User talk:Fernandoreyespalencia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Fernandoreyespalencia!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文(台灣)‎ | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

Images[edit]

I removed your images from Wikipedia articles because they have a copyright logo on them which contradicts their licensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.39.228.13 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. While visible watermarks are discouraged, all free copyright licenses rely on copyright to be enforceable, so there is absolutely nothing contradictory about asserting copyright over content covered by a free copyright license. LX (talk, contribs) 06:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't use an image as CC and assert that my use of this copyright overrides the copyright clearly stamped on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.58.119 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Eh... what? "My use of this copyright"? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
The photos are protected by copyright. That means that the copyright holder (Fernando Reyes Palencia) has the right to specify who may use the photos and how they may use it. One way to specify this is by using a copyright license. The Creative Commons Attribution, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike and the GNU Free Documentation License are such licenses, which all give anyone the right to use the licensed content for any purpose as long as the licensing requirements are followed.
Quoting from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode: "If You Distribute ... the Work ... You must ... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work". If, as you claim, the license is contradicted by the presence of a copyright notice, isn't it rather weird that the license requires you to keep copyright notices intact? LX (talk, contribs) 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird indeed. The image says it is copyrighted to the photographer. The license says it is CC. These are two different copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.58.119 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not. Everything that's covered by a Creative Commons license is copyrighted. Again: all free copyright licenses rely on copyright to be enforceable. Quoting from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode again: "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." (The SHOUTING comes from the original text.) So it's only weird if you fail to understand the essence what a copyright license is. LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]