Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:NGruev

[edit]

See en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 16#Photographs by Nikola Gruev. A user found the terms of this template dubious and thinks that the template may be unfree. The statements at bg:Уикипедия:Разрешения за ползване на материали/Никола Груев#English do indeed look dubious:

  • "Only pictures we include in Wikipedia articles fall under the GFDL. If you wish to use other pictures for another purpose, please contact the author for permission." Does it mean that the images in fact aren't covered by the GFDL but that they are covered by some non-free variant? Is permission only for Wikipedia and not for Commons? Is it a revocable version of GFDL so that the images only are available under GFDL as long as they are in use on Wikipedia?
  • "Don't take everything. In the articles, one ot two pictures maximum." This is clearly incompatible with GFDL: if something is licensed under GFDL, it is possible to use any number of pictures on a page.

There is a long discussion about the template on the template talk page, partially in Bulgarian. Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nikola Gruev was very kind to let us use his large collection of digtal(ized) photos from Bulgaria at the very beginning of bg.Wikipedia, at a time when few people had a digital photo camera (even fewer in Bulgaria) and when almost all Bulgarian wikipedians were out of Bulgaria (few Bulgarians had internet). Today, when most editors are inside Bulgaria and have cameras, the pictures of Mr Gruev can easily be retaken if the community decides. Stopping our use of these pictures wouldn't do much harm to Wikipedia. But before deciding, let me reply to your questions.
  • The pictures uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used in articles in Wikipedia or other projects of WMF are irrevocably covered by the GFDL and any reuse (anywhere else) must respect this license, especially the "attribution" part and the "remind the license" part.
  • Our agreement is that we can take from Mr Gruev's galleries any picture we (wikipedians) like to illustrate our articles. Once it is on Commons, it is GFDL and can be reused. Mr Gruev doesn't want to "free" all his pictures (publish them under an irrevocable free license like CC ot GFDL), but only those which we need for articles. To simplify things, instead of asking him for permission for individual pictures, we already have the permission.
  • The "one or two pictures maximum" was in my initial letter to Mr Gruev to request permission. Clearly, Mr Gruev has reasons to not select a free license for all his galleries and we should respect this. We really don't need more than 2 of his pictures in an article: either the place is accessible and well known and there are many free pictures (or people who can take such), or the place is not well known and the article wouldn't be huge so it wouldn't need a ton of pictures (and if it did, we place a link to Mr Gruev's gallery page so any reader can see all pictures if s/he likes).
  • Mr Gruev is aware that once the picture is in a Wikipedia/Wikimedia article, it is irrevocably freed and can be reused elsewhere under certain conditions (GFDL).
  • Mr Gruev has agreed after my first message in his public guestbook on 02-Nov-2004 (search for "GFDL"), then we had a longer communication by e-mail to reexplain the free/GFDL part, then several years later he took part in the discussions here on Commons and on bg.wiki [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to confirm that he had understood the terms and that our agreement stands.
For these reasons, I would vote to  Keep the template and the pictures, and I invite others to do so. --5ko 05:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This template makes me uneasy. The terms of the agreement suggest that if an image is taken out of WP:BG that it is then no longer covered by the agreement and we apparently do not have OTRS permission in any case. Since 5ko believes that we do not need more images from NGruev, I suggest that we get a clear CC-BY-SA license using [[Commons:OTRS}} for the ones we are using. Otherwise, I think we have to delete the template and all of the images covered by it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (Erh, sincere apologies for not coming to share my view earlier, despite of being tipped on my talk page: too much off-wiki business.) Raised personal concerns in the past were the reason for having the initially given permission double-checked, re-requested and - not surprisingly - re-confirmed. So far, I know not of a case when Gruev's images, as published in Wikipedia, have raised the copyright holder's concerns if used elsewhere. And I'm sure that having been in personal contact with him, I'd be among the first to hear. :) I declare that all specifics of the free licenses have been explained to Mr. Gruev in details and meticulously by both my colleague Petko Yotov, 5ko, and me. So, do we really need to ask for that permission for the third time? In the eyes of an elderly non-Wikipedian who is not necessarily as copyright paranoid as we are here :) this may really look fishy now. And I have certain experience with Bulgarian artists whose permission has been requested in order to have photos of their works here. These people usually give permission readily, though less formally, simply as a natural answer to emails that have been sent to them. In general, I firmly believe that especially people who are more elderly or more technically challenged or not know English themselves should not be forced to provide their permission with the exact articulation of COM:OTRS, as long as they have been well explained and have agreed to release a work freely. Different countries also have their specifics and Bulgaria is still a place where people are in general not freaky about their copyrights and are more generous and ready to release, thus increasing the visibility and positive publicity of their works. I believe that there is no particular reason for us being afraid of that template. Thank you for drawing my attention to that case and for your patience. :) →Spiritia 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Of the images covered by this template. Possibly change the template to {{GFDL}} where the image was definitely in use on Bulgarian Wikipedia with the note stating such change.  Neutral on the template itself. Sinnamon (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: hmmm, borderline and very old case, that nobody "likes" to decide. Feel free to renominate. JuTa 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:NGruev

[edit]

This has been nominated for deletion previously: Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:NGruev with a rather non-commital close. The closing administrator User:JuTa left no predjudice to reopening the discussion. According to the linked website, the images cannot be used for commercial means. The "requirements" that the author lists at [7]include limits to how the images can be used. Due to the limits and the restriction of non-commerical, these files copyright status is in dispute. The author gives permission for use on Wikipedia, but the conditions do not make a free license. This is a bad template, that promotes the use of images that do not actually have a full free license. In addition, all images that use this template should be deleted, unless other evidence of copyright is provided.

TL;DR The author of the images does not truly release the images under a free license (or at least he doesn't want to) yet this template incorrectly parades it like it does. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is incorrect, please read the almost 10-years old discussions. Mr Gruev agreed, confirmed, and re-confirmed that his pictures in any Wikimedia projects are irrevocably GFDL (and can be re-used under that license elsewhere). --5ko 22:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Let me start by saying that I think Commons accepting images that have only a GFDL is poor policy. As a practical matter the requirements of GFDL make it impossible to use such images in any print medium and difficult for many web sites. However, whether I like it or not is not vital, because it is, unfortunately, policy.
However in this case we are told, that part of the arrangement is "Don't take everything. In the articles, one ot two pictures maximum" -- that is not a free license. A free license allows the user to take as many images as he wishes and use them for whatever purpose he wishes. Therefore this template and all the images that depend on it should be deleted unless we can get the source to agree to a truly free license, even if that is only a GFDL. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I read, nowhere does Mr. Gruev say that this images can be used for anything, including non-commercial purposes, under the GFDL license. In fact, the content does put extremely specific requirements on what content can be used and how it is used. Any agreement on his part for the GFDL license only seems like he thinks he is releasing the images to only be used on Wikipedia. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you think something but don't understand completely, and it is my fault because I am obviously unable to clearly transmit the information. (Sorry, English is my third language.) I will kindly hope that you can find a way to read the page Template talk:NGruev and/or Commons:Разговори/2007 or find a translator or use an automatic translation for the sections in Bulgarian language. Mr Gruev was asked and re-asked more than 6 times and every time he confirmed that he understood the conditions (GFDL) and that he agrees to them. The comment from Commons Admin User:Spiritia from 10:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) has the "commercial usage" emphasized in bold and italics, and he again re-confirmed this. He doesn't want to change the sign on his website, but we have documented and re-documented his agreement to (re)use his photos under the GFDL, including for commercial usage, here or elsewhere. In the last 10 years, Mr Gruev has been aware that his pictures are on Wikipedia, we never had any copyvio request or any other problem with his pictures. I really don't see how and why this bothers people here. OTOH, in 2003 he was a retiree, now 11 years later how comfortable is this person with computers and internet? Should we once again harass him to once again ask him to once again re-confirm he understands the GFDL and his agreement? What happens if an author has given permission in the past but for any reason cannot or does not confirm it later? Here on Commons there are Administrators or trusted users who confirm the licenses on the pictures on external websites like Flickr. Can we apply this here? (At the time, I was admin on bg.wiki, Spiritia is admin here on commons and on bg.wiki) Can we use common sense and not paranoia? --5ko 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read through all of the discussion over and over, and I've had the discussions translated for me. Gruev gives way too many conditions for the file to be free. You cannot say that it is free here, but not free there. More importantly, you cannot say "1-2 images are free but the rest are not" without identifying which ones are free. Based on what you are saying, he has given someone permission to use 1-2 images on free articles, but does not release certain images, therefore we don't know that he as released images. -- TLSuda (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per above. There are simply too many conditions/restrictions for these files to be considered as free -FASTILY 09:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:NGruev&oldid=120771630"