Commons:Deletion requests/File:A cold mountain creek in Alaska.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Modern image with no author identification; It is implausible that PDI is the author Dankarl (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Yes, it is implausible that PDI is the author, I used this on batch upload and I am correcting it to {{Unknown}}. With regard to images from PDI with no attribution, I note the following explanation at PDI:
| FAQ statement by PDI |
|---|
| I spend a lot time taking pictures, collecting and editing them. Also I spend a lot of time searching for public domain images in public domain archives and making sure that all images you can find on this site are explicitly placed in the public domain. Please note, not all images are by me, I collected images from other sites/photographers which clearly claim that pictures are explicitly placed in the public domain. Where it was possible the appropriate accreditation of source/ photographer is given. Use them for whatever you want, use it freely for personal and commercial use, images are not copyrighted, no rights reserved. |
- As is highlighted by the website owner, it is not always possible to give an name for attribution, though considering the website is not a fly-by-night anonymous site, refer to http://whois.domaintools.com/public-domain-image.com, but with a named registrant in the USA, they would be liable for any false claims that we or others rely on for free re-use (even with a claim of non-liability, the site itself has editorial control). Generally out of 14,000 images uploaded from this source, it seems as reliable for copyright releases as the Department of Defense - i.e. more than 99.5% good or thereabouts. Consequently, I feel that the precautionary principle is being met by taking uploads from this source at face value unless there are specific challenges. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Update - A little searching around Google and Tineye shows this image on several sites, in particular lonelyplanet in 2008 using an pseudonymous identity. However nothing so far that would lead to conclusions that the release was incorrect, or that the photographer is publicly named elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
From the PDI website: "I'm the creator, designer, administrator, programmer, photographer, and owner of this site. When you see bellow image photographer: Dusan Bicanski, that's me." Thus where images are not attributed, they are from unidentified third parties. Since the site does not retain source URLs, any assertion that these images were validly released into the PD is unverifiable. Dankarl (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the question is how this fits with the Precautionary Principle. Personally, I see the PDI site doing reasonable checks in the same way as we rely on the volunteers in OTRS. If anything, the fact that the PDI website can be seen to have persisted without legal challenges for 5 years and has the same experienced "volunteers" both running the site and populating it, gives it a high level of credibility as a source. Generally speaking, this is a much more reliable and persistent source that most of the Flickrstreams we (Commons) encourage mass uploading from, which are mostly anonymous and subject to disappearing overnight.
Info I finally dug out the last DR that was raised with a similar nomination, and resulted in a keep: Commons:Deletion requests/File:200 GB 7200 rpm ide hard drive.jpg. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
