Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 23



File:Domus G.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Keep Image is not a copyright violation.  TLSuda  (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Domus G.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Giano ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Giano has marked this file as being public domain. It is a derivative work of File:Queluz Palace fountains.JPG which is licenced as GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. This is a copyright violation. This derivative is also used at User:Giano but it does not link to the file page. This is a requirement of Creative Commons licencing. 79.168.106.13 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a derivative of a free image and released by the editor then it's still a free image. This problem requires revision of the description and licensing tags, not deletion. I have done this now and so the image should be kept and this discussion closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The image is still a copyright violation. An image release under CC-BY-SA is not a 'free' image, it's merely 'freely licensed', and the requirements under that license are not fufilled here. Specifially, proper attribution is not given. Also, you cannot release a derivative work under a less restrictive license, and the modifications made are not sufficiently original to create a 'new' copyright claim that could be legitimately released to the public domain. Delete it, or properly fix the licensing. Revent talk 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted I was imprecise in my language, but the image is not a copyright violation: proper attribution is now given via a link to the original image, and it is made quite clear what the copyright status of the original image is. The PD licensing is stated to apply only to the modifications, and it does not seem worthwhile to argue about how significant those modifications are. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Giano is no longer allowed to use the image as he violated its copyright by failing to attribute and share alike, thereby terminating his licence per article 7 a in CC-BY-SA. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how we do things here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Article 7 a in CC-BY-SA 3.0 is unambiguously clear: if you do not follow the licence, then the licence is automatically terminated for the one who violated the licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have never attempted to prevent a single editor from using a particular image for that reason, nor should we start trying to do so now (certainly not without a broad RfC). The problem raised by the IP has been resolved, so the image can be used on Wikipedia, period. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what CC-BY-SA 3.0 says. Article 7 a in CC-BY-SA 3.0 is unambiguously clear: whenever you violate the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0, the licence is automatically terminated, and any further use by the same person is always a copyright violation (and the licence violator risks being sued by the photographer for any further use, although I have no idea if the photographer has any interest in doing this in this particular case). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GFDL was the license used by the original uploader, and that license allows reinstatement if the violation is corrected, as it has been here. Even if that were not the case, such an application of licensing terms would be novel on Wikipedia and would require a site-wide RfC to discuss enforcement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Ridiculous trolling by an anon. Giano    (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.