User talk:Colin/AppropriatelyLicensed

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • A good start. But do well prepared before making a presentation. The anti "free content" gang is too strong to discourage any such moves with their "arguments". I still believe the meta:Licensing_update already banned GFDL uploads ("However, GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed"). But there is a ambiguity at meta:Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Images: "It will affect both text and images, except for images which are licensed under "GFDL 1.2 only". Those will not be dual-licensed". I think it should be "It will affect both text and images, except for images which are already licensed under "GFDL 1.2 only". Those will not be dual-licensed". We need a change (I think it was already changed; only a confirmation is required) at the root level. The suitable license for en:Free_content#Media should be clearly defined. Hope more people can help you in this proposal. JKadavoor Jee 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. I’ll be looking forward to it. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Aha. I'm glad that User:Slaunger directed me here. I had been drafting a similar document. It is obviously very personal, but some of the thoughts may be helpful to you. I'm happy to join forces, rather than work independently:
"I believe that allowing the GFDL license as the only license for a file is inconsistent with our goals. The reason is simple. The GFDL license requires that the license either be hyper-linked to the use or printed in full, about 3,400 words. While this is not a problem for any Internet use, hyper-link is impossible for print use and printing a 3,400 word license with an image is impossible for many print uses -- think of tee shirts, calendars, refrigerator magnets, most magazines, brochures, and so forth. Even most books would probably not print the GFDL license.
"Print users are an important consumer of Commons images. While my own work is a very small sample, two out of three of the places my images appear outside of WMF projects are in print. They would not have been possible if I had offered only a GFDL license. Even the other use, the Boston Globe's web site probably would not have wanted to put a hyper-link to the license in addition to the link to Commons under each image.
"If Commons is to live up to its tag line of being "a database of 16,626,003 freely usable media files", our files need to be truly freely usable and not restricted to Internet use."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I'm glad to see someone here of similar mind. Have you had a chance to thoroughly review the proposal and the FAQ page? I welcome any suggestions. The FAQ already contains many quotes from existing Commons policy and guidelines that indicate the impracticality of GFDL-licensed images for print, and the proposal gives details about the length of the GFDL. I counted 3,700 words but what's a few hundred words between friends. I had originally started a proposal that targeted just the GFDL but the feedback I got from that was it would be better to be more general. So I sat on things for a few months and then came up with the "appropriately licensed" concept. You see, the GFDL and GPL aren't just impractical for print. It is simply impossible for a lay person to be confident they apply to an image they intend to reuse. They are explicitly licences for text or computer programs. They were abused by Wikipedia (because there was nothing else) and the legacy of that is that those editors who would rather have an -NC licence continue to abuse them. So this is why the new proposal tackles the two aspects: the wording of the licence and the burdens it imposes have to be appropriate for the media.
Your personal example of your pleasure of having images re-used by others forms a nice contrast to the comments in the FAQ by those who want to restrict reuse. I think it would be great to have a following FAQ question "Why do people choose a free licence for their images?" with some quotes from people who love the idea that others are freely able to use their images, even commercially. Do you think you say something brief perhaps with an example to be quoted? Colin (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The 3,400 word count is a moving target. I just tried again -- took the title through section 11 from and pasted it into Microsoft Word and used the word count tool -- 3,505.
I think the problem with NC licenses is that most people who use them don't really understand them. There are very few uses that are not commercial. All of the following are commercial uses:
  • Web sites run by commercial organizations and by non-profits that ask for money on the web site. Web sites that carry advertising. This means that the only NC Internet uses are personal web sites that do not have advertising and not-for-profits that do not solicit contributions. Wikipedia is a commercial use since it solicits money.
  • Textbooks and other educational material, unless given away free at every stage in their distribution and printed without advertising.
  • Magazines, books, booklets, brochures, calenders, and the like, unless given away free at every stage in their distribution and printed without advertising.
  • Anything used in a school that charges tuition or has a fee for books and other materials.
  • (Obviously) Posters, tee shirts, book covers, refrigerator magnets, coffee mugs, banners, flags, and other materials intended for sale.
So, commercial use is not just rich companies. It's the local historical society's refrigerator magnet, all schoolbooks and other school materials, and a poster advertising the local orchestra's performance.
I get a buzz out of seeing my images in use. Who would have thought that I'd have a photo on a refrigerator magnet? That a local real estate agent would decide to use my images in a calendar? That the Boston Globe would use my images on its web site? All of these are commercial uses and two out of the three would not have been possible under GFDL.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You're preaching to the converted. And Commons is never going to accept NC. Some people get upset that other people are making money from their work when they are not (or not getting any cut). Well if that upsets them enough then sell their pics through an agency or direct. Nothing wrong with making money. This site is about giving it away, no strings attached, and being happy about that. I'm sure the guys who developed Linux get a buzz out of the thought that their code is in billions of devices all over the planet, and aren't getting an ulcer thinking about evil Google or Samsung making money. If they didn't make money, you wouldn't have a cool phone to enjoy. And yes, schoolbooks are printed by commercial companies. Though some argue for an "Educational only licence" but defining what is educational can be hard too. Colin (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
My intention was not preaching to the converted, but to provide the quotes that you asked for, as well as thoughts that might be helpful in refining the arguments. My comments about NC are because I came to you from Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits which calls for CC-BY-NC and GFDL, so that there is effectively no license for commercial print use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree (with Jim); NC license is very vague and not clearly define any border for the uses so it is very difficult to say whether one use is NC or C. Educational use is just an idea; no such license exists. Further, I too happy if my works are hanging on your bed or living room walls or are used to decorate your gadgets. :) JKadavoor Jee 17:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't meant as a criticism. Just nodding. Colin (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)