Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows

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.

Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows

[edit]

These are all of the images in Category:MacArthur Fellows that were sourced from the Foundation's Web site and are subject to the Foundation's licensing. There are 18 images of Fellows from other sources.

Following the DR and UnDR for File:Khot 2016 hi-res-download 3.jpg, I wrote to the General Counsel of the MacArthur Foundation asking them to clarify their CC-BY license for the media and pointing out that their general NC license would not allow their photographs of Fellows to be hosted on Commons.

He responded that that was their clear intent -- that they were happy to have photos of Fellows in the media, but were not willing to allow their general use without the consent of the Fellow in the image: "We are not comfortable with allowing any commercial use of the photos (e.g. allowing them to be put on tee shirts etc) and believe that the Fellow would need to make that decision not the Foundation given the personal issues and implications involved." see Template:OTRS ticket.

Since that very clearly means that only the Foundation's general CC-BY-NC license applies, we must delete them all. Some can probably be uploaded to WP:EN as Fair Use.

I, therefore, have gone through all of the images in Category:MacArthur Fellows one by one using AWB and put only those with "Source=http://www.macfound.org/fellows/..." into this category. Slowking4, Thuresson, Storkk, and Josve05a all commented at the UnDR.

List of 757 images
* File:Ames ted download 1.jpg

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep for at least some of these, e.g. the first on the list Ted Ames. Their photo page lists a NC license and then just below that:

"MacArthur Fellows Images and Video

With respect to use of photographs and videos maintained on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows by the media, the applicable Creative Commons License will be Attribution: CC- BY. This permits non- commercial and commercial use by media as long as there is attribution.

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License"

Ditto for the last photo on your list which links to https://www.macfound.org/creative-commons/ which is a blanket permission.

You probably just didn't look far enough down the page. I suggest that all of these be kept until a more careful survey is conducted. Smallbones (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you didn't read the quote above from the MacArthur Foundation General Counsel, The CC-BY license is for "the media" only -- the general license is clearly NC. Commons may or may not be "the media", but many potential users are clearly not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward, this isn't quite right. All CC licenses are general licenses, meaning that they cannot be granted to one party or class of parties; CC BY is granted, for these photos, by MacArthur to everyone. The issue is that copyright is only the right of the content creator -- in this case, the photographer, or MacArthur if they were works-for-hire. CC licenses are only about copyright. The subject of the photo also has personality rights. Broadly speaking, in order to publish a photo of a person, one needs to be sure that both the permission of the photographer and the permission of the subject have been secured. (Or are not necessary, e.g. if the photo is in the public domain, or if the photo is of a public figure in a public place.) -Pete F (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
he read it: he is just incredulous. and you should expect a lot of incredulity at english. maybe time to roll out fair use bot.
why don't you wait a week for the foundation to respond to emails pending? you also missed some - there are 1054 total, including the sub-categories. using visual file change uploaded 2014-9-22 - 2014-9-18 and 2016-10-1
if the concern is personality rights, a lot of the ones i uploaded had the personality rights template also, fwiw. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jim W, but you haven't read the license;
In the summary "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."

In the license itself:

  • Section 2 – Scope.
    • a. License grant.
      • 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
        • A.reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and
        • B.produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.
  • (Section 2 a 5.B) "No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."
Part of your confusion may relate to the MacFound rewriting their permission (in 2014?). The prior license *also* applies since it is irrevocable. Placing additional restrictions (in 2014?) also is not consistent with the license
Smallbones (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all photos taken in private places (which is most or all), per COM:IDENT. This is not a copyright issue (there is no problem with the CC BY copyright license), but a personality rights issue. COM:IDENT says, "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a #private place." If somebody wants to contact the individual fellows to seek consent, that would be ideal; but it seems about:startpagelike a pretty huge task. (In case of any confusion: earlier, in a Facebook discussion, I expressed the opposite view, before I realized these are portraits and that the foundation's position was based on personality rights rather than copyright.) -Pete F (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights is a completely different issue. Would all we need is a personality rights template? It appears to me that the photographs have already been published. Let's take care of the copyright issues first. As you said, there is no copyright issue. Smallbones (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add per Com:Indent "1: In this context "commercial use" is purely ""personality rights, and thus never a reason for deletion". There is no issue about defamation, or privacy or releasing the photos for publication. It's all about the personality right of "commercial use." Never a reason for deletion. Smallbones (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a different issue from the original DR, because Jameslwoodward's analysis in the DR is inaccurate. These files are available under a CC BY copyright license. We know nothing about the wishes of the subjects of the photos, who have personality rights, which are not covered by a copyright license. -Pete F (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one reason for the possibility of a personality rights "commercial use" restriction never being a reason for deletion is that this always applies to every photo of every living person. For example, I could upload a selfie and declare it CC-BY, but if somebody tries to put that pic on a tee shirt and sell it, then I can always say "no." Thus if we can't upload photos where "personality rights commercial use restrictions" might apply, then we can't upload any photos of any living people. That's never been close to being our policy - and never will be. Smallbones (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. The MacArthur Foundation clearly doesn't want these images out in the world with a CC-BY license and it believes that it has accomplished that with its restriction to "media" use only. Smallbones quotes from the license, but the "you" in the quoted section is the licensee, not the licensor (MacArthur), so the quote is irrelevant. It is very common for a copyright to be licensed to different people under different terms -- a novel may be licensed to Magazine A with first serial rights, Publisher B for the USA, Publisher C for the UK and Movie Studio D for a film. There is nothing different about that here -- the media get a CC-BY license and everyone else, including us gets a CC-BY-NC. The "You" in the license applies only to "media", because the CC-BY license is granted only to "media". There is nothing in the license terms which in any way says that that is not possible. In fact, at 6(c) the license specifically anticipates that the copyrighted work may be licensed under different terms to different people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Slowking4 is correct, I omitted the subcats, but let's deal with the main category first. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why don't you undo your screwed up mass deletion, and then do it the right way? you said "wait a week or so" and it has not been a week. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far no one has shown that this DR is "screwed up" in any way. It does, as you said, omit some, but that's not unusual and is easily handled once the main issue is resolved. As for the "wait a week or so", that was simply to ask you to wait long enough before filing your threatened mass DR for the Foundation to respond to my OTRS request for clarification and change. As soon as they responded as they did, I felt that we must act promptly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so the lawyer did not rewrite their rights statement per your direction, and that was their one chance. and everyone should wait around for you, and you have no obligation to notify others, other than with deletion notification. you are not constrained by the timetables you request of others.
but thank you, i am not the one scaling the reichstag, user:Revent - it is all you. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slowking4, a DR is typically open for seven days. By the time this gets decided, we will be well past the seven days Jameslwoodward originally suggested. -Pete F (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peteforsyth you understand how that might be taken as patronizing? the facts of this case are clear - we are all here to wait on this editor, so he can delete items, at a time of his choosing: that is all he is here for. he made a request implying collaboration, and then he acted unilaterally. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Slowking4, I think you're overreacting to that part. Jim W. is not acting unilaterally; the current discussion is indeed open to input from everybody, and I doubt Jim W. will be the one to close it, especially if the consensus is not overwhelming. Your disagreement about the substance are fine, but in this case I think you're off base in criticizing the process Jim W. is following. He originally suggested 7 days in order to give time for the GC to respond. Then after the GC responded, he opened a new discussion -- which will last for 7 days from the point it was started. -Pete F (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the fact is: he told me to wait nominating these files, and then nominated them himself, before the amount of time he ask me to wait. what would you call that but unilateral? it is the opposite of collegial. and we will see if seven days is enough for user:fuzheado to follow-up his email to the foundation, since he is a proven wiki'splainer as we saw with the Gene Weingarten matter. i do not see any reason to trust this editor's understanding or characterization of his OTRS discussion. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have little invested in this process stuff, so I'll leave you to it. But I absolutely object to the statement that Jim W. is only here to delete things. I've seen his work here for years. The statement is clearly and absolutely untrue. -Pete F (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
object, all you want - what is the ratio of deletion to upload? how much metadata cleanup has he done? clearly he has a process, that does not include collaboration, it is adversive all the way. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the claim that MacArthur have issued a CC-by licence, and thus any images affected as a result.
MacArthur have multi-licensed these. Licence #1 is -nc-, thus not acceptable as a Commons free licence.
Licence #2 is a combination of a CC-by with a qualifier for use by "the media" alone. That is not a Commons-acceptable licence either.
Licence #2 could be seen as either a valid licence expressed by MacArthur as equivalent to a CC-by restricted to an audience. Or else an invalid licence. Neither of these are acceptable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request still doesn't make any sense. All CC licenses are general licenses. Anybody can use them. If MacFound intended to limit their use, they made a mistake. But they show no sign of correcting this putative mistake. They are likely doing exactly what they intended to do with the license - via copyright license they let anybody use it, but via personality rights, like anybody else the subject of the photo can limit commercial use of his image.

The 2016 fellows have a license statement:

"High-resolution photos for download. Photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and licensed under a Creative Commons license: CC-BY. Credit: John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Right-click on a link below to save the file to your computer." see, e.g. https://www.macfound.org/fellows/953/

There's nothing here about limiting the CC-BY license (which they can't do anyway). It's not a mistake.

The other claim is about, if there is a possibility of commercial use being prohibited or limited in some cases, then we can't use it. Well, there is always the possiblity that a living person can stop the use of an image of himself being used for commercial purposes. Time to forget that idea, or just delete all photos of living people!

Smallbones (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This [1] is not a CC licence.
MacArthur make it clear that they wish to extend a CC licence to apply to only one target audience.
It is a legalistic question as to whether they can do this, or they can not. That gives either a restricted licence, or an invalid licence. Neither are acceptable to us.
What it very clearly does not give is an opportunity for Commons to pick and choose amongst the wreckage, seeing a CC-by fragment that is attractive to Commons and a restriction that is not, and then choosing to only observe the preferable part. This would be no better than Commons finding someone else's content and labelling it "Licensed CC-by by Commons". It's not Commons' content, therefore Commons does not get to apply a licence to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be looking at the text on the page of [2] (and presumably others) which is itself misleading. It states a CC-by licence, with the CC logo and also a link to the restricted policy. Legalistic interpretation of that would be difficult, pragmatic interpretation of it is:
  • For CC, this is why you can't use the CC logo on modified licences and you can't even modify the licence and claim it's a CC licence.
  • For MacArthur, just sort yourselves out. This is a mess.
  • For Commons, COM:PRP applies and we don't touch it.
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is nothing in the license that says it is a general license. It defines the term "You" and uses it consistently throughout the license to mean one person or one legal entity. Nowhere does it say anything like "this license is available to anyone" or anything like that. In fact, at 6(c) the license explicitly recognizes that the work may be licensed under different terms to others. There is no reason whatever that the "You" in the license cannot be limited to a specific group, provided, of course, that the limitation does not constitute illegal discrimination by race, creed, color, etc. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you very well could have suggested that they reword their statement to "personality rights will be strictly enforced, please email for a model release for all commercial reuse" but you chose not to do so. you are not fit to interact with GLAMs; do not do it in the future; let the adults do it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You, @Jameslwoodward: , are absolutely wrong. The the license uses the unqualified word "You" in the only way that it can be read in the English language - you, the person reading this. That is anybody who is reading the license. Even though the plain reading of the English language requires no explanation, they do very clearly define this on another page. Creative Commons https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks/ states very clearly the CC-BY licensed works are "Free Cultural Works"
"CC uses the definition of free cultural works at Freedom Defined to categorize the CC licenses. (Freedom Defined is an open organization of free culture advocates and researchers; the definition was developed by its community as a parallel to efforts such as the Free Software Definition, to have a standard for defining Free Culture.) Using that definition, material licensed under CC BY or BY-SA is a free cultural work."
and "Free cultural work" at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
"This document defines "Free Cultural Works" as works or expressions which can be freely studied, applied, copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose."
In fact Commons defines "Free Cultural Works" at Commons:Choosing a license in exactly the same way, linking to exactly the same page http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Commons:Choosing a license also links to a WMF resolution https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy which also defines "Free Cultural Works" in exactly the same way, with exactly the same link. Let us just recognize here that CC-BY licenses apply to "anyone."
If there is any question that the MacArthur Foundation licensed these works as CC-BY, or whether CC-BY is a general license that applies to everybody, then let's just ask WMF legal. They are used to reading legal documents and they are very knowledgable about CC licenses. If they think that MacFound made a mistake in licensing the files CC-BY, then they can just ask their lawyers what they did mean and what they would propose that Commons does to rectify their mistake. Smallbones (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Smallbones you are wasting your breath. if they won't work with MacArthur legal, why would they work with WMF legal? They are ideologues who insist on "license purity." and who cares if MacArthur gives away more money in a year than they will make in their lifetime. MacArthur needs to drink the kool-aid. make no mistake, common's reputation is harmed by decisions like this: there is a train of bitten GLAMs - National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Prado Museum, Marcarthur Foundation - and the amateur hour reputation is cemented. the reputable GLAMs will tinker around the edges with interlocutors, but commons will be a walled garden and the image repositories will be elsewhere. commons is more like wikinews every day. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete inevitably, as Jim stated clear. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment To address some ongoing misunderstandings in this discussion, two quotes from the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. First, the license is absolutely a general license -- by publishing it, you grant its terms to anyone (referred to as "you" throughout the license document. That's the whole point of CC licenses, free software licenses, etc. As expressed in the preamble (with my emphasis):

Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights.

Personality rights are addressed in section 2 (b) (1):

Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

The GC at MacArthur is not at all confused. MacArthur has clearly expressed that they, as an institution, will not impede any republication whatsoever based on the rights they control (copyright). They have also expressed that, since they do not control the fellows' individual personality rights, that they prefer only "the media" publish the materials. If anybody violates that, they don't have to worry about getting sued by MacArthur, but they would open themselves up to liability with regard to the individuals, based not on copyright, but on personality rights. -Pete F (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To underline what Pete is saying here (which I entirely agree with)
    • CC-BY, which they obviously posted these photos under, is a license to the general public, and is irrevocable. We have to accept these photos as being CC-BY. To do otherwise would be to undermine the entire meaning of the CC-BY license which we totally depend on. For example, almost every photo in Commons could be challenged by linking to some statement of the original copyright holder and speculating on his or her state of mind when he or she applied the license (or even afterwards). Rather, we should simply rely on the license, which any lawyer will tell you is 100% acceptable. No hassle, no argument. JLW's method is just a morass inviting misunderstanding and misconception.
    • Moral and personality rights almost never have anything to do with Commons. We cannot protect people from violating them, except by a simple notice. It would be rare that we have to delete a photo because of them. Essentially every living person has them (and some dead ones too). A couple of examples:
      • Somebody takes a pd photo of Barack Obama from here and puts the caption "Vote for Trump" underneath and distributes copies. Obama could easily sue and would probably win, but not against us, against the distributor. Nothing we could do about that, except perhaps take down all photos of Obama! Sure, if the captioned photo had been uploaded to Commons, we should delete it, but there is no reason for anybody to upload the captioned photo here.
      • Somebody takes a CC-BY photo of your favorite movie star, puts it on a t-shirt and starts selling the shirts. The subject of the photo could sue in most jurisdictions (and probably win) for the commercial use of his or her image - no matter what the license was. Elvis comes back from the dead and does similar things. The person (or his estate in some cases) has the exclusive right to use the person's image to sell T-shirt and other things. It's got nothing to do with us, and we can't prevent any of this from happening - with any of our photos of living people. To delete a photo simply because somebody could be sued for selling a T-shirt with that photo on it, would logically mean that we'd have to delete all photos of living people (and all photos of Elvis to boot)..
    • MacArthur Foundation's lawyer was not trying to stop Wikipedia or anybody else from using these photos in the same way that any CC-BY photo can be used. Did he or she even say anything about this? All he or she did was state the obvious about CC-BY licenses. Smallbones (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"High-resolution photos for download. Photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and licensed under a Creative Commons license: CC-BY. Credit: John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Right-click on a link below to save the file to your computer." Please don't deny reality. Smallbones (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems here. One is already discussed, the second is that they state licensing on a general page, and briefly on each image, with a link to the general page: https://www.macfound.org/creative-commons/ The two versions contradict each other. As the specific page is only a brief version of it, and (more importantly) it links to the general page (with the problematic user restriction), then I'd have to see the restricted general statement as being the more detailed, and the licence in effect here. Which means we can't use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is not a simple case. The actual text of the language at https://www.macfound.org/creative-commons/ explicitly restricts the CC-BY license to 'the media'... however, the license itself, in (2)(a)(5)(a), explicitly states that "Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License." This would explicitly extend the offered CC-BY license to anyone who received the work via a 'media' source, instead of directly from the MacArthur Foundation. I think it is quite unlikely that any reuser, who relied on that CC-BY license, would be found liable by a court for 'willful infringement', and we could clearly (IMO) legally host such material if obtained from a media source that was using it under that license, and extend that license to our reusers.

However it is quite clear, from the OTRS ticket, that this was not the expressed intent of the MacArthur Foundation... they are not directly granting a CC-BY license to us, as we are not 'the media', and they only intend for the material to be used under the CC-BY license by 'the media'. There is clearly a misunderstanding of the terms of the license by the organization. I think the net effect of this, however, is that we cannot legitimately claim that the Foundation is directly offering a CC-BY license to 'us'... we can host these images if obtained from a media source that was using them under the license, but not if obtained directly.

I'm not claiming this is a 'sensical' answer... it rather obviously is not, but I think it's the best we can do without a clear consensus from the wider community to disregard such a restriction, and that has not been shown. I think we need to delete these images if they use the MacArthur Foundation as a direct source. I also think this is silly, and due to their misunderstanding of the license, but.... they are not extending an offer to use the material under CC-BY to 'us', and we can only obtain that offer via the 'downstream recipient' clause via a third party. Deletion seems to be the answer under the PRP, however, unless the works are obtained via a media source. Reventtalk 11:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"High-resolution photos for download. Photos are owned by the MacArthur Foundation and licensed under a Creative Commons license: CC-BY. Credit: John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Right-click on a link below to save the file to your computer."
That is a clear grant of a CC-BY license. It cannot be modified or revoked, either by the MacArthur Foundation or by us. If they thought they've made a mistake they would remove the grant from their website, but the the license would still be in effect, just fewer people would know about it. But they have not removed the license, they are still granting the license. I have seen no evidence that they think they made a mistake by granting it. Some folks might argue that there is a second license, granted only to "the media". We know how to deal with multiple licenses - the user gets to choose which one he/she wants to use. Thus the regular CC-BY license applies. BTW, not that it matters, but do you really think that Wikimedia Commons, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (often said to be the 5th largest website in the world) is not part of the media?
I cannot see the OTRS ticket. Can you quote where you see them claiming that the grant of the license was a mistake? If so we might consider a Commons:Courtesy deletions, but have under no obligation to do so. Since MacFound has not asked for a Courtesy deletion, there's no point in considering it now.
Your proposed solution is non-sensical, as you state. Most obviously it undercuts the license that is the basis of our existence. Is there any reason that we can't have a common sense solution? Just follow the terms of the CC-BY license. Smallbones (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"we can't have a common sense solution", because we are ideologues who use PRP as a weapon to dictate terms to institutions who "misunderstanding of the terms of the license." the nonsense that prevails at commons undermines its credibility. by banishing these images to english, all we have done is prevent other language wikis from having photos, and drive content creators away. of course that is the agenda: the power hoarding of gate-keepers who would rather preside over hell, than collaborate in heaven. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: Just stop. Your rants aren't contributing anything useful to the discussion. Reventtalk 19:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what discussion? this is just two sides restating their positions over and over. i would say i have described the ridiculous judicious toxic culture here. "they just don't understand"; here is an alternate license "GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0". it is this kind of license hypocrisy that gives the lie to the "scrupulous"; and projecting those machinations on the foundation, is instructive.
if you think that is a rant, you can imagine what scathing comments i have made, and will make to the smithsonian institution. no more apologizing for this lot, rather advise how to host images elsewhere. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: I can't 'directly' quote a private email sent to OTRS, but the messages from the MacArthur Foundation don't explicitly say that the license grant was a mistake... what they do say is that they intend for the images to only be used non-commercially. It seems clear to me that they do not 'intend' to offer a CC-BY license to the public, and that they don't completely understand the terms of the license.... that when the work is used by a 'licensee' under CC-BY, the 'licensor' is explicitly offering that same work under the terms of the license (which as you said, can't be modified) to "Every recipient of the Licensed Material". Without actually modifying the license, however, a copyright owner is perfectly able to only 'offer' that license to certain parties, and that seems to be what they have effectively done. We need to either 'consciously' decide that we want to ignore that, or only host these if we obtained them from a licensed source. And it's ridiculous. Reventtalk 19:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we are not ignoring, we are interpreting, just as others are interpreting "only media". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:53, 5 November 2016 (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.

Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows

[edit]

per previous discussion above (in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MacArthur Foundation Images of Fellows)

Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:MacArthur_Foundation_Images_of_Fellows&oldid=242666674"