Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alejandro García Padilla

re
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:56, 18 March 2013
Line 10:
Line 10:
 
::I would consider these intentionally chose set of words as more closer to what the uploader actually wants than the template license plate they had to choose from CC. These words here are very clear and they surely did not get a template for restricting use for non-news organizations. That's why they had to put it in words. Now you have raised a very good point JJ, which i cannot answer. Maybe you or someone else will. How does some text like this get into the Metadata of the file? Is it added somewhere in your camera before taking the pictures? Is it added after the picture is taken? If either of these two is right, it means that the uploader had no intention of actually releasing the files under that license. Now, it is possible to change the metadata after the file is already uploaded on flickr? If not, then again we see what their actual intention is. §§[[User:Dharmadhyaksha|Dharmadhyaksha]]§§ {[[User talk:Dharmadhyaksha|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dharmadhyaksha|C]]} 16:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::I would consider these intentionally chose set of words as more closer to what the uploader actually wants than the template license plate they had to choose from CC. These words here are very clear and they surely did not get a template for restricting use for non-news organizations. That's why they had to put it in words. Now you have raised a very good point JJ, which i cannot answer. Maybe you or someone else will. How does some text like this get into the Metadata of the file? Is it added somewhere in your camera before taking the pictures? Is it added after the picture is taken? If either of these two is right, it means that the uploader had no intention of actually releasing the files under that license. Now, it is possible to change the metadata after the file is already uploaded on flickr? If not, then again we see what their actual intention is. §§[[User:Dharmadhyaksha|Dharmadhyaksha]]§§ {[[User talk:Dharmadhyaksha|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dharmadhyaksha|C]]} 16:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::Good concerns; but what I said above is Wikimedia's stand in this regard. Please read http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing You may educate the contributor about it. But we need not delete any existing contributions from him since "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable". We can only consider things legally; not ethically. (Any metadata can be easily removed, if required.) [[User:Jkadavoor|J]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|Kadavoor]] [[Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor|J]][[:Category:User:Jkadavoor|e]][[Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor|e]] 06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::Good concerns; but what I said above is Wikimedia's stand in this regard. Please read http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing You may educate the contributor about it. But we need not delete any existing contributions from him since "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable". We can only consider things legally; not ethically. (Any metadata can be easily removed, if required.) [[User:Jkadavoor|J]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|Kadavoor]] [[Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor|J]][[:Category:User:Jkadavoor|e]][[Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor|e]] 06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::It seems i can't comment on the photo without a login id. {{small|(How unfriendly is that!)}} So will leave that educating the uploader part out for now. My concern here is... in case we happen to be in the court of law fighting over this issue, will the actual intention of the uploader and a written statement made in that respect be given more weight than this templated so-called license? Of course, we don't know if the uploader even finds this worth taking in court. §§[[User:Dharmadhyaksha|Dharmadhyaksha]]§§ {[[User talk:Dharmadhyaksha|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dharmadhyaksha|C]]} 05:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
*{{keep}} Totally agree with arguments of [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor]], what is meant is a description, not a license or permission. The uploader file on flickr, due to license the file under a license agreement with its requeriments (example a licence CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported), but did not. The camera can hold and that description in the metadata, that is not our issue. So why do not specify the uploader with the correct license in flickr?
 
*{{keep}} Totally agree with arguments of [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor]], what is meant is a description, not a license or permission. The uploader file on flickr, due to license the file under a license agreement with its requeriments (example a licence CC BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported), but did not. The camera can hold and that description in the metadata, that is not our issue. So why do not specify the uploader with the correct license in flickr?
 

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Alejandro_Garc%C3%ADa_Padilla&diff=92798463&oldid=92548165