Commons talk:Deletion requests/Images of Fabelfroh 2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

And the rest...[edit]

This closed with Gnangarra stating "they arent under a free licenses". CC-BY-SA-3.0 is a free license which appeared on all images that were deleted. It's free no matter what you say on top it, including "Don't use it commercially". Yes, there other issues so I'm not challenging the deletion itself. If no one opposes this closure, his other images should be deleted as well for the same reasons. (Which is he doesn't want them used commercially or he doesn't have the ability to allow them to be used commercially. NOT because they are under non-free licenses, but they may be under false licenses.—I feel this is important to point out as it may well influence how we deal with future cases). These images include everything from 2007 and up. It's really unfortunate, we can't go by what the license says anymore. :/ Rocket000 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Aren't the earlier ones consistent with being OK on upload, but with an attempt now being made on a variety of grounds to withdraw the licence? --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
To explain I closed at a specific point where it was clear that the user intention was for the image(s) license to have commercial use restrictions, the basis for the nomination. The other images uploaded before then need to be addressed as a separate group based on whether the uploader was able to release them under the license, or that the uploader was unaware of the license conditions that they were uploaded under. Gnangarra 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with that. I guess it was just semantics. I'm sorry, I've just been having a hard time following the logic here. First, if we go by the letter of the law the images are free. Of course, the legal document is only one part of the equation. The intent and understanding matter as well. Just to clarify my stance on this, as I posted elsewhere: ...I believe in erring on the side of caution when we're dealing with issues like this so I actually support the deletion. I admit, my comment on the DR could have done without the !keep. It was to emphasize a point that didn't need to be made like that. From my vote: "Should we really keep them... that's up to the community. Like I said I don't think many will feel comfortable keeping them..." (yes, that's me quoting me quoting me :) It appears the community isn't comfortable, so deletion is right. The thing is, by only deleting the ones where a visible non-commercial statement was made, we're not really going by intent anymore, but some arbitrary condition. The author has stated many times he does not want (or may not have the right) to allow commercial use. There's no question of intent. He used the wrong license and we are still holding him to it. Absent of any ethical concerns, this is common practice (otherwise, we would have tons of Flickr images to delete because the user didn't know what they were agreeing to at the time).
So I guess my question is when do we "excuse" users from the license and when do we hold them to it? I know it's done on a case-by-case basis, which it should, given the ethical side, but I would appreciate to hear some views on it. (And don't say we look at the intent. We do sometimes, but other times we disregard it.) Thanks. Rocket000 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)