Category talk:Creations from WB2018IN

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

Confused with licenses![edit]

Hello @Yann: We need your help here. As part of the m:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India), we've been creating several SVGs from the existing ones on Commons. However, many of the participants, including me, are quite confused about the license that should be used for the derivated SVG files. Should it be the same as the old one (mostly PD-old or PD-US-1923) or can this be put under CC BY-SA 4.0? This confusion is not just for the license, but also for the date and the author. I am listing a few cases here, please suggest the best way to do things.

All the latter images in each case are the original files. Please point out if there are many mistakes in each case, followed by what is the best practice to do that. I am also pinging @Shyamal: to join this conversation. KCVelaga (talk · mail) 17:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the participants to take part in this discussion, @Acagastya, Ananth subray, Atudu, Baljeet Bilaspur, and Fredericknoronha: @Gopala Krishna A, Gurlal Maan, Info-farmer, Jayprakash12345, and Jinoytommanjaly: @Lahariyaniyathi, Mahesh Iyer, Marajozkee, Manavpreet Kaur, and MKar: @Nitesh Gill, Rehman, Satpal Dandiwal, Satdeep Gill, and Saumyaanaidu: @Shypoetess, Stalinjeet Brar, Sumita Roy Dutta, Sushant savla, and Suyash.dwivedi: @Titodutta, Wikilover90, and Indrajitdas: KCVelaga (talk · mail) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KCVelaga. For CC-BY-SA instances, the original image's licence tag explicitly states share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one, hence the original author must be mentioned first. You may add an additional line after that to mention something like (Hindi version by KCVelaga) or something like that. In most cases, the date also should correspond to the original date the artwork/photo was made. I believe it is the same case as most PD content.
Of course, if the majority of the artwork was done by you, and you used - for example - just an outline of a map, but the map itself was entirely created by you, then you could license it under your name, and optionally mention that the map's borders/outlines was based on File:xxx by User:xxx. Kind regards, Rehman 01:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is in the public domain, you can choose whatever license you like, but if the source is under a CC-BY-SA license, you have to follow that, and credit the author(s) of the source. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

when i can give CC0 on derivative file?[edit]

  1. Usually i add few more descriptions for a file. e.g File:Diagram showing a double helix of a chromosome CRUK 065-ta.svg and i give the same license. When, i can change the license into CC0?--Info-farmer (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See File:Cloud computing with safe-ta.svg. it is created by 2 Commons files which are having different licenses. I joined the 2 files added ta-label. Finally, i uploaded under CC0. is it correct?--Info-farmer (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, one of the source files is under a CC-BY-SA, so you have to follow that. Your file should be under CC-BY-SA-4.0, and you have to credit the authors of the source files (Mozilla, MisterMatt and MesserWoland). Regards, Yann (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{.{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} or {.{cc-by-sa-4.0}} ? which one?--Info-farmer (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I learned that {.{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is correct. Thanks, @Shyamal: --Info-farmer (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Creations_from_WB2018IN&oldid=394101206"