Hosta

Stepping ahead

Now that the FPC rules will be probably adjusted to reflect the new consensus, what should we do regarding the present FP with wrong licenses? 1. Nothing; 2. Modify the licenses; 3. Delist. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. We cannot modify the licenses: they're not our pictures to modify. The owners of the pictures are welcome to add appropriate licences if they wish. I don't think we should delist. Those pictures were uploaded, nominated and reviewed in good faith and understanding of the rules at the time. Colin (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modify the licenses? Are you serious? --Tsui (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me the benefict of the doubt: the question I have raised above is not as stupid as it may appear. Most regulars know that I've always been (and stil am) against nominating pictures for delisting. However, my ideas never prevailed because the majority considers that the FP galleries should to dynamic and comply to the present guidelines. Let me now ask a candid question: in the future, what will prevent a user from nominationg a FP for deletion on the basis of a wrong license? The situation will be even more complicated if the requirement for a suitable license is mandatory, rather than just a guideline (as "rules are now"). Yes, Tsui, I'm serious. Either we are able to persuade the authors to change the licenses of their FP or there will a serious risk of delisting them. Please consider the following form for the options above: 1. Nothing and pray (that many FPs are not nominated for deslisting); 2. Modify the license or die (delist); 3. Delist. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should at first find out how many current FP are affected by any of the options. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. No rule can be in use for the time it was not yet a rule (sorry, it is a technical matter, and I don't know the relevant words in english). In french we say "Non-rétroactivité des lois". By the way, it is so important that it is a constitutional rule. The correct license(s) for a FP is/are the license(s) which was/were correct when the picture was elected as FP. My two maravedi.--Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is also what I think, Jebulon! Still, four FP are being delisted right now because they are too small... My two rupees. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different. A delist for a size reason is only because of quality requirement natural evolution. Nothing regarding the "law".--Jebulon (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. I'd say Forget the past, look for the future. Obviously I'd welcome people changing the license of their pictures, and replacing GFDL by CC-BY-SA, I don't think we can force them to do that. And I would not delist any picture because of the license. Yann (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yann. Not a fan of "delist"; only support when a better image exists. So chances that I support a "delist" request if an almost similar quality image exists with a better license. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Adding/changing licenses shall be voluntary and done by the creator. When the 2 Mpixel rule was added, there was not a mass delisting of all photos below, and likewise, there should not be a mass delisting of current GFDL only FPs, as they have been nominated in good faith. But I think that with the new rule, the chosen license can be a contributing factor in evaluating a delist candidate as it now an element in what is perceived as our best works. --Slaunger (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the GFDL x.y license a not good enough license, tomorrow the FAL, then the CC-BY-CA-xx, ... in the future only PD are allowed. Bye, bye Commons, tschüß, ciao, au revoir, до свидания, adeus, وداعا, 细则, ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S: for books is the "GFDL 1.2 only" license a very good license. Must be all our images free for all??? The most of all images are used in our Wikipedia projects. I think the main of commons it to be the central library for it. The images under the GFDL 1.2 only license are everything suitable for this project![reply]

Commons is not only for the Wikipedia projects; and most Wikipedias have their own FPC to appreciate the use in them. I'm happy to support anyone with a GFDL only license there as far as the rule permits. (Commons encourages CC=BY-SA than CC0 because it ensures all derivative works also have the same license.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: yes I know it, but we havn't an image library only for our Wikipedia projects.

@Jean-Fred: :-) correct, but still a "good" argument ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Alchemist-hp: Slippery slope indeed. Nothing justifies your catastrophic vision, as Commons (like most complex organizations) doesn't have a culture of hasty or revolutionary decisions. The way the present subject was discussed is a good example of the care we take with our policies. I very much doubt that most of Commons images, especially the FP, are used exclusively in Wikimedia. Many of mine were published all over the world in books, journals and the internet, and the same certainly happens with the other authors. Finally, can you give me a single example of a book using "GFDL 1.2 only" licenses (and the necessary page long documentation). I don't say they don't exist but they should be quite rare! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of books/newspapers/websites and others without any name and license attribution for my images. Good for me and my lawyer! The discussion about which license is absolete. The most users of "my" and other images think: the images are PD. Our license templates are worthless. Please create new tamplates with more and exact infos and more international languages. That will be more important than out license discussion here!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S: two image uses: the first and the second.[reply]
Yes, freely licensed pictures are misused every day. Big news. So are not-freely licensed pictures. What does your point prove then?

Your point actually backfires: if you believe license terms are ignored anyway, why publishing under even more cumbersome license terms? The 'evil' reusers will keep ignoring them, and you only make things hellish for the 'good' reusers.

Jean-Fred (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your point actually backfires:" not really. A lot of users are fair, ask me and like to buy my images. And my main intention is: our wikipedia projects for all the people on this world! The most of the people on this world don't need to use this in books and other commercial usings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. and sorry for my bad english.[reply]

I understand your point (that your intention is to allow free use only within Wikimedia); but unfortunately there is a conflict with the policy of Commons (that "Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely for any purpose including commercial ones as long as the source and the authors are credited and, in many cases, as long as you release your copies/improvements under the same freedom to others."). I don't know Wikimedia has any plan to encourage contributions for "Wikimedia only use" because lot of organisations are funding (?) Wikimedia due to its "for everyone" policy. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: I know the "policy of Commons" too. I'm not stupid ;-) In my opinion it is simple a false policy of commons for me. I donate my "good licensed" images prudently. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the heart of problem. We all know the mission of Commons, but some wish it were different. This talk page isn't really the place to change or lament that fact. Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There once was a time because they always said: The Wikipedias and its contents are under the GFDL, and will it always be. Today, it is CC-BY-SA, tomorrow PD? No thanks, without me! GFDL forever, for all time - so much promise to the license that you could read for years. And in two years, think of someone that only PD is free and everything is again re-licensed? No! The subsequent adjustment of a license is also not permitted in Europe. GFDL is prohibited at FPC? Good, i`m here one photographer less. Maybe it's better in the future, only upload GFDL license, no more double with FAL. --Ralf Roleček 14:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues of controversial licence migration (in the past) and folk stealing copyright work has really nothing do to with selecting a suitable licence in keeping with The Definition of Free Cultural Works wrt images. Grievances with those two issues are understandable but just distractions from the matters here. Do you think your threat to use only GFDL will make us change our mind and see the error of our ways? ~~What a petty and mean-spirited response.~~ -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m with Colin. It is regrettable that the license migration was negatively perceived by some users (though I would point out that the argument is yet again a slippery slope, since nothing in the migration to CC-BY-SA hints to a hypothetical one to PD) − but it has little to no relevance to the problem at hand here: FP is designed to highlight Commons best work, and the Commons community has herby decided that media under an unsuitable license are not our best work. And I do not see either what you aim to accomplish by threatening to only pusblish under GFDL. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was inevitably going to be divisive, especially given the license migration history (whether that is strictly relevant or not). Some of us will naturally feel hurt, and I see no real harm in letting people vent their feelings at this stage. Maybe we can learn something from it. However, calling them "petty and mean-spirited" does not seem at all helpful to me. Pointing out relevant facts (e.g. that noone has suggested migrating CC-BY-SA licensed works to PD) is different, as is asking for clarification. Ralf, what do you think is wrong with dual licensing with GFDL and FAL? --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Avenue here. People have always the right to express their opinions and feelings; there is no need to consider them as a threat. Instead I prefer to discuss why they think so. Please note my discussion with Alchemist above. It seems he (and may be many people here) don't like Commons policy to allow commercial use. But I don't think GFDL or FAL can help them. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've retracted that remark. Though Avenue may find his offer to "point out the relevant facts" may be regarded as equally as unhelpful (witness this and this response). Nobody here is stupid. There are language issues however. Perhaps someone should have a word with Ralf in his own language. Colin (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Photos are used commercial and thats good so. Some of the reusage you can see here. I haven't a problem with commercial usage. I would like to keep control of my photos and not know that at some point someone simply changed my license. Thats all. I can be more confident that the license remains exist with GFDL. At CC-BY-SA i'm no secure. --Ralf Roleček 07:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ralf about my heated comment. You use the Free Art Licence, not CC. Nothing needs to change wrt your licence usage. Colin (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ralf for clarifying your position, it is helpful and appreciated. Though I may not agree, I understand why you are upset with the license migration, and I guess that made you dislike Creative Commons. (Though I don’t really see here a reason to hail the GFDL: in my opinion, it is more thanks to the GFDL makers (ie the FSF) than to CC that the migration was made possible). Anyway, whatever the reason may be why you publish under the Free Art License − because you dislike the Creative Commons, or because it aligns more with your beliefs − then by all means continue to do so: the FAL does align with Commons aims, and we should be thankful users have a choice in licensing if they need it. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As time passes and my Commons images are used more and more outside Wikimedia I find that in a majority of instances the licenses are not respected. Moreover when they are used commercially they are often used by non-educational businesses that could easily pay to license them. The issue of persuing these license violations is left to the contributor. CC_BY_SA is thus rendered PD for all intents and purposes. The notion of "free cultural works" is an ideal that is not very pragmatic at least from the perspective of a contributor who wants to retain some control/copyright of his/her images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand. You wish to get paid if any of your work is used for a non-educational and commercial purpose? But it is against Wikimedia’s policies. The only way for them to pay is to make a donation to Wikimedia which is not a must. (I too wish that my images are used more and more even outside Wikimedia as time passes and even after my death; people do not have any difficulty to use them without my consent because I'm no more in the other end to respond.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha, ha ... rarely laughed so much. And whitch the donations are used for? The Commons and other Wikimedia employee teams. We have the work, we spend money for our camera equipment and "lost" a very much of time. ... I know: "nobody is forcing me" to donate images. But it will be more fair to have better license conditions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is out of the scope of FP, but : this is not true. Donations are used to support the Wikimedia movement and free knowledge − that does include the Wikimedia Foundation employees, but certainly not only. Donations are used to directly support contributors, for example, speakingonly for what is done in France, where I am involved: media accreditations, special access for photographers, purchasing equipment lent to contributors, sharing of public domain collections of cultural institutions… To come back on topic, this has helped the creation of content featured around here. So, yeah donations, are used for contributors (and not only in France, of course − I can think of projects led at least in Australia, Switzerland & Poland), and we welcome any project suggestions. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC) (sorry for the off-topic)[reply]

@Alchemist: Not any Wikipedia editors are getting remuneration for their contributions there. Then what is our special right for that? I learned a lot from Wikimedia without any expense from my side; but I know I’m benefited from many like you. See this. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jkadavoor and others. Most of what I know about digital photography I have learned it here, through hard work and the assessment of others, some of them highly talented photographers. Also, my work as a creator and a reviewer is known and respected mainly due to this association with Commons. That is a more than fair deal to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe, people ignoring license termes, is regrettable (though unfortunately not new), but I am not convinced that this is a failure of free cultural works: are freely licensed media more misused than fully or openly-but-not-freely copyrighted ones? I have no data nor arguments to back up this, but I don’t believe so. And if they are, it may just be because of their better exposure as being used for example in Wikipedia.

Too many people are just ignorant of what copyright is. As time passes, I strongly believe people will become more and more aware of what they can and cannot do with works in general, and freely licensed ones in particular. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on both assertions. Wikimedia does make it easy for people to get access to images as they are uploaded without watermarks and offered at high resolutions for download. So on this basis, yes, violations are more common with good works offered on Wikimedia. On the second point, Wikimedia requires contributors to participate "freely" yet allows anyone else to benefit from that participation in the way of commercial re-use. Since Wikimedia does not enforce the licenses they require of the author, the author is left to deal with violations. This presents a real challenge since any renumeration would unlikely be sufficient to offset the cost of pusuing the issue. Without enforcement the issue is growing because people are becoming aware that there is no consequence to copyright violations here on Wikimedia. However if the author had submitted those same images to an agent then the agent would pursue copyright violations. For those that donate images on Wikimedia, and use an agent, will find their images cannot be sold under a Rights Managed basis and can only be offered as Royalty Free. In effect the very act of donating an image to wikimedia reduces its value to the author. The irony being that while others can fully benefit commercially by the image uploaded to wikimedia the actual author pays a real commercial penalty. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hosta

Revision as of 17:41, 21 October 2012

Stepping ahead

Recent Comments

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{User:MiszaBot/config
-|maxarchivesize = 250K
-|counter = 12
-|algo = old(21d)
-|archive = Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive %(counter)d
-}}
-<div>
-{{#tag:inputbox|
-bgcolor=transparent
-type=fulltext
-prefix=Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/
-break=no
-width=44
-searchbuttonlabel=Search Talk archives
-}}
-</div>
-{{Archive box|[[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 1|1]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 2|2]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 3|3]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 4|4]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 5|5]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 6|6]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 7|7]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 8|8]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9|9]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 10|10]], [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11|11]]}}
-== Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 & FP ==
-Are there any problems with nominating Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 pictures for Featured Picture while the contest is still running? This doesn't concern one of my pictures, but another picture I'd like to nominate. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
-:FYI: this was touched on [[Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012#WLM_and_Featured_Pictures_candidates]] ; and there already are [[:Category:Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|6 FPs]] from WLM 2012. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
-== Suggestion... ==
-The amount of images in the web is impossible to tell. But images nowadays without tags or information such as a good, brief description of the subject, when, where, what, etc., etc., are usless because they cannot be found or they lack information. So I think that as a requirement for nomination the image must/should have a brief description of the subject giving basic relevant information. This would also be a good tool for reviewers in order to put the image in proper context. Any ideas? --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*We have three "image page requirements" as stated at [[Commons:Image guidelines#Image_page_requirements]]. Unfortunately some people bypass it by just one or two words. I prefer to provide a wiki page link if possible. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::The most relevant of those requirements (#2) only claims to apply to quality images. Perhaps it should be reworded to make it clear that it applies to featured pictures as well. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::Yes; "Quality" images in the requirement #1  and #2 are misleading. Changing them to simply "images" or "good images" may make sense. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::::Okay, I've reworded these to avoid talking just about "quality images". I've also removed the bit saying they have to be uploaded by the copyright holder, which does not apply to FPs. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::::OK for me. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-:I support the idea that image descriptions should be informative and not minimal. Geotaging for many image subjects is very important too. One problem might be that not all FPs are created by folk on Commons -- some come from Flickr and elsewhere and the information there might be lacking. So I guess all we can do at FPC is request/remind folk to write helpful description pages but not sure how easy it would be to mandate things. Would it help, Tomascastelazo, to provide a checklist that folk could use as a guide to what sort of information they might include. Perhaps with links to good examples (e.g., birds, places, people). [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-::I think also it is a good idea. I have to admit that I not remember it in every case but I try to give a good description of the image and make clear if there is something special about the object. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-:Interesting. I fully agree with Tomascastelazo observations. It does not concern only the FPC page, but all "Commons" IMO. I'm ready to discuss this, because I think that uploading a picture is only a short part of the "job" we have to do here. The more informations we provide, the better it is. As Wladyslaw, I also try to do so. But I don't know if to create new rules is a good thing. Maybe should we be less lenient. In the QIC page, for instance, almost a quarter of the nominations should have to be declined because of lack of following the guidelines in formal things matters... But we don't dare to decline for that reasons, and we are wrong. --[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
-Context in documentary photography is important, for it gives the viewer elements of analysis for whatever end.
-In Commons, a basic assumption is that the images are meant to illustrate articles of Wikipedia, or any other encyclopaedic end, among other possibilities. So the images as images per se take a second seat and are tools or aides of a larger effort. In order for the images to be found and to add value to whatever article they support, I think that a basic photo caption is in order, not a long-winded explanation that should be given in the article itself, but the photo caption should provide very basic info.
-We could characterize the images by type and add enough information to the image description. Not all images require the same type of info, for they are of different nature, but we could start something like this:
-'''Image type'''
-'''Place''' – This could be any type of location, architecture, landscape, city, etc. So the basic information could be geographical location, country, state, city and a brief description of content.
-'''Object''' – What is it? What is it for? Who uses it? The description could add interesting bits if object is for example a tool, a ceremonial object, art object, etc., and a brief description of its use.
-'''Organism''' – What is it? Where is it? Gender, scientific name, describe behavior, and a short take of info, for example: “… lives in central America, population is threatened, etc., etc."
-'''Cultural event''' – Where, when, who, etc.
-So basically perhaps everyone should add general categories to the list, but we must keep the category list very, very short and help redact a brief paragraph of the general information that the image, according to its category, should have.
-It would be hard to require this to all images uploaded to Commons, but it should be encouraged. In FPC, however, it could be a requirement, even if the nominator is not the uploader or the author. If they take the time to nominate, they should also take the time to add value to the image.
---[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-: I come, as always, a little late, but I strongly support the proposal of [[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]]. An image has no future if it does not have caption. I do not think it is useful to give rules, but if we already acord us for a didactic approach that insite to make an effort on the caption we advanced. --[[User:Archaeodontosaurus|Archaeodontosaurus]] ([[User talk:Archaeodontosaurus|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-::Again, I fully agree. As said above, by me and by Archaeodontosaurus, new rules are not necessary. However, I personaly will now oppose if I think that the description is not precise enough, according to the way of Tomascastelazo suggestions.--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::* Jebulon´s idea is practical, if reviewers oppose on lack of description, perhaps the habit of describing will be created... That´s how paths become roads... --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
-*Agree with Archaeo, Jebulon and Tomas. And I noticed that some people are only providing GFDL for their work although the page [[Commons:Licensing]] clearly says "The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software." Then why we are promoting works with such a "not practical license". I know this point is bit different, but it is stated as requirement #1 at [[Commons:Image guidelines#Image_page_requirements]]. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**I also support the idea that GFDL and L/GPL licenses are not suitable for any Q/F/V images. Let's put our acts where is our saying. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-== Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license" ==
-{{discussion top|The majority view(32/19) of this discussion is that the FP criteria for new nominations disallow pictures that use solely ''GFDL 1.2'' or combined ''GFDL 1.2 and NC(non-commercial)-only license''. A simple count of votes isnt the only deciding factor I considered the arguments put forth. Within the discussion many opinions argued that GFDL is a free license and an acceptable license under which to upload works to commons, some took the position that Commons first needs to change its list of accepted licenses before FP makes it a criteria. FP places many criteria on images even on eligability to vote which are more restrictive than overall community participation requirements. QI has for 5 years restricted the source of the images without issue, any arguement that FP community cannot make its criteria restrictive in terms of licensing doesnt stand up to current accepted community practices. Considering all of this there isnt any argument put forth that has sufficient weight or significance to warrant closing this discussion other than that of the majority view of '''disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license"''' <br><br>'''note:''' While the FP community has decided that pictures licensed with GFDL 1.2 or a combined license GFDL/NC license in the future doesnt represent our "Best works", it doesnt prevent people uploading media using such licenses nor will media using such license be deleted. Nowhere in the discussion has it been proposed that works previously promoted FP under such license be de-listed, as such this new criteria shouldn't be applied retrospectively. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 08:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)  }}
-{{anchor|Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as it is not practically free for images}}
-{{anchor|Proposal:_Change_to_FP_criteria_for_new_nominations:_disallow_.22GFDL_1.2_only.22_single_licensing_as_it_is_not_practically_free_for_images}}
-:''note: header changed at 15.30 8 Oct from "Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as it is not practically free for images" [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)''
-It is well known that the historic GFDL 1.2 licence is incompatible with general image reuse ''in practice''. This is because it requires the entire text of the licence to be incorporated into any work that makes use of such an image. The licence was invented for <s>computer software</s> computer software documentation, not photographs. For this reason, Commons strongly discourages this licence for new images:
-* [[Commons:Licensing]] says '''''Note''': The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software.''
-* [[Commons:Copyright tags#GNU Licenses]] says '''''Please note''': The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is '''prohibitive for print media''': in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please '''dual-license''' your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like '''CC-by-sa-3.0''' (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily.''
-That the licence is still grudgingly allowed for new images is largely an issue of history, compatibility and inertia.
-It is also well known that some contributors to Commons see "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as an alternative to the disallowed "non-commercial" licence restriction, though it is a blunt instrument in this manner in that it also prevents non-commercial reuse -- effectively only supplying images for Wikipedia and similar. (Note: it is possible to dual licence GFDL 1.2 images with CC-BY-NC to get round that issue).
-Since "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to '''everyone'''" (my bolding: not just Wikipedia, not just educational, charitable, and other non-commercial ventures), attempts to restrict reuse in this manner go against the spirit and therefore '''are not an example of our "finest" work'''. By promoting images with restricted licences to FP, we not only give implicit approval of such practice, but also encourage others to do likewise.
-This is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of allowing "non-commercial" licences on Commons. See [[Commons:Licensing/Justifications]] and [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License]. It is worth considering however, as an aside, that the operating systems in everyone's mobile phones (and increasingly, cameras) are only possible because many developers chose to give their work away for free to anybody, commercial or otherwise.
-The proposal here is to modify the FP criteria to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC. This would be effective only for new nominations, from the date the proposal is accepted.
-[[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} because we don't need anything not practical. I think the new version 1.3 is also not suitable for pictures or media files. So authors should provide an additional license like CC-by-SA. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}}<small><s>{{tl|comment}}</s></small> I’d like to state that I endorse every single point Colin makes in his proposal. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC) <small>Edited for the sake of clarity [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
-*{{kontra}} GFDL is a free license. --[[user:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roleček]] 17:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**In practice, for images (especially when printed), it is not. To clarify, I believe dual licensing GNU 1.2 with CC-BY-SA or the Free Art Licence, is acceptable under this proposal. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**In the context of images the GFDL is not a free license. The only reason it's still allowed on Commons is because no one has pushed to deprecate it. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} As long as commons allows it, it is considered free. Such restrictions will just reduce the variety of FPs --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**The question is whether it is free enough to be celebrated at FP. The "reduce the variety of FPs" argument applies to all sorts of self-imposed restrictions at Commons. We'd have more FPs if we hosted commercial copyright images and more money if we charged for them :-). This form of licensing restricts reuse and therefore is against the purpose of the site. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**For the record, Muhammad Mahdi opposes commercial reuse of his pictures and uses the GFDL 1.2 licence to prevent this. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ragesoss/Muhammad this interview] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fir0002/NC_license_proposal_summary this proposal]) -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} As long as GFDL 1.2 is allowed for general uploads, it does seem odd to restrict them from FP consideration.  That said, I'm not sure we ought to accept new GFDL-only uploads at all.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**We allow people to upload crap photos too, but restrict them from FP. FP should set an example of the best of Commons, including the best licensing for practical free reuse. There are weak arguments for allowing GFDL 1.2 -only uploads, but none for featuring them. We should keep the discussion of upload requirements and FP requirements separate. Linking the two leads to circularity, for example, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_tags&diff=19988676&oldid=19234446 Muhammad Mahdi's vote to keep the 1.2 licence tag is based on its use by FP photographers]. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{s}} as to forbid further GFDL uploads. [[User:Kyro|Kyro]] ([[User talk:Kyro|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} per Muhammad, there is no reason to establish a two-class-image-system --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**There already is a "two-class-image-system". There are images on Commons that are free to reuse. And those that aren't, in practice. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-***If you take this point we have not a two but a multiple-class-system because of the varied possibilities of licensing a picture. I would welcome a much more simple licensing system here at commons. But FP is not the right place to talk about this. Each picture that is correct licensed at Commons has to have the same right to candidate. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-****Just because Commons permits something doesn't mean it encourages something -- it clearly doesn't as both guidelines above strongly discourage it. The whole point of FP is to set a standard to aspire to, and be the very best. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****I don't understand your point. Each photography (regardless of which license) is usable outside Commons/ Wikipedia if the licence holder keep in mind to refer to the author and name the licence. I know the licence text, but your anxiety is not justified. No court of law would convict s.o. how cares in the described way the copyright. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-******Are you saying the GFDL 1.2 is toothless? If that were true, then what purpose does it serve to promote such a confusing and apparently restrictive licence, which is thus being pointlessly used in the hope it prevents commercial exploitation? You are wrong about the GFDL only requiring to "to refer to the author and name the licence" -- that is CC-BY-SA. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*******As I already said: I would support a simplification of the licence system. And I can only say for the German law situation: there was never one court decision that punished s.o. who referred to the author and name the licence but did not reflect the licence text. That the licence claim to do so is correct but to enforce s.o. to do so is more academic but not realistic. But as I already said: the FP are not the right podium to discuss about those thinks. --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-********I see your point now. It is a worthless restriction so why worry about it. Maybe so. That is certainly a more reasonable point that the "it is ok because it is permitted" circular argument put forward by Muhammad and those who second his vote. We should be celebrating truly freely reusable images here, not ones designed (pointlessly or otherwise) to be unfree. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} per my own feeling. --[[User:Alchemist-hp|Alchemist-hp]] ([[User talk:Alchemist-hp|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Could you please explain. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-***YES: because it is unimportant for my taste. Or we like to have in the near future only PD or CC-0 because it is more free than the CC-BY-SA ??? The "GFDL 1.2 only" is important for the diversity of our "good" images. And last but not least: per Muhammad too. --[[User:Alchemist-hp|Alchemist-hp]] ([[User talk:Alchemist-hp|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} GFDL 1.2 only decreases the chance of a proper reuse. Regards, [[User:Peter Weis|Peter Weis]] ([[User talk:Peter Weis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} GFDL 1.2 isn't a great license, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose making GFDL 1.2 only ineligible for Commons, but it seems silly to make separate rules here and for Commons in general.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{Support}} GFDL 1.2 keeps people from reusing our content. --[[User:Frank Schulenburg|Frank Schulenburg]] ([[User talk:Frank Schulenburg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} The !vote appears to be split very evenly here, without indication of a consensus. How about this: People who want to disallow GFDL 1.2 licensing can oppose nominations based on that fact alone. Note that what I'm saying here isn't a change in policy, as opposes can be made for pretty much any reason. For example, people might oppose 3MP images for being too small although they pass the 2MP technical minimum; likewise, people can oppose GFDL 1.2 images for being not sufficiently free even though they are technically "free." -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 03:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*We tried it earlier (at least me and Yann); but the result was very negative. He tried to [[w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:I'timād-ud-Daulah, Agra.jpg|resit my oppose]] by [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taractrocera ceramas Tamil Grass Dart by kadavoor.JPG|revenge votes]]. Anyway I don't like people use this space for their own publicity and to promote their own business with such a poor and restricted license. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*This has only been running less than a day so let's not be too quick to come to any conclusions. I'd like to see more non-FA contributors. Many of the opposes are based on a technicality (that Commons allows => it should be able to be FA) rather than actually saying whether celebrating unfree images is a good thing. Because let's not fool anyone: the 1.2-only sole licence is being used to make images unfree for commercial use. Whether, like Taxiarchos228 suggests, it is ineffective is interesting but suggests rather that those using this licence restriction should rethink rather than Commons accepting their conditions. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Nothing more!!! Nothing less!!! -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} In [http://www.amazon.de/Fahrr%C3%A4der-Technik-Typen-Praxis-Roletschek/dp/386640008X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349680529&sr=8-1 this printed Book] are more then 100 Photos with GFDL1.2 This License can be proper reuse. --[[user:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roleček]] 07:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**I guess if you include 100 photos then you have room to print the GNU licence in an appendix. This is not really the point. There are a whole host of other printed forms that are unable to accept that condition. If you are arguing the GFDL1.2 is no more restrictive than CC-BY-SA then what's the argument for using it as a sole licence? The point here it is ''being used to prevent commercial reuse''. Which is against the goals of the site, and not something we should celebrate as "our finest". -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***GFDL was the only and correct license all projects of Wikimedia. And now they will no longer be valid? The relicensing without consent of the copyright holder was illegal and so I use GFDL. --[[user:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roleček]] 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-****I am not proposing any change to existing images or existing FPs. What has been has been. I see you dual-licence with the Free Art Licence. So there's no problem with your images or future nominations. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} '''for all images uploaded after GFDL 1.3 became an option on Commons''' (I would also make an exception for works ported from other WMF projects that were originally uploaded before GFDL v1.3). We have long discouraged GFDL 1.2 only uploads but not in any meaningful way. For older images, I am willing to believe the author was simply unaware that the terms they were imposing were onerous. Authors who release works today under the long-obsolete GFDL 1.2 are deliberately imposing onerous terms upon commercial content reusers in an attempt to strongarm them into a paid license. There is no other way of interpreting such a deliberate action. The fact that such works can still achieve reuse in some limited contexts does not change the intention behind the action. This would give some teeth to our discouragement of GFDL 1.2 and make a few uploaders think twice about doing an end-run on the commercial use requirement. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*Well said. The people who still using GFDL are not ignorant; they are the most experienced people here. Their intention is to make maximum benefit from the huge visibility and reach of Wikimedia but not willing to follow the “free” policy of it.  I know the strength of this group is high but hope others and especially the non-photographers people here will act upon. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} Creative Commons are simple to understand and useful licences for pictures. GFDL was created for documentation text going along with free software and should be only use for this. [[User:Léna|Léna]] ([[User talk:Léna|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} The goal of FP is to promote the best ''free'' images. If the early free software community complained about the BSD for its one-line advertising clause (and this is even in the context of reprinting the whole BSD license [which is sensible for software]), why shouldn't we complain about having to reproduce an entire license text for one photo? As for the contention of several opposers that "it seems silly to make separate rules here and for Commons in general," ''we already do''. We don't take 640 x 480 images here, though Commons does. We don't take random snapshots, though Commons does. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**And I complain about attribution. I say we remove CC as well now --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 09:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{o}} I think we should ban everything but PD/CC0, anything else would keep people from reusing our content and wouldn't be free enough. More seriously, the GFDL is a textbook free licence.  Wikipedia itself used a version of the GFDL for years without issue. [[User:JJ Harrison|JJ Harrison]] ([[User talk:JJ Harrison|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*It is a textbook free ''software'' licence. To pretend it is a good free licence for images is to ignore reality and practicality. There are degrees of "freedom" as you point out. Folk here merely chanting "GFDL is free" miss the point. Freedom isn't a black and white term. However, the "non-commercial" restriction is. And that is the only reason folk still sole-licence with GFDL 1.2. The historical uses of it are interesting but no longer important: what is important is why that licence is chosen for new images in 2012: to prevent commerical use. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-::*It seems ironic that the people who claim to bring freedom are taking away the freedom of photographers to upload with this license. The losers of this proposal are Wikimedia and its subsidiaries --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::*There's no irony, Muhammad. Long ago some white folk lost the "freedom" to keep slaves, and were a bit upset about it. Clearly this is not at the same level, but I hope you can see the double-think in your argument. When Wikimedia campaigns for museums and art galleries to give away their work "free", we need to not be labelled hypocrites by at the same time allowing effectively-non-commercial licences for our own folk. We don't allow -NC licences. That's a big restriction that puts off many contributions. But that's the choice Commons has made. Deal with it. Don't dodge it. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::*I have to deal with Commons decision and yet here you are, trying to prohibit GFDL images, a choice that commons has made. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 09:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-::*The GFDL is a free license designed for software documentation and textbooks, not for software itself. And no, it does not prohibit commercial use. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{s}} Lena's explanation is perfect. --[[User:Archaeodontosaurus|Archaeodontosaurus]] ([[User talk:Archaeodontosaurus|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{s}} Ack Frank and Léna. - [[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 10:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} --[[User:Iifar|Ivar]] ([[User talk:Iifar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} As long as Commons accepts GFDL-only uploads, these should be eligible to become FPs. Otherwise where does this stop? Some people do not like the Free Art License, so pictures with that license can't be FPs either? How about PD-Art uploads from the UK and other countries where this may violate copyright? And "share-alike" licensed images are clearly not as free as PD images. Does this mean they cannot be our best work? By the way, GFDL 1.2 does not prohibit commercial use (see the first sentence in its preamble), so one of the main premises this proposal is based on is false. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Not true. The premise of this proposal is that it introduces serious ''practical'' obstacles to commercial reuse, and those burdens are ''precisely why'' some folk chose it as a sole licence. Let's stop pretending it is chosen for any reason than to achieve -NC by the back door. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***I'd say that the GFDL poses practical difficulties for many printed uses of photos or short textual documents, whether those uses are commercial or non-commercial. I don't agree that it poses significant difficulties for online commercial reuse. The GFDL is not simply -NC by another name. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-****See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ragesoss/Muhammad#4 this comment by Muhammad in his interview for Wikipedia Signpost]. What you or I think about the burdensome nature of the restrictions the GFDL imposes isn't the point: the point is those are perceived to be burdensome enough that this licence is chosen to achieve NC by the back door. And that is the only reason such licenses are chosen in 2012 (without dualling with CC or Free Art). [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****I think it would be unfair to the other users who also use this license if this proposal is passed based on my actions. Never generalize --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-******Which other users use this licence solely or in combination with -NC while also fully supporting the reuse of their images by '''anyone'''? [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*******I have used a GFDL only license in an attempt to achieve real SA, since the SA part of CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to combinations of text and images. And no, it doesn't really matter to Commons what uploaders who use GFDL to try to impose NC think, if I'm right and the GFDL allows commercial re-use. They will only have been fooling themselves. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{comment}} this proposal is concretely ''The proposal here is to modify the FP criteria to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC.'' This mixes up two things:
-*# GFDL is a useless license for most non-WP purposes (technically commercial use is permitted though)
-*# Commons disallows NC-only uploads.
-:Reading the discussion here, and given that the proposal is '''not what the header says it is, so we can't be sure what people are exactly supporting or opposing''', I think this proposal needs splitting into two parts, so I've done that below. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-:Rd232, Could I please ask you to strike/retract the following sections as they just confuse the debate and introduce a new issue. If you wanted clarity on the proposal, then we can do that without making a mess of it. The purpose is to disallow FP of pictures that attempt -NC by the back door: whether that is by using a sole licence of GFDL 1.2 or combining it with a -NC CC licence is the same. While I accept that the latter removes some of the obstacles to non-commercial reuse, the obstacles to commercial reuse remain and are absolutely against the goal of Commons. We are absolutely not going to have debate on the second issue (Commons disallows NC-only uploads) because it is old and will go nowhere. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} As long as official policies accept GFDL-only uploads. --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] ([[User talk:Elitre|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{s}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ragesoss/Muhammad] (see point 4). --[[User:PierreSelim|PierreSelim]] ([[User talk:PierreSelim|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} per others. --[[User:Kadellar|Kadellar]] ([[User talk:Kadellar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-{{cot|Splitting of the section's two proposals by subsection collapsed at request of proposer}}
-;Disallow GFDL-only
-Because GFDL is a useless license for most non-WP purposes, images ''only'' licensed GFDL (or similar free licenses aimed at software) should be disqualified from consideration as Featured Picture candidates.
-*{{s}} [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} This is much more sensible than the original proposal in one respect - it rules out GFDL 1,3 as well as 1.2. I can't see any good reason for allowing 1.3 but not 1.2, since the deadline for relicensing GFDL 1.3 content as CC-BY-SA is long gone. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} Please strike this section. This is not the original proposal at all. I couldn't give a damn about "useless" licences. I care about licences that prevent (or appear to prevent) commercial reuse. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**This section is here because (i) '''it's what your header claims the proposal is''' and (ii) probably more people will support it and (iii) it doesn't exclude your proposal (section below), it's in some ways a weaker version. And BTW you may not care, but it's clear from the discussion above that some people do. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***The header was already too long. The actual proposal was clear and I don't think anyone wants to repeat their arguments again in another section. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-****It was your decision to put your proposal into the header in a misleading form, no-one else's. And people willing to make the effort to express a view on something like this will probably be willing to restate them briefly if it gets a clear conclusion. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****This is just bickering at the "you said it first" level. Can we please get back to the original proposal, as spelled out in the text. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-;Disallow GFDL+NC-only
-Commons disallows NC-only uploads, but this can be bypassed by adding the GFDL license, which for most non-WP purposes is useless. The Featured Pictures process aims to discourage this by disqualifying files licensed in this way.
-*{{o}} because I've never understood why NC-only isn't allowed, given Commons' primary mission. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} Please strike this section. If you don't understand why NC-only isn't allowed at commons, then I suggest you do some reading on the licence pages and their talk pages. It is a very old debate and NC will not happen. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**I only mentioned that to explain why I oppose this. And if you have a good reason why Wikimedia projects can have Fair Use but Commons can't have NC-only, let's hear it. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***This really is a distraction. "Fair use" isn't a licence. Please take this elsewhere. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****''Fair use isn't a license'' - I thought it was clear enough that if you didn't have an answer to my question there was no need to reply. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**** Good example why I don't normally participate in these discussions. One or two people seem to drive the entire agenda and bully dissenters. {{Unsigned|193.110.130.103}}
-*****Cheap shot. This is my proposal and I'm trying to encourage discussion rather than the usual Wiki response of !vote and leave. What Rd232's sub-proposals do is form a distraction and there's a danger of unintentional filibustering leading to confusion and no result. This sub-proposal in particular has not a snowballs chance in hell of leading anywhere useful. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-******This sub-proposal is your proposal, clarified. You're the one distracting people from the clarity that I provided with the insistence on going back to your proposal which confused different issues. If you actually look at people's comments, a number of the comments are appear to be addressing "disallow GFDL-only" (the proposal in your header) and '''not''' "disallow GFDL+NC-only" (the proposal in the comment starting the thread). This confusion is why I created these subsections - it wasn't some sort of whim. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*******It is absolutely not my proposal. The additional of -NC to a GDFL 1.2 licenced image does not change the intended effect, which is to disallow commercial reuse. But your point of separating this is to re-open the -NC debate here. And it won't go anywhere. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-********''your point of separating this is to re-open the -NC debate here'' '''NO IT ISN'T'''. Sorry, but since you're NOT LISTENING MAYBE IT WILL HELP IF I START SHOUTING. I was explaining why I oppose what you see as your proposal (you actually made two and muddled them up). In addition, you now seem to have successfully confused even yourself, since you now apparently don't even understand what you proposed yourself. Again: (i) in the section header you proposed "disallow GFDL-only" ('''you even have "single licensing" in there''') and (ii) in the first comment you proposed "disallow GFDL-only ''or GFDL+NC-only''" (''to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC. ''). You made two proposals, advertised only one in the header, and have bizarrely got enormously upset at my attempt to deal with the resulting mess. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*********Good grief. It never helps to shout. The header isn't a complete description of the proposal. I accept that and am sorry for any confusion. I'm not seeing any "resulting mess" other than these two sections, which are of your making. Everyone else seems to manage with the above section. I'm not going to change the title as there are links to it now. All that's needed is to read the ''actual'' proposal in order to comment sensibly. What we really, really don't need is that after dozens of comments, someone comes along and proposes two slightly different proposals. Nobody but nobody is bothered about "useless" licenses which is the wording you've used twice. We'll only get folk arguing about whether they are "useless" or not. Their "uselessness" is not the issue. That a GNU software+documentation licence is being "abused" to restrict commercial re-use of images on Commons, is the issue.
-**********There are certainly comments about the problems with using GFDL. Do you need me to quote them? And since not knowing about {{tl|anchor}} seemed to be holding you back from renaming the section, I've done it for you. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**:Let’s not have the “Why no NC?” debate here, please. (Though it may have its merits as a philosophical question, it is pointless here: NC will '''not''' be allowed on Wikimedia Commons, period. See [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy]]).  [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***Colin seems to both want to have it here (talk about it) and not have it (not actually say anything relevant). I was merely explaining my opposition to his proposal. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***<small>Well I've seen the licensing policy once or twice before... :) but following up your prompt, the definition of "free content license" it relies on eventually leads to issues as described [http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC here]. Thanks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
-****The discussion here is "given that NC licences are not allowed on commons, it follows that ....". The first part is an axiom on which Commons is founded. It isn't up for debate. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****Except that disagreeing with the NC ban is a perfectly logical reason for opposing closing down ways of bypassing the ban. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-{{cob}}
-*{{oppose}} using FP as a tool to change Commons policy. It's better to change the policy than to mess around with the objectives of FP, which are simply to highlight the best images Commons has to offer. I would support removing GFDL and similar software licenses as the sole licensing option for new uploads, if someone wants to start that discussion at [[COM:VPR]] or wherever. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{Oppose}} so long as Commons allows the GFDL license. Change the general rules first. Should policy be changed, images uploaded before the policy change should be grandfathered in.[[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{support}} Practically unfree due to cost prohibitive printing of the entire license is unfree in my book and should be disallowed on all of Wikimedia's projects. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 17:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} Can anyone give a good reason why a user would choose "GFDL 1.2 only" or "GFDL 1.2 only + NC" rather than picking, for example, CC-BY-SA or Free Art Licence (possibly in combination with GFDL since adding licences only increases reuse options). Because the assumption here is that this is done with the intention of approximating an NC licence. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Using the same argument, can you tell me a good reason why a user would choose to avoid PD when clearly this is the most free license --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 18:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-***Three reasons come to mind. (1) We want our work to be acknowledged, identified, credited. (2) Mentioning Commons as the source, advertises the site as a repository of good free images. (3) It perpetuates the licence to derivative works, thus encouraging others to do likewise.  I agree the first point a restriction on free reuse, but not an overly onerous one. It's a balance of competing interests and there's no one right position for everybody. I suspect few would contribute to one big anonymous PD Commons pot.  I also accept that many folk want paid for their photographic or art work. I get paid for my day job. There's nothing wrong with that. But there are countless other sites that catalogue commercial images folk need to pay for. This one is solely for work that can be freely, easily, reused by commercial and non-commercial organisations -- by anybody.
-****Commons need not be mentioned as a source. CC requires the author be mentioned. Here's a situation where CC-BY-SA also prohibits commercial use. Imagine an advertiser wants to use the image on a brochure. The attribution requirement prohibits them from using the image. Both GFDL and CC-BY-SA prohibit commercial use, it is just the extent to which they do so. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****Yes, Commons need not be mentioned, but users are free to choose the attribution form they like, and can therefore mention Commons if they wish. Yes you are right that all licences contain permits and restrictions to some degree, and for certain applications they may be unworkable. The clear issue with the GFDL is that it imposes a serious burden, when used with images or short texts, for no benefit. The attribution "burden" has a benefit. The share-alike "burden" has a benefit. But nobody benefits from forcing a newspaper, who wants to include a single image, to devote two pages to printing out the GFDL for their readers' edification. That is the key point: a burden with no benefit used simply because it is a burden. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-***In contrast, the GFDL 1.2 requires that print re-users publish the entire GNU licence with a single image reused. That burdensome requirement benefits nobody except I suppose licence fetishists :-) That's why Commons adopted new licences but also why some users choose to impose that pointless burden -- simply because it is a burden. The users of CC-BY-SA don't require attribution simply because they want to make life as difficult as possible for commercial reusers. Just human requirement to be appreciated. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose'''. The license is still considered free enough for Commons, so should be free enough for FPC. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} per Muhammad. [[User:Spencer|Spencer]] ([[User talk:Spencer|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} The licenses are allowed on Commons. FP features the selected best ''images'' here, not just the best images with a license that makes it as easy as possible to reuse them. By the way: I take a lot of pictures of artists. While thankfully many of them do accept CC BY-SA for the photos others do not because they do not want to see their images used in a commercial context without being asked or even knowing about it. They would allow me to use the pictures exclusively on Wikipedia or with a NC license though. Thanks to this discussion I might switch to GFDL1.2+CC BY-NC-SA. --[[User:Tsui|Tsui]] ([[User talk:Tsui|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*:The copyright status of a picture of a person has no influence on the control said person has over its image for commercial purposes (at least in jurisdictions I know of). These are [[Template:Personality rights|personality rights]] and are a different animal than copyright.It is not because Barack Obama’s official portrait is public domain that you can use it on cereal boxes. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} It seems some senior editors and admins are happy with the GFDL license for media files in Commons. Then why should we bother? How will be it if everybody switch too GFDL 1.2 for their future works. No; I’ll not change my mind due to this. Instead I hope the Commons will survive without ending up as just another commercial (or semi-commercial whatever you call it) stock photo site. Hijackers will pass; Commons will survive.  -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} There is a striking inconsistency between the lenient acceptation of modern nearly-NC works, and the ultra strict requirements for 100-year old works. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{S}} Per Colin and DCoetzee. Commons should actually disallow to cumbersome licenses for images completely. [[user:Biopics|&nbsp;B.p.]] 08:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{Comment}} See [http://notablog.notafish.com/post/2005/04/21/26-why-the-wikimedia-projects-should-not-use-gfdl-as-a-stand-alone-license-for-images this blog posting] which puts the argument well, and dates from over seven years ago! I found the link from the [[:en:GNU Free Documentation License|GNU Free Documentation License]] Wikipedia page, which also notes its unsuitability for images and short texts. The clue is in the "Documentation Licence" part of GFDL :-) [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{S}} We should have higher qualifications for FP and this seems like a very reasonable one. [[User:Jmh649|James Heilman, MD]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{support}} I do understand that "GFDL 1.2 only" is used by some people as a loophole to get their pictures licensed. We shouldn't promote this behaviour, especially not in our main showcase. --[[User:Quartl|Quartl]] ([[User talk:Quartl|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{support}} per Colin. --[[User:Cayambe|Cayambe]] ([[User talk:Cayambe|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{Support}} per DCoetzee.  Re Rd232, I am also happy to have the overall upload policy discussion, but I think it's legitimate to have FP more restrictive than the site.  [[User:99of9|99of9]] ([[User talk:99of9|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-{{comment}} prompted by this discussion, please see [[Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Deprecating_software_licenses_for_images]] for applying similar logic to new Commons uploads. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{Support}} Per Colin and DCoetzee --[[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} Let's promote the ultimate goal ! The most honorable status for our pictures is CC0. Public Domain should be the highest ambition IMO. Two years ago, I've chosen "Commons" because of freedom.If I want another status for my images, then there are many other sites where I can upload them.--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*But you are not very clever. Why not contribute pictures with a most restricted license here and add a link to your personal website or a site like [http://www.smugmug.com/]? Our ultimate goal should be making money. {{smile}} -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-::*Speak for yourself. The money I make goes towards buying better gear which in turn gets commons better images --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 05:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::*But not mine; I invest it in gold. :) -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} I saw in a license “...For any other concerns, such as need for a higher resolution version of the image, or a commercial license, contact me through my talk page or e-mail me”. This means a higher resolution version is available. Is it against “We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible”? -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Let's leave image size and downsizing arguments for another day please :-). All images uploaded to Commons are donations. We should judge the uploaded image against our critieria and whether it is among the "finest" on Commons, not whether the uploader could have made a more generous donation. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} --[[User:NorbertNagel| Norbert Nagel]] ([[User talk:NorbertNagel|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} per Muhammad. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} FWIW. What I find rather troubling about this proposition is the idea that a tiny discussion on the talkpage of FPC can lead to a policy change which flies directly against the official polices of Wikimedia Commons. It seems that a few here are rather getting above themselves. One needs to keep in mind that this project is meant to be representative of the whole Commons project - to go out and ostracise images which comply with the <u>official licensing guidelines</u> of the project as a whole is presumptuous at best. The voters here need to remember they are acting as representatives of Commons ''as a whole'' and not as the Sovereign Province of FPC --[[User:Fir0002|Fir0002]] [http://www.flagstaffotos.com.au <small style="color: #C6CACC">www</small>] 03:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*There's no proposed "policy change" here so this comment misunderstands the proposal. A bit like saying our criteria on image size or being in focus is a policy change. Clearly there is a substantial minority of contributors to this discussion who believe this sort of thing should only be set at policy level and FP should not impose higher/stricter/different standards. This project is very much ''not'' representative of the whole Commons project, it is meant to set a better example, to aspire to. Making ones images non-reusable is nothing to aspire to as far as Commons's mission is concerned. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} Per Rd232. Having GFDL 1.2 as the only license is highly unpractical for image reuse, but the change should be done the other way around: Change policy such that new uploads using GFDL 1.2 as the only non-commercial license is not allowed. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{comment}} FP concerns only a tiny fraction of the images submitted to Commons. It is a project which stands on its own with its own set of rules and guidelines. Changing a rule for the FPC process maybe the onset for a policy change, but does not basically changes the rules to which all Commons' images have to abide. It's comparing apples to oranges. The FP community can independently set rules and guidelines for FP: We don't change the rules for every other uploaded image neither, do we? [[user:Biopics|&nbsp;B.p.]] 06:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-** Well, yes, FPC has its own rules, which today mainly focus on the qualities of the image and the image page. However, excluding a single license and adding to FPC rules that it is not allowed is for me letting the special rules for FPC slide into a new and unexpected domain for the stakeholders of FPC. It would complicate an already quite extensive rule set, and it seems illogical for me to single out a specific license. If we really wanted to go along that path it should rather describe the qualities we want for a license. For instance. "The image shall have a license, which makes it easy to reuse." ("easy" is a little vague, should be elaborated on). Duplicating a long license text in a printed media is for instance not "easy". Or a vaguer formulation like "Images which are easy to reuse are encouraged". That would allow the reviewer to consider an impractical license as part of the evaluation. Say, if [[:en:Afghan Girl|Afghan Girl]] was suddenly made available as GFDL 1.2 only (or another impractical for printed media free license) in full resolution and nominated for FPC I would certainly support it, because it would be a scoop that it was now at least available under some sort of free commercial license (albeit cumbersome). --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-***Our choice of acceptable licences should not be influenced by a few hypothecial examples of spectacular scoops or the work of a few seasoned FP contributors who would rather donate as NC only. Commons is Commons and that means we don't host all sorts of wonderful images. There's the rest of the Internet for that. Or a book. On the other hand, there are many thousands of images being donated to Commons by organisations, and done so under a licence that permits reuse by ''anybody''. When WMF ask such organisations to make their donations, they aren't offered the choice of NC and aren't told about this back-door approximation either. It is hypocritical of us (as a community) to encourage and welcome such generosity while at the same time celebrating at FP images that are deliberately licenced to be as unfree as possible. The real "scoops" are these megadonations of properly free images, not some imaginary idea that somebody might be perverse enough to release one of the worlds greatest images under a licence designed for software documentation. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-****It appears to me that we agree on the goal, but just not how to get there. Putting our efforts into changing the Commons licensing policy such that licenses which require a lengthy license text for reuse in a printed media are not allowed for new media uploads (GFDL 1.2 only is an example of such a license) is IMO a much more powerful path to go than making these little exceptions to the FPC guidelines. That would be an efficient close-down of the NC-like backdoor. many contributors of GFDL 1.2 only media do not care much about Commons FPC anyway. I think our resources are better used at improving the proposal at [[Commons:Village pump/Proposals]] then spending so much time on focusing on FPC-specific licensing restrictions here. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****What this FP proposal has made clear is that many (a small majority) want nothing more to do with GFDL-only images and recognise the problems they impose on a "free for anybody" image repository. But also, many (a big minority) don't believe that FP should set different licensing standards from the core Commons rules. I'm disappointed that so many consider FP as only about the pixels on their screen and not on whether the image is "good for Commons" where the licence really does matter. So yes it seems like the next logical step is to discuss a change to policy. Rd232 made some poorly worded (IMO) proposals at the Village Pump and they haven't gone anywhere partly because Rd232 doesn't actually support the proposal but also because of their wording. I'm currently working on a draft proposal. Anyone who supports the principle of removing this reuse-obstacle is welcome to help me draft it. I don't want to rush into it. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-******I agree, Colin. Colins work-in-progress proposal is at [[User:Colin/GFDL]]. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-***@Slaunger: I didn't know that the photographers who contribute their work with GFDL 1.2 are that much important people for Commons. Then we can think about a new rule. “Ordinary photographers (like Jkadavoor) should contribute their works with a useful license but great photographers who are the pillars of Commons can contribute with any poor license.” -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-****How about: Any contributor is equally important, no matter which of the accepted licenses he or she uses - and images should be judged by their quality, not because the contributor chose one or another of this accepted licenses. --[[User:Tsui|Tsui]] ([[User talk:Tsui|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-****@jkadavoor: Regarding your interpretation of my comment, that is not what I am trying to say. My point is that there are nuances to consider. If there is an outstanding and unique image, which cannot be redone and which for some reason cannot be licensed with a less cumbersome commercial license than GFDL 1.2 or similar, I do not see a reason to set up a hard rule. In my vote history on FPC I have [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiger beetle Lophyra sp..jpg|on]] [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Autumn Sunflower Helianthus annuus 3264px.jpg|several]] [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg|occasions]] [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bank of Tanzania golden hour.jpg|commented]] [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cape Pillar.jpg|on]] GFDL 1.2 only licensed photos and stated that in my opinion the chosen license limited the useability and that it was a contributing factor on my vote. Mentioning the license as part of the reasons for a review is often considered controversial ([[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen-090806-9515-Horn.jpg|here]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Argiope sp.jpg|here]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maison à Castel Meur - Pointe du Château.jpg|here]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mango hanging.jpg|here]], [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carpenter bee head and compound eyes.jpg|here]]). Sometimes users even [[Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal Sunset.jpg|revenge vote support]] just to cancel a (perceived unfair) oppose. For me it is always a plus when an image has a license which makes reuse easy independent of the contributor. The right way to fix this is to fix the licensing policy. Once that is fixed it will automatically flow down to FPC, QIC, VIC, all Wikimedia projects and external uses. Much better to fix the root cause of the problem than treating the symptoms.--[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****I think that in 2012, the chance of someone who doesn't have 6 years of Wikipedia/Commons legacy-licence knowledge, deliberately choosing the GFDL for an "outstanding and unique image" is vanishingly small. This licence is an artefact of Wikipedia's history. An outsider would consider it as strange as buying a bus ticket to get on  a plane. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****@Slaunger: Thanks for the detailed explanation; I’m a bit new here, so don’t know the history. My response was from the instant disappointment when I read your opposing comment because I didn’t expect it from people like you whom I always expect a fight to protect the spirit of Commons.  I too think the right way is to fix the [[User_talk:Colin#GFDL_1.2_.26_FPs|licensing policy]], but banning those restrictive licenses from our future FP is an excellent start for achieving the more general goal (per  Alvesgaspar ).I am glad to support any movement to make a permanent solution for entire Commons too. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Agree with you on the point that mentioning the license as part of the reasons for a review is often considered controversial and result in conflicts unless there is no such rule. But the situation will change if there is such a rule.) -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{contra}} As long it is allowed on Commons it should be allowed on FPC too. --[[User:Martin Kraft|Martin Kraft]] ([[User talk:Martin Kraft|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} -- Although I agree with Slaunger and others that this problem has a much larger scope and should be delt with elsewhere, that shouldn't prevent us of applying the principle here. On the contrary, banning those restrictive licences from our future FP is an excellent start for achieving the more general goal. [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} Agree with the support votes above. Not that much harm will come from applying this rule. Furthermore, using a licence that does not translate that well to image has never been too good of an idea in the first place. [[User:Freedom to share|Freedom to share]] ([[User talk:Freedom to share|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} Per nominator and Dcoetzee. ("For older images, I am willing to believe the author was simply unaware that the terms they were imposing were onerous. Authors who release works today under the long-obsolete GFDL 1.2 are deliberately imposing onerous terms upon commercial content reusers in an attempt to strongarm them into a paid license. There is no other way of interpreting such a deliberate action. The fact that such works can still achieve reuse in some limited contexts does not change the intention behind the action. This would give some teeth to our discouragement of GFDL 1.2 and make a few uploaders think twice about doing an end-run on the commercial use requirement.") I'd also like to see GFDL 1.2 similarly deprecated on a project-wide basis, but that's a separate discussion. If FP is truly to present "some of the finest" images on Commons, that should include not just technical and value considerations, but ability to freely reuse without onerous requirements. ''At the very least'', licensing such as this should be considered valid reason to oppose a nomination (but possibly weighed against other considerations). [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-*:I mean, this is not DR or AfD, where the weight of the arguments matter. You can literally oppose for almost anything you want, and the closer mechanically counts the votes and checks whether they satisfy certain numerical properties. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 02:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
-*::My point is not that the closer would take it into account, but that ''if this proposal does not pass'' (preferred), at the least, FP voters should be free to oppose a nomination based on restrictive licensing, if they feel that the licensing restriction outweighs the merits of the image. [[User:Cmadler|cmadler]] ([[User talk:Cmadler|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} Per cmadler above. [[User:Amada44|<span style="font-family:Geneva;color:black;text-shadow:0px 0px 2px #00ff00;font-weight:bold">Amada44</span>]] &nbsp;[[User_talk:Amada44|<sup><span style="text-decoration:underline;font-size:smaller;color:gray">''talk to me''</span></sup>]] 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{o}} I never really understood the need of an encyclopedia to require donations to commercial enterprise but that is not what this oppose if about. I rather see FPC remain integrated within Commons instead of becoming some kind of bureaucratic maze of hoops and hurdles. I just like good pictures to be recognised. [[User:Saffron Blaze|Saffron Blaze]] ([[User talk:Saffron Blaze|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
-:very, very true words! sadly the quintessence of the FPC seem to be displaced --[[User:Taxiarchos228|Wladyslaw]] ([[User talk:Taxiarchos228|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
-* '''strong''' {{support}} I tried to reuse images with the GFDL license for educational purposes in the past and the rules are very disappointing and limiting. No matter how god an image is. If it is licensed such restrictive, then it is not of much use and not an example for our best ''free'' content. --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 00:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{s}} per Dcoetzee. [[User:Haros|Haros]] ([[User talk:Haros|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} What? The purpose behind Featured pictures has always been the quality of the images, not how free they are. If the GFDL is such an issue then the Commons community can gain a conseus to disalow such images, as long as that decision does not breach the therms of the "Defination of Free Cultural Works", that Commons is required to follow per [[foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy]].--[[User:Snaevar|Snaevar]] ([[User talk:Snaevar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{cmt}} I’m a bit confused by some comments; so revisited the [[Commons:Welcome|home pages]].  It says “Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, but you do not need to belong to one of those projects to use media hosted here”. '''The issue begins here. The GFDL may enough to use our media contents in various Wikimedia projects. But it is not enough for other third-party projects likes [http://eol.org/ http://eol.org/] or [http://lacewing.tamu.edu/ http://lacewing.tamu.edu/]. It is not enough for my personal uses too.'''
-:Then I visit [[Commons:Project_scope]] which says: “The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation”. '''“All” is important; “WMF usage” is secondary.'''
-:Then I visited [[Commons:Copyright_tags]] which says “Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-3.0 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily”. '''But it seems not many care the “please”. So my humble request is to be bolder and say “do”. That’s all, your honor!''' -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-::Tail piece: [[Commons:First_steps/Reuse]]  says “Unlike traditional media repositories, Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely for any purpose including commercial ones as long as the source and the authors are credited and, in many cases, as long as you release your copies/improvements under the same freedom to others”. '''Is it true now?'''-- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{Support}}. The licences are free, but in effect they make pictures unsusable. [[User:Jastrow|Jastrow]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Jastrow|Λέγετε]])</small> 11:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{Comment}}It is quite tedious to see this debate spill over into FPC itself. All it does is spread the conflict and antagonism rampant here to a place not intended for such debates.[[Special:Contributions/131.137.245.208|131.137.245.208]] 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{support}} Time to get real about letting go of outdated licensing. Pictures already promoted should stay but future images need to do better as part of being exemplary works. [[User:Hekerui|Hekerui]] ([[User talk:Hekerui|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-* {{Comment}} One difficulty in GFDL is technical, the text should follow the image, commercial users do not hesitate to reject this text far elsewhere and we can often do the same, for example, display it in light gray fine print at the bottom of the page, or even around the entire periphery of the page. Also, do not confuse displaying pictures on wikis and offer the pictures to everyone. --[[User:Rical|Rical]] ([[User talk:Rical|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-*{{oppose}} Ich kann keinen Grund erkennen eine Lizenz zu verbieten, die jahrelang durch Wikipedia und Commons propagiert wurde. --[[User:Steschke|ST]] [[User_talk:Steschke|○]] 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
-:*But Wikipedia stared to provide a CC-BY-SA license for its texts. "Text is available under the [[w:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License]]." The world is changing; except Commons. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-{{discussion bottom}}
-== Information ==
-Just for complete information of all, please notice that [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Alchemist-hp (again)|here,]] one of our administrators wrote "  ''(...) generally, FP makes assholes of everyone who goes there'' ". Of course, nothing will happen (another member of the admin brotherhood has immediately closed the discussion in order to make it to vanish quickly, with the funny comment: "Nothing more to say here"). For my part, I'm not very happy to be treated as a ''asshole'' just because I try to make the FP project alive. And I think there is maybe ''more to say'', and maybe do. And you ?--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-* I still have the romantic idea that admins are 'the best of us' and should give the example of nice manners. For that reason, I asked politely [[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]] to retreat the gross comment. Naive of me!-- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-*I agree an admin should not use such language. But everyone is human and at times vents their feelings, sometimes with strong language. I disagree with the idea that a retraction is useless because to do so when requested at least acknowledges that one crossed a line that, if one is being measured and careful, should not have been crossed. On the other hand, who among us has not been an asshole at some point. I'm no angel. At least Alchemist has withdrawn his disruptive vote. Just like the IP who likes to pop into to FP from time to time to remind us all what assholes we are, mattbuck says more about himself when he makes such a remark than he does about his target. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-* Obviously Matt spent time at FP to couch his words as he did, but I don't think he is that far off the mark. FP here on Commons and en:WP is toxic at times. Anyone that denies that is fooling themselves. [[User:Saffron Blaze|Saffron Blaze]] ([[User talk:Saffron Blaze|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
-** I tend to agree. High emotions, vindictive voting and otherwise toxic behaviour have been running rife here lately. The responsibility is on everyone to keep the voting process separate from policy discussion and to generally avoid being an asshole. History has shown with both en:WP:FPC and com:FPC that failure to do so will result in participant exodus, which is not something we want. [[User:JJ Harrison|JJ Harrison]] ([[User talk:JJ Harrison|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-***JJ, it is merely your opinion that what you call "policy" should not be mentioned in voting. Others think they are vital aspects of whether a picture is among our finest. The recent discussion makes it very clear that while lots of people share your view, lots (a little more even) don't. To partly echo you: "The responsibility is on everyone here to appreciate that other people have other values and to respect them". Alchemist was not voting with his values but was merely being disruptive to make a point: and the point was that he does not respect Yann's values. That is toxic. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-****I'm sad that is merely my opinion that the criteria should be adhered to in voting. That makes the whole process sound like a kangaroo court. As far as that case goes, Alchemist's vote had as much validity as Yann's. [[User:JJ Harrison|JJ Harrison]] ([[User talk:JJ Harrison|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****No, JJ, it is sad when folk refused to accept that other folk have different interpretations of the criteria than they do. For example, [[Commons:Image guidelines]] (the full guidelines for FP and QI) say "Images must be uploaded to Commons under a [[COM:CT|suitable license]]." It doesn't say "any old free licence, including ones designed for software, for books or for databases". It says "[[COM:CT|suitable license]]". So let's follow the link to [[Commons:Copyright tags]] where it lists all sorts of licences including GFDL. There you find it says "'''''Please note:''' The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is '''prohibitive for print media''': in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please '''dual-license''' your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like '''CC-by-sa-3.0''' (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily.''" It is inescapable, unless one is in denial, that the only reasonable conclusion is that Commons does not think GFDL is a "suitable licence" for images. Indeed Commons says so as often as GFDL is mentioned, including explicit [[Commons:Licensing/Justifications]] "Wikimedia Commons also strongly disfavors content offered under licenses that impose impractical restrictions. For example, the GFDL..." So IMO you are completely wrong in thinking that being under a suitable licence is not a valid reason to oppose at FP. I suggest it is your opinions wrt wishing Commons did allow pro and semi-pro photographers to donate under NC licences that are influencing your wish that FP criteria didn't mention "suitable licence" but it does.  Since Alchemists's vote didn't square with his own upload policy, to take it literally would make him a hypocrite, but of course he didn't mean it -- it was simply disruptive. Whereas Yann's vote squares with his interpretation of the criteria, and is one shared by the majority of the folk in the above discussion. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-******That page is a list of suitable liscences. If GFDL wasn't a suitable liscence, as the term would be defined, it wouldn't be there. That is different from preferable liscence, or some other undefined term open to interpretation. That is why the debate above to exclude the GFDL is being had. I'm uninterested in childish straw man arguments based on making up my current 'opinions' (sic) of NC liscences. All votes that have nothing to do with the criteria are distruptive, not just when you agree with them. [[User:JJ Harrison|JJ Harrison]] ([[User talk:JJ Harrison|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-*******But the suitability of the licence ''is'' part of the criteria. *sigh* You may feel that inclusion on that page (which by the way lists non-free licences too) is sufficient to meet your "suitability" requirements. Fine that's your opinion. But I'm tired of this debate which is truly stale and was lost years ago: GFDL is unsuitable and its days are numbered.  I'd much rather folk came clean and said "You know what, it ''is'' a bugger of a licence for reusers, and yes that's exactly why some folk pick it, and I'm happy to turn a blind eye to that because they upload good pictures that Wikipedia can use, which is all I care about really". [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-********Or to put it like Woody Allen did: "A guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs." That's why we (currently) accept the GFDL licence. It is crazy but the eggs are nice. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-*** Mattbuck's choice of words may be a bit rude and too generalizing, but IMHO he really has a point. Discussions about the different qualities of a photo (or whatever piece of art) use to be heated in a lot of forums. A lot of people will get emotional if their favourite work of art is questioned, and sometimes it escalates into flame wars. It happens on a lot of different occations in our societies, so FPC is no exception from that. We just have to try to ignore the heated arguments, and try to get along nicely. / [[User:Achird|Achird]] ([[User talk:Achird|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*I don't know what is FP in ENWP but OK, dear learned commentators: so, if I understand well, anybody here can say that everyone is an asshole ? Be sure I'll remember in some occasions, but it's a bit pathetic...--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-::No, Jebulon. If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period. Like Alvesgaspar I agree they should be held to higher standards and if when they fail to keep them they also fail to realise that then there is absolutely no point in them being admins. Those are they guys who dish out blocks when other go too far. If you want to take this further with mattbuck, then I'll be happy to support you. The problem with discussing his behaviour here is that it gets mixed up in our own introspections. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Uff! I am glad that I came to the origin of my problem! Saved me the shrink´s fee! --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*Thanks for the continuous electricity problems in our place due to the heavy rain and ear blowing thunderbolts. Yes; our place is blessed with [[w: Monsoon#Northeast_monsoon |northeastern monsoon]] nowadays. In my little knowledge, [[w:asshole|asshole]] is also an important organ as any other. I heard from my uncle (he is pediatric surgeon) that some children born without an [[w: imperforate anus|anus]] and he has to create an artificial one within hours to save its life. I’m happy that I born with one. Please don’t neglect the wonderful blessings that [[w:God|God]] gifted on you. I wish you all; especially the FP participants have fully functioning assholes in their entire life! {{smile}} -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-* I'm entirely with [[User:Colin|Colin]]: ''If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period.'' Sorry,[[User:Saffron Blaze|Saffron Blaze]], [[User:JJ Harrison|JJ Harrison]] and [[User:Achird|Achird]], you are missing the point and trying to "hide the sun behind a sive" (a Portuguese saying...). Of course, most of us behaved in some occasions like assholes (I did, at least), but the generalization that everyone coming here is contaminated by some kind of "asshole virus" is gross, unfair (for the people and the forum) and totally inappropriate from an administrator. Some defend that an admin is just a regular user with access to extra tools. I don't. When you have the power to sanction the behavior of others, you have to watch closely your own. [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-* I'm entirely with [[User:Colon|Colon]] and Jee. [[User:Saffron Blaze|Saffron Blaze]] ([[User talk:Saffron Blaze|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Is the above a freudian slip? lol! --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-***Toilet humour he he. But as Jkadavoor's uncle will know, one's colon is as vital as one's asshole. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-****{{smile}}{{smile}} --[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*Since I'm not sure if mattbuck is actually aware of this discussion, I'm going to leave a message, seems to me that it's not a very nice way to judge in absence... - [[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-** He passed judgement on all in absentia... --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-* I am in agreement [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] and several, including on the fact that some of us we have behaved like assholes. Admins, however, must be above such behaviour. An apology is in order. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Dear assholes community, as an anonymous asshole, I'm sure I've had be blocked if I have written such a word to qualify another user. What could happen if an Admin qualify ''many users'' with this word ? I'm afraid an apology is not enough. De-admin, for sure. Indefinite or at least significantly long block ? Why not ? Assholes of all countries, Unite ! --[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC), indignado asshole.
-***Perhaps I've got rather rude in the years of my activity in three WM projects, but... let you know, someone who left the German WP for good because a former arbcom member assumed him a psychical disease with a current arbcom member applausing that statement and several admins turning a blind eye, will hardly notice sth. like "asshole", although maybe an average Commons user is (which is good of course) far more sensitive for that chose of words, than someone who worked hard in a Wikipedia where productive authors are being mobbed everyday and every hour. Nevertheless, understanding your frustration due to being called an "asshole", I find the requirements for a de-admin or even a long block rather exaggerated and unnecessarily escalating. - [[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-****I'm not sure I understand well: the level of acceptable insults depends on the level of participating in the project ? How high do you estimate my participating level ? Escalating ? No, in any case. I just ask a question about a block (but indeed, I think a de-admin is a minimum). Again, I know very well what will happen to my own WM account if, someday, I insult somebody here as "asshole"...Anyway, no matter. --[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-*****Of course not, sorry for misunderstanding - I rather meant where is the tolerance limit for me personally, given, however, that I was active in a much more misanthropic WM project than Commons is and hopefully will ever be... But my English is far from being fluent (probably the some better knowledge of German is my curse). - [[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:I do not regret the sentiment I expressed, however I will apologise to those who were offended. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-::As you understand maybe, I was.--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
-: @ [[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]], very well, then, I was deeply offended... when will I get my apology? You said you would apologize to those offended... The grammar you use denotes a future, personal event... When will that start? --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:: Did it already happen? I mean - do you feel offended, right now? --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-::: Well, my work costs me time, money and other resources... I upload to share the product of my work free of charge, for the benefit of many, not expecting compensation for it, but to be called an asshole for that? If that is the compensation I receive for sharing my work, yes, coming from an admin it is an insult. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::: I'm still wondering why you think that he meant you. To put it in my own words: He said that FP is a place that produces assholes and i think that he absolutely right in this regard. How often do we see otherwise friendly, generous contributers fight over minor details, getting revenge eye for an eye (vote for a vote) and so on. But don't worry. This phenomenon is not only FP related. You find it at any place in which contributors and voters/judges are the same persons. So i can fully understand that Mattbuck is annoyed by the constant noticeboard flames, just because a flower is not red enough, someone dislikes a topic or disliked someone else (and of course his works) to begin with. --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::: Don´t get me wrong... I did not lose a second of sleep over the issue. But the point is not that if I take the insult personally. That some of us are assholes is not the point. The issue is that an administrator makes a value judgement like that on a community of contributors. And the point is that an administrator must exercise extreme caution in his behaviour as guardian of the system. Would you like a policeman enforce drunk driving laws while drunk? Hardly. --[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::::: At the same time i would not expect policeman to speak good about a city district in which he is permanently send to prevent people from cutting each others throats, getting beaten from all sides in the progress. --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::I think your comparisons are in danger of making the same over-exaggerated mistake as Mattbuck. How often does FP trouble the Admin noticeboard? A handful of times a year, perhaps? Given that basically on Commons people rarely interact (unlike Wikipedia which is much more of a collaborative exercise) it is hardly surprising that on forums where they do interact and make judgements then sometimes tempers flare. If you think Commons FP is bad, try Wikipedia FA!  To return to your policeman analogy, he would be most unwise to draw conclusions about every single resident of that district from the behaviour of a tiny number of individuals that his job will naturally lead him to encounter. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::I tried two times and never came back. Too much moral, to less common sense... You are right that my example is a bit exaggerated, but it would be also unwise that everybody (for example "Tomascastelazo") living inside this district has to assume that he is an "asshole", just because a policeman said that there are some assholes growing up at at the same place. --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 19:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::::No "some" are assholes, but "everyone". It makes a difference, because it includes Niabot too... Asshole one day, asshole for ever {{smile}}--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::::::"Today I am a diva"... --[[User:Niabot|<span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User:Niabot/Signature|署名の宣言]] 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-*I’m happy to know that my humorous comment helped some people to relieve the stress they possess. I’m much tolerating to user problems than policy issues. Please spend time to fix the "asshole" (I mean security hole) in the policy than wasting time here. People (including admins) must pass; but Commons should survive (I wish). {{smile}} -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Hello ?--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] ([[User talk:Jebulon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-== GFDL 1.3 too? ==
-[[User:Gnangarra]] recently closed the above discussion and implemented the change to [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=81084987 to the FP guidelines] and the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Image_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=81084745 general image guidelines] wrt GFDL 1.2 licences for FP. At the time of the proposal, the "GFDL 1.2 only" licence was the one at issue as it was historicaly used to prevent automatic updating to 1.3 and thus the controverisal migration to CC BY-SA. I understand that migration from 1.3 to CC BY-SA has ended so any GFDL 1.3 licenced images will remain so. I'm not aware that GFDL 1.3 is significantly different to 1.2 other than in these migration issues. It is possible that we may get people changing their licence from "GFDL 1.2 only" to "GFDL 1.3" or some such in order to get round the criteria change.
-It would be useful to discuss the 1.3 vs 1.2 issues, if there are any, and if they are deemed equivalent wrt the issues raised above, then I propose we simplify the criteria restriction to merely "GFDL". This is in keeping with the many Commons statements wrt "GFDL" -- they don't single out the 1.2 version.
-At this point I don't see the need to widen the scope any further to include, for example, GPL or LGPL, which are licences for software and only make sense in terms of "source code", "object code" and "executables" (excepting derivative works of GPL software such as screenshots) I would take a very dim view of anyone trying to use a GPL licence, for example, to get round the criteria restriction, and hope that wouldn't need spelling out in the criteria. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-BTW: I do plan to raise the issues with GFDL and other licences at Commons policy level. It needs careful thought and there are a number of strategies being considered for achieving such changes. Anyone interested in licence reform on Commons is welcome to contact me on my talk page. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-* I closed inaccordance with the discussion proposal but removing a specific version and referring to just GFDL & GFDL/NC is still within the intent of the discussion as the restriction of concern applies to all GFDL licenses. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 10:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-*By common sense, I think it can be extended to 1.3 even though there was not much discussion about it. Since the relicensing period has expired, there is simply no difference between them. GPL/LPGL are for another day, though. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-::Yes, I agree it would be silly to allow GFDL 1.3 while forbidding 1.2, since the main reason for forbidding 1.2 applies equally to both. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-*It is the right time for a farewell song for the GFDL for its entire service for this community so far. -- [[User:Jkadavoor|Jkadavoor (Jee)]] ([[User talk:Jkadavoor|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-==Closure response==
-GFDL is prohibited? Ok, i dont nominate any more. --[[user:Ralf Roletschek|Ralf Roleček]] 11:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-*How was this closed as a pass without a 2/3 majority? --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 00:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-*As evidence of the incompetent closing of the discussion, the oppose votes were not even counted properly, which makes me believe that the closer considered their view point weightier than the sum of the opposes --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-The real count is: support 32, oppose 20 (not 19 as stated in the statement for the closure). That - 52 votes overall and a majority of not even 1/3 - is enough to change a quite fundamental policy here? --[[User:Tsui|Tsui]] ([[User talk:Tsui|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-{{Quotation|left|consensus isnt defined as 2/3rds nor is it the majority opinion, for the record 19 opposing votes out of 51 votes is only 37% which is within the descretionary range for rfa. Weight of arguments presented based on policy is also part of deciding consensus. I considered policy there is no specific policy that preculeds projects determining their own requirements, so then I considered accepted practice(policy by default). The long term accepted practice is that projects like FP, QI can make restrictions greater than that of the overall community participation requirements, FP already restricts who can vote, QI already restricts source, they both set minimum size limits. I also considered what FP is, FP is the means to identify "our best work" the proposal put forth the argument that our best work should also inculde best practice when it comes to licensing. The support argument was that GFDL is being deliberately misused to restrict reuse(not freely available), compared to the oppose arguments of acceptable license but that never addressed the issue of misuse. What I'm expressing is a carefully considered outcome based on the agruments put forth and that is our best work(FP) can and should excluded works where the deliberate misuse of licensing makes an image not freely available. Gnangarra 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)|[[User_talk:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]]||width=100%}}
-*According to the self appointed closer, consensus is not 2/3 majority nor is the majority opinion. From his argument, it seems his view/understanding has a higher standing on the outcome of the discussion than ours. It seems really stupid to me that we require 2/3 majority for an image to pass at FPC, meaning we have higher requirements for images than policies that guide those images. This decision was a wrong one and I suggest a return to the original criteria --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 06:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-** I think it is way over the top to call the closure "incompetent". As an opposer to the proposal I fully endorse and agree with the closure and conclusion, although it is not what I wanted. That we have a 2/3 support requirement for promoting an image has absolutely no relation to the majority required for a change to the FPC guidelines. There is a long-standing tradition for using simple majority for changes to the FPC guideline, just scroll through the history pages and you will see. There was [[Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11#Conclusions 2|a borderline case some time ago]] where the was 10/9 in support for reverting a recent change. Some editors argued the +1 vote on the supporting side awas sufficient, whereas others argued that due to the uncertainty in the counting statistics, the majority was really not sufficient for it to be considered a consensus. Here, the majority vote is clearly beyond statistical noise, even if there has been a slight error in the calculation of the number of votes on each side. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-** Add to that that several opposers (myself included) agree that GFDL only licensing has to go in FPC eventually, we just think it should follow from a change to the licensing policy, whereafter it would ripple down to FPC. That is, what we propose is much more dramatic than this isolated change to the FPC guidelines. So the opposition is on the path to go there, not on the goal. I would say that was to do with the weight of the argument referred to by the closer. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-***As another opposer of the proposal, despite wanting a different outcome, and having some concerns over how the closure rationale was expressed, I think the closure decision is a fair outcome given the weight of opinion and argument expressed during the discussion. The minor vote counting error shouldn't be blown out of proportion. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-****I repeat, I find it stupid that we have higher standards for images, than rules that govern those images --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-* A fair outcome and a good decison. I can't see why we should be obliged to a 2/3 majority of votes here. We are not even modifying Commons' policies, only interpreting them for the purpose of FPC, in the light of the project's main goal. Yes, it should be obvious to all that those licensens are not applicable to images, but that is another battle that will be gained in due time. @Muhammad: why is it stupid to have non-technical higher standards for featured pictures? No offense intended, please don't let yourself be blinded by personal interest.. [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
-**Again you display a lack of understanding of the basic concepts that are being discussed here. We are talking about licences not quality or even resolution. Why is it stupid, you ask? I could pass a change to the rules (since it doesn't require 2/3 majority) more easily, thus gaming the system becomes easy. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']] ([[User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|talk]]) 00:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-**:You are not answering Alvesgaspar’s question. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 === Stepping ahead ===
 * Now that the FPC rules will be probably adjusted to reflect the new consensus, what should we do regarding the present FP with wrong licenses? 1. Nothing; 2. Modify the licenses; 3. Delist. -- [[User:Alvesgaspar|Alvesgaspar]] ([[User talk:Alvesgaspar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 397: / Line 50: @@
 :What you describe, people ignoring license termes, is regrettable (though unfortunately not new), but I am not convinced that this is a failure of free cultural works: are freely licensed media more misused than fully or openly-but-not-freely copyrighted ones? I have no data nor arguments to back up this, but I don’t believe so. And if they are, it may just be because of their better exposure as being used for example in Wikipedia.
 :Too many people are just ignorant of what copyright is. As time passes, I strongly believe people will become more and more aware of what they can and cannot do with works in general, and freely licensed ones in particular. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
+::I disagree on both assertions. Wikimedia does make it easy for people to get access to images as they are uploaded without watermarks and offered at high resolutions for download. So on this basis, yes, violations are more common with good works offered on Wikimedia. On the second point, Wikimedia requires contributors to participate "freely" yet allows anyone else to benefit from that participation in the way of commercial re-use. Since Wikimedia does not enforce the licenses they require of the author, the author is left to deal with violations. This presents a real challenge since any renumeration would unlikely be sufficient to offset the cost of pusuing the issue. Without enforcement the issue is growing because people are becoming aware that there is no consequence to copyright violations here on Wikimedia. However if the author had submitted those same images to an agent then the agent would pursue copyright violations. For those that donate images on Wikimedia, and use an agent, will find their images cannot be sold under a Rights Managed basis and can only be offered as Royalty Free. In effect the very act of donating an image to wikimedia reduces its value to the author. The irony being that while others can fully benefit commercially by the image uploaded to wikimedia the actual author pays a real commercial penalty. [[User:Saffron Blaze|Saffron Blaze]] ([[User talk:Saffron Blaze|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)