I'm certain this has been addressed *sometime*, but I didn't note it, and the archive search is borked.
I have a set of pics from flickr that illustrate a page I want to work on *perfectly*, but they are, because it's Flickr, CC-NC-BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. When approached, the photographer *wants* to offer them as a 3.0 license, but can't. Is there any solution that isn't going to involve her having to post the pictures elsewhere, under a different CC?
This has to have been discussed before, so if anyone simply has links to that, I'd appreciate.
S.
I may be misunderstanding you but non-commercial only (NC) licenses aren't acceptable for Wikipedia, no matter what version. The only Creative Commons licenses usable are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
If the photographer wants to release these individual pictures under a different license without reposting them, she can either upload them to Wikimedia Commons herself, or use the e-mail permissions system as detailed at [[Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials]]
Pete / the wub
2009/2/27 Stephanie Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com:
I'm certain this has been addressed *sometime*, but I didn't note it, and the archive search is borked.
I have a set of pics from flickr that illustrate a page I want to work on *perfectly*, but they are, because it's Flickr, CC-NC-BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. When approached, the photographer *wants* to offer them as a 3.0 license, but can't. Is there any solution that isn't going to involve her having to post the pictures elsewhere, under a different CC?
This has to have been discussed before, so if anyone simply has links to that, I'd appreciate.
S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You did not. The problem was that I decided to send the mail from bed, about 10 minutes after I'd woken, and brain just had NC-BY-SA in my brain. So you *did* understand what I meant, not what I was saying, in the end. :-P
S.
Peter Coombe wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you but non-commercial only (NC) licenses aren't acceptable for Wikipedia, no matter what version. The only Creative Commons licenses usable are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA.
If the photographer wants to release these individual pictures under a different license without reposting them, she can either upload them to Wikimedia Commons herself, or use the e-mail permissions system as detailed at [[Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials]]
Pete / the wub
2009/2/27 Stephanie Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com:
I'm certain this has been addressed *sometime*, but I didn't note it, and the archive search is borked.
I have a set of pics from flickr that illustrate a page I want to work on *perfectly*, but they are, because it's Flickr, CC-NC-BY-SA 2.0 instead of 3.0. When approached, the photographer *wants* to offer them as a 3.0 license, but can't. Is there any solution that isn't going to involve her having to post the pictures elsewhere, under a different CC?
This has to have been discussed before, so if anyone simply has links to that, I'd appreciate.
S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[[creative commons licenses]] ShareAlike inhibits even the same author posting it under NC (commercial rights reserved) without major changes, and only to the degree that sharing will make promotional efforts go into a hole. NoDerivatives and ShareAlike definitely conflict, because NoDerivatives inhibits development, while ShareAlike is meant to encourage it. CreativeCommons-ByAttribution-NC-ND is very much like "All Rights Reserved", with your rights spelt out in abbreviations, which are a no-no the first time you use them in a document. (I am blocked. Feel free to use.)
There is an immense degree of tolerance for linking, even to commercial sites, just because financial services let you back out of deals and there is always that warning arrow saying "This link heads off site, so talk to THEM before you bother us about content problems". Anything that can get out of control on wikipedia will get out of control, so there are lists of documents on wikipedia with too many external links.
I recently spelt out both restrictions and ballpark figures, complete with Paypal code and a degree of tolerance on my fractal gallery. _______ <a href="http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~brewhaha/">BrewJay's Babble Bin</a> SherLok Merfy's Moranda: Anything you say or do wrong can and probably will be used against you somehow, especially if you are caught.
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I decided to write a CC-BY-ND license into my video, especially since I am permitting specific derivatives. I might as well spew it, here. The hopeful part is License page two.
One guy says pain before pleasure, so I guess I am supposed to put the license at the beginning. Once someone knows where it is, they can skip it. It certainly should be terse. I am undecided about whether I should go through the trouble of reading it aloud and knocking out text of what I hav read as I go.
Slide One: CC-BY-ND Your rights to derivative works are reserved for non-roman fonts.
Slide Two: This work is for intact distribution. I make it free of royalties to encourage public or personal performance. You may not record or store such performances beyond what is required for a moderated medium. Please do not include any other video with my tune.
Slide Three: This video, without vocals, is not a performance within these limits, nor is any convenient and complete transcoding. <strike>Such conversions to optical disk or VHS must be gifts.</strike>
(A byte of NC is in slide three, so I consider dropping it. Advocates are welcome to chime in, here. Do resources flow that way?).
Slide Four: Support Local Yokels. If someone renders this on a voice mail or e-mail, then by all means make them work together with three more of such. _______ <a href="http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/">BrewJay's Babble Bin</a> I hav two re-works of my audio on-stream. One is a four-part mixed solo. The other is a more traditional approach to harmony. I am not happy with how well audio and video are synchronized in my newer releases, so my 48kbps haz worse audio and better video, because it is older. My newer 48k did not even hav all the slides.
When I am done, I will see what flickr is trying to say with their license. After seeing "royalty free" at DeviantArt and ArtistRising, I am experienceing gravitation toward my home page. I wonder what they want that much license for. Why don't they specify which media they want?
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
2009/3/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
Indeed. Jay, your posts lately are verging on the incomprehensible.
- d.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] One way to write CC-BY-ND
2009/3/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
Indeed. Jay, your posts lately are verging on the incomprehensible.
It is an aside. I find it hard to reconcile NC-SA without specifying media, so I am not surprised that flickr is going to a third version of their license. The rest of my message qualifies or specifies ND. flickr is in the thread's root. I forgot that there are e-mail subscribers to this list.
Project Gutenberg has variance in their license. Some of them specify "at cost". Some of them say "freely". Some of them are long. Some licenses are terse in the project. "Copies on optical disk or VHS must be gifts." is my turn of phrase, AFAIK.
I was really hoping for someone to chime in on the question of whether I should specify any restrictions on commerce, like "Copies on optical disk or VHS must be gifts". I think I will strike that for the karaoke version, since I hav a right to vocals in a recording. _______ The preceeding opinions are mine. All mine. Get your own. news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english (That is threaded. Your e-mail is not.)
2009/3/24 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] One way to write CC-BY-ND
2009/3/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
Indeed. Jay, your posts lately are verging on the incomprehensible.
It is an aside. I find it hard to reconcile NC-SA without specifying media, so I am not surprised that flickr is going to a third version of their license. The rest of my message qualifies or specifies ND. flickr is in the thread's root. I forgot that there are e-mail subscribers to this list.
An aside to what? And you still haven't said what that link was for. And how did you forget their were email subscribes to this **email list**? And your email was the root of this thread. You really aren't making any sense.
2009/3/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
Indeed. Jay, your posts lately are verging on the incomprehensible.
I've worked out what is going on (with a little help from Jay) - the email was in response to the "flickr, NC-BY-SA 2.0 vs 3.0" thread [1], but Jay changed the subject line which broke the threading in gmail (and probably some other clients) and he didn't quote the email he was replying to, thus resulting in us having no idea what was going on!
1. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/98824
It has to do with flickr's flavour of NC. (Their license is CC-BY-SA-NC, for short, and I do not see an easy way to spell SA-NC without specifying media.). If they are not watching for reports of fraud or porn available to minors... It can be on a "contact us" page for users, I suppose, and the rest of us want to propagate understanding for divisions of abuse. If you count privacy@, and piracy@, there are five. _______ The only thing I did on television was CBS. On the internet, I get a chance to BBS.
"Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote in message news:a4359dff0903221131k69b0fcabt3d037a3dbc4845c9@mail.gmail.com...
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do with anything... it's saying that flickr doesn't follow internet standards, that has nothing to do with CC-BY-ND or phishing...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l