Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wet-capyvara-in-Brazil.jpg: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
m Fix signature |
Prosfilaes (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:In my opinion -- that of the original photographer and uploader (original NEF available as proof) -- seven years is enough for a precedent. While here, I removed the bogus link to someone's Flickr-collection, but struggle to understand, why some Enzo Sano is named as the "author"... |
:In my opinion -- that of the original photographer and uploader (original NEF available as proof) -- seven years is enough for a precedent. While here, I removed the bogus link to someone's Flickr-collection, but struggle to understand, why some Enzo Sano is named as the "author"... |
||
--[[User:PanBK|PanBK]] ([[User talk:Panbk|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
--[[User:PanBK|PanBK]] ([[User talk:Panbk|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:: I'll accept you as the original author, but seven years or not, the licensing is contradictory. Since all files on Commons must be Free, if you want to keep the file on Commons, you should remove the line implying limitations beyond that of the CC-BY-SA on people outside Wikipedia. That can't stand and be on Commons.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:01, 30 September 2013
File:Wet-capyvara-in-Brazil.jpg
For seven years, we've had a file that says "unlimited use within Wikipedia.org; for all other uses..." with a CC-BY-SA attached. To complicate things, a few years ago an anonymous IP changed that line and added a name to the author field. If we find this acceptable, at least the licensing needs to be consistently free. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion -- that of the original photographer and uploader (original NEF available as proof) -- seven years is enough for a precedent. While here, I removed the bogus link to someone's Flickr-collection, but struggle to understand, why some Enzo Sano is named as the "author"...
--PanBK (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll accept you as the original author, but seven years or not, the licensing is contradictory. Since all files on Commons must be Free, if you want to keep the file on Commons, you should remove the line implying limitations beyond that of the CC-BY-SA on people outside Wikipedia. That can't stand and be on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
