Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark

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:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark

Contrary to policy and longstanding practice regarding watermarks. An image that prohibits removal of visible watermarks effectively rules out a large range of potential derivative works (pretty much any derivative work using a portion of the image), and so is effectively a no-derivatives license, which we forbid. I also disagree with the interpretation of the Creative Commons license in which it is claimed that authors can require attribution be given in any manner they choose, citing section 4a:

"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. When You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work, You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by Section 4(c), as requested."[1]

My interpretation of the bolded language is that some kind of notice must be retained, but not necessarily in its precise original form, as long as the required information is included somewhere (like on the image description page and/or in EXIF metadata). If we were to accept the stricter interpretation, any author could demand to be credited in image captions, which is again against long-standing practice. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete, per nom. Removing the watermark and making sure the same information is given in the description page is certainly allowed by the cc-by-sa; removing the information entirely is forbidden, but moving it is okay. –Tryphon^☂ 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete the direct german translation of the license tells us, that the author has to be mentioned in the way he decides. But this just referrers to the naming and not to place of the mentioning. In detail it states that the name of the author and the licensing has to be kept as it is, and it has to be accessible in a appropriate manner. In short: Total bullshit template. --Niabot (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in publish my photos without the watermark. I've got similar problems with webzines or other users out of Wiki in the past, who still ignored attributing license and manner, so i labled all my pictures in this way.

Maybe there are two ways of interpration, but this is my way to interprated it. No one is stirring on signs on paintings or come up with the idea to touch it.

I know, there is a other longstanding practice here on WP, but thats not my way. If you dont want to accept my condition, i will not longer release my pics under cc - but i dont think, thats the idea of it...

BTW: In the highlited cite of the licence above you can see You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties. ALL NOTICES - Thats what i mean. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"All Notices" refers to the simple fact that the license, source and naming of the author has to be kept intact. There not a word about on how or in which way they have to be kept. The only restricting rule is: The mentioning has to be found at an appropriate place. If this happens one time on the description page or a hundred times (inside picture, watermark, exif, ...) doesn't matter. --Niabot (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete - incompatible with all of the licenses we accept - Jcb (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Agreed, I think the template is misinterpreting that section of the license. The textual content of the notices must be preserved, but the location can be changed to where it makes the most sense for the context in which the work is used. To interpret otherwise makes a mockery of the ability to create derivative works. The author can use a CC-BY-ND license if that is what they truly want (but those can't be on Commons). It's fine to have stuff in the EXIF, but please also put the information on the image page too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete. The entire point of forbidding non-derivative licenses is to prevent people from attaching all sorts of random conditions to image re-use. Commons is for free (libre) images, not sort-of free images. If people are misusing your images, you should either take legal action against them or report them at the Village Pump. Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, cc-by-nd is NOT what i want. Anyone can edit the pictures - but he has to leave the WM untouched. What about paintings. Did you remome the signs there too??? -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is an original, that is now in public domain, then it is in the best interest to keep the hand drawn tag of the artist. But anyone would be free to remove it or to modify the image. The template states the opposite. On the other hand you would be free to remove my tag from this image if it had one. --Niabot (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it needs to be perfectly possible to make a crop of the image, say focusing in one one person in the photo, and that crop would not include the watermark. There are many forms of "derivative"; you appear to only allow some basic edits to the entire picture but not other forms. In looking, I do not see a watermark on most of the pictures which have this tag... if you are referring to a digital watermark of some kind, that would not be possible on say a printed version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete Obviously, per nom. Moros y Cristianos 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the older images has no visible WM - thats only on my new once. And you're right too, that cropping images may crop the WM. The idea is, to include the license and the manner and make sure, that both were published, if the image would be used anywhere else. I have two ways, what i can do with my images. Publishing under a free license or sale my pictures. I chose the first way, cause i think, it's an good idea to share them with the public. The licence say, You must keep intact all notices - not You must keep intact any notices. So, where is the problem?? -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly this is your misunderstanding of the wording or English language.

In Deutsch/in German: Es ist von allen Hinweisen auf die Lizenz und den Urheber die Rede. Eben nicht von jedem Hinweis der irgendwo angebracht ist. Letzteres wäre schon rein von der Logik ein Unding. Nicht alle Programme unterstützen EXIF. So könnte man also mit diesen Programmen keine Bilder bearbeiten wo die Lizenz im Bildanhang vermerkt ist. Genau aus diesem Grund wurde eine solche Formulierung verwendet die besagt, dass der Hinweis in originaler Form erhalten werden muss (also im Wort) und nicht wie das zu geschehen hat. --Niabot (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I placed the deletion notice on the template's page in <noinclude> tags - otherwise it seems that the images the template is included are pproposed for deletion which they are not - right? ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete or else redirect to {{Nonderivative}} and speedy delete all images tagged as such. Option 1 is that such a restriction is not allowed under a CC license which allows derivatives, which makes this useless and unenforceable and it should be deleted. Option 2 is that is is in fact an allowable legal loophole in which case any image with such restrictions is outside of COM:SCOPE. I'm actually inclined to believe that it is an allowable loophole, but we shouldn't allow images with such restrictions in either case. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the consequence. If you don't like images witch are watermarked, you have to delete them. On the other side you accept files licensed under cc-by-sa - so you have to accept the rules too. If theres no loophole in the license, i've also to accecpt it. Same rules to booth parties. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Keep until better license text of CC-4.0-forms and (at this time) only for CC-by-sa/3.0/de-relating files. In my opinion, there is an difference between the /unported and the /de-version of the CC-by-sa/3.0. The /unported says in 4c keep intact all copyright notices (meaning, that the informations must be present as given) and the /de says alle dazu gehörenden Rechtevermerke unberührt lassen (my translation: keep all copyrights notices belongs to it unaffected, meaning that the copyright notices are to be left as they are stated). I think, that is the problem, that could only be affected to the german-sublicense. I strongly disagree to nomination in this way, that WM-policies and longstanding practices stands over law. And it affects not the right to modify the picture. As someone has watermarks in it, you have to reintegrated this in the manner like the original. In Deutsch aus meiner Sicht ist da wirklich ein Unterschied zwischen der Unported-Version und der deutschen Sprachversion, während ich den anderen zustimme, dass laut Abschnitt 4c alle Rechtevermerke erhalten bleiben müssen in der Unported-Lizenz steht in der deutschen Lizenz drin, dass die Vermerke an sich unberührt bleiben müssen. Mag es eine Sache sein, die durch die Fassung der deutschen Version der Lizenz ungenügend berücksichtigt wurde, aber da steht drin, dass die Rechte-Vermerke unberührt bleiben müssen, nicht dass die Rechtevermerke erhalten bleiben müssen. Selbst ein Verändern der Datei bleibt möglich, man braucht ja nur das Wasserzeichen (in der Art und Weise des Originalwerkes) erneut in das bearbeitete Werk einzufügen. Daher bin ich für behalten. --Quedel (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nachtrag aufgrund Saibo's Nachfrage: bei seiner Lizenzwahl (CC-by-sa-3.0-de) hat er mit dem WM-erhalten Recht, bei einer anderen Lizenz wie CC-by-sa-3.0 wiederum nicht. Ich bezog mich dabei auf das im Admin-Noticeboard verlinkte Bild File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg. --Quedel (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If truly CC-by-sa-3.0-de is legally capable of preventing the removal of watermarks, I think we should resolve to make it an invalid license for Commons material. I'd want to see other German speakers' interpretations though. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I compared the CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE and CC-BY-SA-3.0 multiple times. The german variation is even little bit less restrictive, since some aspects are shortened. It only speaks about a proper mentioning of the author and license. It does no prevent you from modifying the image or to remove watermarks. This would be sick indeed and contrary to anything else stated inside the license. But this is just an misinterpretation. --Niabot (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that what i mean. Maybe i misunderstood the english licence agreement (my english is really worse). Isn't there a difference between all notices, any notices and some notices?? Furthermore in the human-readable summary they say You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's part of why I'm inclined to say that it really is allowable legally, but then it falls afoul of commons project scope which does not allow any "restrictions on the creation of derivative works (except for copyleft)". Requiring that any derivative work retains the watermark certainly qualifies as a restriction, at least as I understand it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another misunderstanding. That just refers to the naming/wording, not the way how this words are attached. --Niabot (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not want to initiate a conflict :( Its just my interpretation of the license. Maybe we have to talk about a ruleset handling this problem. Please don't misunderstood my ambitions: I'm interested in finding a solution - i do not want my head against a wall!! I just want to save my rights and find a better working solution for handling cc-by-sa licendes files in an out of wiki... -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I proposed in an earlier discussion, we really should ask Creative-Commons, as the creator of this license, what they meant by the above cited statement. Thereafter we can think about conclusions for Commons, if necessary. Simply to conclude, as we wouldn't like such a restriction, it can't be meant that way, is wishful thinking. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete I would agree Dcoetzee interpretation. We have been removing watermarks for a principle and an ethic to ensure the quality of the image, so a requirement that we would have to have images uploaded tagged with whichever watermark that the uploader wishes to add could make for some butt ugliness and a stream of deletion requests. If this deletions restricts us with licences, so be it.

 Delete. The licensee shall have the right to create and reproduce adaptations (closely paraphrasing Section 3 b). "Adaptation" means a work based upon the licensed work, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, or other alterations. It includes any form in which the work may be recast, transformed, or adapted (Section 1). It follows that for a photo, it should be possible to crop it or recast it as a pencil drawing, for example. You may not impose any terms or technological measures on the work that restrict the terms of the license or the ability of the recipient to exercise the rights granted under the terms of the license (Section 4 a–c). The license constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the licensed work (Section 8 e). Keeping copyright notices intact (Section 4 a–c) simply means preserving the wording and distributing it with the work. It does not mean preserving the exact location, color, typeface or other attributes of the notices, because that would contradict the freedoms given in Section 3 b and impose restrictions prohibited by Section 4 a–c. It also contradicts http://freedomdefined.org/Definition, to which all works on Commons must conform. See also Commons:Watermarks. Thus, it contradicts the license itself as well as Commons' licensing requirements, and both contradictions are grounds for deletion, even when regarded separately. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Delete This templates text is a wrong interpretation of the license text. That doesn't say that the attribution of the author has to be kept as a watermark. Otherwise the author could easily make a CC-BY-SA-ND out of the CC-BY-SA. If the license would allow such a condition it would be a contradiction in terms and in order that be null and void. Chaddy (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Delete: regardless of whether or not the licence text permits the imposition of copyright notices in the form of watermarks on images, we are justified in developing a policy of not having images marked in this manner in the Commons. Such watermarks reduce the utility of the images, and can occasionally be misleading – for example, the watermark may contain the © symbol, and while there is nothing inaccurate about this (the copyright holder does not give up his or her copyright when licensing an image to the Commons), it may give the impression that the image has not been licensed under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you want to use images w/o a watermark cause of better quality and usability. But so you will not be able to use my images furthermore, cause i want to keep it inside. Maybe the best idea is to delete all the watermarked files and give up using my files. If you want to use them in the future, you have to accept my discreet visible license tag. And you have to keep this template too - as u can see above, there are too many interpretations of the license. (sorry bout my english, hope you still understand me) -- L3XLoGiC (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

At first you will have to know, that you can't revoke a given license. At second you have to know, that you can't pressure the community with the simple fact, that you aren't willing to participate anymore. Everyone has the right to go and everyone that is willing to accept the license and all it's implications can contribute as usual. In short: It would be nice if you can accept this facts. If not, then this is you personal decision. --Niabot (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, keeping copyright notices intact cannot be interpreted as a requirement to preserve watermarks, because that contradicts the rest of the license, so there really aren't "too many interpretations" (not valid ones anyway). If you have misunderstood the license, the licensing of your files may be void, and they may have to be deleted. But we are not going to start accepting licenses that don't allow photos to be cropped or recast as drawings, because we only accept freely licensed content. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting his files is not a good option - too much work from others was put in and some are quite valuable for us which I do not want to see wasted. If he does not understand a license he grants it is his problem. He, according to his dewp talk page, even has consulted a lawyer about the license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that other people put in work was explicitly dismissed as a reason for keeping in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Kalon macau, and in that case, there were actually several indications that the uploader had understood the license and simply changed their mind later on. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete as a violation of the principles of Commons, as the images must be modifiable in any way. And while I would of course like to see the images kept, if the author refuses the idea of removing the watermarks and the license used supports that concept, then delete all images so licensed. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete because the wording of the template is as innacurate as the not legally binding "human readable summary" of the CC license itself. I think that you can keep a notice of authorship in the kind of a watermark intact by simply cutting out that portion of the image and transposing it to another place in the derivative work, other games of splitting hairs are imaginable. Albeit I hope/think that the interpretation of that the phrasing of the CC-by-SA allows an author to state the way of how he wants to be attributed is valid, this strict interpretation made by L3XLoGiC is overshooting the aim of the license, making it a kind of "ND" and is thus not legit. Tryphon said it smart and simply in the first voting statement on this page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete For all the reasons so ably made above. At its most basic, it runs counter to a fundamental principle here on the Commons. Moreover, the potential proliferation of unnecessary watermarks on Commons images is a negative impact that should be avoided at all costs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)