Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3

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.

Template:Attribution-Ubisoft

It has been known for a long time that this template is invalid, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 2. Unfortunately, because of some zealots mass voting for keep, it was never exorcised from commons, as it should be. The permission is not valid; only a signed permission by an authorized person from Ubisoft's executive board at their headquaders would be valid and it is clear that this would never happen, as it would be equivalent to release all the game art. No game company like Ubisoft would do this on a rational basis. The person that gave the alleged "permission" was not a member of the executive board, it was not even an employee of Ubisoft France who own the copyrights, but it was some support guy having no idea of legal things in a German subsidary of the company. It is clear that he cannot give a permission; what he meant to do was merely to explain the standard requirements for using screen shots under fair use; he mistakenly confused fair use and the alleged "permission" because he saw some similarities (both require attribution) and so said it's okay. There was enough time to resolve the issue as promised at User talk:Avatar#Ubisoft permission for using it's screenshots under the free license, but nothing has happened for years now and it is obvious that this was just an attempt to delay matters indefinitely. Please finally delete this template and all associated pictures. It's wishful thinking. By the way, User:Avatar/Ubisoft#Permission says clearly that Ubisoft reserves the right to revoke the "license" at will. So even if it were a valid license, it would not be free. The correspondence at User:Avatar/Ubisoft/OTRS_thread shows the requesting user systematically playing down doubts by the support guy he is discussing with, trying to convince him that the nature of the differences is purely "theoretical". But the support guy clearly wants to state the companies policy and by no means extend it (which he is not authorized to). He says that the policy allows Ubisoft to revoke the license at will, and when the requesting user emphasizes what a free license means, we see that the support guy does not understand, never responds to these ciritical issues; he never explicitly says that the needed permissions can be given and especially he never explicitly says that he wants to give permission beyond the use according to standard Ubisoft screenshot policy. Influenced by the biased statements by the requesting user, he incorrectly thinks that in all practical matters, this policy is ess entially the same as the proposed attribution license.

Let me summarize:

• The "permission" is invalid. It was not given by the copyright owner, Ubisoft France, but by an unauthorized support guy employed at a different company, a subsidiary.
• The permission as it is claimed on the template is not credible. It would mean releasing the artwork of all games of ubisoft, opening them for the competitors. This would be a major, revolutionary and to date unique change in the companie's politics, and nothing like that has been made official.
• A look at the discussion with the support guy unveils that he merely wants to explain the company's policies for screenshot fair use, not giving a free license. He explicitly states that in any case, Ubisoft reserves the right to withdraw any permission, and this is acknowledged by the commons user on the discussion page of the template.
• The appearance of the guy giving a license is purely based on his incorrect assumption that the ubisoft screenshot fair use policy is essentially the same as the alleged license in all practical respects.

--rtc (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that this is very questionable. For example this "answer" by Plrk. The right answer would be that the German employee explained that they reserved the right to have images deleted at will: "In Einzelfällen behalten wir uns das Recht vor dieses zu untersagen und die entsprechenden Bilder löschen zu lassen. Z.b. in dem Fall, dass Bilder gemacht werden um das Produkt klar in Diskredit zu stellen." The images cannot be used for any purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment I am a little worried that we may be demanding "a signed permission by an authorized person from Ubisoft's executive board at their headquarters" (in blood perhaps :-) ). The permission we have may well not be fully free and the person granting it may have insufficient authority, but no big company would have a director do this stuff. If we get permission for publicity material, it will be from some relatively lowly individual in their marketing department. --Simonxag (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rtc summary (2 first points), that why requesting a new permission is the way... but the result is imho easy to know. ~ bayo or talk 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Simonxag, I do not think that blood is necessary ;) But such a license would be quite far-reaching, and so a signature by the executive board is not asking for too much to make the thing credible. I still think that they would never give it, but rather laugh at someone who even asks.

Bayo, this already is the deletion request after "requesting a new permission". The last one ended with basically "but let's just request a new permission", see User talk:Avatar#Ubisoft permission for using it's screenshots under the free license: "Would it be possible to recontact them to confirm what the deal is with this?" -- "*Sigh*. Will do." But apparently nothing happened, now for much more than a year! So let's just accept that it's illusionary and delete it. We can't delay it indefinitely; two and a half year has passed since the first deletion request and this was simply enough time. --rtc (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I was linked above! What are the odds that I'd notice that. I stand by my statement that free licenses are irrevocable, but if they aren't valid to begin with, there is nothing to revoke as it was never really freely licensed. If the Ubisoft employee that originally "released" the screenshots had no authority to do so, the screenshots aren't really released and this template should be deleted along with all images that have been tagged with it. Plrk (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment If this permission is really invalid, then no doubt images must be deleted (as painful as it will be).
But what about {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} ? To me, either it is valid and then it proves that such free release is possible (which does no mean the Ubisoft one is valid, sure, but this leaves the door opened to talks), or it must be considered too. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS discussion for {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} is not public, so it cannot be checked. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The GSC license looks, on first glance at the OTRS ticket, valid (you'd need someone who speaks Russian to verify however.) --David Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment In the event of deletion and removal of this Ubisoft agreement, we need to have a game plan for dealing with the 800 or so relevant images. Mass deletion of these images is not an acceptable option and would cause significant disruption. I'd suggest some sort of phased removal, in which images are checked to see if they can be made compliant with fair use (not all will). If so, uploading them as such to relevant language Wikipedias then deleting the Commons version; if not, then deleting image straight away. -- Sabre (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I fully understand Rtc's issue with the template, and I disagree with the extensions some are trying to use for the template; it's vaguely worded as to what its boundaries are. However, it's as valid as anything. Here's a novel thought, Rtc: since you are so hell-bent on deleting this, contact Ubisoft yourself and clarify the license. Otherwise, this is plain and pointy forumshopping, hoping the outcome will change. David Fuchs (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

David, as I described, this is exactly how the last deletion request ended. Ubisoft has supposedly been contacted by Avatar back then after that deletion request. I did not do this to avoid allegations of bias: If I would contact them and tell the clearly what a free license means for them, they would for sure say "no, of course we do not want this!" So as a concession I did not contact them. There was no outcome of Avatars request, apparently! I waited for over one and a half years since then, and far more than two years since the first deletion request. So this is not forum shopping, it is the consequence of there being no progress at all. I think it's the right time to finally delete this now. If any valid permission should turn up, we can still undelete them, but the pictures are not that important as to make it necessary to delay matters indefinitely. Please see the arguments above concerning why the template is very clearly not valid. --rtc (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So you essentially admit you never contacted them to find out for yourself but still assume you can read their minds? They may have other reasons, like PR ones, they could have made such a decision.71.14.187.158 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An email has been sent out on 09/17/2009 asking for license confirmation, but since the email is written in German, I cannot read it at all. So contact has been done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to read their minds. Read the EULA - no free license there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

True the EULA states that, but as they hold final say, they can make exemptions in favor of less restrictions on case-by-case basis. Use by Wikimedia organization could be one such.74.207.78.39 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A license is only free if it does not discriminate on a case-by-case basis. --rtc (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Stop this crusade. For starters, it's not unheard of for low ranking people to engage in licensing if that's part of their job. That's how all bureaucracies work, sometimes low-ranking people actually hold the power. There's nothing here which is invalid. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Please stop the vendetta for keeping this irrational tag. Low ranking People by law cannot have the power to give away copyrights, this is solely possible by the authority of the executive board and requires a written and signed declaration, not some unclear statements mentioned in passing in an email discussion with a PR guy. PR guys are there to use psychological tricks to make the public think positive about a product, not to give away the company's assets! Apart from that, it's not the only strong argument against the validity of the tag; you ignored all the others. The guy was not an Ubisoft France employee, and only Ubisoft France holds the copyright. And there was never an agreement about a license. The guy merely tried to explain the Ubisoft screenshot policy, and (if at all) incorrectly assumed it to be the same as a free license after biased statements form the requesting user. Please change your vote to "delete" if you want to be rational. --rtc (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  That's not at all true. I have friends who manage company copyrights. If they are invested with the ability to dispense copyrights, more power to them. There is no legal reason why an executive board would have to get involved in such a formal manner. Finally, badgering users and accusing them of being irrational is not a way to make friends or convince anyone of your arguments. David Fuchs (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  It is neither my goal to make friends here, nor to convince anyone of my arguments, but to get the tag deleted, and if anyone thinks it should not be deleted, then please state what is incorrect about my arguments and my reasoning. Well, your friends might "manage" copyrights. But do they transfer them without a signature by the executive board? I do not think so. I do not know this case, so I cannot really judge it, and in general, anecdotes do not help us very much here anyway. --rtc (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete perhaps a delete vote is in order in addition to my comments above. Plrk (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete After having considered all that was written above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete It was surely a lot of work to create all those screenshots, but I understand rtc's thoughts. Why should Ubisoft give everybody the right to use virtually everything from their games, while Ubisoft's trademark and copyright notices are still visible on every game package and every title screen? For example, if this "permission" was true, everyone would be allowed to release a game starring Ubisoft's famous Rayman® character and make profit with it. Would Ubisoft tolerate how someone else cashes in on one of their properties? I don't think so. --Grandy02 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete I looked at the OTRS ticket and from what I saw, it is about the use of images on Wikipedia and I saw no firm assertion of a license to be used on images or if even such a permission has been granted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment - I think the language barrier caused some sort of confusion. A free license allows the user to use the image for **ANY** purpose. This includes commercial uses (e.g., games that use the same graphics) and derivative works intended to "discredit" the company. It may seem unlikely that a major game company would be willing to grant screenshots from its games under a free license, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask. After all, anything is worth a try. As for the deletion proposal, I would recommend contacting the appropriate Ubisoft representative and asking them to explicitly (note the emphasis) state that images from its games can be used under a free license. As said before, free licenses cannot be revoked. A free license would not allow Ubisoft to revoke images. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  As stated above, that was already the outcome of the last deletion request of this tag! We can't just delay matters again and again for another year. --rtc (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  As I also stated, there was contact recently to Ubisoft about the clarification of the license and there has been no reply yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, as per rtc. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete, convincing and valid arguments from user:rtc. --Kjetil_r 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment This DR can influence Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ubisoft logo.png ?. ~ bayo or talk 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should point out that most of Rtc's nomination statement is complete and utter bullshit and/or original research on his part. For one thing, the desk jockey you suggest is some middle management shill is the head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR, Niels Bogdan.[1] So to say it's someone who has no clue what he was doing is plainly insulting. He still sent an email which says plainly that the screenshots can be used freely provided there is attribution by Ubisoft. Finally, Rtc has never attempted to actually verify the issue, yet expects others to do that and then is impatient. So he's got something dead up his ass, I'm not sure what. I have sent an email to Bogdan asking him to clarify, and CCed it to the other corporate PR heads, so hopefully someone will respond... it took me all of five minutes, Rtc, glad to see you care. In the mean time, I see no reason to delete the license; regardless of supposed motives, or lack of understanding, we've got the email and his stamp of approval. --David Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please stop your zealous vendetta. The "head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR" is a "desk jockey". PR guys are not executive board guys and are not competent about licensing in general. I stand by the fact that he obviously has no clue about what the requesting user was asking for and what a free license really means. He said that "the screenshots can be used freely provided there is attribution by Ubisoft" because this can be understood basically as being the same as Ubisoft's fair use screenshot policy, which states, surprise, that you may use the picture for free and that you must give attribution to Ubisoft. I have never attempted to actually check the issue as a concession. If I would do this, people would essentially kill me for being so "biased" by telling him plainly what a free license means in a way that makes it obvious for him why such a request for such a license is an insult to Ubisoft's rationality. Your attempt to contact Bodgan is completely pointless, because he is not an employee of the company that holds the copyrights (Ubisoft France) and has no authority to do anything execpt to explain the existing Ubisoft screenshot fair use policy that comes with the games anyway. Nice that you sent a copy to other PR heads too, not to people who actually understand something about licensing. We have got not stamp of approval whatsoever from him, and if we would have, it would be invalid. You are denying reality and your aggressive attitude is ridiculous given the fact that nothing has happened for years now. There was more than enough time to resolve this issue! --rtc (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment. I suppose that it's very reasonable to consider a head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR as a person that knows what he does. So both we and the reusers will have an excuse in any court. It's him, the PR head is responsible, not us neither the reusers. The proponents lose time and can't contact Ubisoft?! Ok, let the opponents contact Ubisoft. But give us please any real proof that the PR head is an unreasonable person and his permission is void. Isn't this a correct way? (However, it looks like the permission has other problems as well.) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 02:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Drbug, it's a PR guy. He's there to give Ubisoft a good image, to communicate with fans and so on. Licensing is certainly not his expertise! head of Ubisoft "Group" Germany PR? Such important sounding position names are all common in Germany. The lowest ranking positions are called "Director", "Head of X", "Manager" and what not, to make them appear impressive to the uninformed reader. Perhaps he's the chief of a few bunch of guys, but certainly not anything with power to give away the company's assets, such as copyrights (and, stressing again, he's not an employee of the copyright holder, Ubisoft France). If you read the conversation, there is no such thing as a permission. All the guy does is to explain the existing fair use policy that comes with the games anyway. He seems to assume incorrectly that it is the same as the requesting user is asking for, which is understandable: The requesting user posts a list of options, and the guy replies by pointng to "* Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden" ("Ubisoft has to be attributed") and says that this is what the pictures must obey (understandable, it's a condition of Ubisoft's fair use policy). Nowhere was it stated clearly that this is not merely a restriction, but, quite on the contrary, meant to release any copyrights merely under this condition. The guy states in the same mail that Ubisofts reserves the right to prohibit screenshot use at any time as it sees fit (again, as the Ubisoft fair use policy says). The requesting user replies that this is not okay and says that such a restriction is not acceptable according to Wikipedia's understanding of freedom, but then he goes on to talk about the quite different issue of Wikipedia not being able to enforce such a restriction against third parties. The PR guy replies, obviously assuming that he is still explaining the fair use policy and not supposed to grant a license, that he is talking only about Wikipedia, and that it is (of course) not Wikipedia's problem if third party users violate the policy. He clarly states: "Es geht lediglich nur darum wie es direkt bei Wikepedia angeboten wird." (We are talking here merely about use at Wikipedia), which makes very plainly clear again that what he is talking about is not a free license for the general public, because that would be valid for anyone outside Wikipedia also. The requesting user then says that there is NPOV policy and so Wikipedia won't misuse it in a defamatory way, which he assumes is a problem for the PR guy (rather, I may say, the Ubisoft Fair Use policy), but that criticism sections would be allowed. He also says that Wikipedia would delete the picture if Ubisoft would ask for, but that he cannot impose deletions on third parties. He also makes the careless comment that he thinks that any remaining differences are purely theoretical in nature. So the PR guy replies: Fine. Of course. Nowhere was it made explicit that it's not about using the pictures in Wikipedia according to Ubisoft's policies, but that a license is requested that has nothing whatsoever to to with Wikipedia, but is given to the general public as a whole and gives away all the screenshot's contents, even for use in games by competitors. --rtc (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Responsibility. It's the first part of your answer, which bothers me more. We invented an OTRS system of permissions. It provides us enough guarantees that we and the reusers will have a good excuse in courts, or at least will have a regressive suit fallback. And permission by OTRS is considered enough. If one doubts the authority of the person that issued a permission, one should check it with this person. Before this the license may me considered void only for very good reasons, which are not found in this case. I don't see a reason to be sure that the PR Head hadn't checked the situation with the legal department. I don't think that it's too difficult to write a message to him. German is not my mother tongue, otherwise I would write to him myself, instead of writing all this.

  2. Lack in permission. The second part of your answer is about problems that I denoted "(However, it looks like the permission has other problems as well.)". I don't agree all your points in this second part, but I definitely wish to have a single text explaining what exactly is granted to us and our reusers, instead of a tricky conversation open for interpretations.

  So, I still don't understand, what's the problem indeed? The person's e-mail is known. Does he abstain from responding? Who did write to him last time? I think, after two years of delay, we can wait one week more to understand that there's no answer or unsuitable answer. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  1.: I disagree strongly. OTRS is a means, not an end in itself. It is not our .goal to "have a good excuse in courts" (to violate copyright), but that we have free licenses. And if there is a picture here where this is doubtful, then we should put things to the test. The more problematic the issue is (and it certainly is, the copyright owner being a major game company and the pictures containing all their game art), the more important it is to really check carefully. No good arguments in this case? I think it is a very good argument that PR guys are usually not those who have authority to give away copyrights. We do not have to assume the best case, but the worst case. The goal is to have pictures that are genuinely free. Not to have pictures that we have good reasons for to fool ourselves into believing them to be free, or at least keeping them here.

  2. I think we can agree on that.

  Yes, as said above, according to OTRS, someone contacted them again, and there was no reply. Go ahead to contact them yourself if you like, and try to get something that is more watertight than what we have. I know that a free license will never be granted, but I still welcome these attempts. Experience tells me that this tag won't be closed very soon, anyway, so you don't have to be afraid that all the pictures will be gone in a week. --rtc (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  FYI: The last contact attempt by the OTRS was made on 2009-09-17, no reply since then. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  Considering that the email given in the OTRS ticket and the one currently listed at Ubisoft are different, that might be part of the issue. David Fuchs (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Have a German OTRS user resend the email at the correct address. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• If this was discussed with them before and they haven't come back to WMF about it, I don't quite see why these should be deleted. -- User:Docu at 07:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of times licenses are created, then our policies changed or the first email forgot to mention what the license entails. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep But the "any" word should be removed. FR (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Non-free licenses are not allowed on commons. --rtc (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently, it's not an absolute rule : File:Wikipedia-logo.png :) FR (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That's right. This content is only here for "convenience", instead of cloning it on every Wikimedia projects. But it is a very special case. ~ bayo or talk 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Delete Even before reading the arguments above, I noticed that the agreement claims the ability to revoke the license in individual cases. It would seem clear that this makes it a non-free license, as they are placing conditions on "reuse for any purpose". As much as I'd love to have these images remain here, we can't pretend that the license is legitimate when it is not. The concerns over whether the supposed licensor even has the authority to release the images just exacerbates things further. AJCham 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete The case is clear. It would be really nice if we could keep the screenshots, but it's impossible. The mail exchange between Avatar and the German Ubisoft person (see also my translation into English) shows clearly that the Ubisoft person never dreamed of releasing all Ubisoft game art for commercial use and for (commercial) use in derivative works too - probably such a thought would have seemed too absurd to him to cross his mind. It also shows that "Ubisoft" (the support person from Germany) thought that it was only about using screenshots for Wikipedia... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I create few week ago Category:Useless Ubisoft game screenshots. Maybe we can wait some time the "Ubisoft reply" (again 1 month?) and delete that content. And wait again 1 month (to allow people to transfer/remove used images) and then delete all screenshots from Category:Ubisoft game screenshots. I also create Category:Ubisoft game logos to help transfer. ~ bayo or talk 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Arguments above seem persuasive. Prudence in this case dictates we delete, unless someone can come up with a clear statement on intent from the copyright holder, which I think in this case would me from Ubisoft's home office. Tabercil (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep wait & see; we should organize some kind of real, focussed effort on establishing where ubisoft stands on this. they might actually be smart enough to realize the value of getting their screenshots out there. in any case, there is enough ambiguity in the situation to make it worth pursuing the details with the company, rather than simply wiping out everything now. what about creating some kind of a "pause" for this debate & all related material, until we have something really definitive from them (ubisoft)? Lx 121 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  This is meant as some kind of joke, isn't it? For more than two years now people say this. You have had your "pause" and it was more than long enough. Let's finally wipe them out now and not delay matters indefinitely! If you get something meaningful from them (which you won't, because it would be braindead for them to release them in this way) we can still undelete them again. --rtc (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Rtc is expressing his opinion rather harshly, but he's still right. We have waited and waited and attempts were made to get a clear statement from Ubisoft, but to no avail. If you read the mail exchange that is used as base for the "license", it is utterly clear that... well, no point in repeating what I wrote in my comment above. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Dear Rtc, dear all; You deal about common sense, and that's an excellent thing. You say that this attribution by Ubisoft is lacunar, and that the screenshots can't be really "100% free" images. I'm not right with you, because I think that the CEO of the german subsidary of Ubisoft knew what he did when he gave this attribution. I think that he certainly knows much more things in legislation than each of us. Moreover, and that's why I deal about common sense, Ubisoft (France or anything else) has never complained whith this attribution. Somebody here spoke about 800 screenshots of Ubisoft available on Commons. If Ubisoft refused to see this kind of picture under free licence, I think they would already contact Wikimedia or User:Avatar to cancel this attribution. Isn't it common sense ? I do think so. --ΛΦΠ (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  First, the contact person was not "the CEO of the german subsidary of Ubisoft". As "head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR" it was someone from Ubisoft Germany's middle management, and certainly not of the legal department. Regarding the lack of complaints by Ubisoft: that's probably because the screenshots are presently only (or mainly) used in the way they have in mind: to illustrate Wikipedia articles or in other non-commercial, unaltered ways. However, the license here explicitly allows the use of Ubisoft screenshots for any purpose including derivative work, commercial use, and all other use. I'm 100% sure that Ubisoft would complain if someone took this license for real and e.g. created a commercial game with art from Ubisoft screenshots - properly attributing Ubisoft, which is the only thing the license requires. This kind of use has to be allowed for a free license, but this kind of use "Ubisoft" (the PR guy) certainly didn't agree to. Again: please, please read the mail exchange that was used to construct this "license". I'm even 1000% sure: if you asked the same guy "does this license mean that we can use game art from Ubisoft games freely for our own games or other commercial projects, attributing Ubisoft?" he would strongly disagree, if even respond to such a question. But it is this what the license means and Commons doesn't accept non-free licenses. So the only way out of this is to finally delete the template and the screenshots using it. We need to protect our users from running into a legal trap by re-using Ubisoft screenshots. "Wikimedia Commons said we can use them commercially with attribution!" will not help them in court. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Unless we get a clear statement that the screenshots may really be used for any purpose, including, e.g, creating artwork for some other video game. Even then the clause about "reserving the right to have some images deleted" may still prove problematic: What if somebody sells a derogatory T-Shirt using one of the screens and Ubi wants to have that "deleted"? And I'm also questioning that the contact person has the necessary authorization to release those images... --Berntie (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Reading through the English translation of the discussion with Ubisoft, it would appear that the license terms are a shade too restrictive for our purposes. SchuminWeb (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Keep Not an easy choise. But I read the permission and the DR and came to the conclusion that we could keep.

• Argument #1: "The "permission" is invalid. It was not given by the copyright owner,...". What reason do we have to think that HQ did not gave permission or that they have a problem with it? Have nominater asked HQ? Has HQ complained? Permission did not come from a nobody. I find it hard to believe that they do not know we have the images.
• Argument #2: "The permission as it is claimed on the template is not credible..." In the permission it is mentioned that they do know that they can't control what happens outside Wikipedia but that they are not afraid that it would be used to create a game.
• Argument #3: "A look at the discussion with the support guy unveils that he merely wants to explain the company's policies for screenshot fair use, not giving a free license...." Yes at first but I think that a free license is accepted. They can withdraw permission to prevent that new images is uploaded. They can't remove permission for excisting images. They can request that a specific image is deleted in case of a NPOV-problem and then we can delete. We have the right to be nice and delete if author request.
• Argument #4: "The appearance of the guy giving a license is purely based on his incorrect assumption...". He says "Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden".

So I think we could keep. --MGA73 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"What reason do we have to think that HQ did not gave permission" We have no permission from the HQ, signed by their board. Simple as that. There is no reason needed, it's a fact. Your argument goes like "I see nothing that says we do not have permission, so I assume we have". That's just childish for such a significant release. "In the permission it is mentioned that they do know that they can't control what happens outside Wikipedia" No! It is mentioned that Wikipedia can't control what happens outside of Wikipedia. He is just telling the standard Ubisoft license and saying Wikipedia has no obligation to enforce it outside of Wikipedia. "but that they are not afraid that it would be used to create a game" nowhere do they say anything like that. "but I think that a free license is accepted" it is irrelevant what you think. Such an assumption is childish. "They can withdraw permission to prevent that new images is uploaded" no, their standard license, and nothing else did they want to grant, says that they can withdraw permission from existing pictures at any time, not just new ones. 'He says "Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden".' Yes. He means that as a restriction, not as a license. By saying that, he lists one of the restrictions of the standard Ubisoft license. He makes clear that there are others. Conclusion: Please stop wishful thinking and please accept that the pictures are not licensed as they need to be, will not be licensed as they need to be and so need to be deleted. Thanks for your understanding. --rtc (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment As there are over 700+ images using this template in case the consensus is delete the template should 1st be replaced with a warning giving x days say 30 in the form of a fix date (before dd.mm.yyyyy) so local versions can be created or undeleted on the various wikipedias and only after the last file is deleted should it be deleted.
  

Like this

<!--start of template-->
<noinclude>{{deprecated}}
[[Category:Deprecated templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>
<div class="toccolours" style="text-align:center; margin:0 2.5%; padding:0;background-color:#fcfcfc; border:2px solid #b22222;">
'''This tag is obsolete, and if you add it to an image after ''replace_with_discussion_end_date'', it is liable to be tagged as {{tlx|nsd}} or {{tlx|npd}} as appropriate – this will result in deletion after 7 days.<br />
Images already tagged with this template are liable for speedy deletion after ''replace_with_grace_period_end_date'''''
</div>
[[Category:Ubisoft images]]
<!-- end of template -->

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Keep He's an employee of Ubisoft and I suppose he wouldn't be dumb to give us permission to use them without making contact with his superiors. Only a person lacking of responsibility would do that. Especially in a big company like this. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the arguments. He is not an employee of Ubisoft, but of a German subsidiary. He has also neither given permission nor intended to do so. Please do not mass-vote keep with pseudo-arguments just because you want to keep the pictures. --rtc (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you any proof that Head Quater does not like it? Have you asked them? It would have taken 2 minutes to ask! Do you really think that HQ does now know what is going on? I'm sure they search the web and the chance they do not know is small. Please do not use our time in your personal fight against these images. Lets stop this and if you ever get an answe from HQ we can talk about it again. Why waste many hours of our time if you can find out in 2 minutes yourself? --MGA73 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The mail exchange used to construct the "license" does not indicate that the Ubisoft Germany PR guy really intended to release Ubisoft's game art under a free license; I'm not under the impression that he was aware of the implications. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my duty to "prove" that "Head Quater does not like it". Of course, ubisoft would like to have the pictures in Wikipedia, though under their own license, which is not free. Ubisoft has been contacted several times and there was no clear reply. Contact them yourself and show us that they (ie, the executive board) really agrees (in wiriting, with their signature) to a free license, including all the consequences of such licenses which are totally unacceptable for them. Please stop your personal fight for keeping these irrational screenshots. --rtc (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It's not because the german Ubisoft is a subsidiary that means it's nost Ubisoft. All subsidiaries must have the HQ permission to do anything. They cannot act on their own. Of course he would have ask HQ permission before giving any permission. If he wouldn't know about nything he would have permited the use of artworks too. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy merely explained the standard Ubisoft license, which is not a free license. He did not give any permission beyond that. We need a free license signed by the Ubisoft board directly. This won't happen. Any attempts to contact them have failed, see above. Try for yourself. The pictures are dreamy and have to be deleted, I'm sorry. --rtc (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy is asked which license images could be used under and he says: "Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden". {{Attribution}} is a valid license.

We can't delete images just because you thinks other people are stupid and do not know what they are doing. I think we should AGF and if you want to delete images because you thinks this guy was stupid or do not have permission from HQ you should have some proof to support that argument. You can't just nominate images for deletion with the reason "He does not know what he was doing - please prove that he did..." That is wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In the same message, he clearly said that they reserved the righ to have images deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

... and he is told that can only happen if image is out of scope (NPOV-problem) ... --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Which was clearly not a truthful statement. Even if it were true, it would only apply to wikipedia, and the guy is clearly discussing usage on wikipedia only; he is not giving a license for anybody, for any purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my argument to vote keep he says that they do know that they can't control what happens outside Wikipedia but that they are not afraid that it would be used to create a game. So he knows and accepts that the permission allows usage outside Wikipedia.

As I said above we can delete if they ask nice. And if a screenshot is out of scope for Wikipedia it is also likely it will be out of scope here. But it should be rather clear for him that we can't promise to delete everything just because they ask. --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He is aware of the problems controlling usage outside wikipedia, but he has not given permission for use by anybody for any purpose. Is that difficult to understand? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. By accepting the terms (he was explained how it works around here) he acceptet the terms. Maybe it is you who do not understand ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's make it clear. He accepts attribution and if you take a look at the terms for attribution it is "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.". That is good enough for me. Only reason to delete is if he newer had authorisation to give this permission but we have no evidence supporting that he did not. Only the word of rtc (clairvoyant?) that claims to know what HQ thinks. --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The mail exchange shows clearly that the Ubisoft PR guy was under the impression that it was about using screenshots for Wikipedia and was not giving a license for free re-use and derivative works. Expressing to be "definitely aware that an usage somewhere else can't be supervised" isn't giving a license! Furthermore, as far as I can see, nowhere did he say "that they are not afraid that it would be used to create a game" - where do you take this from? His last statement was that "we have no fear to get rated e.g. as worst game because we are positive about the quality of our titles" - this was regarding the question of "inclusion of images in article text". And even if he did say such a thing, wouldn't it be a sign that they don't want people creating their own (and even commercial) games from Ubisoft game art? I'm still fully with rtc here and think that keeping this images under the purported free license, which was never given, could result in a (legal) catastrophe for a re-user who takes the license for real and really starts using Ubisoft game art for making their own game, or selling T-Shirts, or something similar... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd be concerned that Ubisoft would sue someone so fast that it would make your head spin if game artwork was used for another game. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"The guy is asked which license images could be used under and he says: "Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden" What the guy is trying to say by this is that the standard ubisoft license requires attribution He says "Attribution: Each use of a picture must include attribution to Ubisoft, the copyright owner". He does not say anything like "except for the requirement of attribution, you can do anything you like with the picture I criticized the attribution "license" several times because of this fundamental and essential built-in misunderstandability. It is by far not the first time that this "license" has been incorrectly understood in terms of restriction, not in terms of permission, and that is only natural, given that the name of the "license" suggests just that; it's incorrectly called "attribution", not "do-anything-you-like-but-attribute-me". "he says that they do know that they can't control what happens outside Wikipedia" Again, no, he is not saying that. He is saying that he understands that Wikipedia cannot control what happens outside of Wikipedia. He is saying that if Wikipedia uses the pictures (under the standard ubisoft license), Wikipedia has no obligation to enforce the conditions (ie. the standard ubisoft license) against people who take the pictures from Wikipedia. This does not imply that Ubisoft cannot enforce these conditions. All this has been explained above already. Please finally stop this nonsensical and dishonest attempt to keep these nonsensical pictures PS: I do not need to be clearvoyant to know what the HQ thinks. --rtc (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

First, information from OTRS should not be made public. But it is so I think it is safe to continue the debate...

Second, I noticed that rtc seems to know what others think and mean. We can't have a debate this way. Well I know that HQ do not mind...(!) So now what?

I made my transtation from the original mail but it seems I made a mistake about the "used to create a game"-part. Lets forget this part. I'm sure that if someone wanted to steal the game they would not use screenshots from Commons but get a copy of the game and use that.

If we go back to the problems. Did he choose a license? Yes he did (attribution). You might not like the template called attribution but in that case nominate that for deletion. As long as it is accepted we can have images with this license.

You ask did he or did he not say "you can do anything you like with the picture". No he did not but he was told, that they should accept that:

All contents in Wikimedia projects must be free. Free means to us:
* Republication and distribution must be allowed
* The publication of derived works must be allowed
* Commercial use must be allowed

and later:

we don't have an influence on the usage of the images by third parties 
and a modification of the images is explicitly allowed,

He then says "am definitely aware that an usage somewhere else can't be supervised." So yes he knows images can be used outside Wikipedia and yes he accepts that. If he had not accepted that he would surely had said that.

He also says that Wikipdia should use the images in a good way but that is not relevant for Commons.

I do not mind that you do not agree with me but I remind you that calling others dishonest is not acceptable! --MGA73 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have an open mind and take some time to read and understand the arguments from my deletion request and carefully read the OTRS discussion again, considering the perspective of the OTRS guy, that he merely wants to explain the standard ubisoft license. What you quote ignores the context in which it is said, for example when told "All contents in Wikimedia projects must be free" the Ubisoft guy replies that they can withdraw the license (so it's not free), which the OTRS guy even acknowledges; and "am definitely aware that an usage somewhere else can't be supervised" means can't be supervised by wikipedia (it refers to "we [Wikipedia] don't have an influence ...", emphasis added); Wikipedia has no obligation to enforce the standard ubisoft license against people who get the pictures from Wikipedia, which is not the same as saying that Ubisoft won't enforce it. All this has been explained to you before. --rtc (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored this version. I do not find it acceptable that you move my arguments to the talkpage saying it is off topic. I have explained why I find the permission acceptable and that is relevant to others. If you move "keep arguments" then you are manipulating the discussion. Let the arguments stay and let closing admin decide. --MGA73 (talk) 08

57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have ofcourse read the DR and the permission in OTRS (bot in German and English). The issue is if the choise of a license is enough. He has chosen a license and has been told, what the license means. Still he does not say "no". So I think the permission is enough.

Then he starts a debate on how it will look on Wikipedis. That has little relevance to us on Commons.

If you demand that authors not only choose a license but also specificly declare that the understand what that means etc. then you can nominate 99 % of the images from Flickr to deletion. On Flickr you choose a license but you do not have to state that you understand what it means. --MGA73 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, MGA73, that rtc should not have moved this part of the conversation to the discussion page. However, although this is inacceptable behaviour IMHO too, he's still right in the matter - sadly, this erratic action and his needlessly harsh tone are not likely to help the cause. But in substance he's correct! To repeat it again and again: The German Ubisoft PR guy didn't explicitly agree to free re-use and creation of derivative works for Ubisoft game art. The mail exchange shows that he thought it was only about using screenshots for Wikipedia. "Then he starts a debate on how it will look on Wikipedis. That has little relevance to us on Commons" - exactly, but it is an indication that there was no grasp of what kind of license was asked for. May I also repeat the question why you stated that he said "that they are not afraid that it would be used to create a game"? As far as I see, nowhere he did say this. And my last repetition: keeping this images under the purported free license, which was never given, could result in a (legal) catastrophe for a re-user who takes the license for real and really starts using Ubisoft game art for making their own game, or selling T-Shirts, or something similar... - but well, we're all basically only repeating our stances here since quite some time, without substantial new arguments, so it's really time for an admin to decide. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above it seems that I sadly made a mistake about the "used to create a game"-part during translation. I also agree that we are using the same arguments again and again. To me it is clear that he accepted because he was told how the rules is and he choosed a license and in my world a PR-guy is expected to know about copyright. That is why I think the permission is acceptable. If the permission was from "today" I agree we should try to get a better (it is 4 years old). I do not fear legal problems because I find it unlikely that HQ does not know and if they have a problem with it all they have to do is send us a mail. --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters must be quite happy with the current situation: free advertising space on wikipedias without them having given away a free license. Commons has given them a nice advantage over the competition. Of course, they will not sue Commons. But as Gestumblindi wrote, woe the re-user who would take the commons license for real. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes if we agree that {{Attribution}} is not a valid license. --MGA73 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"I have ofcourse read the DR and the permission in OTRS (bot in German and English). The issue is if the choise of a license is enough. He has chosen a license and has been told, what the license means. Still he does not say "no"." Hell, he said no, simple as that, and the OTRS guy acknowledged that he said no. That's what I'm trying to explain to you all the time. You're dishonest continuing, despite this fact, to claim the opposite. The Ubisoft guy only ever said that the ubisoft license requires attribution, never that he grants the "attribution" license (which should be removed anyway, because it has been misunderstood so many times both by people like you and by people like the ubisoft guy). Why don't you give proof to your claim that he intended what you say he intended by showing us a clarification, signed by a board member? Becuase even if the PR guy had actually intended the license that you claim he intended (which he didn't), it would not be valid, because only by signature of the executive board of the HQ such a license can be given in a legally valid way. It cannot be given by email. Why are you disrupting this discussion with the same nonsensical argument that has been made for years? --rtc (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I told you to stop personal attacks! If you have a personal reason to want these images deleted so bad then please tell and if not then focus on the debate.

I told you my reasons for voting keep more than once. He was told to choose a license (they were listed) and he chose one. He was also told he had to accept the terms or there would be no deal. Still you say he said no (or did not say no?). Please tell me where he said "No we can't accept the license or the therms". As for the debate on Wikipedia I still think it is not relevant to Commons since we are NOT Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He says "User dürfen generell gerne Bilder von unseren Spielen machen und einstellen. In Einzelfällen behalten wir uns das Recht vor dieses zu untersagen und die entsprechenden Bilder löschen zu lassen. Z.b. in dem Fall, dass Bilder gemacht werden um das Produkt klar in Diskredit zu stellen. Generell sollten die Bilder immer unter folgendem laufen: Attribution: Bei jeder Benutzung muß der Copyright-Inhaber [Ubisoft] genannt werden" ("[according to the Ubisoft standard license], users can make and upload screenshots of our games. However, we can revoke this permission for pictures at any time, and ask for them to be deleted, for example if they are used in a way we see as negative. Whereever they are used, pictures always have to be attributed to Ubisoft.") That is a clear no, as the OTRS guy correctly recognizes: "That means we unfortunately cannot accept your screenshots, since this does not satisfy our definition of free pictures." The discussion then goes on and the OTRS guy systematically tries to play down the differences between a free license that is necessary and the ubisoft standard license, and the Ubisoft guy tries to explain the ubisoft standard license, and in the end they have reached a bogus "agreement" that there is no real difference between the Ubisoft standard license and a free license that is required for commons. BTW, What debate on Wikipedia are you referring to? --rtc (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You quoted without the line break and you combine two mails. If we take the english version that all users can see then you can see that he starts by telling that users can take images from the games and that they reserve the right to get them deleted. He also says that generally license should be attribution. I think we agree so far. The question is if these two paragraphs are strongly linked together or not.

Then he is told that this (the part on deletion) is not acceptable. Then he says it is not about the use elsewhere but "It's only about how it is provided directly at Wikipedia." Then there is some debate on how Wikipedia goes and it should be "neutral" (the POV-problem) etc. It is this debate on how articles should be on Wikipedia I'm referring to. I agree that articles on Wikipedia should be neutral but that is not a matter for Commons. If someone uses one of the images on Wikipedia and says the games sucks then users on Wikipedia should fix that problem.

So as I see it he chose a license (attribution) was informed on the terms (and accepted) and then started a discussion on that Wikipedia should be neutral but that is not relevant for us.

As for the comment "as the OTRS guy correctly recognizes" then OTRS-users are also users so they are not judges or gods. They can be right and they can be wrong. So that argument is just one of many. --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He also says that generally license should be attribution. I think we agree so far." No, we don't. He says that generally, the pictures should be attributed to Ubisoft. He does not say anything about a license. And there is no abiguity about that, given the sentence in the previous paragraph (that they keep full control over the pictures and can ask for them to be deleted at their request at any time) obviously contradicts the deprecated "attribution" license. It's a simple application of the logical rule called 'law of contradiction' If you have problems seeing this simple and basic argument, we have to stop discussion and I have to ignore you, because if you deny the law of contradiction, that is the same as saying that you ignore any argument and that all you do is being a troll. "Then he is told that this (the part on deletion) is not acceptable. Then he says it is not about the use elsewhere but 'It's only about how it is provided directly at Wikipedia.'" That's right. He is saying that Wikipedia is responsible only for deleting pictures in Wikipedia, not for deleting pictures somewhere else, even if taken from Wikipedia. Deleting pictures somewhere else is the responsibility of the respective site admin, once contacted by Ubisoft. "So as I see it he chose a license (attribution)" No, he did not. He said that attribution is one of the requirements for using the pictures. "was informed on the terms (and accepted)" No, he did not accept anything, and he cannot accept anything, because he is not authorized to do that. He merely tries to explain the standard Ubisoft use terms, nothing else. "and then started a discussion on that Wikipedia should be neutral but that is not relevant for us" No; he plainly states the Ubisoft terms and the OTRS guy correctly sees that they are not a free license, and then, as I said, the OTRS guy systematically tries to play down the differences between a free license that is necessary and the ubisoft standard license, and the Ubisoft guy tries to explain the ubisoft standard license, and in the end they have reached a bogus "agreement" that there is no real difference between the Ubisoft standard license and a free license that is required for commons. Please get real; the license you want to see is simply not there, and you don't need to look into the details of the discussion to know that; it's just what realistic people know by common sense. --rtc (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it seems we will never agree because of the way the debate is. If we took every one of your reasons to delete one by one then perhaps. You mix arguments and make discussion "muddy". Example "No, he did not accept anything, and he cannot accept anything, because he is not authorized to do that." That is two different problems and should be debated apart. That is why I only comment on one of the arguments now: If I ask someone to chose one of the following 6 licenses and he mentions one of them then I conclude he has choosen one he mentions. If closing admin agrees on that (s)he will keep and if not then delete. Same thing with the other arguments. --MGA73 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem that we don't agree, it's a problem that you ignore basic rules of logic. In no way do I make discussion "muddy"; there are clear relations between what I say; you just don't like them, because they refute your claims! For example "he cannot accept anything, because he is not authorized to do that" is both an argument and an explanation for "he did not accept anything"; the latter is a logical consequence of the former and because the former is true, the latter must be true also. Further, I explained to you that "If I ask someone to chose one of the following 6 licenses and he mentions one of them then I conclude he has choosen one he mentions" is clearly contradicted by the fact that in the same message he clearly says that they can ask for deletion of any picture at any time if used in a way they do not like, and because this is in clear contradiction to the terms of the deprecated "attribution" license, he cannot have intended to give one. In fact, if you read his wording carefully, you see that he merely explains the ubisoft standard terms for screenshots and so merely says that attribution is one of the conditions. "That is two different problems and should be debated apart" By using this kind of logic, that is, by keeping contradictory statements apart and saying that they have nothing to do with each other, you violate basic and simple rules of logic and that is the problem. --rtc (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If I kill a man in self defence can I then say "No I did not kill him"? Of course not. There is no doubt that I killed him BUT if it was self defence I might not get a punishment.

He chooses the license attrubution AND he starts debateing other issuse. But that does not change the fact that he DID choose a license. The argument that he does not have authorisation to give such permission does also not change the fact that he did give the permission.

All three things are indeed very relevant to decide if we have a valid permission but saying that he did not give a permission because he did not have autorisation or because he wanted to have influence on the text on Wikipedia is the same as saying. "It was self defense so there fore I did not kill him - and there fore he must have died of natural causes...". See THAT violate basic and simple rules of logic. --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"He chooses the license attrubution AND he starts debateing other issuse. But that does not change the fact that he DID choose a license" Even if what you say were true, which it isn't (he said that attribution is one of the requirements for using the pictures), it's a fact that he named it as a condition that they can have any picture deleted at any time. Just because this condition would make said fictious license non-free you would not be excused from obeying that condition. Let's stop here. You are too obviously just spinning the guy's words to have these irrational pictures kept. As you are not stupid, you have understood the arguments pretty well. I understand that you have some problems admitting that you are wrong (you should learn it, though), but it can't be used to delay deletion of the pictures further. Thanks for your understanding. --rtc (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Again you attack users. Are you desperate? Nice people from fr-wikipedia wanted to ask HQ but you tryed to stop them. Are you afraid that they might prove that you lied. Or why do you have so many problems sticking to arguments? Have you ever thought that YOU might be the one that is wrong?

I do not think the points should be mixed but maybe you can understand my arguments better this way: I said he 1) choosed a valid license AND 2) he said that they wanted the right to get images deleted. Then I explained that he was told that he could forget everythig about "2)" if he wanted the images on Wikipedia/Commons. Since they later agreed he has accepted that they can't demand that images are deleted. Simple logic tells me that 1 + 2 - 2 = 1. In other words what remains is: 1) He choosed a valid license. That is all I have been trying to say. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nice people from fr-wikipedia wanted to ask HQ but you tryed to stop them." I did not do that. I said their attempt is no reason to delay matters further, because the reply, if there will be a competent one, will be negative. I understand your pseudoarugments perfectly well, but they are invalid, as I tried to explain to you several times. You have understood that and know that you are wrong, and I know it, but you still claim the opposite because you want to keep these pictures. The issue under discussion is entirely secondary to you. If it were pictures that you don't care about, you would openly admit that what I say is true and obvious. "choosed a valid license" no, he did not. He said that attribution is one of the requirements for using these pictures. You are spinning his words. "I do not think the points should be mixed" That's exactly the point; by keeping contradictory statements separate, you reject logic. And you do it just where you need it, for example: "later agreed he has accepted that they can't demand that images are deleted" is not kept separate by you. And no, he did not do that. He came to believe that Wikipedia is fine with the standard Ubisoft license. And he's not authorized to do anything but explain this license, and he cannot do anything else in a legally valid way. Your attempt to understand his statements in a different way is childish and naive. "Simple logic tells me that 1 + 2 - 2 = 1." That's arithmetic, not logic, and it's not a valid analogy either. --rtc (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Commons template {{Attribution}} and the word "Attribution" dont have the same semantics. There is no problem with the template. ~ bayo or talk 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow up. I know attribution can both be a license and "a word" used in an other meaning. OTRS-person asks the guy "Under which licence may the images be published?" and then he mentions 6 licenses where:

• "Attribution: For each use the copyright owner Ubisoft must be mentioned." is one of them

The guy from Ubisoft then says "Generally the images should always be used under this: * Attribution: For each use the copyright owner Ubisoft must be mentioned."

So he specificly chooses that he wants the images licensed as {{Attribution}}. He is not just saying that images shoult be attributed to Ubisoft. --MGA73 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He says it and he means it. His statement about withdrawing the license contradicts your claim that he intends to grant the deprecated attribution license rather than merely explain the standard Ubisoft screenshot terms. Since the attribution license simply has no such requirement. See, this guy gets thousands of requests on the conditions for screenhot use, and he knows that attribution is one of them, so he merely skimmed what the OTRS guy asked. He was not aware about the details of the attribution license and that the requesting user basically means something very specific and far-reaching. Yes, the OTRS user says a little bit about what a free license means, but not in some unambiguous way. And the Ubisoft PR guy has neither really read it nor fully understood the consequences of it. It's obvious that he is simply replying as for the 1000s of other requests that he gets on screenshot use. So get real and please stop defending the absurd. --rtc (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

 Delete "never attempted to actually check the issue as a concession" as stated by the nominator sounds like nonsense but the what is in the permission as explained above and what I read in the German mail exchange seems more than problematic. Hekerui (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weak  Delete. I kind of lean towards deleting since it will damage the reputation of commons if somebody is sued by Ubisoft for using these images commercially. It is also an unfavorable position for commons to host images here for until “further notice”. On the other hand this recent ruling by a German court supports my impression that these images are by now somehow “legal”, since Ubisoft for quite some while did not do anything against hosting these images here under these “unwanted” conditions. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is no court ruling, but merely an injunction, and it looks very much like this decision is very questionable and would probably not stand in main proceeedings. (IMO, there are many things that suggest the decision was clearly wrong) Also, it's a German decision, and we can't take some German decision and use it as standard for the international matters here on Commons. Last but not least, the decision did not say that the photo became legal, merely that there was some temprary excuse for their illegal use. --rtc (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Wikimédia France, the French local chapter, has offerd to ask HQ according to Commons talk:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. It has been moved because "This might interfere with the debate". I think that it is a shame it has been moved. If it has influence on the debate or the result then I think it is relevant. But now you know they can/will contact HQ. --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Note to admins: This is just one contact of several that have been made and that have failed, so please do not see it as a reason for delaying deletion. Undeletion is possible in case they give a positive reply (which is impossible, assuming their rationality, though). --rtc (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is just one out of many then it would be fair to asume HQ knows we have the images. And if they do not bother to object then it supports asumption that they agree with the permission. --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I've really seen no contradiction with a wiki policy, nor any policy to corroborate the other member's arguments. If the Copyright is to the company, then the subsidiaries should have permission to give permission. Like WB Games Chicago, it should have the permission to use the screenshots from WB Games (like a Scribblenauts Screenshot) and similarly use that permission to give to others. Cite official policies and actual laws which, without loose interpretation, says otherwise. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's a simple fact that a subsidiary cannot give away assets of its company that is not an asset of the subsidiary. I don't think we need to cite laws to know that this is so. Only the other way around is valid; a company can give away assets of subsidiaries. Also, a PR guy cannot give away assets; only the executive board can, and this power cannot be delegated. That's also a simple well-known fact for which there is no need make a complicated argument citing law. However, that is quite irrelevant, since the PR guy didn't even intend to give away assets or grant a license. He merely explained the standard Ubisoft terms for screenshot use. And there are contradictions with the policy that free licenses are required, but the standard Ubisoft terms for screenshot use, which were explained in the mail exchange, are not a free license. --rtc (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  You keep saying "give away assets". But this isn't giving away assets, it's granting a license to them. Even if executive board approval is required to give away assets, I seriously doubt it's required to grant licenses to those assets. --Carnildo (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the purported license for Ubisoft screenshots were for real, it would mean that anyone would be allowed to create derivative works (including commercial ones and e.g. their own games) from them with the only requirement being attribution. In my book, that certainly is giving away assets. And what exactly do you mean by "granting licenses to assets"? How can one grant a license to assets? *scratching head* Gestumblindi (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Also just above. If HQ has been contacted and do not react it supports asumption that they agree with the permission. --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but we should still heed the precautionary principle, though. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think we do/did. We got a permission from German branch (in OTRS) and if we also asked HQ if they knew but they do not bother to reply then I think we have done much. A mail reply is not expensive so they should be able to afford that. And if we tell them they should know. --MGA73 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The requester for deletion has no official documentation to support his argument. While logically thought out, to believe his argument we're simply supposed to "take his word for it". "It" being that subsidiaries can not grant license permission. No Wikipedia policies or official laws have been stated that subidiaries can not grant licenses. Trying to be objective and neutral, no sides whatsoever have quoted official documentation one way or the other. While common sense is good to use for delegation in a talk page, it would certainly not hold up in court. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly the other way round: we don't need "official documentation" to support deleting the screenshots, but we we would need a clear, offical declaration by Ubisoft granting a free license to be able to keep them. Which we don't have. We have a purported license constructed from less-than-clear statements in a mail exchange with a PR person from Ubisoft Germany. Granting a free license in the sense required by Commons, one that allows derivative works and commercial re-use would be an extremely big, unprecedent step for a game company, as they would basically give away copyright for all their games. For the license, as currently stated here, allows any re-use of screenshots of Ubisoft games (with attribution), and as you can make screenshots of all parts of an Ubisoft game, there would be nothing left that can't be freely and commercially used by anyone. Well - if we assume that Ubisoft possibly could be willing to grant such a license, as you seem to, then why don't say they anything about it on their website? Why are there the usual copyright notices and no statement that they give a free "attribution" license for all their game content? It seems they are still interested in their copyright, after all? Such a big, earth-shaking decision, the first major game company to release their content under a free license (which, to repeat it, is what the purported "screenshot license" means - for a license that allows only usage as screenshots wouldn't be acceptable by Commons), wouldn't be hidden in such statements in a mail exchange! Gestumblindi (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Since there has been no further response from the company, I think we should try asking on the Ubisoft forums instead. I don't think it will help that much, but it's worth a try. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to try. But one of the reasons to start this DR was that the guy who gave permission was a nobody who had no clue of what he was doing. So I doubt you will find any "big boss" on the forum. Personally I think that if we have a permission and we have informed HQ then we are pretty safe. --MGA73 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete The fact that withdrawing permission was raised argues compellingly that, even if the person who supposedly agreed the release had the authority to do make such an agreement, the replies did not have the sense that were read into them. I do not believe that there was ever any intention that these images should be released under an {{Attribution}} license. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note regarding the previous DR, for the information of the admin eventually dealing with this (I mentioned it already at a different place): I contacted Giggy who closed the last DR for this template as "kept" after the decision and Giggy replied on my talk page expressing willingness to open a new DR in light of the mail exchange translation ("Again, if you would want to wait for a bit to see if Avatar has any luck, it would be great, but otherwise, with this (excellent) translation, we could discuss the template again if you wanted to." (...) "If we hear nothing from Ubisoft, and if you aren't keen (understandable!) I'd be happy to start one myself.") Well, Giggy didn't start one and I forgot about the matter for a while, but IMHO rtc was fully right in opening a new DR. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Please close this already. This discussion has gone on for three months, and the arguments seem to have run their courses on both sides of the discussion. Ultimately, the discussion does not revolve around the template, per se, but rather whether the permission given for Ubisoft images is sufficiently free for our purposes. But we need to settle this so we can have a determination on record about whether the images are suitable for Commons, and then move based on that determination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no problem to close it now, and deleting all useless content now. But we should wait sometime to move some content into local wikipedia. Else we will broke a lot of articles. ~ bayo or talk 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement, delete the unused files but give us at least a week to move the used files to local wikipedias.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

see my previous post for a example:

As there are over 700+ images using this template in case the consensus is delete the template should 1st be replaced with a warning giving x days say 30 in the form of a fix date (before dd.mm.yyyyy) so local versions can be created or undeleted on the various wikipedias and only after the last file is deleted should it be deleted.

Like this

<!--start of template-->
<noinclude>{{deprecated}}
[[Category:Deprecated templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>
<div class="toccolours" style="text-align:center; margin:0 2.5%; padding:0;background-color:#fcfcfc; border:2px solid #b22222;">
'''This tag is obsolete, and if you add it to an image after ''replace_with_discussion_end_date'', it is liable to be tagged as {{tlx|nsd}} or {{tlx|npd}} as appropriate – this will result in deletion after 7 days.<br />
Images already tagged with this template are liable for speedy deletion after ''replace_with_grace_period_end_date'''''
</div>
[[Category:Ubisoft images]]
<!-- end of template -->

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete. per the above. Questionable permission, Commons doesn't need any unnecessary lawsuits. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Keep - I've run several times across the mention of "common sense" in this lengthy debate, along with the point that "no company would give a free license of their game art", because it could be used by commercial competitors for own projects. Well, let's explore that point - a modern computer game is not at all only graphic work like the items displayed on screen while playing. The most time consumpting creative work for a game is the work on 3D models, I bet, and that isn't given away at all with the license. I would also stress that a screenshot does only show one side of a ingame object, to make such a "screenshotted" object usable in other games, you'll not only have to recreate a matching 3D model but also a skin covering every side of it. It would be fastidious to do so and in my common sense a commercial competitor would more likely make it's own game art than trying to adapt some Ubisoft work found here, on Commons. From Ubisoft's side, screenshots displayed here are or could be surely considered as a great and free-of-charge publicity; the company does not at all "release all the game art", seen that the license is only granted for screenshots (those consists always in only a real small part of the game art under one viewing direction in the 3D world in a precise gaming situation) and that those screenshots must remain within the project's scope, so that nobody could seriously argue that someone could make the number of screenshots necessary to get the whole game art of anyone of Ubisoft's games and release it on Commons under our "Ubisoft license". We should be happy that we've got this great possibility to illustrate articles (in my opinion) expressly clarified by a lawful representative of the company, seen that not all language editions have the fallback of a fair use rationale. Grand-Duc (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, the license contains no requirement that screenshots must remain within the project's scope. If this license actually is legal, that means that all game art is practically released - you can take endless amounts of screenshots of everything and anything visible in the game, and you can use these screenshots for any purpose. For example, you could build 3D models - et voila, the 3D models have effectively been released. Plrk (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand-Duc, it seems that you're missing what a free license that allows derivative works means. The purported free license is far more than a license "only for screenshots". It's not only about computer games: what about using Ubisoft game art for clothing, board games, comics etc. etc. and selling them (with attribution "Ubisoft")? If this license were for real, it would be allowed! Indeed, it seems that the Ubisoft PR person's intention was a license that "is only granted for screenshots", but such a license (that doesn't allow derivative works) would be a non-free license and therefore not acceptable on Commons. By the way, to me, Ubisoft doesn't look like a company that would be ready to embrace the concept of a free license for their game art, as I've very recently read news regarding their elaborate technical measures to protect their copyright (in German, see this article at Heise Online). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment
  As announced some time ago, as Wikimédia France, the french local chapter, we did contact Ubisoft headquarters in Paris. We sent a detailed document explaining what was interpreted in the past, and what entails a free license.
  We got an answer from the "Corporate Media Relations Manager". It is short and unambiguous. They asked their legal department, claim they did not have knowledge of such an agreement, and for the time being, do not wish to release media under a free license.
  Jean-Fred (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this ends discussion clearly. It means that the template and all images using it have to be deleted speedily. Many thanks for your efforts, Jean-Fred! Gestumblindi (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's really sad, but seeing that an admin reports it I guess it means what Gestumblindi wrote. Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I am deleting Category:Useless Ubisoft game screenshots with a bot. I save on my hard driver all media i delete. Ask me if you want i send you some of them. ~ bayo or talk 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted, this license doesn't apply to our Commons licensing criteria at all. All images need to be usable by anyone, anytime and for any purpose (Commons:Licensing). Thus, it mustn't be that Ubisoft reserves the right to revoke the license if the don't want to. In such a case, the screenshot can't be used by everyone or for any purpose. In the mails, it was said that such images would be deleted due to the NPOV rule, but this is simply wrong. There's no such rule here on Commons, only on Wikipedia (Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view). Images might be wrong or even discredit the game. As proposed several times, contact has been made and been successful this time. As assumable, a game company like Ubisoft never agreed to publish their files under a free license. Thus, the images gotta be deleted, as much as a regret this might be for the corresponding articles at Wikipedia. Since a lot of fair use projects still use, I'm gonna contact those and ask them to transfer them to their local wiki. In ~ 2 weeks up to 1 month, I'll delete the images from Commons, if I forget it, drop me a note on my talk page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)