File talk:Gota01.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wrong License

[edit]

Discussion moved here from User_talk:Jbarta

Files concerned:


(Forgive the orthography and grammar, Google Translator)

User Jbarta:

I noticed you changed the license of my files, from CC-BY 3.0 to PD. Sorry, but you're committing a violation of the 27th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a violation of the Federal Law of Copyright in Mexico (my country), which is the 28th article of the Constitution of the United Mexican States. The files:

are part of the package Íconos del Mago (“Icons of the Magus”), which is under the license CreativeCommons-Attribution 3.0 (legal text here).

The {{PD-shape}} template is for single images, without details. It even includes a sample from a heptagon no shadows or colors. My icon would be a candidate for this license if it were like this picture, but it is not. My icon include fill, shadows, brightness and borders —further metadata— representative of the Íconos del Mago.

The complete set of Íconos del Mago you can check here, in flickr.

I will reverse your changes to my files and return the license originally assigned by me, Arturo D. Castillo, representative and project manager of Industrias Helix ©. Remember to respect the laws and international agreements. I like the public domain, but also I want an attribution to my work when I think needed —for that reason they were created the Creative Commons—.

Good day, Jbarta.

End of statement — Zóram Hákān Talk 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, credit yourself as the author on the image description page. However "copyright" is a legal protection granted to works that meet a certain level of creativity and originality. Those slightly stylized individual water droplets certainly do not rise to that level. If they did, then all these various droplet images are also copyrighted and your image probably violates someone else's copyright. Absurd if you think about it. This is why images must meet a threshold of originality to be copyrightable. At any rate, your droplet images (along with most of the others in that image search) are public domain and would lose in a copyright suit regardless of what copyright tag you (or anyone else) wishes to place on them. Again, by all means, list yourself as the author, but in the interests of accuracy, I would ask that you use the proper PD tags. – JBarta (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that most, if not ALL of those images you mention on flickr individually fail to pass the threshold of originality to qualify for legal copyright protection. Many people have a gross misunderstanding of copyright and are very eager to slap a copyright tag on just about anything... but that doesn't mean that the copyright is valid, accurate or enforcable. – JBarta (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English: (Excuse the orthography and grammar, I used Google Translator)
The description of these files SVG possibly have been the victim of vandalism. I, Arthur D. Castillo, are the intellectual author and owner of these images, which I chose to release it under the Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0. These icons were published in Wikimedia Commons the March 5, 2012, and in Flickr the next day (March 6, 2012). These icons are based on a form that comes from the public domain (the simple image of a drop), but they were stylized to give an appearance of glass icons.
The icon are comprised of:
  1. A basic form in public domain of a drop.
  2. A black outline of 3px in nominal size 256px.
  3. Fill radial gradient in a steady tone from light to dark (top left to bottom right).
  4. A dark inner shadow that fades to move inland to disappear.
  5. A "light reflection" (a white and transparent figure) overlay, which creates an effect of not being a drop of a liquid, most similar to a drop-shaped rock crystal. The brightness is radial and becomes more translucent at the bottom right.
Thus the code SVG icon meets the original scheme, and should be specified their license. This license was chosen by me, Arturo D. Castillo, creator and mastermind of the files. Unfortunately ask a librarian or reverser to remove my pictures and editions of the Wikimedia Foundation, because not being met with the proper attribution of my contributions (something contradictory, because the Wikimedia Foundation manages the CC-BY-SA 3.0).
I wanted to contribute to this great project, but it seems that the end was just a strategy to remove the rights to the works of the users.

In summary:

  • It allows me and other users to manage the CC-BY 3.0 license or some other free license, so I will continue contributing to this project;
  • Or unfortunately I leave the Wikimedia Foundation, before asking a librarian or reverser to withdraw my contributions.

I hope the answer or comments from other users and thus clarify this question.

Thanks in advance.

Español: La descripción de estos archivos SVG ha sido víctima de un posible vandalismo. Yo, Arturo D. Castillo, soy el autor y dueño intelectual de estas imágenes, las cuales elegí liberarla bajo la licencia Creative Commons - Atribución 3.0. Fueron publicadas en Wikimedia Commons el 5 de marzo de 2012 y en la web flickr al día siguiente (6 de marzo de 2012). Estos íconos están basados en una forma que procede de dominio público (la imagen simple de una gota), pero fueron estilizadas para darle una apariencia de íconos de cristal.
Los íconos en si son conformados por:
  1. Una forma básica y de dominio público de una gota.
  2. Un contorno negro de 3px en su tamaño nominal de 256px.
  3. Relleno degradado radial en un tono constante de claro a oscuro (de arriba izquierda hacia abajo derecha).
  4. Una sombra interior oscura que se difumina al avanzar al interior hasta desaparecer.
  5. Un "reflejo de luz" (una figura blanca y transparente) superpuesta, la cual crea un efecto de no ser una gota de un líquido en si, sino una piedra cristalina en forma de gota. El brillo es radial y se hace más translúcida abajo a la derecha.
De este modo que el código SVG del ícono cumple con el régimen de originalidad y debe de especificarse cuál es su licencia. Ésta licencia fue elegida por mí, Arturo D. Castillo, creador y dueño intelectual de los archivos. Si alguien me niega ese derecho, temo que habré de pedir a un bibliotecario o reversor que retire mis imágenes y ediciones de la Fundación de Wikimedia, ya que no se estaría cumpliendo con la atribución correcta de mis contribuciones (cosa contradictoria, porque la Fundación Wikimedia maneja la licencia CC-BY-SA 3.0).
Buscaba contribuir con este gran proyecto, pero pareciera que al final sólo era una estrategia para quitar los derechos a los trabajos personales de los usuarios.
En resumen:
  • Se me permite a mí y al resto de los usuarios manejar la licencia CC-BY 3.0 o alguna otra licencia libre, de modo que seguiré contribuyendo a este proyecto;
  • O lamentablemente me retiro de la Fundación Wikimedia, no sin antes solicitar a un bibliotecario o reversor que retire mis contribuciones.
Espero la respuesta o comentarios de las demás usuarios y así aclarar esta cuestion.
Gracias de antemano.
Español. Bajo la excusa usada hay más archivos de otros usuarios a los cuales intentarían retirarles los derechos intelectuales. Algunos ejemplos:
English. Under the excuse used against me, more files from other users who try to remove the intellectual rights. Some examples:

— Zóram Hákān Talk 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Threshold of originality. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In accord to the last link, show me a accredited reference to another icon of crystal stone similar to a drop, with that border, that shadow and that glow, without authorship. Then I will agree that {{PD-shape}} template.
I wait… — Zóram Hákān eo…!? 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work like that. I gave you that link to help you get a better understanding of "threshold of originality". You might also have a look in the following categories... you'll find thousands of examples...
(it should be noted that a few images have been placed into these categories in error or to evade a legitimate copyright, but you'll still get the general idea.)
Keep in mind, a PD tag doesn't mean you cannot be listed as the author here. It just means that there is not enough creativity and originality to warrant a copyright tag. – JBarta (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Fred the Oyster, that is exactly what I said: I have the right to choose the license of my files created and uploaded to Commons. Greetings and again thank you very much. — Zóram Hákān eo…!? 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An uploader may certainly choose a license for his works, but that doesn't mean a license may not be challenged. Choosing a free license for a public domain work happens all the time and very often that license may be challenged. Even the template notifying the uploader uses the words "because a public domain image is tagged with a free license". The issue here is not whether or not the uploader wants to use one license vs another. Rather the issue here is to determine whether or not this image rises to the level of originality to warrant a copyright at all. The links above offer many examples with which to educate yourself on the matter and then contribute an informed opinion. – JBarta (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already described what is original and what does not:
No original:
  1. The base form of a drop.
With some level of originality:
  1. A border of 3px in the nominal size of 256px.
  2. Square dimensions to use as an icon, avatar, button, etc.
(The previous two characteristics of the Íconos del Mago).
Yes it is original:
  1. A transparent circle, segmented to coincide with the base and form a “glow”.
  2. A inside degraded shadow, which disappears into the center of the base form.
  3. A filling of a single color, which darkens radially and towards the lower right.
(All people can verify this in the set of the Íconos del Mago)
All we will agree that is sufficient to reach a certain level of originality. But most important here is the fact that I can choose the license of media file I created and uploaded to the Commons. I know perfectly well that you or anyone else can create an image similar or equal to my icons and, as a simple image, I not have right to claim attribution for an image so common.
However, if someone downloads this file and verify that the code effectively is my, I would like some attribution. This is mainly for those who download a series of images for commercial use or derivative and they do not work in their own icon. In this case I deserve a attribution by the icon.
Jbarta, I will be honest: I have seen you have uploaded other people's work and wished to remove their copyright. I think you try to do the same with my icons, and later you use them and that other people believe they are yours and not artwork of me, Arturo D. Castillo, leading the group Industrias Helix ©. In that action is called plagiarism.
Your first failure was to change the license without comment me, you thought it was a good idea to release it without notifying the author. Remember: The Wikimedia Foundation is a community and behind each file or edit are one person. If that person committed a non-serious error should receive a notice to correct himself.
In summary:
  1. If you have rights of file and you are the uploaded, you can choose any free license.
  2. If you have rights of file, but he are the uploaded, you can choose any license. If you do not want a free license, the Wikimedia Commons group delete the file.
  3. If you have rights of file, but he are the uploaded, you can choose any license. If you do not want a free license, the Wikimedia Commons group delete the file.
  4. If he have rights of file, but you are the uploaded, he can choose any license. If he do not want a free license, the Wikimedia Commons group delete the file.
In the code of file has a part:

<code="SVG> <metadata id="metadata7"> 

   <rdf:RDF>
     <cc:Work rdf:about="">
       <dc:format>image/svg+xml</dc:format>
       <dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage"/>
       <dc:title>Gota</dc:title>
       <dc:date>4 de mayo de 2012</dc:date>
       <dc:creator>
         <cc:Agent>
           <dc:title>Arturo D. Castillo</dc:title>
         </cc:Agent>
       </dc:creator>
       <dc:rights>
         <cc:Agent>
           <dc:title>Industrias Helix</dc:title>
         </cc:Agent>
       </dc:rights>
       <dc:language>Español</dc:language>
       <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"/>
     </cc:Work>
     <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
       <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
       <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
       <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/>
       <cc:requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution"/>
       <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
     </cc:License>
   </rdf:RDF>
 </metadata>

Again: you can make an image similar to mine, even identical. But if it has this code, then this file has been that made by me or a derivate, deserves attribution to Arturo D. Castillo and/or Industrias Helix ©.
Thanks for listening. — Zóram Hákān eo…!? 19:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by what you've written above, you do seem to (reluctantly) understand that the files are undeserving of legal copyright protection. And that is the main issue here. Your other concern seems to be plagiarism, that is taking your PD file and claiming it as their own. Certainly that would be upsetting, and we'd like to think that most people would offer some credit. But the fact remains that most people won't, nor (in this case) would they be under any obligation to. Such is what we suffer when we create a public domain image. And believe me, even fully copyrightable images suffer as well. The difference however is this.... if an image is deserving of copyright, you can take the plagiarist to court for redress. With a public domain image, you cannot. I've taken all this time to help you understand copyright because I do realize you put effort into the image and it pains you to think someone might use it without crediting you. But in the end, there are rules, and if we're interested in going by the rules then we have to face the fact that sometimes we don't get everything we want. I hope you'll finally consider this issue fully resolved and tag the files with the appropriate copyright tag. – JBarta (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think if I add the following template?:
Note:

This imagen may by considered very simple, so much that could not reach the threshold of originality. If you want make a icon or image similar to this file, it is not necessary to follow the indicated license. But if you use this file or a copy of this file, please, follow the indicated license.

Heptagon
Heptagon
I want this file to have the license indicated, but do not confuse that I am the owner of any file with this geometric shape. I think that's what you want. — Zóram Hákān eo…!? 01:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not going to be making up whimsical copyright rules. Honestly, you're trying my patience. This issue is simple, clear and you've demonstrated that you understand it. The image is non-copyrightable and in the public domain. Whether someone utilizes the svg file or takes a screen capture is irrelevant. The file is not copyrightable in any way shape or form and without condition (made up or otherwise). – JBarta (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a artwork, the correct license is that the user chooses. If he chose that license, nobody can change it. These icons are original and very nice, why can not he choose the license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narutillo (talk • contribs) 02:35 10 may 2012‎ (UTC)

Please read the above discussion and review the links offered. Your question has already been answered. – JBarta (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no social life? 2 minutes after my comment is your comment. Yes, I read the links, but:

1. The files has originality, should not have the "PD-shape" license. 2. I did not find the text: "You can change his license". 3. In accordance to the point 1 and 2... you never answered our questions. Are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narutillo (talk • contribs) 03:45 10 may 2012‎ (UTC)

1. All files have originality. The question is not whether they have originality... but whether they have enough originality.
2. Anything in a file description page can be challenged and changed... including the license if it's believed to be invalid. This is not an uncommon thing (hence the template). The idea that an uploader can choose a license and it cannot be challenged or changed under any circumstances is absurd.
3. Both these points were covered above.
– JBarta (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not discuss. I come tired of my job and all I want is to upload free files without problems.
This talking began four days ago —5 may 2012—, this is the summary:
Votes for the original license
—CC-BY 3.0— 		Against
—PD-shape—
Zoram.hakaan —me, the author—
 JBarta
Fred the Oyster
Narutillo
We are 3 in favor, 1 in against. Although he said the wrong way, Narutillo have reason; although the links, JBarta, you have not been able to explain why you say that my icons do not reach the threshold of originality or where is your right to change my license without notice. From the beginning we have asked you and you not have been able to respond.
With the proposed staffing, I just wanted that we were both satisfied. Instead, you were angry. Why insist on taking the opposite without explaining? Only samples links with examples, which really do not meet the threshold of originality, but do not talk about my icons. However I do have explained the threshold of originality in my icons.
In fact: a license may be questioned —why we are here talking—, but… Where is the link to an official policy, which says that you can change without notice to the uploader? Each template says first thing to be a consensus and do what most determines, not what a only user creates right.
Now I lay awake too, I'm going to sleep.
Thank you for your attention and understanding. — Zóram Hákān eo…!? 05:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't rehash what has already been discussed multiple times. However there are two new points you mention. First, there is no requirement (that I'm aware of) that the uploader be notified if the license is changed. One might argue that it is a point of courtesy, but it has no bearing on this discussion. And two, consensus is important, but consensus is not arrived at solely by number of votes. And also, while not a new point, I will address it once more... it is not necessary to find an icon exactly like yours to determine if yours is or is not original enough to warrant copyright. It is compared to other similar images in general to arrive at a judgement determining if your image reaches that general level of originality. Judged against the many such examples, it is fairly clear that your droplet images do not. And you have more than once conceeded to that. In the end, that is the only legitimate subject of this discussion. Everything else is irrelevant. On the issue that matters, you are reluctantly in agreement, but you are still resisting, looking for a work-around. I ask that you stop, settle once and for all the images are PD and tag them so. – JBarta (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Gota01.svg&oldid=70953813"