User talk:Grand-Duc/Archiv/2016/December

CC-BY-3.0 is non-revocable

Hi! Please, notice that CC-BY-3.0 is a perpetual license, so it cannot be revoked. So, as far as I know, you cannot replace it with more restrictive licenses as you did at least in File:Reindeer in finnish fell.JPG (diff). You may add additional licenses alongside with the existing once though. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Apalsola: Yes, I'm fully aware that CC licenses aren't revocable. But if you check the file history, you'll see that there was no "CC-By" licensing - I admit that I used the wrong template at the upload, though. The descriptive text under "Permission" ever stated CC-By-SA 3.0, please check for youself the first line in the Permission field: diff of licensing harmonisation, first file version. (And the other cases are similar: textual description with "CC-By-SA", wrongly used tenmplate.) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The license tag is mandatory for all files and it is the way to define the license, not some abbreviation in the Permission field. If you had immediately noticed the wrong license tag and changed it, I think that would be OK. (According to the policy, in such cases files can even be deleted.) However, it took over seven years for you to change the tag, so I don't think this can be explained as a mere human error.

Thus, I ask you to revert the CC-BY-3.0 license tag to the files that originally had it. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is some matter that has the potential to dwell deep in the realms of copyright and treaty law, e.g. some legal rules about errors in German civil law. Furthermore, I do not recall any binding policy about the way of defining licenses. The upload form only calls for a "license tag" in the Permission field. I'll port this discussion to COM:VPC to get a broader input, as we completely differ on this point. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussing this in the Village Pump is probably a good idea. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 22:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done: COM:VPC#Licensing form, which way has the primacy?. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Flying Larus ridibundus 2.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Flying Larus ridibundus 2.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Also ehrlich, JuTa, ich hoffe, dass das hier drüber eine automatische Software-generierte bzw. Bot-Nachricht war. Ein Mensch hätte nämlich binnen Sekunden den Tippfehler in der Lizenz-Vorlage erkannt (eine schließende geschweifte Klammer fehlte), zumal die Lizenzangabe zwar nicht in maschinenlesbarer Form, aber eindeutig als Text unter "Permission" angegeben war. Grüße (und ein frohes neues Jahr), Grand-Duc (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)