Hi all, I think we might have missed that topic before, so I'd like to raise it now, when we are only at the start of the competition, and the eventual losses are smaller :-)
One of the main ideas of Wiki Loves Monuments, and I think that we all agree about that, is to make the competition as easy as possible for the participants. In this spirit, several of our tools (including the UploadCampaign) were designed, and we also agreed on some of our basic principles at the 2011 meeting in May that some of you might have participated in.
One of this principles was to choose only one licence acceptable for all pictures uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments--and, for obvious reasons, this licence is the Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0, also knows as CC-BY-SA 3.0.
To achieve that goal, we have enabled only this licence in our UploadCampaigns on Commons; so if you see it's there, please /do not/ change it or add other licences; this would only make things harder for those of the participants that use the UploadWizard--and they are mostly fresh newcomers, who have never heard of MediaWiki before.
This is more of a philosophy idea than a copyright-related thing, because obviously nobody is going to check pictures uploaded by Wikimedians with Commonist or other mass-upload tools; if you want to read more about the original philosphy behind the competition, please go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments/Philosophy; it really is an essay worth reading.
All questions are, as always, welcome. Thanks, Tomasz
On 01/09/12 23:23, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
One of this principles was to choose only one licence acceptable for all pictures uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments--and, for obvious reasons, this licence is the Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0, also knows as CC-BY-SA 3.0.
This is mostly a semantic issue but... I strongly disagree with this statement as written. Change that to «All free licenses* are acceptable to us, but in the sake of simplicity we are only offering through the UW the option of CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Advanced users may choose a different license by other means» and we can be friends again. :) (I think it's also the way it was presented in May 2011)
* Free licenses as understood by Commons criteria, with the obvious restriction of being compatible with own photo upload (eg. "author died 100 years ago" in some photos).
To achieve that goal, we have enabled only this licence in our UploadCampaigns on Commons; so if you see it's there, please /do not/ change it or add other licences; this would only make things harder for those of the participants that use the UploadWizard--and they are mostly fresh newcomers, who have never heard of MediaWiki before.
I think some countries have several licenses (CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, CC-0), probably because it's the default when creating a campaign.
Regards
Hi Platonides, thank you for your comment; indeed I haven't been clear enough. Your wording is much more closer to the spirit that was behind the decision, so I'll repeat it again:
* We /do/ accept content released under another free licences acceptable on Commons, and will not be "disqualifing" or in any other way removing from the contest any pictures that were released under another licence (and possibly uploaded through another tools), but * For the sake of simplicity & to make things easier for newcomers, we are only offering CC-BY-SA as the deafult licence for the UploadCampaigns.
And as for the other CC licences, we (myself and Basvb) have disabled them when starting the campaigns, but looks like people mistakenly turned them on again.
Again, Platonides, thanks for the corrections; it's appreciated!
Tomasz
Hi
The idea was to have a contest where users upload pictures of monuments with a free license.
But some free licenses are better than others. What would happen if one of the winners was a GFDL? Would it not mean that we would have to add the whole GFDL text to the calendar and wherever we would like to use the photos?
I think that it would be a shame.
And why only September? Why not include August?
Because it is a contest and we have to have some rules. If we allow each country to do as they like it is hard to run the contest.
So I think we should make as few exceptions as possible. I think licenses that are more free than Cc-by-sa-3.0 is ok (Cc-Zero and PD-self) but I would not like GFDL for example.
Cheers Michael / MGA73
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] På vegne af Tomasz W. Kozlowski Sendt: 2. september 2012 00:50 Til: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Emne: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] Acceptable licences (UploadCampaigns options)
Hi Platonides, thank you for your comment; indeed I haven't been clear enough. Your wording is much more closer to the spirit that was behind the decision, so I'll repeat it again:
* We /do/ accept content released under another free licences acceptable on Commons, and will not be "disqualifing" or in any other way removing from the contest any pictures that were released under another licence (and possibly uploaded through another tools), but * For the sake of simplicity & to make things easier for newcomers, we are only offering CC-BY-SA as the deafult licence for the UploadCampaigns.
And as for the other CC licences, we (myself and Basvb) have disabled them when starting the campaigns, but looks like people mistakenly turned them on again.
Again, Platonides, thanks for the corrections; it's appreciated!
Tomasz
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2012/9/2 Michael Andersen mian@tdcadsl.dk:
But some free licenses are better than others. What would happen if one of the winners was a GFDL? Would it not mean that we would have to add the whole GFDL text to the calendar and wherever we would like to use the photos?
I think that it would be a shame.
That's because you don't understand the beauty of legal codes (kidding!), I would pay for having a handcrafted GPL on a parchment scroll (less kidding, actually!)
Cristian
On 02/09/12 20:53, Michael Andersen wrote:
Hi
The idea was to have a contest where users upload pictures of monuments with a free license.
But some free licenses are better than others. What would happen if one of the winners was a GFDL? Would it not mean that we would have to add the whole GFDL text to the calendar and wherever we would like to use the photos?
(...)
So I think we should make as few exceptions as possible. I think licenses that are more free than Cc-by-sa-3.0 is ok (Cc-Zero and PD-self) but I would not like GFDL for example.
Cheers Michael / MGA73
Not really a problem for a calendar. You have the back side available for that. And it's not like saying "CC-BY-SA or compatible" would be a good move. There are other perfectly good licenses like the Free Art License which are "equivalent", and we should not be banning.
We are also giving a strong signal for free licenses, even those we may like less by not discriminating them on the contest.
Well, although technically possible to print, I do not exclude the possibility that the jury might favor a GFDL-only licensed picture less than a CC BY-SA picture. It definitely makes the image less useful.
Anyway - we're bikeshedding.
Lodewijk
2012/9/3 Platonides platonides@gmail.com
On 02/09/12 20:53, Michael Andersen wrote:
Hi
The idea was to have a contest where users upload pictures of monuments
with
a free license.
But some free licenses are better than others. What would happen if one
of
the winners was a GFDL? Would it not mean that we would have to add the whole GFDL text to the calendar and wherever we would like to use the photos?
(...)
So I think we should make as few exceptions as possible. I think licenses that are more free than Cc-by-sa-3.0 is ok (Cc-Zero and PD-self) but I
would
not like GFDL for example.
Cheers Michael / MGA73
Not really a problem for a calendar. You have the back side available for that. And it's not like saying "CC-BY-SA or compatible" would be a good move. There are other perfectly good licenses like the Free Art License which are "equivalent", and we should not be banning.
We are also giving a strong signal for free licenses, even those we may like less by not discriminating them on the contest.
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org