[Wikipedia-l] Re: images on commons and gfdl

Mon Jan 17 20:50:51 UTC 2005

Magnus Manske a écrit:
> Anthere schrieb:
> 
>> Hello,
>> Not sure exactly where to write about this.
>>
>> I may have not understood something very well, if not, please explain 
>> to me.
>>
>> When someone upload an image to wikicommons and place it under gfdl 
>> license, I would tend to say that re-using this image would have to 
>> follow gfdl license. We know that we do not respect well gfdl license 
>> for text, since it is very difficult to follow all authors, but for an 
>> image, it should not be a lot of problem to respect it, since there is 
>> only one author, the one who took the picture.
>>
>> So, normally, to follow gfdl license, when we use the image we should 
>> 1) mention the gfdl and 2) mention the author, no ? So that anyone 
>> reusing the image would be able to follow the gfdl in turn.
>>
>> What bugs me is that if I upload a picture to say the french 
>> wikipedia, it is written in the image comment that I took the picture, 
>> so I am granted the authorship of my work, and anyone using the image 
>> could either mention wikipedia or myself. But at least, he has the 
>> information available. Besides, the reader can see a description of 
>> the image.
>>
>> When I upload an image on wikicommons, I can write this information 
>> over there, but this information is no more directly available to the 
>> guy using the information.
>>  
>>
> Neither is the GFDL or the author list on any wikipedia article. You'll 
> have to click a link (GFDL or "history", respectively).

Possibly. But it is not because we poorly respect the GFDL on articles 
(where it is hard to respect it) that we should poorly respect it, if 
none at all on images.

Between the moment you see an image and the moment you see the 
description, there are at least two links (at best). I think it is not good.

> Those who care about license information will find the link. Those who 
> don't care wouldn't be helped with the text in plain sight either.
> 
> Magnus

Well, on the case of the ht wikipedia, even with the best of intention, 
no one could see the license and no one could cite the source.

In effect, that means that Wikipedia is not respecting the  sort of 
contract it has with the editor. Somehow, we agree to give our work 
under a certain license, but in exchange, we could expect that at least 
within Wikimedia project the license will be respected. And it is not.

Somehow, how could we complain that others do not respect the gfdl when 
we do not respect it either ?

Hence my suggestion for an automatic and mandatory message leading to 
the right description on commons and hence my suggestion that the 
description is also available on local projects.