Template talk:Flickr-change-of-license/Archive

Proof of licensing and notification to Flickr users

This just doesn't seem like good enough "proof" that the image was ever originally freely licensed... pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What if users were to leave a comment on the photo something along the lines of, "Thanks for licensing this cc-by-sa! Because of your generosity, this has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons where it can be used in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects"? Although it's not foolproof (comments can be edited later and photographers can delete comments too) it would serve as some sort of proof that the licensing had changed. howcheng {chat} 06:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems difficult if not possible to get people to do that on a large scale. Not a bad idea, though... pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if we could show that the license changed on Flickr it would be insufficient: It's very easy on flickr to accidentally select a free licenses rather than a non-free license. If a user made an honest mistake then they didn't make a release to revoke... You can't accidentally release your protected rights without compensation. We couldn't get in trouble for believing their mistake, but we also can't keep distributing the work once we're aware of it. The note is a very good idea, not as an attempt to tie their hands but as an attempt to ensure that there is no mistake, and hopefully invite some more people to come participate as Free Content contributors in our community here.

In light of the above I have revised the message to focus on the factual, rather than just a Wikicommoners armchair-lawyer wishful thinking. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... Which messege sould we write to the Flickr users? Yuval Y • Chat • 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people love feedback, and if their photos are being used, they would probably feel better knowing that the photos actually serve a purpose rather than just sitting on a site of a perhaps competing project. Constructive criticism or praise would likewise also be appreciated. So after introducing how the photo was uploaded on a different license earlier, and what the status of images with incompatible licenses is here, we should also tell about the most prominent uses since finding the CheckUsage and What links here features is not entirely straightforward for people who don't know about our projects (yet). Like so:

The photo is currently being used in the English Wikipedia article <a href=articlelink>article</a>, xxxish ... and wikiproject .... The photo was also <a href=nominationlink>nominated</a> for featured status on xxx and yyy.

I'll try to come up with a way to see all incompatible images of each photographer, so that they could receive only one message instead of 100. --Para 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see... When I review a free image from Flickr, I write the Flickr user:

Thanks for licensing this lovely picture as CC-BY. Your choice of a free license has allowed us to use your image in Wikimedia Commons - (full url)

Best regards, Yuval

What sould I write the Flickr user - something like:

It seems that your image was licensed as (the CC license), and therefore it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as (full url). According to the Creative Commons terms...?

Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof of licensing is no longer much of an issue, as Flickr files are reviewed automatically by bots or by trusted reviewers who must apply for such status; see Commons:Flickr files. This page also covers the recommendation of notifying the Flickr uploader. This topic will be archived. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrevocable license

Flickr also makes it very easy for uploaders to retroactively change the licensing of all their photos. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so this has no legal validity.

I don't believe that's true. If someone mistakenly puts a CC tag on an image and then fixes their error, it was never really licensed under CC in the first place. Even if it is considered as such from a legal standpoint, claiming that we have a right to use such an image is not right from a moral standpoint. 71.167.67.240 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the licenses are irrevocable. The template shouldn't even say what it does now ("please contact us [...] if you would like this file to be removed." because we have no requirement to comply with that request. Superm401 - Talk 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing, "If you are the copyright holder, please contact us to resolve this issue or if you would like this file to be removed."? If so, why? Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 It's gone Now the category... Rocket000 12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add to Category:Flickr templates

I just spent about half an hour trying to locate this template. I stumbled across it before, so I knew it was there. I would have sworn it was even referenced in the Commons:Flickr documentation or something. Anyway, someone with rights to do so, please add this template to [[Category:Flickr templates]] Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 Finally done. →Diti the penguin — 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Category

{{Editprotected}} As Template:Flickr, please change Category:Flickr to Category:Files from Flickr according to this cfd. -- User:Docu at 14:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Huib talk 15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Sorry to disagree, but it's still showing the wrong category (Cat:Flickr instead of Cat:Files from Flickr) at the bottom of the description. I just updated the template itself to use the correct category (the "F" was missing from "Files"). Now the docs need to match. Thanks! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)