Template talk:Agência Brasil

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This license tag respectively its interpretation of the permission it refers to is currently disputed, because it is a nonderivative noncommercial license. See the discussion at C:VP#Common Misconception the commented list of problematic templates with description and discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#List of templates in question (Moved here from Commons:Deletion requests) and Commons talk:Licensing#Review of license templates

I disagree. FML ^hi 20:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Plase wait a few days. I'm trying to contact copyright owner by e-mail. 555 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK FML ^hi 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I received a reply> no autorization for commercial usage and/or derivation. 555 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we should add a warning on the template to avoid people keep on linking images with this license to wikis. Anna 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did, but it was reverted by an admin. --Rtc 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions to 555:

• Who did respond your question?
• Is this person authoritative to determine the a Agência Brasil´s copyright restriction?
• Is there any document/page/legal-warning informing this copyright restriction?

As far as I know, anyone who puts a material with copyleft license (and Agência Brasil did it), couldn't add posterior restrictions. I have the conviction that this license is valid to wikipedia. Gbiten 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agência Brasis did not put the material under a compatible license. Do I need to explain it again? It was an unclear "free use" statement, which is ambiguous and can mean anything depending on who says in which context. Even "public domain" can mean nonderivative in certain contexts. Anything that is not explicitely allowed is forbidden by copyright. There is no need for a restriction, there is a need for a permission! If a non-authoritative person informs us that "free use" means "nonderivative" for them, that can be great information, but as long as we do not have a Commons:Email templates permissions from the the authoritative, we do not have a clear permission. Besides, copyleft does not mean unrestricted copying and modifying. It is a merely a legal device to mean that a license may not be further restricted. Please understand that we need to delete all this "free use" stuff we have lied about to ourselves for so long. --Rtc 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn´t any ambiguity. In Brazilian legal system, if you use a word with "inumerus meanings" like "uso" (use) in contract/aggrement/license and doesn't explain the meaning this term in the contract/aggrement/license, all these meanings are valid. Gbiten 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe what you say is correct. In most legal systems, contracts are commonly judged according to the purpose, according to the context and according to the intention of the contractors. Not according to some words. Please use common sense for the whole situation, especially in the light of stated intentions of the agency. In any way, please prove by naming cases and reliable sources for your claim. --Rtc 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Remove of warning and protection 2 Sinceramente 3 Good news 4 Edit request 5 Request for autotranslation 6 Something got wrong

[edit] Remove of warning and protection

{{Agência Brasil}} is copyvio. Please, i need to fwd the email to permissions@wikimedia.org or sysops from anothers wikis don't have any relevance here?

No, it isn't. See my post above. Gbiten 22:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. Please don't try to keep such pictures in face of the agency informing us that their real intention was merely a nonderivative noncommercial license. That would be crazy! Their information is absolutely consistent with the statements on their site since modification and commercial use were not mentioned explicitely in their license statement. --Rtc 22:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I try to avoid that we make a wrong decision based in email from a brazilian govern burocrat that states a restriction that isn't real and which he has no right/authorization to issue (I don´t know if you are brazilian but these things happen here). Gbiten 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again: Restrictions is not what we are looking for. Only copyright can restrict anything, not the author. The author needs to grant permission has he desires. We were looking for these permissions. There was no unabiguous permission. We asked for clarification. The clarification was clear: Noncommercial and Nonverivative. Are you serious about now trying to keep the picture against the stated intention of the agency? This is absolutely ridiculous. --Rtc 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But again, who did anwser the clarification? If is a govern burocrat, he isn't the author or hasn't de the author's right. And most important, he couldn´t state what is the agency intention, only the agency management could states something like that and AFAIK the agency intentions are clear in its website. Gbiten 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

He has clarified the license. That doesn't need to be the management or the rights holder. There is a simply policy: if the license is unclear, we need Commons:Email templates from an authorized person. If we don't have it, we assume there is no such permission. In this case, we even have a negative answer from a person associated with the agency. This answer is consistent with the common meaning of "free use" as used by such agencies. Let's get real. What would you accept as a refutation of your claim at all, ie., that the thing is not a free license, if not such a statement from the agency? Would you take responsibility for your interpretation? Would you sign a guarantee statement to all people on the world (ie. all potential licensors) that your interpretation is right and that you are going to refund all legal damages resulting from the case that you are wrong? --Rtc 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

He didn't clarify the license, he changed it. Not only about derivations works, he also restricted how could those materials be used (he said it is only for journalistic proposes), I think that men extrapolate his function. One supposition, if some one in Nasa express that all NASA material isn't public domain (even if USA law say that is PD), will we remove all NASA's pictures? If this is Commons' policy, I have no more consideration and agreed with you. Gbiten 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is something entirely different, since the law about NASA PD is unambiguous. "free use" on the other hand is not unambiguous. "use" is neither "modify" nor "commercially". If the original license used the words "modify" and "commercially" or something equivalent, I'd agree with you. But it doesn't. Additionally, we have a clear statement from the agency for what they mean with "free use". They say they do not mean "modify" or "commercially". I'm sorry to say, I reject your point of view outright. I hope you understand the situation. --Rtc 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why it's protected? This template is "fair use"! Caution! FML ^hi 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinceramente

Sorry for writing only in Portuguese. Francamente, se os próprios colegas lusófonos insistem em desrespeitar o que o próprio detentor de copyright determinou, vou ser obrigado a comunicá-los do que ocorre por aqui, para que eles forcem com a deleção destes arquivos, que estão de forma totalmente ilegal aqui. Tenho outras ocupações em outras wikis do que ver tentativa de manter fair-use no commons. 555 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre. As fotos da página são apenas amostras, e para ve-las ampliadas clique na que desejar. Atenção: para baixar as fotos em tamanho original (Download) clique na letra "B" e salve como quiser. De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.

La Agência Brasil pone a su disposición, gratuitamente, la cobertura fotográfica. Las fotos de la página son sólo muestras, para verlas ampliadas haga clic en las que desee.

© Todas as fotos poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte e o nome do repórter

Source: http://img.radiobras.gov.br/Aberto/index.php/Imagens.Principal.00.0.2006-05-14 --gildemax 10:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody will read it here... There is Commons talk:Licensing. Arnomane 11:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

thks. --gildemax 16:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good news

Warn: I receved a new mail from copyright owner. Please, keep these images until more details is released. 555 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agência Brasil content and images now are under a Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ --Patrick-br ^msg 11:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem. It seems they took the old images offline. I can't access any image prior to 2006. :( Without a verifyable source, we can't used the licensing. Could anyone try to contact the site maintainners about this? --Abu badali 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the single instance of [[Media:{{PAGENAME}}|]] but leave "This file" and similar localized text. The function is not needed inside the visible text, a link back from a license template to the file in question is not required by the CC license. It has also been removed from most of the main license templates, be it GFDL or CC. --Denniss (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. →Na·gy 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for autotranslation

{{editprotected}} Could this template be autotranslated? The only thing that has to be done is to replace the actual template with {{autotranslate|base=Agência Brasil}}, furthermore you should add {{{category|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File|[[Category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}, to make sure that only files will be categorized. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear, that it will end up in some template loops, but I will test it. --Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no template loop because Template:Cc-by-2.5-br is not autotranslated. If this becomes autotranslated there can be a template loop on inclusions of Agencia Brasil template with the template "autotranslate". --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Something got wrong

The documentation is rendering inside the template. could someone fix it?

thanks, tales.ebner ^¶ 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone added {{documentation}} to Template:Cc-by-2.5-br without paying attention to the noinclude tag. Should be fixed soon. --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. We will however have a problem if cc-by-2.5-br is setted to autotranslate, it isnt yet. A template loop for the template autotranslate will occur. If there is no better sollution the license template should be removed out of the Template:Agência Brasil/layout template and directly put on this base template. --Martin H. (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We now have a template loop here with the autotranslation of cc-by-2.5-br. Please fix. --Denniss (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)