Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Petronas Twin Towers & KLCC Park.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2013 at 12:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur at night
The Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark discussion is relevant to some degree, though the attribution text on the image description page is not equivalent to the attribution on the photo itself. Colin (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crop made for a better pic, but if the author wants this as his form of attribution then it would violate the license terms to remove it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not. This is a misunderstanding that results from reading only the license deed ("in the manner specified by the author or licensor), not the actual license. CC-BY-2.0, which this is released under, says in section 4b that [s]uch credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer. darkweasel94 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed (pun intended), but it is easy to see where the confusion comes in. Hopefully in the next iteration of the CC license they tidy up that wording on the deed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikimedian is bounded by the agreement "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license". I discussed this matter with a Creative Commons staff, and the reply was it is enough for any CC license irrespective of whether the use is in WMF projects or not.
Extended content 
“It might be useful for you to look at the legal text of the license.
See section 4.b.: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

It requires that the licensee provide:
1. The name of the original author
2. The title of the work
3. To the extent practical, the URL of the original work
4. If the work is an adaptation, a credit to the original

Those are the literal requirements for attribution, but they can be
implemented in any number of ways as is reasonable to the medium. In
the case of Wikipedia, all of this information is provided on a page
for each image. There's no special rule for Wikipedia.

For more information and recommendations on attribution, see this
page: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Users”
JKadavoor Jee 16:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of us are happy to have the attribution moved, though the wording shouldn't change like it has here, and remember that in the case of Flickr transfers, the author bound to any Wikimedia terms of use contract at all. Colin (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean to say "in the case of Flickr transfers, the author is not bound to any Wikimedia terms of use contract at all." That was the reason behind my discussion with them. If the answer was different, we can't use third party uploads in articles or galleries as we don't use attributions on those pages. So I think that answer is very important. JKadavoor Jee 05:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gidip (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_Petronas_Twin_Towers_%26_KLCC_Park.jpg&oldid=106412642"