File talk:Reuse Wikimedia content.svg

Reuse

Why does it make it seem Wikimedia logos are more restrictive than other fair-use images? One says "reuse not recommended" and the other says "do not reuse". I know this is suppose to be simple, but saying use only under fair-use for both of these would be ok. Rocket000 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is kinda confusing. It suppose to be about how to reuse material, then says to choose a license. Rocket000 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It means "choose (follow the line to) the license/s specified on the image page". Not the most clear text, I agree. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This chart doesn't make sense

A graphic like this should be self-explanatory. This one is nothing of the sort. What is it trying to say? El T 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Any similar license

What CC-BY-SA means by "any similar license" varies depending on the version of the license. In 1.0, it says "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License,", 2.0 has, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan).", and 3.0 has "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License." Of course, there are other requirements as well. Thus, I think the graphic is way over-simplistic. It implies that any similar share-alike license may be used, which may or may not be true (it's not at all in 1.0), and depends how you define "similar". Superm401 - Talk 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this chart desperately needs to be redone. As for the CC-BY-SA part, it doesn't even mention versions, so I think the "any similar license" should be removed. I tried making a new one, but completely failed at making it simple. Which, I may add, is no simple task with regarding the complexity of these licenses. - Rocket000 12:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "similar license", and moved and named the requirements column, so it should be more readable, though it certainly isn't perfect. Superm401 - Talk 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

dishonest encouragement of crediting wikimedia

as far as i know, no license requires you to specify where you got something, only who the author is. the row for crediting wikimedia should be removed because it is plainly incorrect. Calliopejen 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. GFDL 4.J. (which applies to any modification) says, "Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on." This is the URL of the image on Wikimedia Commons.

Moreover, CC-BY-SA 3.0 says, "if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties;" Some images on Commons could easily be interpreted as "designating" a Commons URL this way, such as Image:Brown_bear_(Ursus_arctos_arctos)_running.jpg, which says, "Please credit this: Malene Thyssen, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Malene". Superm401 08:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In which case the graphic is misleading: It says to credit the wikimedia foundation, which is not really "the network" (thats the URL on commons). The wikimedia foundation has about as much right to be credited as "Jimbo Wales". They facilitate the network perhaps but their being mentioned doesn't help to "preserve the network" and thus shouldn't be a requirement. I suggest the image be changed to reflect that. -Fcb981 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets keep this conversation in one please please. J.smith (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)