Commons:Deletion requests/File:Knol screenshot.png
Non-free image. This is a screenshot from Google Knol, a defunct encyclopedia project which allowed contributors to determine which licence they wanted to make their contributions available under, and the person who wrote this one chose a free licence. However the screenshot also includes the user interface of Google Knol, and I don't see any indication that is freely licensed. Their terms of service imply it isn't (You acknowledge that Google owns all right, title and interest in and to the Service, including all intellectual property rights... Accordingly, you agree that you will not copy, reproduce, alter, modify, or create derivative works from the Service). The original web page also had "©2008 Google" at the bottom. -Hut 8.5 09:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The screenshot explicitly states that the knol is licensed "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License". This is an intentional feature of the project: "Contributions were licensed by default under the Creative Commons CC-BY-3.0 license" (emphasis mine). You cannot release something under CC and then apply additional restrictions such as controlling the format, i.e. disallowing screenshots. Your reading of the ToS has zero bearing here, as you even quote yourself, they're referring to "intellectual property rights" and "derivative works from the Service" (not knols, restriction of which would violate the CC license). Websites back then automatically placed "©" tags at the bottom, and that cannot override an explicit CC release. Finally, the interface itself is de minimim, comprising at most a blue background. An admin from enwiki, User:Graeme Bartlett, also agreed with this. Opencooper (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the text of the knol is available under the Creative Commons licence, because that's the option the user selected when they created it. However the screenshot is also a deriviative work of the software which powered Google Knol, and if that's non-free then the screenshot is also non-free. The copyright status of the text the user posted is not relevant to that. It is very possible for the contents of a site and the software which powers it to use different licences - for example the text of Wikipedia is available under CC-BY-SA but the software which powers it is under the GPL, and if you want to use a screenshot from Wikipedia then you have to comply with both licences. It is absolutely possible for software interfaces to be copyrighted (see Commons:Screenshots), this one is a lot more than just a "blue background", and the threshold for copyright protection is very low. De minimis is not relevant here because the interface is not incidental to the screenshot, on the contrary showing people what the interface for Google Knol looked like was the main point of uploading the image in the first place. Hut 8.5 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep firstly as the creative commons license is clearly displayed, and does not appear to have any limitation saying that it only applies to a subsection of the page. Even if there is a simple copyright Google statement on the page that does not negate the creative commons license that is clearly granted, as a creative commons attribution license is still "copyright". Lastly the extra text on the page that provides the formatting is too simple for copyright to apply, consisting of a box and a few words. Whether this is suitable for Commons is a different issue, but it is suitable for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
