User:Rama/use my images

English - Français

All my images are offered under two Free licences: the CeCILL licence, and the Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr or Cc-by-sa-3.0-fr. You are free to chose either licence or both when using one of my images.

What do the licences mean?

The licences constitute binding contracts that define rights and requirements:

• your rights: you can use these images, modified or as such, for whatever purpose you wish including commercial use.
• the requirements: you must credit the author and cite the licence everytime you use the image.

How do I fulfill the requirements of the licences?

Photograph by Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr

The requirements can be fulfilled by a credit line containing the name "Rama" and the term "Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr". For instance,

• "Rama, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr"
• "(c) Rama, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr"
• "Photograph by Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr"

are examples of sufficient lines. If possible, the last one would be appreciated.

You are free to adapt to your preferences or conventions as long as "Rama" and "Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr" appear. In particular, you are free to set the credit line in an index at the end of the publication rather than directly under the image, if such are your typesetting conventions.

Do I need to ask authorisation?

You do not need ask further authorisation to do so, the licence labels suffice.

However, I appreciate being informed of academic or commercial usage of my documents. The reason is that keeping a record of such professional use helps me pose as a serious photographer when requesting accreditations. Hence, keeping me informed can help me produce more and better images. You will be mentionned here (unless you do not wish to, naturally).

You can contact me by e-mail or by writing on my talk page.

The terms of the licences do not suit me. What should I do?

Please contact me by e-mail to negotiate a non-exclusive proprietary licence at the usual rates as definied by photographers' unions.

Note that using Cc-by-sa (or similar) media without crediting the author and citing the licence constitutes a breach of copyright. A Free licence does not mean that the media is in the public domain.

Why the "-fr" and the CeCILL?

For my convenience, both licences inherit the French legal framework, which I expect to be less unfamiliar than others, particularly of Anglo-Saxon traditions. Furthermore, in recent years, France has had a reasonnable record of abiding by the rule of law, providing more adequate guarantees than some other countries.

This does not constitute an endorsement of any particular policy of the present or past governments of France, but merely a broad and general practical assessment of the situation of the last few decades.

Why the CeCILL?

The CeCILL is a recent alternative to the GPL licence, that inherit the French legal system. I like the terms of this licence and the spirit from which it stems, hence I intend to promote it. It is not particularly well suited to images, though, hence the double-licencing with Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr. There have been rumours of a draft of a licence for media by the same authors, but up to my knowledge this has not materialised yet.

As such, I advise the choice of the Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr, which is probably more convenient for your purpose.

I have another question

Do ask it by e-mail. There is no such thing as a stupid question, there are only questions with easy answers.