Template talk:No permission since/layout
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
icon[edit]
Please replace
[[File:Icon no permission.svg|80px|Warning sign]]
with
[[File:Icon no permission.svg|80px|Warning sign|link=]]
as the icon is in the public domain. Thanks in advance, FDMS 4 23:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Did you ask User:Bibi Saint-Pol before you "liberated" it into the public domain (which you somehow neglected to mention above)? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, do you think I should have done so? FDMS 4 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I do see your point, but I think it's enough of a grey zone that it would be good form to discuss it with the uploader first (they seem to still be active). If an uploader feels that their work is eligible for copyright protection but are willing to share it under a free license, I believe we should – within reason – err on the side of respecting that, rather than imposing our own views of what the threshold of originality ought to be. Treating contributors well is more important than being able to have images without links in templates. With a bit of luck, and if one asks nicely, it might turn out that the license was just the result of the default choice and they're perfectly happy to release all rights. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 15:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader of the grey zone image wasn't Bibi Saint-Pol, but User:Vipersnake151 (ping User:ViperSnake151), who didn't make any claims of copyright ownership. In my opinion, the icons used in templates should always be PD, as linking to their file description page looks unprofessional and might confuse users. FDMS 4 15:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi guys,
- No problem to move this image (and the similar ones) into PD, since it is very basic work and I don't think I can even claim original creation on it. Thanks for the notification though! Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 17:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader of the grey zone image wasn't Bibi Saint-Pol, but User:Vipersnake151 (ping User:ViperSnake151), who didn't make any claims of copyright ownership. In my opinion, the icons used in templates should always be PD, as linking to their file description page looks unprofessional and might confuse users. FDMS 4 15:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's based on work that has since been released into the public domain officially. As such, as it does not contain any original new content in comparison, I do not consider my derivative of it to be sufficiently original to still be under CC-BY-SA (the old Tango license at the time). ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that history. In that case, the original licensing choice for the derivatives makes a lot more sense too. Thanks everyone! With all that out of the way, I agree with removing the link too. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I do see your point, but I think it's enough of a grey zone that it would be good form to discuss it with the uploader first (they seem to still be active). If an uploader feels that their work is eligible for copyright protection but are willing to share it under a free license, I believe we should – within reason – err on the side of respecting that, rather than imposing our own views of what the threshold of originality ought to be. Treating contributors well is more important than being able to have images without links in templates. With a bit of luck, and if one asks nicely, it might turn out that the license was just the result of the default choice and they're perfectly happy to release all rights. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 15:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, do you think I should have done so? FDMS 4 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Awesome! Thank you! Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)