Commons:Deletion requests/2009/11/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 November 5 1.1 Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 1.2 Images of Kowloon Walled City 1.3 Images of Magpiek

[edit] November 5

[edit] 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)
•  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)