Template talk:Flickr-change-of-license

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

Create a record[edit]

If uploaders want to be doubly sure that their images will not be deleted in the event of a flickr license change, they can create a WebCite archive of the flickr page to prove that it was freely licensed at the time of upload. Maybe User:FlickreviewR can incorporate an automatic WebCite archive of its images. Perhaps User:WebCiteBOT can be incorporated? --Blargh29 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted from flickr[edit]

Perhaps the template could say "flickr licence has been changed to be more restrictive or the image has been deleted". This template could then be used after the flickr image has been deleted. Of course it would need adding to all the different language versions. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done (for English and Swedish). See Template talk:Flickr-change-of-license/en. LX (talk, contribs) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


The line in this template that states: "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable" is very misleading and should be removed or re-worded. I understand that this template has simply used the first sentence found a FAQ at Creative Commons, but the same section moves on to state: This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license The important words are according to that license. The full legal code for the CC by-sa 3 license, section 7. Termination explains it in more detail. For this discussion, briefly, it says that the license will terminate automatically upon any breach of the terms by an end user and that the License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. Even though we only accept some CCL's, they are all the same in regards to the copyright holders right to revoke the license of a specific end user. I think it is important to keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons is acting as a photo distributor - copyright holders allow Wikimedia Commons to distribute (or sub-distribute) their work. The copyright holder may, in a sense, "revoke" the license of somebody that has obtained an image from here and is not "using the work according to that license." Within the broader scope a copyright holder may also feel that Wikipedia Commons is not "using the work according to that license" and could revoke our right to distribute it. However, IMO, that would be unlikely as, again, we are only acting as distributors (and in some cases, sub-distributors) so as long as we are correctly informing the end user of any restrictions (See the full legal code for the CC 3 by-sa license, section 4. Restrictions) no issues should arise with Wikimedia Commons as the distributor. But, for the end user, reading a blanket comment that "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable" is very misleading. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no comments I wanted to add on a further note - namely from the same FAQ the section entitled "What happens if someone misuses my Creative Commons-licensed work?" which states:

A Creative Commons license terminates automatically if someone uses your work contrary to the license terms. This means that, if a person uses your work under a Creative Commons license and they, for example, fail to attribute your work in the manner you specified, then they no longer have the right to continue to use your work. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use your work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms.

Again, it is important as a distributor/sub distributor of these images to covey the accurate usage terms to potential end users. Even editors and admin feel that "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable" when discussing potential breaches of the license terms. I suggest re-wording it to read "Creative Commons licenses are revocable under certain circumstances" or "A Creative Commons license may be revoked to any end user that does not adhere to the terms of the license." Or it could even use a slight re-wording from the FAQ: "A Creative Commons license may be revoked. This only applies in relation to the person in breach of the license; it does not apply generally to the other people who use this work under a Creative Commons license and comply with its terms." Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatic termination on the grounds of breach is not the same as active revocation by the author. Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked by the author. The purpose of this template is not to explain the details of every principle loosely related to revocation. Such long-winded explanations constitute instruction creep and will only leave the reader confused as to whether this licenses is (or can be) revoked. In any case, my recent edit to Template:Flickr-change-of-license/en should clarify that one must of course adhere to the license terms. LX (talk, contribs) 11:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New URL for CC FAQ[edit]

{{edit request}} Please change http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F to https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license. The former URL redirects to the top of a non-wiki FAQ page. --Gazebo (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

✓  Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


I experienced the same with some videos on YouTube. Should we create such a tempate for YouTube as well, or can this template rephrased to include YouTube as well? --Hannolans (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hannolans: We have a generic {{Change-of-license}} template that you can use for Youtube and other sites. I took the liberty of improving the documentation to point to it. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Did not know about this one. --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Answer changed in CC FAQ[edit]

I noticed that the current answer looks different from the one from 2006. Which version of the answer should we use, the current or the 2006 version? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)