Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-bloggers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This template is inconsistent with the CC license which covers all resolutions of an image, misleading and promotional/self promotional. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-politik for prior deletion of similar template from same user. On the prior deletion request, the uploader wrote "What I can say is that it is quite ok for me to remove the template, if all pictures tagged with it are removed/deleted as well, I have no problem or objection with that. --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)" Ellin Beltz (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures tagged with other templates have not been removed, so I suggest a waiting period to find out why this has happened. Deleting all pictures means deleting a few hundred more pictures. That sitaution can be avoided by suggestions on re-phrasing the template, by the users suggesting removal. --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentThis is not a nomination of the pictures, only of the self-promotional template. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ellin, You have suggested that pictures with a template be removed. Since I am not a native-english-speaker, I have asked you to re-phrase the template, but you choose not to do so. Instead you asked pictures to be deleted, and I agreed - proveded _all_ pictures labelled with the template would be delted. Now only _one_ picture is deleted, and a few hundred lost the template. That is not what I agreed to. Please either re-phrase the template for me, or give accurate information to how it should be formulated. Or delete a few hundred more pictures, that used the tenmplate. The same goes for your recent deleteion requests, I would be happy if you put them on hold, until the situation is cleared for the pictures that should now be deleted. Ot do you sincerely mean that a template with source information and a link to the source is not allowed at all? Further information would be appreciated very much. Best Regards Janwikifoto --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I agreed ONLY to removal of the template, if ALL assoicated pictures where removed. Instead I now ask you to suggest a re-phrasing according to your opinions. You had dental surgery, I am also medically incapable for a few months, so it would be easier for me if I got useful suggestions. Jan wikifoto --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Per the previous deletion request (now closed) Commons:Deletion requests/User:Janwikifoto/template pic-politik, it was stated that "This template is inconsistent with a CC license -- a CC license covers all resolutions of the image, so this misleads users." The template is misleading because it says that people can buy a better version of the image from you, and has a personal website link. Commons is not for commerce or self-promotion. To rephrase your templates would be easy, take off any suggestion that someone has to buy anything from you. Currrently template reads: This photograph was made by Janwikifoto If you are interested in high resolution pictures, please see the source web site for purchasing a license. More pictures can be found in the gallery bloggers.in2pic.com Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that a CC license covers all resolutions of an image, so what you are trying to do with this template cannot be done. Since you licensed the images as CC-BY-SA, which is an irrevocable license, the additional template has no effect, but it misleads users into thinking that the license covers only the resolution presented on Commons when, in fact, that is not the case.
As far as your agreement goes, it is not necessary -- Commons has your images under an irrevocable license and can remove the misleading template without your consent if the community agrees that it is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how about changinmg the text from "This photograph was made by Janwikifoto If you are interested in high resolution pictures, please see the source web site for purchasing a license. More pictures can be found in the gallery..." to new version This photograph was made by Janwikifoto. More pictures can be found in the gallery ... as this is acceptable to me. Is this ok? --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Question for Woodward

You write "the license covers only the resolution presented on Commons when, in fact, that is not the case". Would you please exaplin, more fully, as I do not understand fully what you mean. Including reeferences to the license text (the legal text) and please do not just point to paragraphs, instead actually list which words you state means what. Please add external references (legal cases, school books, articles in papers, etc) that either support or do not support what you state. Just so I better can understand. Thanks --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was discussed here about six months ago at great length. The formal opinion of counsel for Creative Commons is that a CC license covers all resolutions of an image. This is, as I understand it, because the license uses the term "work" in describing its subject and the term "work", in copyright law, does not distinguish between resolutions. You may, of course, license a high resolution version to someone under a special license for a particular purpose. But if that person makes the high resolution available in public, then it would fall under any CC license for a lower resolution version that you issued before or after the high resolution version. I am not at my desk at the moment, so I do not have my links to that discussion at hand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it -- the discussion -- many thousands of words -- begins here Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great, I have to read this. It will take some time to read, that is many days, not hours, as I have other things to do. Then I can comment and/or ask with better formulated questions. --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: CC licenses are applicable to *all* resolutions of an image, making this condition mostly incompatible. Feel free to recreate with the new proposed version though FASTILY 09:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]