Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sxc-warning

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Relisted on 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Template:Sxc-warning violates Commons policy: It requires notification of the creator for commercial purposes. The template text states that you[reply]

"Always ask permission from the photographer if you want to use the Image

• In website templates that You intend to sell or distribute.
• For creating printed reproductions that You intend to sell.
• On "print on demand" items such as t-shirts, postcards, mouse pads, mugs (e.g. on sites like Cafepress), or on any similar mass produced item that would contain the Image in a dominant way."

Also:

• "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!"

That's not in accordance with Commons:Licensing:

"The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: (...)

• Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses".

Delete the template and all images referring to it. --Fb78 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is intended to be a valid licence tag. Should be added to Category:Problem tags? William Avery 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At one point the sxc license was different (more ambiguous) and for a time I think we allowed uploads. Later however the terms changed, and thus this tag was changed to note that any new sxc images are not allowed on commons (without further permission from the author). However some older uploads may still link to this tag, with a more ambiguous status. See Commons:Stock.xchng images for more details (which is where my knowledge is from). This tag in itself is fine, Keep as it correctly notes that sxc terms are not acceptable for commons uploads. Carl Lindberg 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we just claim that we assume the images were PD before the license changed? I don't feel very comfortable with this. I'd rather have explicit permissions by the original creators than just saying that "many uploaders to stock.xchng wish their work to be effectively public domain". How do we know this? How do we verify this in any individual case? It's an unstable license, and we're speculating too much about creators' intentions here. --Fb78 14:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has already been deleted before by community consensus, but this time it might have a purpose. We claimed that the photographers' choice of "no restrictions" corresponds to {{copyrighted free use}}, since stock.xchng didn't have the right to impose additional restrictions on top of what the photographers had chosen. But it's true that we can't be sure of the creators' intentions. It would indeed be good to have permission for each and every image, but apparently stock.xchng is protecting rights to their database so much that it is close to impossible to contact the creators in mass. Most of the images will probably have to go. This is currently being discussed at the Village pump. --Para 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under US law "no restrictions" wouldn't have been enough to make the images free enough for our purposes in any case... But its moot now for two important reasons: 1) The site changed long ago to remove that ambiguity, and again more recently to make it really obvious. 2) Even before the changes a quick look at their forums shows it's easy to find that many of their users expected the terms to be followed, so ethical behavior demands we follow them. --Gmaxwell 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until all images under this tag have been resolved, as per discussion at the VP (linked above). Kelly Martin 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template isn't intended to support keeping the images, rather, it is just an honest statement of the images status until something is done with them. If the community decides to mass-delete these images, I can carry that out through the same process I used to tag them.. but only if that is the communities desire. --Gmaxwell 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{Noncommercial}}. See the line in all caps above in the problem description above. To relicense this photo under a free license, the image must be taken down from stock.xchng. Jesse Viviano 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine with me if we can get consensus for mass deletion of the existing files.. --Gmaxwell 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misconception with these seemingly one sided license agreements that a license is an attribute of the work, when in fact it's the agreement between the two parties sharing and using the work. The photographers have authorized stock.xchng to be their non-exclusive agent without any copyright transfer, so the authors can do whatever they want with their photos regardless of them also being hosted on stock.xchng. While some of the photos with this template may have to be deleted, there is no hurry to do that. No speedies! --Para 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we can get grants from the photographers.. but we don't have them yet.. So what we have here is equal someone mass uploading image they simply found on the web.. No acceptable license grant. My personal view is that we should keep the images tagged with the warning, speedy the images that are unused, and try to contact the copyright holders while we slow delete them in order from the least useful/unique to the most useful/unique. I'm just not opposed to mass deletion if thats what people want. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Gmaxwell's opinion not only with words, see Category:Pictures by Michael Slonecker. Keep, but also keep removing this template by gathering licenses from authors. A.J. 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{noncommercial}} -- actually the licence there is even more restrictive than noncommercial (free porn and all), but it all comes to the same result. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I support phasing these images out. I would say that we delete everything that is unused, and try to find replacements for the others, such that they can be deleted after a certain timespan. I would say that this timespan will be 3 months, and that after those months we delete them all, in use or not. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly  Support this idea. 3 months will give us more than enough time to find replacements for the most-used images. They're not free, and they have to go.--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree too but I think we should start a wikiproject or something of the sort trying to contact the owners of different sxc.hu pictures. There are about 800 and a lot of them are probably from the same authors. So far I have a 100% success rate asking people for permission for their sxc.hu photos and there are some really beautiful photos from there. We should, of course, not accept any new photos from sxc.hu without a permission. Yonatan ^talk 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I don't disagree with contacting people but .. 100% out of what? I haven't gotten 100%, nor has enwiki. --Gmaxwell 14:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hehe, I suppose I misrepresented my figures. I had meant to say 100% out of what in my last comment but apparently I forgot to; I've contacted about 10 up until now but I think we should be able to keep at least 50% of the sxc.hu images if we work to contact them. Yonatan ^talk 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This template should be replaced with one that says something to the effect of "we believe that this image was intended to be public domain, but we do not have verification from the author", try to contact the authors, and then delete anything we can't get permission for. The current text is very confusing, especially because it often appears with a {{pd-self}} kind of tag. Brighterorange 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we know for a fact that more than a few of the authors don't intend the work to be public domain. I have no issue with changing the template, but we should not make it inaccurate. --Gmaxwell 11:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why does this template remain on images that are freely licensed, even after they've been checked and are ok? I find this stupid and annoying. Pengo 09:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't if the permission has been verified. No such images seem to exist though, none with PermissionOTRS or PermissionOTRS-ID templates. Where are they? --Para 10:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we have recieved a free license from the copyright holder we should probably remove all mention of SXC unless the copyright holder wants us to keep a one. --Gmaxwell 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SXC's incompatible license doesn't apply to those images anymore, so there is no reason to make things harder for reusers by denying them direct access to the source, author and their other work unless the author requests a specific way of crediting and linking. Otherwise we would also have to remove all source links from other images for which we have acquired a license different from the source page, and not just SXC ones. We should instead encourage people who also host their files outside Commons to include a link on the image page here, so that people can easily find all the information, discussion and contact data related to the file. --Para 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the author makes a release it should be no different than tham uploading it here. Are the images I've submitted "harder for reusers" because we're not providing some outside source? The link back to SXC is confusing because it make it look as those SXC is an acceptable source. :( --Gmaxwell 19:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is: it's not possible to contact people through Commons if they have contributed indirectly, unless an external source is provided. The external source is the first point of contact for all such files. We currently have files from SXC with two kinds of descriptions: SXC link and an OTRS template, or SXC link and an obnoxious template that is being reduced. Having people take example of either of those is not a problem. The Foundation could of course step up and start forwarding contact requests through OTRS, but that would weaken the position that the WMF is not an intermediary for any of the media hosted here. --Para 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most commons users haven't set email addresses and we don't require them to do so, but last I heard the commons community rejected this notion. In any case could start asking SXC users if we can post their email addresses. ... So is it okay if I just start speedying any newly uploaded image from SXC that don't have an OTRS template? --Gmaxwell 21:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OF NOTE: The en. featured picture [1] carries this tag TheDJ 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going anywhere? I have deleted the images using this template that were not used anywhere, at least as reported by BadOldOnes, and being in the first 200 of the category. Currently more than 800 images carry this template and according to the license, we are not allowed to relicense them, which is what we are doing. I propose that we set a date (say 1 July 2007) when the images will be deleted, so that local communities have the possibility to exchange the images that are currently used. I also encourage Commons users to tag SXC images as {{Superseded}} where possible, as this will warn local communities through CommonsTicker about available alternatives. Siebrand 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been trying to replace some of these images, but there is resistance to doing so. I think we should just plan on deleting them at our earliest convenience. The amount of time it is going to take to convince people to replace them is simply not worth it. --DavidShankbone 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should not drag an issue like this on for ages. That is why I proposed 1 July as the last day the images will be available. Siebrand 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not June 1st? I don't really think much will be achieved by July. Most editors on the Pedias don't really understand these issues until the image is no more. I don't think it is a big deal either way, but sooner rather than later seems better to me.
      • 1 July because then anyone who does want to take pro-active action before deletion has the time to take care of all the 800 or so images involved. If we delete them in a week, it would be a really hard job. So let's make it final: these images will be deleted on 1 July 2007. I'll change the template. Siebrand 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the SXC tag from images that have an OTRS tag or other release information (not {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, which apparently was incorrectly stuck to many of the SXC images)? What do we do to avoid overzealous deletion of images sourced from SXC which have in fact been properly licensed? And in a related vein, what can we do to find those SXC images which still need permission, so we can email the creators? grendel|khan 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we indeed need to remove the warning template and add an OTRS reference if an image is properly licensed by the autor. You can use the bad old ones, as descriptions are completely shown. Siebrand 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the photographer's request concerning this image at User talk:172.202.143.206#Image:Bridge string thru body.jpg. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the photographer's request concerning this image and perhaps more at User talk:80.142.168.222#sxc. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Image:Metal movable type edit.jpg is still marked with the sxc tag, but as a rotated/cropped version of the above image, it should probably be retagged too. Carl Lindberg 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may use image: In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones. -

Thank you for your input. Obviously you have not read the above discussion. Siebrand 06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which image were you writing about? None of the images in Category:Four Seasons Hotel Hong Kong appear to qualify. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed. Images will be deleted on July 1st, 2007 (see comment of Admin Siebrand above.) --ALE! ¿…? 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]