That said, isn’t there an argument to be made that if no more specific license is specified then the default license of the wiki (CC-BY-SA 2.0) applies?
one could argue it is already like this, the question is whether it is safe to assume that the uploader is the author.
In all cases - you can also take photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons! (they have a better upload process than OSM Wiki, mostly because their community is much much bigger and centers around file uploads)
Now that I’ve taken a look at the photos, it seems File:Oumi Railway Oumi-Hachiman Station gate.jpg - Wikimedia Commons is the only other photo with an AED in a vending machine. It has the same notice on the side too, partially covered. There’s another notice at the top saying the same thing (partially covered in the other photo).
one could argue it is already like this, the question is whether it is safe to assume that the uploader is the author.
@dieterdreist Good point. It’s definitely good to ask for confirmation.
I don’t know where the dialog you posted appears, but when I upload it when editing a page, I don’t see any field like that.
@_0174 That screenshot was fromSpecial:Upload, which is accessible via a link in the sidebar. But you’re right, the form you posted, which is built into the editing toolbar, does not have the same field!
In all cases - you can also take photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons! (they have a better upload process than OSM Wiki, mostly because their community is much much bigger and centers around file uploads)
sadly this one is on Japanese Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons, so not directly usable) and my Japanese is nonexisting, so I am not sure whether it can be migrated to Wikimedia.
And it is not so great to justify hunting down someone with knowledge of Japanese and copyright.
Maybe we can try contacting Japanese OSM community and ask them to take new picture and upload to Commons.
That’s why I asked first. Don’t know how nor whether it is accepted to move from Wiki to Commons. It has both GNU 1.2, and CC By-SA 3.0 added by Wikipedia:Licensing update - Wikipedia which means it should be worth studying?
it is accepted but requires review of situation what requires at least knowledge of language.
For example license may be falsely stated - I have seen images tagged with CC-BY-SA 2.0 license template and description “found in image search, maybe copyrighted”.
Or maybe uploader is known for being really confused about copyright.
In all cases - you can also take photo and upload it to Wikimedia Commons! (they have a better upload process than OSM Wiki, mostly because their community is much much bigger and centers around file uploads)