Commons talk:Contributing your own work
Attribution only 
Regarding this edit, I don't think we should recommend this combo because (a) it doesn't ensure the work will stay free and (b) we should keep the recommendations to a minimum to avoid just listing every combination that someone likes. What are your thoughts about the benefit of this particular combo? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that we should leave the choice to the users which license to use. I agree that our top recommendation must be the most restrictive: If a user later makes up his mind, he can still choose a less restrictive one.
- About point (a): Neither does releasing into Public domain ensure that the work stays free. Again, it should be entirely the author's choice, and we won't help them by hiding license forms we find less suitable.
- Secondly, I have been in contact with a lot of authors requesting free licensing their images. I always give them the choice between Copyleft, Attribution only and Public domain. And if it is well enough explained, most authors will be able select the right license for their work. And the most chosen option is the Attribution-only form. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Same here. Siebrand 09:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you make it dual with the GFDL, then? Just to avoid potential problems with Wikimedia wikis?
- Of course it is the author's choice. That's why I wrote a long page explaining the various options. But many people just want a quick recommendation and trust our judgement. I would prefer to only recommend GFDL+CC-BY-SA, but there are some works where PD is obviously more suitable, such as simple SVGs. GFDL+CC-BY, as far as combinations, go, just seems like the worst of both worlds to me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- CC-BY+GFDL is not the worst of both worlds. The end user can choose which one they will use, which will most oftenly be the CC-BY. By giving this multilicense option, we are safe in case in the future the CC-BY appears to be incompatible with the GFDL. Note that FSF holds the CC-BY to be incompatible with both the GFDL and the GPL.
- Whether or not the FSF is right, I believe we need to give an accurate view on the most common licensing schemes. And those schemes are PD, attribution-only and copyleft. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Creative Commons 3.0 
- Resolved enough :) long mailing list discussions about whether or not we should accept CC-BY-SA-3.0. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 21:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
"Own work" -- can I act as an agent? 
I am working on an article for a person, and have her permission to upload a photograph of her that is her own work. Can I do it acting as her agent, or will she have to do the actual upload herself? If this is not the correct place to ask this question, please direct me elsewhere. TechBear (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing here, nor in related pages, advising on to take and edit the kind of pictures that will look good on Wikipages and help illustrate the encyclopedia. Perhaps such advice doesn't belong on this page, which for good reason is about the laws and rules and permissions that make participation possible, but technical advice ought to be somewhere within easy link. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)