Template talk:Sxc-warning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 June 19. The result of the discussion was speedy keep per advice from legal counsel. |
The statements made in this template are legally untenable. It simply doesn't matter, when an image is listed on the web saying "There are no usage restrictions for this photo", what sort of licence the uploader thought it was under; they have effectively released it to the public domain, whether they know it or not. And a disclaimer such as this on Wikipedia simply serves to give these photographers a false sense of security. If a photographer is not comfortable with their work being attributed to Josef Stalin, printed out and used as toilet paper, what they need to do is not upload it to the Stock Exchange, because by doing so, they are giving their tacit legal approval for it. Themadchopper 04:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Having read sxc's terms of use a bit more closely, this template would apply to those upload using the "Contact for public use", "Contact and credit for public use", or "Written permission needed tags", but it absolutely does not apply to those uploading with the "Unrestricted" tag. Themadchopper 04:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- SXC says otherwise, and so do their users. Check the forums on the site. It's is abundantly clear that your position is incorrect. It's is not anywhere near as simple as you make it out to be, copyright is a limitation on distribution not usage... the text linked from every image as view license is the conditions for distribution which are not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Many, although not all, of the contributors to SXC are aware of the license and are quite concerned that it be followed, just like on Wikipedia. Finally, your claim that "what sort of license the uploader thought it was under; they have effectively released it to the public domain, whether they know it or not" is outrageously false, it is not possible to accidentally release your work into the public domain. Because the author of the work has received no compensation for our use, it would be ridiculous to claim that a binding agreement could have been formed except through the most explicit and clear language. --Gmaxwell 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, "There are no usage restrictions for this photo" is pretty unambiguous. And this template imposes restrictions. Such material should be covered by the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag. As I mentioned, those images with caveats are covered fine by this template, but for those with no caveats this tag imposes way too many restrictions. Themadchopper 03:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not. The users of the site are well aware that the license exists and the license is linked from every image, and you are forced to read and agree with it before you up and download. What is clear is that you're trying to play semantic games which violate the desires of the copyright holders and put Wikipedia in legal peril. --Gmaxwell 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the license. "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." (emphasis mine). This is pretty unambiguous, almost as unambiguous as "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." It's very plain language, and no "semantic games" are necessary to interpret it. Themadchopper 15:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes and? It always the case that your rights are only the rights granted to you, thus that text is common text on copyright licenses. It continues "Your rights to use the Image are subject to this agreement and the restrictions specified at each Image." If you don't think that getting into a debate over the meaning of and is a semantic game, then I don't know what else to say to you.
- Please read the license. "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." (emphasis mine). This is pretty unambiguous, almost as unambiguous as "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." It's very plain language, and no "semantic games" are necessary to interpret it. Themadchopper 15:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not. The users of the site are well aware that the license exists and the license is linked from every image, and you are forced to read and agree with it before you up and download. What is clear is that you're trying to play semantic games which violate the desires of the copyright holders and put Wikipedia in legal peril. --Gmaxwell 04:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, "There are no usage restrictions for this photo" is pretty unambiguous. And this template imposes restrictions. Such material should be covered by the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag. As I mentioned, those images with caveats are covered fine by this template, but for those with no caveats this tag imposes way too many restrictions. Themadchopper 03:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- SXC says otherwise, and so do their users. Check the forums on the site. It's is abundantly clear that your position is incorrect. It's is not anywhere near as simple as you make it out to be, copyright is a limitation on distribution not usage... the text linked from every image as view license is the conditions for distribution which are not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Many, although not all, of the contributors to SXC are aware of the license and are quite concerned that it be followed, just like on Wikipedia. Finally, your claim that "what sort of license the uploader thought it was under; they have effectively released it to the public domain, whether they know it or not" is outrageously false, it is not possible to accidentally release your work into the public domain. Because the author of the work has received no compensation for our use, it would be ridiculous to claim that a binding agreement could have been formed except through the most explicit and clear language. --Gmaxwell 00:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Look, if you go to the site, questions about the license are quite common in the forums and it's clear what they intend. Lets just say that the license was indeed ambiguous (it isn't, but lets pretend): it still wouldn't make the images effectively free. What the copyright holder reasonably intends is material, because you can't unintentionally enter into a contract, particularly one which doesn't provide you with any gain.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- When an uploader on SXC submits content to the site, he is forced to see and agree to that license. He then is allowed to pick between several "usage restrictions" via a drop down, there is an explanation of each of the options by the drop down:
- Unrestricted In this case the photo can be used for any purpose listed in the Image license agreement.
- Contact for public use In this case the user has to notify you when using the photo just to let you know that it will be used.
- Contact and credit for public use This is the same as the above, except that the user will have to credit you in the product / website / etc. where your photo gets used.
- 'Written permission needed The user will only be able to download the photo if you grant permission on our online interface (see My account / Requests). You can make a decision based on the data they enter in our request form.
- I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. --Gmaxwell 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- When an uploader on SXC submits content to the site, he is forced to see and agree to that license. He then is allowed to pick between several "usage restrictions" via a drop down, there is an explanation of each of the options by the drop down:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Me personally, as a SXC uploader, I will sue your (you as a SXC downloader) sorry ass to the moon if I find you using my pictures without proper usage of those license terms explained above, and believe me, I will prevail. The license term is posted to every single image. How can one be so dumb not to understand it, and how can one be so outrageous not to follow those simple rules to obtain a free (royalty free) image, that has brought to you all for free with courtesy of numerous modest photographers? --Just curious 17:51, 30 April 2006 (GMT)
-
-
-
-
-
