Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EBI License
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.
This is not a true public domain release, because it is revokable : However, we do reserve the right to alter these terms at any time in order to ensure their appropriateness to the EBI mission. Terms of Use, 17. This contradicts the "without any conditions" wording, of {{PD-self}}. Teofilo (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) WITHDRAWN
Keep Of course the European Bioinformatics Institute does not guarantee that its database or its visualization software will be free to anyone forever. Their governing body may change policy and sart to charge pharmaceutical companies in the future. But that is no problem for the images of proteins that are now being uploaded to commons from that site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a friend lends you his car without saying until when, you have to give it back to him as soon as he requests it. Teofilo (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- If things happen like you say, people in pharmaceutical companies would be forbidden to read the concerned Wikipedia pages online, unless they pay a fee. Teofilo (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. EBI is just not guaranteeing that future software releases will be free for everybody, or that access to the databases will always be free. But it is free now, and downloaded information will of course be free. But I suspect that you are just trying to get some more stuff deleted here. Who is paying you? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. But, if there's another license that is compatible, let's change it... AndrewGNF (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it, there is no conflict between Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses and the stated terms of use. Note also that the EBI terms of use also applies to the web services provided by that organization, and that is the focus of item 17. AndrewGNF (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried to find in Google where this problem might have been addressed before. I found this text (10 Jan 2003), which, in my opinion, asks good questions. The legal code of a Creative Commons license, for example, is a good example of a non-revokable license because it includes the wording "perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)" : Creative commons by/2.5 legal code. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my eyes glaze over when I see so much license talk. Can you summarize your reading of it as it relates to the EBI? Also, is it not reasonable to remove all images from the commons if EBI changes the terms on those images? (which they won't -- they're only covering themselves for retiring services...) Anyway, I'm sure their intent for those images is compatible with wikicommons, and while I'm sure we could work with them to get more precise language that differentiates the images from the services, I'd rather not do this unless it's absolutely necessary. AndrewGNF (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't read the details in the first text either, but I agree with the general idea it expresses, that writing the legal code of a license on a website, where it is subject to change in the future is not good for the user/licensee, while it is a great advantage for the creator/licensor of the content. On many occasions - routinely, I should say - people who want to delete the contents they uploaded are facing refusal on the ground that free licensed works are irrevokably so (Commons:Deletion requests/Mark Marek or Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lambruschini-Alessandro.jpg), so I don't see why some special content creators should enjoy more favorable conditions. Or we should issue a new general policy that henceforth all contents are revokable, and deletable upon request from the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, no interest in creating or promoting "special content creators". But just to clarify then, are we in the clear? The web services are actively provided by EBI, so I believe their TOU allows them to shut down those services at any future time. But the images are "freely available by any individual and for any purpose", so it doesn't make sense that they would be able to undo that at a later time. Is that correct? AndrewGNF (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- They would be able unless someone persuades them to add "perpetually" to their Terms and Conditions. If they add "perpetually", the user will be able to tell them in the future "I had your word that I could use it perpetually". If a friend lends you his car, the car is available to you freely for any purpose. But that does not prevent your friend to call you one day and say, "please bring it back". Teofilo (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The EBI Terms and Conditions are about access to databases, and nobody can guarantee such a thing in perpetuity. There is no problem with images. (Actually, an author can in principle always withdraw his work, invoking his droit moral. Maybe one should delete everything NASA here because the US Government might change its mind about copyright? Or all the old stuff, because some government might revive copyright on Neanderthal paintings, or because of some court decision. Few things are perpetual.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I personnaly will not feel comfortable until the people at EBI amend article 10 of their terms and conditions as follows : Article 10 : The EBI
itself places no restrictions on the use or redistribution of the data available via its servicesowns copyright on creative contents made by its employees (which means did not opt-out of the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 : see Intellectual Property Works created in the course of employment - a brief guide), and releases these contents under the Creative Commons CC- BY-SA 2.0 UK license. . Perhaps I am the only person on Wikimedia Commons feeling uncomfortable with the present terms and conditions of EBI, in which case you may dismiss my remarks. Teofilo (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)- I don't want to "dismiss" your concerns because I see the point, but I agree that more voices here would be useful. Are there any others who share (or don't share) Teofilo's concerns? We are planning on uploading thousands of images under this license, so I'd like to get it right the first time... (Old thread, but there has been recent progress...) AndrewGNF (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I personnaly will not feel comfortable until the people at EBI amend article 10 of their terms and conditions as follows : Article 10 : The EBI
- The EBI Terms and Conditions are about access to databases, and nobody can guarantee such a thing in perpetuity. There is no problem with images. (Actually, an author can in principle always withdraw his work, invoking his droit moral. Maybe one should delete everything NASA here because the US Government might change its mind about copyright? Or all the old stuff, because some government might revive copyright on Neanderthal paintings, or because of some court decision. Few things are perpetual.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- They would be able unless someone persuades them to add "perpetually" to their Terms and Conditions. If they add "perpetually", the user will be able to tell them in the future "I had your word that I could use it perpetually". If a friend lends you his car, the car is available to you freely for any purpose. But that does not prevent your friend to call you one day and say, "please bring it back". Teofilo (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, no interest in creating or promoting "special content creators". But just to clarify then, are we in the clear? The web services are actively provided by EBI, so I believe their TOU allows them to shut down those services at any future time. But the images are "freely available by any individual and for any purpose", so it doesn't make sense that they would be able to undo that at a later time. Is that correct? AndrewGNF (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't read the details in the first text either, but I agree with the general idea it expresses, that writing the legal code of a license on a website, where it is subject to change in the future is not good for the user/licensee, while it is a great advantage for the creator/licensor of the content. On many occasions - routinely, I should say - people who want to delete the contents they uploaded are facing refusal on the ground that free licensed works are irrevokably so (Commons:Deletion requests/Mark Marek or Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lambruschini-Alessandro.jpg), so I don't see why some special content creators should enjoy more favorable conditions. Or we should issue a new general policy that henceforth all contents are revokable, and deletable upon request from the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my eyes glaze over when I see so much license talk. Can you summarize your reading of it as it relates to the EBI? Also, is it not reasonable to remove all images from the commons if EBI changes the terms on those images? (which they won't -- they're only covering themselves for retiring services...) Anyway, I'm sure their intent for those images is compatible with wikicommons, and while I'm sure we could work with them to get more precise language that differentiates the images from the services, I'd rather not do this unless it's absolutely necessary. AndrewGNF (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried to find in Google where this problem might have been addressed before. I found this text (10 Jan 2003), which, in my opinion, asks good questions. The legal code of a Creative Commons license, for example, is a good example of a non-revokable license because it includes the wording "perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)" : Creative commons by/2.5 legal code. Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it, there is no conflict between Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses and the stated terms of use. Note also that the EBI terms of use also applies to the web services provided by that organization, and that is the focus of item 17. AndrewGNF (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For unknown reasons, this template is also listed among Category:Copyright violations. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, if they change the license page on their website, that has no effect on images previously uploaded here. We could change the links to an archive.org copy of the current text if that happens I guess. Basically, you can't claim the right to have Commons delete these images if you later change your mind on the licensing someday... I don't think that is the situation here, but if it is, then maybe the template should be re-thought. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- REQUEST WITHDRAWN : there is no clear policy on Commons saying exactly what an acceptable license is. The non revocability seems to be merely a wish by a few members in the community, not an enforceable policy. Teofilo (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. ~/w /Talk 16:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)