User talk:Nadjita

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the creator of image File:Roof direction example.png ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you have taken then you can make it available under a specific free license (except some cases, like photos of modern sculptures in coutries without freedom of panorama or taking photo of copyrighted artwork).

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Nadjita}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified 2022, September}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.


Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


Are you sure that you are the sole author of ? Is it not based on logo of that bicycle route, made by someone else? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny I am the sole author of this SVG file, which is based on a CCA4 JPG file. German law declares a derived work of "pixel art" which reduces it into basic geometrical shapes (like I did) as a new piece, so it would be considered my own artwork. If, for some obscure reason, we're not dealing with German law here, then feel free to mark it CCA4, because the flyer from which this comes was CCA4, as are all flyers about bicycle routes here. --Nadjita (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"German law declares a derived work of "pixel art" which reduces it into basic geometrical shapes (like I did) as a new piece" - I am curious about limits here, presumably decomposing work into 10 000 000 squares (pixels) and declaring it own work would not be accepted... Maybe actual reason is that logo is not creative enough to rise above TOO? But from it does not seem obvious Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny As I said, we can also move this to CCA4 and quote the city of Hannover as creator. I've worked in the logo creation business when I was younger, and we were told that conversion of a rasterized image to a vectorized image qualifies as an art by itself and produces a new, patentable piece. But that was 20 years ago, so maybe things have changed. Shall I just move this and the derived logos to CCA4 then?

"qualifies as an art by itself and produces a new" yes, but it is also a derivative work (see ). Patentability is yet another separate issue (not sure is art patentable by itself, there are also trademarks...) Do you know what is the license status of that original logos? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny CCA4 (, but I can explicitly ask the city if really needed. Everything they publish in brochures in CCA4 though, so there's not going to be any sort of surprise.

Oh, if they use CC-BY 4.0 then it is possible to just mention that original icon is on that license and things should be fine (if original icon is on that license - maybe brochure is CC-BY but icon is not? Not sure is it possible.) Sorry for bothering about this, but it gets worse where everyone involved is no longer active anymore and you can only guess and files still have unclear licensing status Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the images in a CC-BY 4.0 can be under a different license than the brochure they appear in, but I might be wrong. If so, they would need a separate license hint, I suppose?