User talk:Saffron Blaze

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

Permission for Use of Photo in Human Rights Museum[edit]

  • 31 August at 13:43

Dear Saffron, Hope this email finds you well. I am a producer who is collaborating with The Canadian Museum for Human Rights, in Winnipeg, Canada. museumforhumanrights.ca/ The museum is set to open this September. We would like to propose your photo in our video production. The video is an introduction to the concept of human rights, including the Rights to Education, Freedom of Speech, Indigenous Rights and Rights to Play. You had taken a photo, titled “Cotswolds Quilt“ in your Flickr account. Link: www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/8412296490/. Would you be agreeable to have the photo included in the production? If so, we would need a high resolution file of your image (with watermark) so we can include it in our proposal. Should the photograph be confirmed, we will require the full resolution file without watermark. We would be glad to credit you accordingly in the production. Look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks. Best regards, karen phan producer M'GO Films Pte Ltd 69 Kim Yam Road, #02-01, Singapore 239368 T. 6737 8907 x110 www.margofilms.com www.facebook.com/MGOfilms

  • 31 August at 14:53

From: Saffron Blaze Hello Karen, thank you for your inquiry. Are you and your organisation also contributing to this project for credit consideration? I ask because as a Canadian I know the museum is a government funded agency with a substantial budget. I also know this in considerable detail because I am in fact in charge of a heritage portfolio for another government department. Given this I would be surprised you'd be asked to produce such a product for credit or publicity. Please advise.

In the absence of a response I will direct my inquiry to the museum directly. Cheers.

  • 1 September at 12:21

From: Karen Phan Hi Saffron, thank you for your response. We have replied to your email on the flickr site. Warm regards, Karen

  • 1 September

Hi Saffron, We are in touch with Getty for some images but would prefer to propose the originally mentioned image to the museum. The panoramic width of the photograph suits the narrative very well. Do let us know your fee for the image. As it is a very large screen, we would like to propose the highest resolution possible. Thanks and regards, Karen

  • 1 September

From Saffron: This is the largest image size available: farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/8412296490_6e52ed09c4_o.jpg. If suitable we can discuss an RF license non-exclusive at xxx CAD or double that for RM exclusive. As you know all too well Getty would charge 3-4 times that amount, if not more. Please advise.

  • 18 Sep 14, 4.14PM WEST

From: Karen Phan Dear Saffron, Hope all is well. The image we discussed that was proposed was not in the final selection. However, another image of yours from Wikimedia Commons, which had been suggested by a colleague, has been. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_iqaluit.jpg. The Commons nature of the images does not require a release form, but I thought to let you know of its selection as we had been in touch. Your image has been credited

Icebreaker and Inukshuk, photograph 
by Saffron Blaze, Wikimedia Commons
Icebreaker and Inukshuk, photographie 
par Saffron Blaze, Wikimedia Commons

Thanks, and keep well, Karen

  • 18 Sep 14

Thanks. Please note outside of Wikimedia Foundation projects, attribution is to be made to: W. Lloyd MacKenzie, via Flickr @ www.flickr.com/photos/saffron_blaze/ Take care.

I'll let you drawn your own conclusion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Commons barnstar.png The Commons Barnstar
Congratulations for contributing your 100th Quality Image to Commons. I always enjoy your photos, both here and on Flickr ;-) Great work! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Veil of Snow - Sgwd yr Eira.jpeg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Veil of Snow - Sgwd yr Eira.jpeg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veil of Snow - Sgwd yr Eira.jpeg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Lindos Windmill.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Lindos Windmill.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lindos Windmill.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Agora and El Puente de l'Assut de l'Or Bridge.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Agora and El Puente de l'Assut de l'Or Bridge.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agora and El Puente de l'Assut de l'Or Bridge.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Knight-in-Shining-Armour.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Knight-in-Shining-Armour.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Knight-in-Shining-Armour.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Saskatchewan Farm Elevator.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Saskatchewan Farm Elevator.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saskatchewan Farm Elevator.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Durdle Door Overview.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Durdle Door Overview.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Overview.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Harescombe Church.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Harescombe Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harescombe Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Upleadon Church.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Upleadon Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upleadon Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Broadway Tower 2012.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Braodway Tower 2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Duntisbourne Leer Ford 2011.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Duntisbourne Leer Ford 2011.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duntisbourne Leer Ford 2011.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Selsley Church.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Selsley Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Selsley Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Rialto Gondoliers.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Rialto Gondoliers.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rialto Gondoliers.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Frampton Mansell St Lukes Church.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Frampton Mansell St Lukes Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frampton Mansell St Lukes Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Arlington Row Bibury.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Arlington Row Bibury.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arlington Row Bibury.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Sheepscombe St Johns Church.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Sheepscombe St Johns Church.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sheepscombe St Johns Church.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Tintern Abbey and Courtyard.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Tintern Abbey and Courtyard.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Abbey and Courtyard.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Sunrise apollo side.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Sunrise apollo side.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise apollo side.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Aspendos Basilica Antalya Turkey.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Aspendos Basilica Antalya Turkey.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aspendos Basilica Antalya Turkey.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
East Banqueting StJames Chipping Campden.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:East Banqueting StJames Chipping Campden.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:East Banqueting StJames Chipping Campden.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg, which was nominated by Paris 16 at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Gloucester Docks at Night.jpeg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Gloucester Docks at Night.jpeg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloucester Docks at Night.jpeg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Above Garmisch-Partenkirchen.jpeg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Above Garmisch-Partenkirchen.jpeg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Above Garmisch-Partenkirchen.jpeg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Tintern Church Hill.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Tintern Church Hill.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tintern Church Hill.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.jpeg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.jpeg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.jpeg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg



Homemade licence[edit]

I notice you are still using your User:Saffron Blaze/license consent homemade licence. I've a feeling we discussed this before and think we need per-user share-alike "free" licences like a hole in the head. I worry that with just a summary here (no full text, with definition of terms and legalese) your licence is both weaker legally and less useful for reuse. While one may feel confident (and able to get legal advice about) reusing "CC BY-SA" material, reusing material covered by some random licence (which is easily modified) is another ball game. Still, Commons, for some bizarre reason, seems happy to accept any licence that gives even an appearance of being free. I continue to be frustrated that everyone (include the UK National Portrait Gallery) think CC is a per-file licence that can be used for low-resolution works. And really, everyone would much prefer if CC was.

I note in the conversation you retain at the top of the page, that people are still not attributing you correctly. I suggest you try using {{Credit line}} in the Other fields section. See File:Lloyd's Building - Atrium 11th floor looking at the Walkie-Talkie.jpg for an example. This seems to be take up by the "use this file" link at the top of the page. Currently, that link gives Saffron Blaze on Commons rather than your preferred text. I guess you could use the licence parameter to link to your licence template page, though the fact that it isn't a well-known licence with a name, does make it hard for people to refer to it. -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a moot point, as I doubt I will contribute images any longer. I find not only the people but the policies are hostile to content creators. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a real shame. But I agree some of the most active, noisy and pushy people on this site are here simply to collect and organise other people's work and are either indifferent or hostile towards creators. I continue to enjoy your work on Flickr. -- Colin (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I could probably get past that, but when all I ever see is my images being constantly re-used by commercial enterprises it is disheartening. The above incident is not atypical just very open in admitting they want stuff for free even when they could be paying for it. Business are saying, "hey why would I pay you for an image when I can use the one you have available for free?". Unfortunately while I have many incidents like this I have none that speak to free cultural ideals. Long to short... there is no economic model for photographer’s that includes CC licensing. CC licensing is a wonderful concept but more often misused and abused than meeting its aims.
Similarly, I found someone this week uploading my images from here to Flickr, albeit with suitable attribution, but with different license (non-share-alike). Flickr removed the images based on ToS violations and not because of the license issue. It is just too much effort to police. I am returning to the conclusion the only sensible way to contribute to Commons is by donating images to the Public Domain and just forgetting about them. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You should probably chat to User:Diliff. I think he's found some people do want to pay, and Public Domain would remove any chance of seeing that income. But I agree completely with forgetting about those who "steal" pictures. Well, except perhaps huge corporations with a brand to protect. They're probably worth fleecing. But seriously, the world is full of horrid people so why go out of one's way to find more? I think one has to either decide to be completely professional and view photography as a self-employed job, which involves a fair amount of chasing people to pay up and making sure nobody takes advantage, or view it as a hobby. I read the other day that with the advent of digital photography, we have gone from there being millions of pictures in the world, to billions of pictures in the world, and with mobile phone photography we are now at the point where over a trillion pictures are taken every year. And nearly all of them are locked up unusable by copyright + 70 years after death. I don't think CC is the whole answer by any means, but neither is "all rights reserved" all over amateur photos on Facebook and Flickr. That actually just encourages people (including BBC, et al) to steal the pictures. (BTW: I wonder how many newspapers paid for the monkey photograph they criticised WP for? -- I bet most claimed "fair use") -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Some people are indeed willing to pay to use my images, but a frustratingly small percentage of commercial users, that's for sure. And that's just surveying the people that are actually polite enough to contact me in advance. I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of commercial re-use and as Saffron says, it's just too difficult to police or keep track of. It won't necessarily stop me contributing, but it is frustrating. I've never understood why an non-commercial/educational-use-only licence was incompatible with Wikipedia's ideals. I understand that there are situations in which educational use could overlap with commercial use since education is rarely completely free of commercial interest, but there must be some way of separating genuine educational re-use from predatory commercial users who cheat photographers out of any benefit 'because they can'. After all, ethics plays no real part in a corporation's activity since the number one priority of any company is profit for its shareholders. There is only the illusion of ethics when a company chooses to take an 'ethical stand' on something because it's usually the result of market research that tells them that an ethical stance might benefit sales. *not cynical*. :-) But yeah, I completely appreciate that it's a problem when images are locked up in copyright for 70+ years and the photographer is no longer contactable to grant permission. I'd probably be happy for a copyright of 5-10 years really on most of my images. Only one in a thousand of my images would really have strong commercial value after 10 years anyway. The rest would likely only have value as an historical record. One thing I don't understand though is why you think that all rights reserved encourages' companies such as the BBC to steal them. At worst, I'd say that it makes no difference at all. Diliff (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I sell images all the time... through Getty. Not once have I ever sold an image through other venues. Moreover, I have about 30 or 40 notices from Commons users letting me know they were using an image...all of them were well funded businesses and organisations including Encyclopedia Britannica. Similarly several international text book publishers have offered notice of use; then they turn around and charge exorbitant sums to the students to purchase the books they assemble on other people's works for free. Free Culture is a bust in my opinion, at least with respect to images we place on Commons. Commons has become a free stock image library for businesses, and this hurts content creators such as professional photographers and graphic artists. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
edit to add... I do remember one home grown business that asked to use an image. He was making wooden puzzles and needed terms beyond CC-BY-SA. I agreed to the terms and a few days later he sent me images of the puzzle and offered to sell me a copy for $200 USD. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Offereed to sell you a copy of an image of the puzzle which was a derivative of your own work??? That's outrageous... Diliff (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sir... that's what he did. I chuckled quite loudly when I saw his email. I didn't respond. 18:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't want to reignite the whole Free Culture hurting pro photographers debate -- merely suggest that going Public Domain might remove all opportunity for money from Commons images. My point about "all rights reserved" encouraging stealing is that if trillions of images are copyright protected but a few million are Free and a few more million are available via agencies, that's essentially a rounding error. But if there was a way for billions of images to be legally used and appropriate credit and payment made, it might work. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it was a debate. I was certain it is a given. I thought the debate was whether Free Culturists should care. That aside, collecting societies are trying to free up millions of orphaned works. Flickr, Facebook and Instagram are helping there by creating even more orphan works when they strip metadata including the CMI. However, of those billions and billions of images being copyrighted every few days the vast majority are selfies taken by young girls... copyright is the least of a re-users problem. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
While there are loads of selfies and other trash, there are also photos of public events and demonstrations, wars and catastrophes. These will form part of our global history, yet are neither available under a free licence, nor controlled and vetted by a professional agency. And once the metadata gets stripped off, the only way to use them is illegally. Which not only encourages illegal use, but encourages government to create silly laws that actually permit such theft. I do wonder if there is a commercial opportunity someone is missing out on here, but I can't think of a way to control images that would reliably retain a record of authorship -- DRM of audio/visual is so easily overridden. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are initiatives out there. Flickr is about to launch a crowd sourcing initiative for content called marketplace. It will be different than what they did with Getty. They are also using image matching technology to index the billions of images stored on their system to at least make them searchable. There is also other crowd sourcing initiatives like CrowdMedia who is looking to leverage all those photos of public events and demonstrations, wars and catastrophes. When people realize they can make money even from their snaps and selfies there will be an interesting shift in the perception of copyright amongst they lay audiences. 15:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Good. But copyright law is such a blunt tool and our life+70 years nonsense is just designed to keep Disney and Cliff Richard in royalties -- there's no user-choice over the matter. Most people would be quite happy I think to release images once they die (most probably aren't even aware the copyright stays with the estate, and the trustees are legally bound to maximise returns) and many would be very happy to see some return for a short period. We lack an "all rights reserved for 5 years" option. I've seen photos of stained-glass windows deleted because they are probably not old enough to be PD. And copyright didn't help the monkey photographer. I don't really know, though, how one can reliably reward money to the crowd, who are pretty devious in their ability to steal, even from each other. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
One option might be a two tiered system, as you mention, where if you register your works you get 35 years but unregistered works is 5 years, with the option to renew on either. I think fair use doctrine could be tweaked to cover much of the rest. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I did think of that (a system where you are automatically given 5 years copyright, but given the opportunity to renew if it's a particularly valuable image), but a system where you have to apply to be granted copyright extension sounds very unwieldly. Copyright has always been implied unless specifically relinquished or renounced so it would be a major change in how it works. I suppose we're getting to the point where an automated system could be put in place - some sort of central governing body that could receive submissions and somehow create a digital signature of the image which would then be assigned to the uploader so that, like a patent, if there was ever a dispute, one could always refer back to that submission as proof that it is theirs. But having said that, given how many images people take on a daily basis, I cannot imagine anyone but the most copyright-aware professionals actually going to the trouble of doing this for all their images, so I doubt it would ever work effectively in the real world. Diliff (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty much how they do it now in the US. Copyright is there automatically once published, but you have to register the works if you ever want to sue for infringement. I don't think it is too far of a leap to automatically have copyright, but a much shorter time unless registered. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Got mail[edit]

You've a mail. :) Jee 09:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Jee 13:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Arlington Row[edit]

Saw this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11374252/Yellow-car-photobombs-tourist-pictures-in-pretty-Cotswold-village.html

and thought of you. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, you would be the third in the past few days to send me that. I guess my rant against his former little blue car stuck with people. The email exchange between me and the parish council read much like that article except we were funnier. Thanks :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Your suggestions are appreciated here. :) Jee 06:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for use[edit]

11 April at 15:24 pm From: Sherline Pierre-Louis Hello Saffron Blaze, I am asking permission to use your photo on my webpage for a class project. mason.gmu.edu/~spierre2

Thank you , Sherline.

I will assume it is an image of mine here on Commons. If so, then you are more than welcome. Good luck with the project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia - New Default Image Size avail[edit]

It took over a year and some help from the WMF but we can now select in our WP preferences 400px as the default image size: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65440 Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Saffron Blaze/license consent and User:Saffron Blaze/license[edit]

Saffron Blaze, I noticed that you are using your own User:Saffron Blaze/license consent and User:Saffron Blaze/license for your images. The requirement for commons images is to use one of the standard copyright tag templates not self-authored, unverified license which is unlikely to be translated to other languages . Any chance you can relicense your images and also add one of the standard CC licenses? --Jarekt (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
And see this too if you didn't notice it so far. :) Jee 03:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jee, I did read it, thanks. I won't get involved at this point, as I would only be re-hashing previously stated opinion on this matter. If at some point the licenses I now use are declared not compatible with Commons they may delete the images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
See User_talk:Chriusha#User:Chriusha.2FLicense, please use at least one valid license tag like the rather restrictive (for commercial re-users) GFDL 1.2 to be on the safe side with your images. --Denniss (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
safe? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Saffron, would you consider removing the "Share alike" restriction? It would still maintain your "this resolution only" claim. Of course, it means that if someone adapted your image to a derivative work, they need not (in law) attribute you or maintain the same licence (though an honest person would attribute). It would permit someone to use CC BY-SA for the derivative, say, and this would still not put at risk the higher resolution copy since it would be a different work of copyright. It is the "share alike" that causes the most problems, though the home-made aspect is still not ideal. -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not just non-ideal, Those files and files by User:Chriusha are the only files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license which are not in queue for deletion. They are the only files on commons that do not follow the policy about using standard license templates. Also media viewer can not attribute them correctly. When we do database queries to find files without license like this we need to specifically exclude those files. --Jarekt (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It is because of this edit. This license is very much like {{Attribution}} with a ShareAlike clause, which is also a "non-standard" license. That license even lacks a name. Here it has at least a name, Saffron Blaze Attribution ShareAlike. :) Jee 02:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Attribution is a must even if "Share-alike/Copyleft" clause is removed. Copyfree licenses allow people to use different licenses in adaptations, including ARR (all rights reserved). In fact, "Share-alike/Copyleft" is not a feature for photographers; it is intended for free culture promoters (like Wikimedia) to encourage free sharing of adapted work too. Jee 02:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The notion my bespoke license is somehow less because it isn't CC issued is bogus. CC with all its legal resources didn't even understand the implications of "work" and put millions in harms's way with respect to retaining some economic control over original files. I am not changing the T&C of my license. I think it will work for the vast majority of people that would want to re-use these images. They may not make the lawyers at some corporate office happy but give the example here perhaps they should be happy they have a job. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It may work for many uses, but Commons requires free for any use, including making derivative works. I don't think many people would create a derivative work if they had to re-licence according to a "homemade licence" composed of a few sentences blatantly lifted from from CC's summary page and hosted on a wiki page that could be deleted or changed on a whim. That's the problem with the "share alike". And I think there's a significant risk that someone else might decided to follow your example. For that reason, I suspect Commons would be better of without the images, than have this as an example to follow. -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Colin: What is wrong to adapt a CC-license text and clarify the meaning that only the on commons uploaded file is free for any further use? And better leave the decision if people will reuse such licensed files to them and don't do speculation on it! People are intelligent enough to contact an uploader and to arrange with him it they are interested in a photo ;0].
I don't know why Saffron Blaze stopped one year ago his uploads. If commons may not live with such a definition me too I will stop my uploads. I know that commons may live without my further uploads but be assured, also me I may live without commons as I stated already on my user page and disk: à prendre ou à laisser!
Why are you afraid that many users will follow us? As you may see since one and a half year nobody did it because 99.999% of the uploaders don't care about this subject. --Хрюша ?? 09:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Хрюша, you haven't "adapted CC licence text", only the summary. What you copied isn't a legal document. One of the important aspects of a free licence is that one does not have to contact the owner in order to reuse or develop a derivative work -- your argument would be the same for an "All rights reserved Wikipedia only" licence that I'm sure lots of pro photographers would love to use on Commons. As for copying, well you have already copied Saffron, so that is bad enough! As I noted above, my biggest issue with this is the "share alike" restriction, since having a "share alike" to a personal User:Chriusha homemade licence is just ridiculous. I'm afraid I'm immune to people blackmailing wrt licence terms (If you don't meet my demands then I'll stop uploading). This is a free content project, so usable licences are vital rather than a "nice to have". I am sympathetic to the issue of high resolution versions, and wish there was an official "file-based licence" rather than the "work-of-copyright based licence" we have. But there isn't, and cobbling together a few sentences and calling it a "licence" isn't the solution. -- Colin (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Colin that those are not acceptable licenses. They are not standard approved and veted license templates and I share Colins unease about "share alike" requirement for all derivative works. However one thing I do not understand is that the main difference between those licenses and standard CC-by-sa, seem to be a restriction "Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work". However when images uploded here are at full resolution, like File:Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.jpeg (Nikon D810 with 7,360 × 4,140), File:Three Cliffs Bay Gower.jpeg (Nikon D700 with 4,182 × 2,076), File:Bluebell Wood - Brecon Beacons.jpeg (Nikon D700 with 4,256 × 2,394) seem to be, than this restriction is totally meaningless since "higher resolution versions of this work" do not exist. Without that additional restriction Saffron Blaze license seems to be the same as summary of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Can wa at least relicense images uploaded at full resolution? --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the issue of CC retroactively changing a licensing term in that they defined a CC-licensed work to be of all available resolution of this work, not repecting several authors deliberately choosing to release only a smaller/medium resolution under CC terms while retaining all rights on high resolution works. CC actually shoot themselves in the foot with this, earning a lot of disrespect from photographers formerly willing to spend images. I have yet to see a court confirming this change. --Denniss (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Denniss, you keep spouting this nonsense doesn't make it become true. The CC licence terms have not changed. But I agree it is a mess that CC/WMF made. -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
By changing the definition of "work" they have changed the licensing terms. If the terms weren't clear enough they should have clarified this and released a new licese 3.1 with this clarification in effect. --Denniss (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
CC/FSF or any other license provider can't change the definitions once a license is released. So CC can't change a single letter here. They can play with FAQ or deed; but it has no legal value. It is true that they made some change (like Work > Licensed Material) in version 4.0; but it will not make any effect in 3.0. Similarly Saffron't can't change his license once it is released here. Or more precise, reusers are not compelled to follow any future edit in that license for the already released works. Jee 16:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Denniss, why do you persist in making these false claims, with no evidence? It is us who were unclear, partly through misleading publications by CC and WMF, but also because none of us hired lawyers to explain the meaning. Now it is clear and unfortunately not what some photographers wished were true. It is very important that we don't spread false statements that CC licence terms might change, because they simply can't. -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I'm afraid both of those are cropped even if not downsized. And the uncropped version is "protected" by the licence description. Kind of depends what one means by "resolution". That's one of the problems here: that Saffron hasn't really created a file-based licence and is really just playing games to make a point. So if Saffron reworks the photo, perhaps with better post processing, that other photo could perhaps be used as long as the JPG isn't "higher resolution". Since Saffron isn't, it seems, interested in making free content any more, I suspect he's likely to remain stubborn just to see if you dare delete them, and prove his point about how silly we all are. And this again, is the problem with home made licences -- we are wasting our time debating their issues or merits. Like the whole "GFDL 1.2 Only" nonsense, we end up pandering to the wishes of those who don't really want to create free content. This isn't the repository of images for a online encyclopaedia that is free to read, but a repository of free content that is mainly used by an online encyclopeadia that is also free content. I suspect Saffron would still be contributing if it were the former only. -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No, you may not re-license any of my images. I have lost trust in CC licenses. I don't want my images subject to their rights grabs and convoluted and contradictory legal terms. My bespoke license is simple and to the point and could be used and reused by anyone with zero legal risk. I concede that having the license in user space could represent some issues wrt permanence, but that could be rectified by a screencap at time of reuse or migrating the license to a protected template.
I should add that I stopped uploading for reasons that have nothing to do with licenses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So as I see it we have 2 choices:
  1. Create "Saffron Blaze Attribution ShareAlike" license and move it to a template namespace
  2. Delete the images
I think the community should decide which way to go and it should be something discussed at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. User:Saffron Blaze and Хрюша, can we agree that User:Chriusha/License, User:Saffron Blaze/license consent and User:Saffron Blaze/license are really the same license, for the purpose of this and future discussions? --Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
As Colin mentioned though, the "Saffron Blaze Attribution ShareAlike" 'license text' as it currently exists isn't going to satisfy the need for a legally watertight document like the Creative Commons ones. As the Creative Commons licenses say "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license.". The same would be the case for Saffron's template. I doubt the powers that be would consider it satisfactory for Commons to accept it as a valid license template. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Diliff, as I commented earlier, we accept many simple licenses (eg {{Attribution}}). In my OTRS time, I noticed many handmade licenses. The only difference is they are hosted in their own websites than directly here. {{PD-Self}} is another simple license. But the main difference is they are either PD or a Copyfree license; so adaption is easier/possible. But for a handmade Copyleft license adaptation is possible only with other same licensed work. That't why Colin suggested Saffron to remove that clause.
But as Saffron repeated that he is no longer contributing new works (I'm aware of it earlier), we can't expect any favor from his side. Commons can either delete them or keep. Jee 16:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Unlike some comments made in the discussions here and elsewhere, I don't believe there is any current Commons policy restricting the set of licences one could use. I made some suggestions for a proposal in the earlier discussion, but have no heart to spend my time persuading anyone to adopt it. I learned form the GFDL nonsense that Commons is full of "stamp collectors" who don't give a s**t about the photographers or the reusers -- they just want to collect and sort images for the sake of it. So best of luck getting that passed. But for what it is worth, I would support restricting share-alike licences to official ones, and to delete any existing images that fail that test. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You have more experience dealing with these discussions than I do so I'll defer to you and Jee's better judgement on that, but I would have thought that Wikimedia Foundation and their legal team would have something to say about it if they knew about the proposal. They have a better strategic view of where they see Commons going than (I suspect) the average Commons users do. Diliff (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is very much the sort of thing they defer to the community over, even when it makes the wrong choice. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Happy New Year![edit]

Feu d'artifice - 328.jpg
Have a great 2016. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)