File talk:Annoying User, Good Content.JPG
 | This file was nominated for deletion but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Moved from User talk:Whym (Special:Permalink/137289881)
I don't think this works. IMO, such licensing is only possible in collections; not in adaptations. We have a similar discussion at Template_talk:Art_Photo#Issue_with_MediaViewer where we concluded that the photograph should be CC BY-SA if the statue/painting/object is. I've a bit doubt; so pinging Colin's opinion too. Jee 12:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- My guess is the photo is a derivative work of Jimbo's speech and so also CC BY-SA-3.0. The Author part of the file description should say it is jointly created by Jimbo (text) and Vlsergey (photo). The actual image can't be joint licensed with CC0 and CC BY-SA. If Vlsergey wishes to make the non-text part of the image CC0, it's up to him to upload a suitable crop. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reverted. However, I'm not sure we can automatically assume that Vlsergey wants to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA, even if they releases rights when they say it's CC0. If their choice of CC0 was impossible (I'm now convinced so), I think it's better to let them choose a compatible one, or give up publication. whym (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- We have no right to apply a more free license in other's work (CC BY-SA to CC BY or CC0). But here in this case, the change is from CC0 to CC BY-SA 3.0. So I see no legal issue. Jee 02:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reverted. However, I'm not sure we can automatically assume that Vlsergey wants to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA, even if they releases rights when they say it's CC0. If their choice of CC0 was impossible (I'm now convinced so), I think it's better to let them choose a compatible one, or give up publication. whym (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Vlsergey, now that the text depicted is known to be under CC-BY-SA 3.0, would you license your photograph under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as a derivative work of the text? If yes, I suggest making it explicit here. Making and publishing a CC0 work using a CC-BY-SA work is not possible in light of the discussion above. whym (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Vlsergey doesn't have a choice in the matter, so it isn't whether he "wants to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA". The "SA" bit demands that if he publishes this photo (and uploading to Commons is a form of publishing) then he must use CC BY-SA and cannot dual-licence (note: CC0 is not technically a licence anyway). If he isn't happy with CC BY-SA then the photo needs to be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and I meant to ask whether he is happy with BY-SA or not, in order to see if a deletion is needed. Sorry if it was not clearer in my two comments above. whym (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Vlsergey doesn't have a choice in the matter, so it isn't whether he "wants to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA". The "SA" bit demands that if he publishes this photo (and uploading to Commons is a form of publishing) then he must use CC BY-SA and cannot dual-licence (note: CC0 is not technically a licence anyway). If he isn't happy with CC BY-SA then the photo needs to be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Result
[edit]
The result of this policy is symbolically obvious in this photo. A row of sterile empty chairs who no one is in a rush to occupy. Thousands of productive users have been banned for being "annoying", and the "mellow" ones simply can't pick up the slack. It's less obvious in the English wiki FOR NOW, but in other languages (especially Russian) it is becoming a huge problem - the quality of articles and the depth has dropped dramatically. Well, good luck with your "mellow" audience, Jimbo. I hope you know what you're doing... but I doubt it. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
