File talk:Bridge11foot8.png

Replaceable fair use

The image is just one frame taken from many videos on a website that made the bridge and the website notable. The image instantly tells the reader the why the website and bridge became notable.

The website contains the copyright notice: "All material on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. (Unless otherwise noted). If you wish to license 11foot8 original footage for commercial purposes, please email me at info@11foot8.com."

The NonCommercial restriction makes the image non-free. Although I probably could get permission by emailing the copyright owner, it would have to go through the WP:OTRS process, which is quite complex. My previous experience with ORTS required that I stand over the shoulder of the copyright owner and guide then through the process. I can't do that over the Internet.

There are many videos of the bridge alleging "Creative Commons" on Youtube, but the exact license is not specified. As shown on Youtube, the required attribution is either not given or is well hidden. I am reluctant to use a Youtube video that does not clearly show exact licensing and attribution. For example see: Boxtruck carnage on Friday the 13th at the 11foot8 bridge

The bridge is still standing and could be photographed, but the photo would be of the bridge and not of the website that made the bridge notable. There is no free equivalent image of the website. Comfr (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The article's use of this image does not tie it to the videos, just that crashes occur. Conversely, we have File:Boxtruck carnage on Friday the 13th at the 11foot8 bridge.webm, which both better-illustrates the concept of the videos and is free-licensed (from what appears to be 11foot8's official youtube channel and free-licensed there). DMacks (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the image does not tie it to the videos. The tie-in was removed by another editor. I made an appropriate correction today.

How were you able to tell how the youtube video is licensed? I spent over two hours yesterday attempting verify the licensing on youtube. It says "Creative Commons," and nothing more. I clicked on most of the controls on the youtube page, but I got no more copyright information. In particular, how can you tell that it can be used for commercial purposes, as required by Commons? What should I click on for complete licensing information?

On the commons page for File:Boxtruck carnage on Friday the 13th at the 11foot8 bridge.webm, the following notice appears: "This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:License review needed for further instructions."

Thanks for volunteering your time to work on licensing issues. Comfr (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed was the lack of proper attribution on the youtube video. According to Creative Commons: "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." Although a link appears superimposed on the beginning of the video, it not a link that can be clicked on. This is one more thing that made me feel confused about the licensing status. Comfr (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

All good questions; the interface and terms are confusing sometimes. Will respond in detail later today. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I need all the help I can get. Comfr (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I fell asleep after work yesterday:) Here's my analysis of the sources and licenses:

Looking at [1], if I click [SHOW MORE] in the description section, I see "License [Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" that links to [2]. So the uploader has asserted CC-BY. All we have to do is figure out if the uploader really is allowed to do that.

I found that video on the 11foot8 website at [3]. Clicking the "share" or "watch on Youtube" link in the video reveals that it's the same Youtube URL. So the website embeds Youtube rather than someone re-uploading the website's content to Youtube. To really nail it down in the general case (easier than tracking each separate video on the website), check the "Please follow & like us :)" Youtube link on the website's pages. It goes to yovo68' channel, which is who uploaded the video. So anything they uploaded that looks like it came from their website is almost certainly legitimately owned by the website and we can trust whatever license they claim on Youtube.

The final concern is possibly contradictory license terms on the website vs Youtube. A CC-BY license is perpetual, so if it's ever anywhere been legitimately released that way, anyone can use it under those terms forever even if the owner decides to remove it from their channel, or host it there or somewhere else with a different license.

Turning now to the still image file that comes from [4], a site that embeds [5], that Youtube page does not indicate an open license.

So it appears that both the open-license tag on the commons-hosted video and the non-free license on the enwiki-hosted still from a different video are correct. DMacks (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I made an entry on the commons discussion page about conflicting licensing. I hope we can get this straightened out. Comfr (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This file also exists on Youtube without the NonCommercial restriction, so I should be able to change the licensing from fair use to CC-BY. Is that correct?