Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
“The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged”. No mention of derivative works and commercial use. Not a free license. Kjetil r 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The argument is valid; this is a press license. --Rtc 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment -Please not that this has already been mentioned on the talk page. A letter is being sent to the Finnish Defence Force asking them to clarify the status on derivative works and commersial use. /Lokal_Profil 03:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A clarification is if the web site has a CC license on it. Anything else is without value. Please see the that the photos are obviously from the very context supposed to be released only for press purposes, and it is against the interests of the oranization to permit them to be used for anything else. It is undue to even ask for a free license—such a request can only be misunderstood and leads to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft. We should radically exclude all such pictures from commons, and we should discourage people to even write mails to such web sites asking for permission. (Trying to make people to put CC tags on their site is okay, but not a request for permission that is reflected only by a mail reply. That has too much the character of giving permission to one specific person or entity, while free licenses are always licensed to the public—only the act of putting a tag on one's web site gives one inherently the right intrinsic idea about that). Ceterum censeo formula esse delendam. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A permission allowing ANYONE (of course) to use the images for commercial/derivative would be valid just like any other permission sent to OTRS. The whole point with forwarding the letter to permissions@wikimedia.org is that they will verify that the permission is indeed free enough for use on commons. If it is not then we will have a clear answer. A free license is NOT required to be made public by the copyright holder but it must allow ANYONE to use it, this is how permissions for all other images work./Lokal_Profil 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute that. If they really want to give a free license, they should cleary indicate that to public. The context of private mail communication is doomed to lead to misunderstandings, as the past has shown over and over again. (Especially because the communication often happens in a biased tone, hiding the almost exclusively negative consequences to the rights holders that a release under a free license has for him, and hiding to him that licensing under a free license is generally against his interests; something that can be avoided psychologically to a great degree if we require the rights holder to actively put a free license tag to the pictures on his web site.) The truth is simply that many rights holders (especially the professional ones) wouldn't and can't put, say, a clear CC tag on web sites simply because that is diametral to their fundamental interests. You are correct that what you describe is the way it is currently handled. But this process is incorrect and should be abandoned as soon as possible; it should be replaced by requesting people to put CC tags to the respective pictures on their web site to put an end to the unprofessional, unbearable, error-prone status quo that inherently seeds dishonesty. To license a picture to the public but sending the permission to a private entity instead of putting it besides the pictures is schizophrenic. --Rtc 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds more like you personally disagreeing with the OTRS system then there being any problem with this licens IF the FDF do agree to commersial/derivative use. A important part of Commons:Email templates is to explain all of the "downsides" of a free license to the copyrightholders in an clear and truthfull way. A second important part is that a CC licens on a webpage can be removed at any point making all the images from that webpage unfree since it becomes impossible for us to prove that they ever were under a free license. A permission logged with the OTRS is on the other hand unrevokable. In any case I think there are better places then a specific template deletion process to hold this very general disussion. /Lokal_Profil 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, disagreeing with the OTRS system is one thing, but this is clearly a press license. The disadvantages of the OTRS system overweight the benefits you cite by far. Solutions for the problems you pointed out have been found for flickr, too. They are true for websites with statements such as refered to by the template discussed here, anyway. They are not fatal. If OTRS is used in the correct way, by requesting not permission, but by requesting CC tags to be added to the site, this process can also be documented, and that is much more valuable than a "yes" to a biased question. (And has Commons:Email templates actually ever been used? I also do not think it is clear, truthful or even correct at all—the template makes some promises that are not necessarily given for all licenses. Also most requests (even if there have been one or two requests, ever, that used the template) give too much the impression that the release is for a specific purpose; for commons/wikipedia, and most people associated with commons/wikipedia noncommercial use, or even anti-commericalism. Requesting instead to put tags on a website radically avoids this dangerous association.) In fact, I already started the discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Prohibiting_license_requests, but nobody replied. --Rtc 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This sounds more like you personally disagreeing with the OTRS system then there being any problem with this licens IF the FDF do agree to commersial/derivative use. A important part of Commons:Email templates is to explain all of the "downsides" of a free license to the copyrightholders in an clear and truthfull way. A second important part is that a CC licens on a webpage can be removed at any point making all the images from that webpage unfree since it becomes impossible for us to prove that they ever were under a free license. A permission logged with the OTRS is on the other hand unrevokable. In any case I think there are better places then a specific template deletion process to hold this very general disussion. /Lokal_Profil 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly dispute that. If they really want to give a free license, they should cleary indicate that to public. The context of private mail communication is doomed to lead to misunderstandings, as the past has shown over and over again. (Especially because the communication often happens in a biased tone, hiding the almost exclusively negative consequences to the rights holders that a release under a free license has for him, and hiding to him that licensing under a free license is generally against his interests; something that can be avoided psychologically to a great degree if we require the rights holder to actively put a free license tag to the pictures on his web site.) The truth is simply that many rights holders (especially the professional ones) wouldn't and can't put, say, a clear CC tag on web sites simply because that is diametral to their fundamental interests. You are correct that what you describe is the way it is currently handled. But this process is incorrect and should be abandoned as soon as possible; it should be replaced by requesting people to put CC tags to the respective pictures on their web site to put an end to the unprofessional, unbearable, error-prone status quo that inherently seeds dishonesty. To license a picture to the public but sending the permission to a private entity instead of putting it besides the pictures is schizophrenic. --Rtc 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A permission allowing ANYONE (of course) to use the images for commercial/derivative would be valid just like any other permission sent to OTRS. The whole point with forwarding the letter to permissions@wikimedia.org is that they will verify that the permission is indeed free enough for use on commons. If it is not then we will have a clear answer. A free license is NOT required to be made public by the copyright holder but it must allow ANYONE to use it, this is how permissions for all other images work./Lokal_Profil 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- A clarification is if the web site has a CC license on it. Anything else is without value. Please see the that the photos are obviously from the very context supposed to be released only for press purposes, and it is against the interests of the oranization to permit them to be used for anything else. It is undue to even ask for a free license—such a request can only be misunderstood and leads to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft. We should radically exclude all such pictures from commons, and we should discourage people to even write mails to such web sites asking for permission. (Trying to make people to put CC tags on their site is okay, but not a request for permission that is reflected only by a mail reply. That has too much the character of giving permission to one specific person or entity, while free licenses are always licensed to the public—only the act of putting a tag on one's web site gives one inherently the right intrinsic idea about that). Ceterum censeo formula esse delendam. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'am quite sure that commercial use is allowed. All we need to do is wait for details from Finnish Defence Forces. --Zxc 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, we need to wait until FDF puts a CC license tag on their web page, which won't happen. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is absolutely absurd. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is legally possible and valid to license an image by e-mail. Period. We wait for what the FDF says. --ThePeter 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not at all beyond a shadow of doubt that this is possible if the license is to be given to the public, and not merely to the person requesting permission resp. the project he is requesting for. --Rtc 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the license to be given to the public. If you license an image under GFDL to any one person, then this automatically implies that the public is free to use and modify the image. However, that does not make the public the adressee of the license. In fact, there is no such license that could be given to "the public" as such. --ThePeter 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there is. For example, in Germany, the famous 'Linux clause'. --Rtc 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for the license to be given to the public. If you license an image under GFDL to any one person, then this automatically implies that the public is free to use and modify the image. However, that does not make the public the adressee of the license. In fact, there is no such license that could be given to "the public" as such. --ThePeter 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not at all beyond a shadow of doubt that this is possible if the license is to be given to the public, and not merely to the person requesting permission resp. the project he is requesting for. --Rtc 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is absolutely absurd. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is legally possible and valid to license an image by e-mail. Period. We wait for what the FDF says. --ThePeter 07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, we need to wait until FDF puts a CC license tag on their web page, which won't happen. --Rtc 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All images taken by Finnish Defence Forces' photographers are free, this is known as many publications use them with the note "SA-kuva" (Finnish army picture). Perhaps not all images on the website are free, as some are for the website design but the normal photographs are, and have been always. --Pudeo 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it is used in many publications; the license permits press use. But not anything beyond that, such as marketing these pictures on themselves. Think about printing the picture on the back of a postcard and selling it. Think about selling posters with the images. Think about using hte picture for photomontage.--Rtc 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - wait for an answer. Period. Take your CC-rant up on the Village Pump. --Lhademmor 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - but i save all this Pictures in the german Wikipedia. --80.78.168.5 12:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep watch this -- High Contrast 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (I know IP's can't vote) - that does not mean you can print an image from mil.fi on 10,000 postcards and sell them, all it says is you can reproduce the material free of charge but it says nothing about derivative works or commercial use. I'd vote delete, were I a registered user. 130.230.4.13 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
* This is not a vote. --Iamunknown 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Atirador 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now and Delete if there is no reply or a negative reply. What a nonsensical discussion this is. Samulili 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now and Delete if the reply is negative. This is again an example of persons unfamiliar with the situation in one jurisdiction trying to apply the rules from another. A similar case was the deletion attempt of PD-Finland50. The FDF really allows the use of its published photographs without any restrictions, at least that is how it has been for decades. It can curtail the uses contrary to its wishes using the moral rights of the authors, which are unalienable in Finland, but it has not done so. --MPorciusCato 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they by «no restricions» mean that commercial use and derivative use is allowed, it shouldn't bee too hard for them to write it explicitly here.
- Nobody is suggesting that they must give up their moral rights. It is perfectly possible to grant a free license without giving up one's moral rights, as the CC licenses spefify. Kjetil r 11:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This discussion is a waste of time. -- Petri Krohn 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
* This is not a vote. --Iamunknown 14:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep--Darz Mol 23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As I understand, 'to reproduce' does not mean the same as 'make derivative works' or 'use commercially'. --Jannex 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have sent a letter today. Please hold :) Samulili 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- And, any answer? --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No apparent reply from the Finnish government; no apparent derivative works and commercial usage allowances, so deleted. (→O - RLY?) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)