User talk:Aurevilly/sxc.hu (2)

If SXC are a non-exclusive agent, then surely the users still have the right to release the images under whatever license they want as may be indicated on their user pages? ed g2s • talk 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is probably the best alternative. To get in touch with the uploaders and ask them for selling and redistribution (only criteria which doesn't comply Commons policy). This is not theoretical, I got an email authorization from João Estêvão A. de Freitas for the image Closeup of a blue-green human eye. villy ♦✎ 06:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell has said on en.wp that he plans to contact masses of SXC users (where his w:template:sxc-warning apparently went down better than it did here). pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we even need to contact them if they make it clear on their (SXC) user page that they allow free usage of their images? (example) ed g2s • talk 16:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then the problem remains that they supposedly agreed sxc to impose conditions on downloaders as their agent, even if non exclusive. villy ♦✎ 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do the conditions apply to subsequent users of the images, or just the original downloader? As a third party, are not the Commons only bound by the original conditions of the user? ed g2s • talk 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as the picture had been downloaded once against the sxc terms of use, the copyright violation remains all through every usage. Otherwise copyright violation would have no sense as a legal concept, it would suffice to take benefit from a copyright infringement ... On the contrary, with a specific authorization from the uploader, all we would have to answer to sxc is that sxc is a non exclusive agent and that we get the appropriate authorization from the copyright holder. There, if there's a problem between the copyright holder and sxc because of that, this would be none of our business ... villy ♦✎ 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a bunch of Greekgod images: should they be deleted too? And what about my own images? I don't think so. I agree that we shuld very carefully look at what SXC people write on their profiles and according to current policy: any doubt means deletion. A.J. 13:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If separate authorisation is obtained (as in the case of your own images) then there is definitely no problem. The problem is that Greekgod has agreed to SXC being his agent and imposing their conditions on downloaders. Please note that the current policy you link to was also written by villy. ed g2s • talk 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could not the user page messages be considered specific authorisation? The T&C state "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." but SXC doesn't appear to explicitly prohibit uploaders from using their user pages to grant these rights. So if the user page is clear enough (example), surely that's sufficient? (Sorry to keep wasting your time) ed g2s • talk 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the link you're pointing is blatant. Now, contrary to an email authorization, they're will a problem of keeping track of such way to express the permission. Maybe putting up a screenshot in the Commons image talk could do. villy ♦✎ 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) PS: note that in all case we should never create any sxc category - that has to do with the sxc database protection rights and not with the copyrigh issue in itself. villy ♦✎ 06:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with a full copy of the text - or perhaps a link to an archive.org mirror? ed g2s • talk 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)