Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antarctica Without Ice Sheet.png
Commercial Use[hide]
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:49, 16 March 2013
Line 26:
Line 26:
It is also requested, but not required, that authors send Global Warming Art a copy of any significant publications that include the use of this image. Those interested in commercial and/or higher quality reproduction may also wish to refer to the information for professional republishers. [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It is also requested, but not required, that authors send Global Warming Art a copy of any significant publications that include the use of this image. Those interested in commercial and/or higher quality reproduction may also wish to refer to the information for professional republishers. [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
*All you did is copy and paste the text from their site here. You can ignore the first and third sections as neither of those apply. The only thing that matters is whether their GFDL/CC-BY-SA grant is legally sufficient. My contention is that it is not. Saying, "you can include this image in your GFDL publication" is not the same as saying "I publish this image in accordance with the GFDL". Wikipedia is GFDL (or CC-BY-SA or whatever it is this week). When people send us images and say "you can use this image on Wikipedia", we delete those images as not having a free enough permission. I don't see the difference between that and this. --[[User:UserB|UserB]] ([[User talk:UserB|talk]]) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
*All you did is copy and paste the text from their site here. You can ignore the first and third sections as neither of those apply. The only thing that matters is whether their GFDL/CC-BY-SA grant is legally sufficient. My contention is that it is not. Saying, "you can include this image in your GFDL publication" is not the same as saying "I publish this image in accordance with the GFDL". Wikipedia is GFDL (or CC-BY-SA or whatever it is this week). When people send us images and say "you can use this image on Wikipedia", we delete those images as not having a free enough permission. I don't see the difference between that and this. --[[User:UserB|UserB]] ([[User talk:UserB|talk]]) 15:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
−
** conversation with you the end. [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 16:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
** ''Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects.'' - Wikimedia is not a commercial project, and copied to the violation of the law may be from the original source. The main thing that he resolved/allowed owner for placement here. [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 05:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
** ''Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects.'' - Wikimedia is not a commercial project, and copied to the violation of the law may be from the original source. The main thing that he resolved/allowed owner for placement here. [[User:Strannik27|Strannik27]] ([[User talk:Strannik27|talk]]) 05:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{vk}} I am not a linguist, but to me "you can publish this work in a GFDL work" and "you can republish this work under GFDL" is the same thing. There is a difference between an incompatible or a restrictive licence and saying the same thing in different words. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{vk}} I am not a linguist, but to me "you can publish this work in a GFDL work" and "you can republish this work under GFDL" is the same thing. There is a difference between an incompatible or a restrictive licence and saying the same thing in different words. [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)