Commons talk:Ownership of pages and files

Authors names in galleries

It says not to sign your name, but what about stating who the image is by? I've run across many galleries where editors put their name in the captions of images they created. I think something should be said about this practice. Rocket000 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, is the author of it relevant, does anyone care? Just like in the body of a wikipedia article. We don't define how galleries should look, or exactly what they contain. Assuming the gallery pages are for a general audience, what info do they want or need against each image? Some images perhaps don't need a caption at all (the page and gallery title may provide sufficient info). But there is a lot you could include in a caption - what, where, when, who, why, wquality. But it is only a brief caption, so perhaps only the most relevant info to suit the subject. In most cases I can't see the relevance of the image creator to people browsing the page looking for an image (I am assuming this is the purpose of commons pages, this is after all just a file repository, categories and galleries are to make it easy to find a suitable image). Personally I wouldn't stress if someone wants to put their name under every image (let them have a little pride in their work, we don't give much else back to contributors :-), but they can't complain if someone else comes along and provides more useful captions - it's just like any other edits to galleries, different people will have different ideas of what is best, they need to co-operate. --Tony Wills 08:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For Commons it is best practice not to "state who the image is by" which is what I am sure was meant by "signing your name". Other wikis have varying practices with regards to this. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Visual example:

• ExampleMessage.PNG

  An example image. It is used for examples. -Rocket000 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• ExampleImage.PNG

  An example image by Rocket000.

Ok, so I never saw someone actually doing the first one, but I see the second one a lot. Rocket000 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL and CC-BY-SA

References to GFDL should be changed to CC-BY-SA, specially in sentences dealing with licenses in articles.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons attribution requirements

Prompted by a case here on Commons where a photographer wanted their name removed from crops of their photos, I've mentioned the ability for a creator to request the removal of attribution from derivatives, as explained here. I stopped short of suggesting a specific method in which creators could request such an action here on Commons (simply mentioning it in the edit summary should be enough), but hopefully this information will be of use to creators who might feel their only recourse to unwanted derivatives is to request deletion of their files. If anyone wants to reword or clarify this section, please feel free. For reference, the relevant clauses in the licenses are Section 3(a)(3) for 4.0 and Section 4(a) for 3.0 and earlier. clpo13_(talk) 22:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)