Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cut drawing of an Ariane 5 ECA DE.svg

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:Cut drawing of an Ariane 5 ECA DE.svg

Author's license is incompatible with Commons. The author demands credit "in the immediate vincinity of the image"; that condition restricts manner of attribution. Compare the CC-BY-SA license: the author determines who is credited (here M0tty), but the licensee determines a reasonable manner of that credit/attribution. On WMF sites, reasonable attribution is a link to the File page; users do not have to put "M0tty" nearby. Look at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode Section 3(a)(2) that allows user to attribute in ANY REASONABLE manner and gives an explicit example of a hyperlink. The author's explicit demand for manner of attribution makes the license untenable. In addition, the author is advertising the image for "purchase"; that is not an indication of a freely licensed image. Glrx (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, all files using User:M0tty/credits or User:M0tty/credits2 should be deleted. Special:WhatLinksHere/User:M0tty/credits and Special:WhatLinksHere/User:M0tty/credits2. The author can save the images by removing the licensing restriction. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, theses images are under a real free licence (two actually). The template and the text is just to educational purpose (because, in the world, a lot of people haven't even hear about a free licence), a link to the page with the credit is also valable. Please, do not erase all my files... Consider that text as an explaination of the simplest and easiest to understand way, but not the only way to respect the licence. Thanks. --M0tty (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This deletion request is for about 1000 files.

The issue is M0tty's "immediate vicinity" requirement.

The debate is not whether the purported licenses are "free" but rather whether they are compatible with Commons. Here's a substituted copy of template credits2 as of today:

This illustration was made by M0tty Please credit this with : M0tty in the immediate vicinity of the image. A e-mail to M0tty is much appreciated but not mandatory. Do not copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please contact me M0tty to negotiate terms.

Contrary to various File: pages, the license is not GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-SA 3.0 because M0tty has included an additional restriction in the Permissions section of the file page. GFDL only requires that the distributed copies contain attribution somewhere within the copy (not the immediate vicinity): "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." (Emphasis added.) Requiring the credit to "M0tty" in the immediate vicinity of the image is an additional condition. A similar argument above showed that the license is not CC-BY-SA 3.0.

The article de:Ariane 5 uses the image, but it does not mention "M0tty" on the page. Consequently, M0tty could claim a copyright license violation. I am editing this DR page; when I press the "Publish changes" button, I irrevocably agree to release my contribution under the CC-SA 3.0 and GFDL license and that "a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license". In other words, Commons expects that hyperlinking the image to its File: page is sufficient attribution. Users of content on Commons need only link to an appropriate Commons page; they do not have to identify the author in the immediate vicinity. (Consider book publishing practices: there's often a page for crediting images; it will say the picture on page 39 is by permission of UPI; the page of credits is not in the immediate vicinity of page 39, but it is a reasonable method of attribution.) If USER1234 modifies the image and imposes the same immediate vicinity requirement, then users of the image would have to credit both USER1234 and M0tty in the immediate vicinity. The immediate vicinity requirement is unreasonable.

The text of the templates also suggests the license is not free. Although the images have purported "free" licenses, M0tty is interested in having others license the image under different terms or purchase the image. If the image has a free license, then why would anybody need to purchase it or use a different license? The only reason I see is to avoid the requirement of attributing "M0tty" in the immediate vicinity. The game here seems to be imposing some conditions that essentially create a less-than-free license.

The resolution is either (1) M0tty removes the "immediate vicinity" restriction that violates GFDL and CC-BY-SA and removes the sales pitch or (2) the images should be deleted from Commons.

Glrx (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have modified the sentence to allow the possibility to use an URL to credit the author. Is it ok now ? Can we move on to more important things ? By the way, there is a LOT of similar templates used by a LOT of commonist. Please, consider to let it go : we are pretty well aware of what is a Free Licence and how it's work. Don't try to delete our work. Thanks. Greetings. --M0tty (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And the text concerning the possibility to purchase the image is completely compatible with a free licence. An image can have multiple licences including unfree. Someone could want to buy the possibility to reuse the image without being forced to respect the terms of the free licence, for exemple, he may want to create a derivative work who is not under a free licence as well. Greetings. --M0tty (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Kept: M0tty's template changes seem to be adequate. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)