Licence question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licence question

WikiMedia Commons mailing list
Hello everyone


There is a general self|cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution= template displaying, in part

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

However, there is also a bespoke declaration

A statement such as "From Wikimedia Commons" or similar is not by itself sufficient. If you do not provide clear attribution to the author and indicate the file name as shown here, you didn't comply with the terms of the file's license and may not use this file. If you are unable or unwilling to provide attribution and release your own work that incorporates this work with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license you should contact Jonatan Svensson Glad to negotiate a different license.

These declarations are incompatible in two respects.  Firstly, the attribution requirements are different, and secondly the reuse conditions are different, replacing "build upon" with "incorporate" -- these are clearly different, and indeed if they are not different, why would the uploader have written a different one for themselves?

Anyway, given the incompatibility between the two declarations, should this file be on Commons at all?  

JPS

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence question

WikiMedia Commons mailing list
I see no effective difference between the file's licence and the statement made by the author.

How do the attribution requirements differ? They are the same: the author is providing further information about what constitutes "appropriate credit", and also explaining that the text "from Wikimedia Commons" is not the same as providing a hyperlink to the file, which is part of the attribution requirements as given by the licence: "a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable" is given at Section 3(a)(1)(A)(v). Most people do not read the licences in full so the author is reasonably providing some guidance.

Second: remix, transform, or build upon can all be satisfactorily summed up by "incorporate". Again, the author is simplifying the terms, but he is not making them more strict. If you reuse his image in any way, you must release your image under the same licence. Most people ignore this: he is drawing attention to it.

There is no incompatibility here.

Cheers,
Julie

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 12:03, Jennifer Pryor-Summers via Commons-l <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello everyone


There is a general self|cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution= template displaying, in part

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

However, there is also a bespoke declaration

A statement such as "From Wikimedia Commons" or similar is not by itself sufficient. If you do not provide clear attribution to the author and indicate the file name as shown here, you didn't comply with the terms of the file's license and may not use this file. If you are unable or unwilling to provide attribution and release your own work that incorporates this work with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license you should contact Jonatan Svensson Glad to negotiate a different license.

These declarations are incompatible in two respects.  Firstly, the attribution requirements are different, and secondly the reuse conditions are different, replacing "build upon" with "incorporate" -- these are clearly different, and indeed if they are not different, why would the uploader have written a different one for themselves?

Anyway, given the incompatibility between the two declarations, should this file be on Commons at all?  

JPS
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l