Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Change-of-KOGL

• Also: {{KOGL}}

As I read it, KOGL license are revocable. At Use Terms Guide for Korea Open Government License (KOGL) we see:

"The use terms of KOGL's work may be changed. However, the user can use the work without altering its purpose of use if the user used that work prior to the change of the use terms."

While that says that anyone using the licensed work before the change may continue to use it, new uses after the change must conform to the changed license. In a perfect world, we could monitor the status of the license on works with the {{KOGL}} template and delete them immediately if it were changed. However, the world is not perfect and we have no mechanism for ensuring that they are taken down immediately if the license is changed, which, in turn, means that people could take images from Commons and use them commercially not knowing that the license had been changed and that their use was copyright infringement.

Since only the Type 1 license is acceptable to Commons, any change will render the work unusable on Commons. We know that in several cases the license has been changed from type 1 to type 4 (NC and ND) Therefore these templates are useless.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward:  Oppose I think "The use terms of KOGL's work may be changed. However, the user can use the work without altering its purpose of use if the user used that work prior to the change of the use terms." means KOGL isn't revocable. For example, if the license of the original file is changed from KOGL Type 1 to KOGL Type 4, it means that people who used to use the existing KOGL Type 1 can still use it as KOGL Type 1. Even if the license of the original file is changed from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC-SA, those who used to use CC-BY-SA will continue to be able to use CC-BY-SA. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To get an accurate answer, I made an inquiry. Please do not delete it unconditionally and wait for a reply. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: will the relevant institution or government body in your country send a correspondence to Wikimedia Foundation regarding their response to this issue? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think that inablity to monitor license changes can be resolved by a warning notifying reusers that they need to verify potential license changes at source. Linkie it is with {{Trademarked}} So I do not consider this to be a big problem. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 and Ankry: I am currently asking questions to KOGL-related organizations. I will write an answer as soon as I get an answer. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At our page which sets forth our fundamental licensing policy, we have:

"The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable."

This license is not perpetual -- we have seen that it can and has been changed.

The policy requires that it be non-revocable. It does not say that it must be non-revocable with respect to users until it is changed -- it says that it must be non-revocable, period. This does not meet either test.

Also, the comparison to a change from CC-By to CC-BY-NC above is invalid. Any change from CC-BY is invalid. If a work was once licensed as CC-BY, then it remains CC-BY forever and any user, before or after the invalid change, may rely on the CC-BY license..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unfortunately it does appear to be a not-completely-free licence. If it were to say that a user could continue using and distributing the work after the change, then I would believe it to be a free licence, since any user would be allowed to continue distributing it under the original terms, and then other users could get the work from them. But this is not the case here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward, JWilz12345, Ankry, and Gone Postal: I got an answer. The contents are as follows.

If it is used according to the type condition before the change, it is not a problem to use it before, but it is desirable to use it according to the changed type after knowing the change.

Ox1997cow (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And deleting {{KOGL}} is undesirable. This is because there are many works that maintain KOGL Type I. I think that it is recommended to delete only works whose KOGL type has been changed by submitting a deletion request. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I have some reservations over that. Files here are expected to be used by anyone, in any way. According to COM:Licensing, files here must not be subjected to copyright restrictions "which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." Unless the conditions set forth are "COM:Non-copyright restrictions". Or are you saying that there is a cutoff date (similar to Pixabay files), in which files created from the date the restrictive license took effect are no longer welcome here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: It means we should follow the changed terms if the license changes. For example, if the license is changed from KOGL Type 1 to KOGL Type 4 on July 1, 2021, we should use as KOGL Type 4 from July 1, 2021. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: if we were to follow the changed terms, that is already against the mission of Commons in providing freely-reusable files — files that can be freely-used by anyone at anytime and anywhere, for any purposes including commercial reuses, IMO. But my question again, are the new terms non-copyright restrictions? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Unfortunately, I think it's not non-copyright restriction. See this file. This file includes below contents.

The head of a public institution, etc. may request the user to comply with the terms of use or suspend the provision of public works in any of the following cases: 3. When it is necessary to change the type of KOGL that is being applied.

Ox1997cow (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 한국어 탬플릿이 존재하는 공용에서 한국어를 사용하지 말란 법은 없으니, 한국어로 깔고 가겠습니다. 공공누리 라이센스가 제정된 이후 실질적으로 라이센스의 규약 내용이 변경된 사례, 철회된 사례는 없다시피 합니다. 더욱이 위키미디어 공용에서 주료 사용되는 사진 자료의 경우에는 공공누리 홈페이지, 공공기관의 아카이브 사이트를 통해 해당 사진 자료 등이 관리가 되고 있으니만큼 실질적으로 철회될 가능성이 없습니다. 따라서, '사실상 전무하다시피 한' 철회의 위험을 지지 않고자 해당 자료들을 모조리 삭제한다면 개인 뿐만 아니라 범지구적인 공��기관, 기업, 단체에서 발행한 자유 미디어를 함께 공유한다는 위키미디어 공용 본연의 취지가 훼철될 수 있다는 것이 제 의견입니다. 덧붙여서, 제가 영어를 읽지 못해서 한국어로 의견을 남기는 것이 아닙니다. 한국어를 읽지 못하는 분이 구글 번역, 파파고 등을 사용해 기계 번역하는 과정에서 제가 말한 의미가 손실되거나 왜곡되어 제 의견이 제대로 피력되지 못한다면, 이에 대해서는 부적절한 총의 형성으로 판단하겠습니다. --Trainholic (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

유감스럽겠지만 COM:PCP 상 라이선스의 자유도에 대한 합리적인 의심이 있는 경우 파일은 언제든지 삭제될 수 있고, 그에 대해 자신의 의견이 반영되지 않았다고 부적절한 총의 형성이라고 주장하는 것은 아무 의미가 없습니다. — regards, Revi 11:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

단지 기계번역 과정에서 제 의견을 왜곡하지 말아달라는 의미였습니다. 앞선 토론에서 그랬던 상황이 있었어서요. --Trainholic (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I disagree with the idea of removing most KOGL files in Wikimedia Commons. I think the idea of removing all of them due to concerns of it being changed is too extreme. If files are used in the wrong way, it would be common sense to remove them, but removing perfectly fine files just because of the possibility is too harsh. KOGL files have significantly contributed to Wikipedia in many languages for them being used in Wikimedia Commons. As an uploader in Korean Wikipedia, it would be truly sad to see them removed. Removing them will bring a lot of confusion not just in Commons, but Korea related documents througout all Wikimedia Foundation projects. --Takipoint123 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible that either you misunderstand the position presented here, or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. The concern is not that the licence itself will change, as could be done with any licence by updating the version. The concern is that the creator may chose to change the licence type. The way I see this we have a licence, that says "you can use this file freely, but if I decide to use a different licence, then all the people should also change to using that licence (except those who were using the file already)". This goes against the spirit of COM:L. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was bad with the paraphrasing, sorry for the confusion. However, I personally think that the file can be continued to be used as is, without needing to remove it. Like Ankry has said, there are ways to restrict people (who were not using the file from before) by adding a disclaimer such as {{Tradmarked}}. For the non-revocable clause, the license is nonrevocable for those already using it, which as long as it was uploaded before the change, general use of the file should not be affected (of course, the story changes for anyone trying to reproduce/modify it after the change).--Takipoint123 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Takipoint123: per Ox1997cow in their reply to my question, unfortunately the restriction seem to be a form of copyright restriction. Ankry's suggestion of adding a similar tag to all images tagged with KOGL may not fit well as {{Trademarked}}, {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, {{Personality}}, and other restriction tags by the same family are all non-copyright restrictions. The open concern is (using Gone Postal's input) assuming I change the KOGL licensing type that I use in my files, I will also order all media archives and reusers to comply with the new noncommercial licensing. Failure to do that, I can launch a "death sentence" COM:DMCA notices upon them.

However, let's assume that around half of KOGL images will only be affected, and the rest are still fine for Commons, I can assume a gradual depletion of all KOGL files here as the copyright holders gradually enforce unfree licensing in their older files. I can see a trend towards noncommercial restriction in SoKor lately (plus the noncommercial FOP there in mind). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I saw license of many KOGL files was changed KOGL Type 1(Commercial OK) to KOGL Type 4(Noncommercial only). However, the files whose licenses have been changed are only part of the whole. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: is there a way for everyone to search at KOGL website to know which of the files have suitable (Type 1) license and which have unsuitable license? Do they have some sort of categorization or classification? It would be best if there is a way of determining such files, so that those changed to unfree KOGL licenses will be removed from Commons while the other ones (under Type 1) will remain unaffected? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Unfortunately, we can't know if the license has changed unless we manually verify the source. How about turning this template into speedy deletion template? If this template is used for a file whose license has changed, it will be subject to speedy deletion. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward, Ankry, Gone Postal, and Sadopaul: what can you say about converting this template into a speedy deletion template as newly suggested by Ox1997cow? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: By checking the original source, it can be used as speedy deletion template when KOGL is changed. (when the user confirms that KOGL has been changed) It would be nice to have variables. (Display changed license among KOGL Type 2, KOGL Type 3, KOGL Type 4, All Rights Reserved) Ox1997cow (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If KOGL is able to be changed, then that licence should not be used in the first place. If, however, my understanding is false then this template can remain, because it is just a "for your information" template. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KOGL type change means the designated type was wrong from the start. I agree with {{Change-of-KOGL}} to speedy deletion template.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 03:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The user argues that the terms and conditions of the KOGL can always be changed, so the use of it should be completely stopped. However, according to this link [1], there is an exception clause that says, "If you used it before changing the terms of use, you can continue to use the work without changing its purpose," and it seems that the clause could eliminate this concern. —Answerer 5do (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't the restriction of "you can continue to use the work without changing its purpose" violate our re-use policies, just like we cannot accept Creative Commons Non-Derivative licenses? — Huntster (t @ c) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to guidelines for KOGL, KOGL type is not time dependent. It rarely change just when its type has been falsely marked, and because it is determined by well-established rules, mistake happen less frequently than other files on commons, especially dictating "own works", but we don't prevent people from uploading "own works". Moreover, government published the copyright have duty to notify the change in type so we don't need to worry about perfect world.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 11:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(translation) KOGL은 규정된 절차와 기준을 통해 부여되는 것으로, 유형 변경은 처음부터 유형이 잘못 부여된 경우에만 이루어집니다. 이는 다른 공용 파일들과 다를 점이 없습니다.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that suggests that the government needs to notify Commons or anyone else except by changing the type on the web site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again and I noticed that they "can" notify instead of "must". The second point I provided should be changed in "right" instead of "duty".— Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a fundamental violation of COM:L which explicitly requires that licenses be irrevocable. Also note the in any case, {{Change-of-KOGL}} is useless since any change of the license will result in the file being either NC or ND or both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose and  Keep Since it clearly states that there will be no ex post facto regulations, the Commons needs not to consider the post-changes of the KOGL terms after the uploads. There are numerous images uploaded to the Commons under the KOGL Type 1, which is equivalent to the public domain, and there were some license level changes on the original files after the uploads. But the uploaded files were not affected by those changes, because ex post facto regulations are not applicable under the KOGL terms at the time of the uploads. The same applies here. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep공공누리는 위의 Trainholic 님이 말하신 것과 같이 철회된 사례가 거의 없으며,위키미디어 공용의 의미가 훼손될 수 있습니다.명백히 저작권을 위반한 사례에 대해서는 삭제해야 되겠지만,대한민국 정부에서도 이 저작물들을 잘 관리하고 있으므로 저작권 침해가 아닙니다. 이 KOGL(공공누리)저작물은 위키미디어 공용을 위해서라도 보전해야 합니다.

As Trainholic said above, there are very few cases of revocation of KOGL, and if it is deleted, the meaning of Wikimedia Commons may be undermined. Clearly, cases in violation of copyright should be deleted, but the Korean government is also managing this KOGL's literary work well so this is not the copyright violate. KOGL works must be preserved even for Wikimedia Commons. Seodaemungu Student (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are many many images which we would very much like to have on Commons, but cannot because they are not freely licensed. This is a fundamental violation of Commons most important policy -- its requirement that licenses be irrevocable. The rule does not say "non-revocable unless there are no ex-post facto revocations". It says "non-revocable" period. Also note, as I said above, if a corporate user of the file is sold, the license ends. We require that people wanting to use an image can rely on the license shown, without having to check it. Yann, @Clindberg: , Christian, Túrelio, User:Ellin Beltz, what do you think about this? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons licenses cannot be revoked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was DR to kill KOGL for exactly same reason, (I can't find the link right now) and my opinion remains unchanged.  Delete. — regards, Revi 11:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably somewhat GWOIA-like problem?  Keep for now because this will require a large community discussion via COM:RFC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

토론에 참여하시는 여러분께서 참조하셔야 할 점은, "철회된 사례가 거의 없음" 은 라이선스 문구상 "철회가 절대 불가능" (설사 죽었다 깨어나도 그것이 철회될 수 없음) 을 의미하는 것이 아니므로, 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%라도 라이선스 철회가 가능하다면 위키미디어 공용의 예방적 원칙에 따라 삭제되어야 한다는 것이 위키미디어 공용의 일관적인 정책입니다.

(For non-ko speaker:) "There is near-zero case of revocation" is not identical to "revocation is NOT possible" and if license revocation is possible by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, Wikimedia Commons' policy is that it must be deleted under the provisions of Precautionary Principle of Wikimdia Commons. — regards, Revi 20:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, note that under certain circumstances, the Government of Korea organs may request users cease using the file that went through Change-of-KOGL and desist from using it. (Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism Instruction No. 2019-6 proclaimed 2019-01-31. (kowikisource))

제15조 (공공저작물의 제공중단) ① 공공기관 등의 장은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우 이용자에게 이용조건을 준수하도록 요청하거나 공공저작물의 제공을 중단할 수 있다.

1. 공공누리에 따른 이용조건을 위반하여 이용하는 경우
2. 공공저작물의 이용이 제3자의 권리를 현저하게 침해하는 경우
3. 적용중인 공공누리 유형의 변경이 필요한 경우
4. 공공저작물 제공 및 이용으로 인한 분쟁이 발생한 경우
5. 공공저작물을 불법행위 등 부정한 목적에 악용하는 경우

② 공공기관 등의 장은 제1항 각호의 사유로 공공저작물의 제공이 중단된 경우에는 즉시 홈페이지를 통해 공공저작물의 제공이 중단되었음을 공표하고 문화체육관광부장관에게 그 사실을 알려야 한다.

Article 15 (Cease of publication of Public Work) ① Head of office of Government Office may request users (of the "Public Work") to comply with the its license or stop providing the Public Work.

1. When using the Work against the KOGL.
2. When using Public Work infringes third party's rights.
3. When KOGL type needs to be changed.
4. When there is dispute arising from usage of Public Work.
5. When abusing Public Work for illegal purposes.

② Head of Government office must announce it on the website, and notify Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism immediately.

Clause 3 of Article 15 is clearly out of question that "mere change of KOGL" is a good reason to send cease and desist from using old license. No-go here. — regards, Revi 21:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Especially true as a license reviewer, where I've seen occasions that South Korean government works that are originally licensed under KOGL-1 are changed into all rights reserved by the government. Probably just similar what we should do when someone claims copyright due to URAA (i.e. deletion).廣九直通車 (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we probably need to mark {{Deprecated}}, and announce users that were using it via talk page, to let em consider changing license tag(s) or otherwise nominate their KOGL-licensed files for mass DRs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prodedural  Keep. Agree with User:Liuxinyu970226 to have a COM:RFC for this because it affects thousands of files that with KOGL v1 license (especially for the image from Cheongwadae)--A1Cafel (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Template:Change-of-KOGL, but  Keep Template:KOGL per the statement at Open License Marking Criteria for Public Works Section 4C:

Public institutions may change the license terms of public works. However, users who already use prior to the change shall be allowed to use according to the license terms before change even after it is changed.

which means that KOGL is revocable, but a {{Deprecated}} template should be added because some of the files are uploaded prior the change of license, those should stay on Commons (Perhaps we should create a template for images from Cheongwadae?, because it seems that it is the only agency that performed a license change under KOGL). --A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural  Keep: better sent to either COM:VP or COM:RFC. This template DR has become a "mess", that a single decision may collaterally affect thousands of files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward, Ox1997cow, JWilz12345, Ankry, Gone Postal, Trainholic, Takipoint123, Answerer 5do, Cyberdoomslayer, Seodaemungu Student, -revi, 廣九直通車, and Liuxinyu970226: Just started a RfC at Template talk:KOGL#Non-revocable?--A1Cafel (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no consensus for deletion of the templates. --Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]