence. As I noted above, they are trying to be considerate of someone who has already published (used) an image where the licence changed, but have not considered the irrevocable terms Commons needs in order to be able to share the image with others, and for them in turn to share it with others. So you'd be safe to use this material on your blog if the licence was suitable at time-of-publication, but we aren't safe to host this material. I suggest we encourage them towards just using a CC licence. The "we screwed up" scenario can be handled with a notice on their website that says the images are offered in good faith but if we get something wrong, we may need to take down material. Which is pretty much all that Commons promises its users. I don't think the current KOGL license is appropriate for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not an official legal opinion, MOCST personnel's response is that "If you refuse to follow Guideline Article 15-based license change request, then it would be Guideline 15-1 ("1. Violating KOGL license.") violation". — regards, Revi 06:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
===================================
[edit]

and, Thank you for your diligent work User:-revi, Regarding the official response from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in South Korea which is uploaded by User:-revi who believes that there are no clear provisions with regards to the usage of license, however, it is quite evident that clear guidelines are provided.

To my understanding: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in South Korea undoubtedly allow the user to redistribute the right of the original work without retroactive effects. Particularly, the translated answer from (MCST) – (Part A below) and "Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism"(MCST) clearly explains that it officially allows the usage of specific files (or products) with the previous KOGL licence which is the “Public Nuri-1 type” even if there is a change of term of licence.

Please refer to my translation below about the question from User:-revi and answer from Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism(MCST),

This portion has been removed because the private correspondence between me and Republic of Korea Governmnet cannot be licensed under Commons-compatible license unless ROK Government explicitly license it under Commons-compatible license. — regards, Revi 15:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The way I see it, since User:-Revi is one of the 34 "Stewards" in Wikipedia he would also have the enthusiasm to improve the quality of many more public sources. To save the time and effort of other users and promote more Wiki-Users to upload more valuable image to Wikipedia’s common space, I would like to recommend that Revi or other experienced users would finalize this discussion as soon as possible.

If {KOGL} can be officially and comfortably used in this space, then there would be greater Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia licence policy is already too strict at the moment, and it is very hard to find free licence files and avoid spending considerable amounts of money.

  • Please note that the translation above was checked by the person who has an international certification of NAATI credential with Professional level Translator (English to Korean) (the certification is valid from 10 Aug 2017 to 10 Aug 2020) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you may not upload their response on the wiki. It is not compatible with Commons’ license. — regards, Revi 11:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, myself being steward is irrelevant on this discussion. — regards, Revi 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is tranlation of the Q&A section from the official response from the South Korea Government about the LINK and I mean that one of 34 stewards is well experienced user in Wikipedia. From my understanding, the translated answer about the KOGL policy is also the part of (KOGL), however I would be able to upload it to another personal blog if necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. That’s not the case. And polluting Commons with incompatible license is not something I would like to see as an experienced Wikipedian (which is irrelevant since here is Commons). — regards, Revi 15:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "time has come" & "myself being steward is irrelevant" - what is the proximate cause to raise this issue, at this time, other than your change in status? are you prepared to abide by a consensus that you apparently do not share? by "polluting Commons", do you mean licenses that you do not like? are there other licenses, that you think are "polluting Commons"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. "Time has come (to delete them)". 2. If that is the consensus (to keep them), I'm just going to avoid KOGL area at all. 3. No, license that is not compatible with COM:L. — regards, Revi 05:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1. is there any other proximate cause to nominate a mass deletion at this time, other than your status change? there is no disruption here by these images is there? there is no DMCA, there is no stern letter from a lawyer, there is no change in risk? have you learned Korean? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding it is not "polluting Commons", but an issue of "misinterpretation" of the term of KOGL licence to remove the huge amount of people's contributions in Wikimedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I would work for the three action items regarding this task as soon as practicable. 1) I would upload the removed translation to another place as I don't think the first translation is accurate. 2) I would see other wikipedian's reaction to the revised translation. 3) I would contact South Korea Government and ask their further written clarification. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update_1 Action item - 1, Please see the link about the updated translation -> compare to the previous translation
  • Inquiry 1) to User Revi: -> Why did you translate the meaning which is"If and when it does" to "from time to time"? --> it is misinterpretation. (From my understanding, it can not be happen to the advanced knowledge of English user who is a native Korean speaker.
  • Example of the sentence:

However, we can not predict when a KOGL License might change. If and when it does, public institutes must announce the change of the license, but all antecedent licenses granted by the user is kept intact without retroactive effect.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: for now - no consensus for deletion - license has been accepted and in use for a long time, a broader discussion will be needed, e.g. at COM:VPC, if this license is really problematic. --Jcb (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:KOGL&oldid=615462374"