User:Colin/AppropriatelyLicensed/FAQ

← Older revision
Revision as of 12:58, 19 March 2013
Line 8:
Line 8:
 

 

 
*{{Quotation|left|The GFDL includes some potentially onerous provisions, such as the requirement to include the full license text with each copy. These requirements impede re-use of both text and multimedia (spoken or printed versions of articles, prints of images, etc.). Wikimedia is committed to the widest possible dissemination of free knowledge. While our terms of use have always allowed for lower barriers to re-use, their inconsistency with the license text leads to fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what is legal and what is not. It advantages those re-users who can afford legal advice and research over those who cannot. This is counter to Wikimedia's mission.|[[Commons:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader]]||width=100%}}
 
*{{Quotation|left|The GFDL includes some potentially onerous provisions, such as the requirement to include the full license text with each copy. These requirements impede re-use of both text and multimedia (spoken or printed versions of articles, prints of images, etc.). Wikimedia is committed to the widest possible dissemination of free knowledge. While our terms of use have always allowed for lower barriers to re-use, their inconsistency with the license text leads to fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what is legal and what is not. It advantages those re-users who can afford legal advice and research over those who cannot. This is counter to Wikimedia's mission.|[[Commons:License Migration Task Force/Licensing change by uploader]]||width=100%}}
 
+

 
+
*'''Q Why do people choose this licence for their images?'''
 
+
*A To restrict who can reuse the images or for what purpose.
 
+
:{{Quotation|left|For all my recent images, I use a GFDL-1.2 only license. In my opinion, this license allows me to restrict use of my images since it requires the user to include the license where the image is used. I usually waiver this requirement though if I get a request where the intended use is non-commercial. I do not mind my pictures being used by those who can not afford to buy them. What I despise is rich organizations who can afford to buy pictures being cheap and using them.|[[:en:User talk:Ragesoss/Muhammad]] on Wikipedia Signpost||width=100%}}
 
+

 
+
*'''Q Why shouldn't I prevent rich companies or evil people from using my images?'''
 
+
*A You can, but not with images uploaded to Commons. Other photo sites, such as Flickr, and stock and microstock sites will give you control over your images. This site only accepts [[:en:free content]] that is free for anyone to use for any purpose.
 
+

 
+
*'''Q What about people re-using a person's image for commercial gain?'''
 
+
*A This is a non-copyright restriction, covered by [[:en:personality rights]] law. The people that are subjects of pictures on commons retain their right to control commercial use of their image. That is separate from the rights of the photographer or owner of the image. See [[COM:IDENT]].
 
+

 
+
*'''Q Is this a decision for the Commons community or the WMF?'''
 
+
*A The community, with restrictions.
 
+
:{{Quotation|left|Historically the interpretation of which licenses are sufficiently free for Commons has been left up to the community, and that's where I believe it belongs. The WMF licensing policy specifies that licensing must be compliant with the [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Definition of Free Cultural Works], but whether specific licenses are or aren't consistent with the Definition for specific purposes is IMO a matter of such ambiguity that it requires ongoing community discussion. The GFDL and similar licenses that are being used for purposes other than the ones they were originally developed for are perfect examples of this dilemma, as they were clearly drafted to support free sharing of information, but nonetheless may not be appropriate in all circumstances.|[[User:Eloquence|Erik Möller]], Deputy Director of the [[foundation:|Wikimedia Foundation]] and original author of the Definition of Free Cultural Works.||width=100%}}
 
+

 
+
*'''Q Wikipedia dual licences CC BY-SA 3.0 with GFDL. Is that still acceptable?'''
 
+
*A Yes. The CC BY-SA is an appropriate licence for images. Adding extra licence choices is permitted, even when those other licences aren't accepted on their own.
 
+

 
+
*'''Q Will this mean we delete all the images with just a GFDL licence? Some of them are Featured Pictures. Many of them illustrate Wikipedia articles.'''
 
+
*A No. Existing media that has been inappropriately licensed will be retained. The owners of those works will be encouraged to add an appropriate licence.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin/AppropriatelyLicensed/FAQ&diff=92866757&oldid=92866098