Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Dachboden -- 2018 -- 1382 (Instaheiligkreuz).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Dachboden -- 2018 -- 1382 (Instaheiligkreuz).jpg

Withdrawn by nominator.

I think this is a bigger issue than a per-file or per-editor issue. The original reason for deletion was a misunderstanding, owing to wording, now cleared up (WE HAVE NO RESTRICTION ON USE IN SOCIAL MEDIA AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO PERMIT ONE). However I am still concerned with single editors producing separate licences. If this is "clarification" then it's either unnecessary (the same issue affects all CC-by-sa content, and not just on social media) or should be made through our centralised CC-by-sa licensing tags. If this is a shift instead to editors writing their own licenses and licensing conditions, then that is unworkable for Commons: even if these licences were valid and free, it is far more difficult to work with a custom licence, rather than a well-known licence like our standard CC licences. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Delete request template removed in advance in File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Dachboden -- 2018 -- 1382 (Instaheiligkreuz).jpg. Kind regards. --XRay ^talk 11:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd done that but the page save glitched. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Not freely licensed - specific restrictions made here.

See {{User:XRay/Templates/Notes/Common}}

Notes

This image is not in the public domain. Copyright protection applies. The rules of the listed free license apply, no more and no less. Please respect the copyright protection. Especially with social media you have to pay attention to the terms of use. These sometimes do not correspond to the license conditions listed here. (See CC BY-SA licenses and social media.) Please check this before use in the respective medium. The license conditions must also be respected when using so-called generative artificial intelligence (AI). Images created in this way are processed images or derivatives within the meaning of the license. Of course, a free license is no carte blanche for use. In particular, there are restrictions not based on the license, for example to the personality rights of the author (Copyright law of Germany, §§ 12 to 14 UrhG). This is especially true for the required attribution and the use of the image. It is expressly not allowed to give the impression through the use of the image, that the author supports the work, in which the image is used, or whose rights holders in any way.

Please do not change image file, license or file name! Even though a wiki offers many possibilities, some changes are possible, but not allowed. The author of the image has made it available here precisely with the named license. The three components image file, license and file name (title) belong together indispensably. Always keep in mind that images are also used outside the Wikimedia Commons world. There the attribution refers to exactly this place and exactly this image file here. If you want to make changes to the image and make this modified image available to others here, upload the result under a new name and with the mention of your name as the editor. Alternatively to the mentioned license only compatible licenses are allowed. Otherwise, any other form of licensing is reserved exclusively for the author. When changing the filename, please always consider the world outside of Wikimedia Commons. If you enter a link, you also expect that the matching page with the matching image appears. Everything else leads to insecurities. It should also be noted that the author expressly distance hisself from images based on his photos that have been changed — even minimally — by third parties and where only his name is noted as author.

Please do not overwrite this image with a modified image. The author would like to make possible minor modifications only at his own source. (The source is usually a RAW file. Processing of the JPEG file results in a loss of quality.) This ensures that the changes and the quality are preserved. In addition, easy access to the source should also be possible for external use, which would not be possible via the file versions. If you think that any changes should be required or if you want to express constructive criticism, please contact the author. Otherwise you can upload a new image with a new name. Please use one of the templates: derivative or extract. Please be sure to include your name, if you upload a derivative or a detail, because you're in charge of the changes. The preparation of derivatives or extracts is not allowed without mentioning your name. Please do not rename this file. The name is part of the required license informations. In the case of misstatements, the author is pleased to provide information.

The last changes are not from the author. The author has provided the image here under the license Creative Commons BY-SA. Indeed, the last update of the image or the text was not made by the author. This is common in a wiki and is usually not a problem. Nevertheless please check the last updates to ensure that the image in unchanged form comes from the author and the license corresponds to the license chosen by the author. The last entry at the file history must be XRay or Dietmar Rabich; the license must be Creative Commons BY-SA. What if the information doesn't match? If another license is listed for use, the use of the image is permitted, provided that this license is at least compatible with the Creative Commons BY-SA license. If it is a derivative of the original image, use is also acceptable if the person who made the change is also named in the attribution. (A derivative can be identified by a link to the original image as the source.) However, if the original image has been overwritten by a third party, use by the author is not permitted. In this case the last version of the file from the author can be used. Images where I am credited as the copyright holder but which have been uploaded by a third party, and images which have been uploaded by me but where the copyright credit has been changed to a third party, are violations of the terms of the license.

There are several hundred files affected, which use this restriction. None should be kept. Special:WhatLinksHere/User:XRay/Templates/Notes/Common

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think the text is wrong, please ask and don't set a deletion request. The additional information can be updated, but it matches with the licence rules of CC BY-SA given in each file. The additional information contains only a hint to respect the licence rules. --XRay ^talk 13:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We can discuss the additional text. A deletion request is not necessary. --XRay ^talk 13:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please read the licence rules of CC BY-SA and tell what's wrong with the additional text. CC BY-SA isn't public domain. There are no additional restrictions. --XRay ^talk 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Free licensing is not optional here. Your restriction here is clearly deliberate (which you're welcome to do, but it's incompatible with Commons). It is not any sort of "clarification" of a CC-by-sa licence, it is an additional restriction "This specifically excludes use in social media,". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: It isn't a restriction, the licences are not compatible. Please read [[1]]. The answer of the question Can you post CC BY-SA content that a third party produced on Facebook? is No.. The link is part of my note. And Please read the whole sentence: This specifically excludes use in social media, if applicable terms of the licenses listed here not appropriate. --XRay ^talk 14:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• @Andy Dingley: And for your information there is a new translation of the text: This excludes, in particular, any use on social media whose terms of use do not correspond to the licenses listed here.. English isn't my best knowledge and I tried a translation with Google Translator. May be there is a misunderstanding in the former text. --XRay ^talk 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, so this one user-specific messagebox actually means nothing? (In that case, why use it?)

This is nothing to do with social media? (as your message claims)

It is part of CC-by-sa that it is a -sa- share alike licence. As such, there are plenty of cases where such content can't be re-used - anywhere where the downstream licensing is incompatible with the same -sa- (and other, such as -by-sa-) conditions. This is not specific to Facebook, although FB is a well known example where it isn't. This is certainly nothing to do with social media per se.

I fail to see why your content in particular is so special that it has to have a messagebox on it to highlight a requirement that already applies equally to the millions of content items here under CC-by-sa. I fail to see why your messagebox has to express this in terms of a re-use restriction against "social media" in general, when that has no relevance to any real issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is too much reuse of my photographs without respecting the licence conditions. That's the reason for the additional information. But it's still not a restriction. And still not for all social media and not per se. If the rules of CC BY-SA are respected, it's OK. And there is still no reason for a deletion request. I can't understand why you've done this. --XRay ^talk 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If you reword the scare box, I'd be happy to withdraw this. But that warning has to stay compatible with COM:REUSE - you cannot just say "don't use my stuff on social media". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd never said "don't use my stuff on social media". That's your interpretation. You forget the part of the sentence "whose terms of use do not correspond to the licenses listed here". (The new translation, which is IMO the same as the old one. But: It may be different in english and my restricted knowledge of this language.). --XRay ^talk 16:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are hundrets of thousands of pictures that have such a template. --Ralf Roleček 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: BTW: There is a new text in the box. Hopefully everybody will understand the new one in such a way that there is no restriction of re-using, if the re-use respects the licence conditions of CC BY-SA. And if you have any doubt, please contact me at my discussion page instead of a delete request. --XRay ^talk 16:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Sorry, I've updated the text again. IMO it is now clear for everybody that there are no additional restrictions. Please withdraw your deletion request. --XRay ^talk 07:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep no reason for deletation --Ralf Roleček 14:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep Please close this disturbing deletion request. The translation of the english version of the text can be discussed. All my images fulfill the free licence CC BY-SA. If any of my additional informations are wrong, you're welcome to help me to find a good translation of the german text. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep While I am not particularly fond of huge boxes that seem more political than necessary, this note is only a reminder for reusers that the license is incompatible with the Terms of Service of most social networks. It does not restrict uploading to social media with ToS that are compatible. The note might need a bit of clarification to that effect, though. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Keep per above. The templates are not restricting the cc-by license in any regard. CC licenses and FB ToS are indeed problematic. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Keep per Steinsplitter. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)