Commons:Deletion requests/License "adding my name directly under the photo"

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=License "adding my name directly under the photo"|year=2024|month=November|day=24}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||License "adding my name directly under the photo"|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/License "adding my name directly under the photo"}} at the end of today's log.

License "adding my name directly under the photo"

[edit]

Requirements on the placement of attribution limit the range of transformations and adaptations that can be made. Therefore, works with such requirements are non-free works, which are not accepted at Commons. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#License_cc-by-sa_plus_additional_restrictions --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete We already has a good and thorough discussion on that subject at COM:UDEL and I agree with its result. These licenses are way too restrictive to be acceptable for Commons, they limit many legitimate usage of the pictures and they are not even compatible with standard Wikipedia image usage (!). And while it's possible to interpret these licenses in such way that linked CC-BY-SA licenses represent the whole agreement, can't be modified, etc., but this is somewhat tricky, and may be dangerous for our reusers as was argued in the above mentioned UDEL request. Trycatch (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 DeleteEven Wolfgang states on NL-WP that this license addition by him doesn't apply to WMF-projects (which isn't mentioned in the addition), my opinion is that any license additions should be marked inacceptable in case they restrict the users and reusers too much. Like Trycatch says, we should orientate us on Wikipedia-usage and license additions (even they exclude the use on Wikimedia-projects) which restrict the user more than CC-BY-SA 3.0 already does should be banned from Commons. --Odeesi (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The FAQs about CC-licenses state clearly that this kind of demand isn't in compliance with their terms so this license addition by Wolfgang is to say it in a positive way problematic and is for re-users unexpected and therefor a honeypot for legal threads.
 Delete There was very similar discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark about whether an author can compel us to retain a visible watermark in the image as attribution. In short: no, they can't. Same deal here: we don't accept images where the author attempts to dictate the manner in which attribution is given. It's unfortunate and I do hope Wolfgang can be persuaded to adopt a more conventional, unaltered license, but as things stand all the affected images gotta go. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete If the license addition only applies to non-WMF projects, it's putting any non-WMF Wikipedia copy in violation of the license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Unnecessary, conflicting extension to the given CC-BY-SA licenses. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just ask the author to use another license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.35.132 (talk • contribs)
I did. Nearly ten times by now. He always refused. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per consensus above. Yann (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/License_%22adding_my_name_directly_under_the_photo%22&oldid=94277490"