Wikipedia talk:Image license migration

Some more intorductory text please for creators

Hi, I am a content creator that just had a license changed by a bot. Questions I have include, what the duce is a bot doing changing my license? (not everyone paid much attention to the license change thing.) Can I decide what license the images use? If so, what are the license that Wikipedia allows and why might I choose them? Thanks in advance for any help. PDBailey (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Similarly I have no idea what it all means, the licensing details seem to get more and more convoluted so I have stopped uploading any images to Wikipedia even though I have many that could be very useful in articles. --jmb (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ditto ClemMcGann (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with GDFL is that it is not good for images. Very short: If you want to use an image licensed with GFDL you have to bring the whole license text or read it up. That is not good in a newspaper or in TV. If the image is licensed with cc-by-sa-3.0 you can just provide a link. That is why the migration project started. --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so can I change the license to just cc-by-sa-3.0 alone? Is there like an image licenses 101 on Wikipedia for contributors? PDBailey (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still not prepared to upload any more images to Wikipedia. --jmb (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jmb, do you think that a page explaining the license in simple terms would help? Or what would you want? PDBailey (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here m:Licensing_update#Motivation the Wikimedia Foundation ecplains why. The whole idea is that you share your images with others and let them use it.

On Commons Commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses the rules are listed and one of them is "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." Similar on Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-ownwork "This release is not revocable". So you can add new licenses but not remove licenses. If new license is just as good or better you could argue that no harm is done. I have not seen examples so I do not know if it would be accepted to replace one license with an other.

I do not know how en-wiki does it (some questions are answered here Wikipedia talk:Licensing update) but you could ask on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing if you want help on somthing. --MGA73 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all a matter of personal choice. I upload images to many other sites and they all make quite clear that the copyright is held by the photographer and permission should be requested before use (in simple language that can be easily understood). Often they will overlay the image with a logo or something, if not then you can insert your own copyright notice in the corner without it being removed by them (as Wikipedia do). Of course people still steal images from sites but it is either clear where they came from or obvious they have made an effort to conceal the origin. I have been approached by many people to use images and I don't think I have ever refused but it is nice to be asked first. The emphasis with Wikipedia always seems to be different and control is lost of the image with all the others sites that copy the whole of Wikipedia and general belief that the contents are there for anyone to use at will. I am prepared to share knowledge through Wikipedia but not images. --jmb (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not really a question of migration or not. The whole idea with Wikipedia and Commons is to share information. GFDL is a bad way of doing it but when Wikipedia started there was no better alternative. There is now and the migration is only "a tool" to make it easier. If you do not like "the tool" you can add "|migration=opt-out" and then everything will be as nothing happened. What you can expect when you upload images to Wikipedia or Commons is "You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form." as mentioned when editing on Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"opt-out"?

To ask people to "opt out" of a relicencing of their content is a disgrace, and probably illegal. So assume I uploaded an image back in 2004. Unless I remain active on Wikipedia and keep watching my image five years after I uploaded it, it wll simply be silently relicenced under terms I never even looked at, let alone agreed to? Seriously, if google or facebook tried to pull off something like this, they would probably have their CEOs tarred and feathered by the online community.

The same holds for text, btw. There are many, many kilobytes of text still live in Wikipedia articles which I have submitted years ago, under the GFDL, and under the GFDL only. I am not sure how it may be legal to simply relicence this content by means of a bot saying "All your base is now dual licenced. Have a nice day". --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the licence conditions are difficult enough to understand but also the whole of Wikipedia appears to be mirrored on many commercial websites without it being made clear the origin so I doubt whether anyone getting an image from there would even know the licence conditions. Other sites manage quite simple rules without lots of legal language - copyright belongs to the photographer and you don't use without their permission. Text is different because it is subject to continuous changes and additions so not as easily defined as the work of one person though I have had images of mine changed without my permission on Wikipedia when I used to upload them. --jmb (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ditto ClemMcGann (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Commons are different than other sites. Examples: Images are checked and if it is a copyvio the image will be deleted (except on en-wiki where fair use is accepted). On Flickr and other pages images are not checked. And google does not check either - they show you copyvios and illegal stuff to. On Flickr you can also change license and delete your images. On Wikipedia and Commons you can't remove licenses and you can't delete images again (you could make a DR but you can't be sure image is deleted).

Licenses are generally not changed. This is an exception. The exception is only possible because the GFDL conditions says so. Uploaders still have the copyright. The difference is that it is easier to share/use the images and the whole idea of Wikipedia and Commons is to share.

It is true that there is a lot of legal text. That is to make sure uploades know and accept the consequenses. I'm not sure users of Facebook understand what happens to their images. --MGA73 (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

An audio file I created is tagged

Hi there - just saw that an audio file I recorded has been tagged "Wikipedia license migration needs review." Sounds fine to me; two questions:

1. Since I made the recording, am I eligible to add the new license - or since it's a recording of article text that others wrote, am I not considered the "copyright holder"?
2. Was the tag correctly applied - this project appears to be all about image licenses, and the media I created is an audio file.

Cheers for any help. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! GFDL is designed for any text-based work but has for historical reasons also been used for images. On Wikipedia:Image license migration the criteria are set up and the intro goes "To be eligible for relicensing, a file must meet the following conditions...". So any file with a GFDL can be relicensed (according to the criteria of course) and everyone is most welcome to assist in this project. --MGA73 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. It's still not clear to me whether I'm considered the copyright holder for this file - I made the recording, but I didn't write the text of which it is a derivative work - but the file seems to satisfy the media file relicensing criteria so I have relicensed. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0

Should this page be updated to reference the CC 4.0 licence? --TadejM ^{my talk} 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)