I see no effective difference between the file's licence and the statement
made by the author.
How do the attribution requirements differ? They are the same: the author
is providing further information about what constitutes "appropriate
credit", and also explaining that the text "from Wikimedia Commons" is
*not* the
same as providing a hyperlink to the file, which is part of the attribution
requirements as given by the licence: "a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed
Material to the extent reasonably practicable" is given at Section
3(a)(1)(A)(v). Most people do not read the licences in full so the author
is reasonably providing some guidance.
Second: remix, transform, or build upon can all be satisfactorily summed up
by "incorporate". Again, the author is simplifying the terms, but he is not
making them more strict. If you reuse his image in any way, you must
release your image under the same licence. Most people ignore this: he is
drawing attention to it.
There is no incompatibility here.
Cheers,
Julie
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 12:03, Jennifer Pryor-Summers via Commons-l <
commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone
I have a question about the licence at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pink_Sponge_isolated_o…
There is a general self|cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution= template displaying, in
part
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Creative_Commons> Attribution-Share
Alike 4.0 International
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en> license.
- *attribution* – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to
the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any
reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses
you or your use.
- If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute
the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
However, there is also a bespoke declaration
A statement such as "From Wikimedia Commons" or similar is *not* by
itself sufficient. If you do not provide clear attribution to the author
and indicate the file name as shown here, you didn't comply with the terms
of the file's license and may not use this file. If you are unable or
unwilling to provide attribution and *release your own work* that incorporates
this work <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works> with
a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license you should contact Jonatan
Svensson Glad <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Josve05a> to
negotiate a different license.
These declarations are incompatible in two respects. Firstly, the
attribution requirements are different, and secondly the reuse conditions
are different, replacing "build upon" with "incorporate" -- these
are
clearly different, and indeed if they are not different, why would the
uploader have written a different one for themselves?
Anyway, given the incompatibility between the two declarations, should
this file be on Commons at all?
JPS
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
