Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diana September 2019 01.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Diana September 2019 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2019 at 20:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

M/S Diana
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •  Info Night view of the historic passenger ship Diana in Gothenburg habour. March 15, 1931, the Göta Canal Steamship Company’s new passenger and cargo ship, the M/S Diana was delivered from the Finnboda shipyard in Stockholm. The ship was designed to travel the Göta Canal between Gothenburg and Stockholm and is still in regular service between Gothenburg and Stockholm. The ship played an important role in the 1965 crime novel Roseanna by Swedish writers Maj Sjöwall and Per Wahlöö. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Really beautiful, but just a small question about licenses. To me it looks like this is the same photo you have posted on Flickr. If so, that photo has "copyright all rights reserved" and here it is published under {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I don't think one photo (if it is the same photo and size) can be published under two licences. Can you and/or someone who knows stuff about licenses sort this out, please. --Cart (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that right Peulle? I did release some of my photos under different licences before (typically when CC was inappropriate license for a publication/book and I was asked by authors for a different license.). I don't know so I'm genuinely interested. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, copyright laws may differ from country to country, so I'm not sure it applies everywhere, but the isue here is that an image that has been released with a free license can't have a restricted license somewhere else. When uploading to Commons, note that the release form says that you irrevocably release it under that license. Meaning you have given up the copyright (under certain conditions); the point is that you cannot then claim copyright over that same image anywhere else. :) --Peulle (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle, sorry but what you wrote is just totally wrong. See Commons:Multi-licensing. Your argument is a bit like saying that because you are selling a book for £9.99 at one shop, you can't sell it for £12.99 at another. The licence document is just a generous offer to the re-user. You can make different offers elsewhere, just like you can sell a book for different amounts in different places. You have never given up the copyright unless you use a CC0 declaration to do so. You haven't "given up copyright (under certain conditions)" with a CC licence and yes you can claim copyright elsewhere because your copyright still exists. The CC BY SA licence has in big shouty letters: "THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED." Indeed the "perpetual" aspect of the licence is actually constrained because when copyright no longer applies (XX years after you have died) the licence is void and no longer required. So the licence only exists while it is under copyright and can only be offered because the licensor owns the copyright. Any re-user is also required to publish your copyright notices, to remind everyone it is under copyright and merely licensed. Flickr doesn't offer many options for users to pick from. For example, they are still stuck at V2.0 of CC BY-SA. The folk on Commons who scrape photos off the internet, rather than uploading their own, face this issue all the time: one website claims "(c) all rights reserved" and another claims "(c) some rights reserved CC BY-SA 4.0".
The TLDR version is just chill. People are allowed to be inconsistent. -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, you can publish under multiple licences, though technically "(c) all rights reserved" isn't a licence and is an inconsistent declaration when you have conditionally waived some rights elsewhere. Though some admins on Commons do need reminding that our images still do belong to us and are fully under copyright protection when licence conditions are not met. But I don't think there is anything legally wrong with it. You are simply telling one audience (Flickr) a different message to another (Commons). Diliff published all his cathedrals on Flickr with a -NC licence. Podzemnik you can offer as many licences as you like. Many older images on Commons are multiply licensed with GFDL and CC BY-SA. Any re-user has to pick one licence, though. (Just to be clear, the "(c)" bit isn't inconsistent and I put it on all my photos) -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Diana_September_2019_01.jpg&oldid=370846133"