File talk:House of Abbud.jpg

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

License history

[edit]

Originally marked PD-self at source. [1]. Now changed to cc-by-3.0.[2] --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing should reflect the cc-by-3.0. My understanding is that releasing something into the public domain has no meaning, and there is no mechanism under any law by which that is possible. I changed the licensing from something meaningless, to something meaningful. Please do not revert again. See http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html T0lk (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have already grant anyone the right without any conditions. For the period of more then 8 years that was the license. It is possible also that someone already use the file without an attribution as required in Cc-by-3.0. So please revert yourself. -- Geagea (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pd-self is revocable, if you do not think so, please prove it. Otherwise you are misrepresenting the licensing. T0lk (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official policy of Commons: all Commons license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. -- Geagea (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up that page from 2008 and you'll see no mention of non-expiring/perpetual/non-revocable requirements. Even if such a requirement existed, look at the uploader of the file, it was not me. I did not agree to those terms. If you continue to improperly license my images I will have to escalate this issue. T0lk (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have already released the work to public domain in 2008 in the external site.-- Geagea (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my original link at the top, the public domain declaration has no legal meaning. The only things which would apply is the right for anyone to use the image, which as stated, has been revoked. T0lk (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@T0lk: "no legal meaning" is wrong, please take a look at the current judicature.--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're claiming familiarity with it, why don't you just show me. T0lk (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@T0lk: I see no need to discuss this, it has been explained very well. Please note that you can license your files under multiple licenses, for example CC and PD. But the PD is, as per our polices and the terms of use, irrevocable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here you revoked GFDL and cc-by-sa-all. Don't do it again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting this file be deleted. As already shown, non-revocable/non-expiring clauses did not exist in the license agreements in 2008. T0lk (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:House_of_Abbud.jpg&oldid=203180982"