Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:barbula fallax.jpeg

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

Image:barbula_fallax.jpeg - not featured[edit]

  •  Comment Sorry for uncommenting you, but I've made up that license text to be compatible with both flickr, korseby and private websites. I'm really tired of all these license discussions here on the commons that arise from time to time. If you and other people think that this license is incompatible with the commons, then please go on and delete all the other 1888 photos (including Featured and QI) I've uploaded so far. Your oppose vote is a non-issue here. Fabelfroh 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's why custom licenses suck. People can just change them at will. Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0. All that text after the "cc-by-sa-3.0" means nothing. Either it is or it isn't under that license. Since we know the author's intent, is it legally binding? ...probably not since she didn't fully understand what the license entailed. Rocket000 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fortunately, you can't add restrictions on top of cc-by-sa-3.0." Of course you can. The CC licenses can be treated as templates, and nothing stops you from adding additional restrictions on top of them. --Aqwis 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's no "can't" here: a copyright holder can do whatever he or she pleases. If he says it's under "cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions", then it's under cc-by-sa plus a ton of restrictions. That's just how licensing works. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What!? If you say it's under a specific Creative Commons license, then that's it. If you add anything on top of that then it's not really under that license. Those license tags are "templates" but the legal document it links to isn't. You can't just customize it to your liking. They mean something. Otherwise, I could say my work was CC-BY plus all rights reserved. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I just noticed the EXIF data: The author of this image is Kristian Peters. He owns the original copyright. This work is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 cc-by-sa-nc license. Rocket000 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you add anything on top of that, then it's not really that license anymore. You're right on that count: the license grant that the copyright holder has given will consist of the terms of that license, plus those restrictions. To use a dodgy analogy, if I say "you can eat this whole cake, but save the cherry on it for me" you can't go and eat the cake, cherry included, and say in your defense "but you said I could eat the whole cake!". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is he did release under that license. So the rest is meaningless. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported §8(e) Rocket000 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he didn't read that bit. That, I think, is where we run into informed-consent-type issues. The intent of the copyright holder is clear: he doesn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. That intent is also clear to anybody that has read the image description page. He could very easily argue that he didn't understand what he was consenting to (and before you say anything, I find that troubling too -- as far as consequences go, the difference between this and revocation is rather small). Courts won't look too well on license "traps" given that he has clearly stated his intent so clearly... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying we should (or could) hold him to the license. At least not in good faith. But it is the licensor's responsibility to understand the terms and conditions they are willfully agreeing to. Otherwise, there'd always be a easy way out. All you would need to do is plead ignorance. And how many people do you think that use these licenses have actually read the legal code? How many really understand the implications? Rocket000 17:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crap. I forgot where we were. Sorry everyone else for the copyright talk. :) Rocket000 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject of licensing issues. --norro 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:barbula_fallax.jpeg&oldid=11813810"