Testwiki:Deletion requests/Template:CNG (2)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:CNG

I already requested deletion of that template some time ago Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CNG. The arguments still apply, and the counter arguments à la "It's valuable for educational purposes" and "Very valuable" are really besides the point. FlagUploader's "The permission says 'you can use the images as long as...', not 'you can use the images on Wikipedia as long as...'" is also not a valid argument, because"you" $\ne$"everyone" and because it is not explicit about what use is permitted; further the context of the mail request clearly talks about wikipedia and not about what would be use beyond some educational or scientific or press purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - once again just send a mail and ask for permission for everyone. If you get a no, then delete galore! --Lhademmor 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • been there, done that: [1] - They allow the use of their images under cc-by-sa and gfdl. --Flominator 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • They need to say so on their website then. The website has conflicting terms, "The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited."[2] Chatting per mail is not sufficient to give a license to the public (too dangerous that people misunderstand it as a request for a license for wikipedia or wikimedia projects)—really, almost all people simply don't understand what you are asking for even if you are explicit, they don't have to do with copyright issues each day or don't care. Copyright holders must actually add copyright statements and tags to their web sites directly! Only that ensures that they understand the nature of the license they are giving—they are giving it to the public, not to individual projects. It should be only fair for OTRS people to ask people to add license tags to their websites and not give some unclear reply by mail. --Rtc 05:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • They do NOT need to say so on their website. If an e-mail has been archived in OTRS, that most definately suffices. However, the ticket referenced above is about British/American spelling, and not about CNG's permission. I agree that the permission on Template talk:CNG is a bit thin. Siebrand 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, a mail to OTRS is not sufficient if they give are supposed to give a license to the public, not merely to one entity such as Wikimedia. This is especially true as only this act gives ordinary people the right idea about what is happening. --Rtc 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Wrong. If we have a permission on OTRS then we have all we need. What they do on their website is not our call. Try reading the friggin' policies before nominating a couple of hundreds of pictures for deletion! --Lhademmor 06:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not our call what they do on their web site. Commons is the one who wants to have pictures licensed freely. If we want to reach this goal, we can accept conly pictures from websites that have the license on it. I do not see a problem in accepting only such pictures except that such a requirement will avoid new and unveil many existing misunderstandings by rights holders about the nature of the license they are giving. It is not at all unreasonable to insist on the license on the website, because we have to make sure that we are not tricking the copyright holder into having the wrong idea about the license. It is our obligation to be honest to the rights holders; if he feels uncomfortable with the idea of putting the license on his website, then he has obviously not understood what the license is about and it is obviously neither his intention nor his interest to really license the pictures under a genuine free license. --Rtc 06:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If this template were deleted, then what would the consequences be for all the CNG images on the commons and wikipedia? Is it just a matter of proper (re)licensing or will we not be able to use them at all? --Steerpike 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • They can be relicensed, but you need to take the initiative! Without relicensing, they are not usable, see Resolution:Licensing policy --Rtc 06:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Flominator, the email you linked has nothing to do with permissions, could you check that out for us? Cary Bass ^demandez 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Try Ticket# 2006092710009217 - sorry my bad :( --Flominator 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yep that looks better ;)--Nilfanion 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep. THis ticket licenses all images from the site both cc-by-sa-2.5 and GFDL. Siebrand 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - If it's a question of voting I vote to keep. Regarding the legal and policy questions I don't know much, but I hope there will be some way to keep all these images displayed on the commons and wikipedia articles. --Odysses 13:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Really I don't understand the problem, if the copyright holder of CNG site's images, send an e-mail in which he agree with free use of that images (providing only source attribution) why we have to delete all that images? I read They allow the use of their images under cc-by-sa and gfdl. It's right? Yes? So, where is the problem? CNG site is copyrighted? Is this the problem? They can apply copyright to text and to site apparence... it is their site and they can do what they want with it. Or I'm wrong? If he feels uncomfortable with the idea of putting the license on his website, then he has obviously not understood what the license is about and it is obviously neither his intention nor his interest to really license the pictures under a genuine free license. This is wrong a site isn't only pictures... it's text too.  ELBorgo (sms) 14:45, 1 Apr 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This case looks like copyright paranoia to me. If we have proof that the copyright owner has licensed the content under a free license, it really doesn't matter anymore what the owner's web site says. I really don't know who is supposed to benefit from such a strict approach. Sebmol 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Withdrawn: Clarification received by Flominator, Ticket# 2006092710009217 --Rtc 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)