Talk:GLAM-WIKI Recommendations

Law

"If content which was once published under a Creative Commons license is revoked by the publisher, delete it on Wikimedia too." - um, the point is you can't just revoke these licenses. Anyone who released something under a licence and had the right to do so cannot just yank them back. This question indicates confusion. - David Gerard 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As the a copyright holder you are indeed allowed to re-license your work - even to change something from CC-by to all-rights-reserved. However, what you can't revoke is third party copies of the work that were legally created whilst the work was under a free-license. What this grew out of was, if I recall correctly, a fear that if an institution should release a work that they thought to be theirs to release under a free-license and then subsequently discovered that it had copyright claims on it, they would want to make sure that downstream copies of that work were deleted too. Of course, Wikimedia projects would indeed comply with this request in this circumstance precisely because the work is copyrighted again. Witty lama 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the case where they didn't have the right to release it in the first place. Of course, that's fine and we'd dive on that straight away. I hope they were reassured on this point :-) But they can't release it and yank it back - David Gerard 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I'm happy to discover your section. I agree with your doubts. @Witty lama: I tried to clarify: Special:Diff/22112709. Is it OK for you? Clearly this does not apply if GLAM changes the license from morning to night because they like the logo of another license better :D --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)