Commons:Deletion requests/File:Butter sculpture cow and boy.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.
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama, meaning the Flickr user cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the sculptor. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Since Flickr is outside the management of Wikicommons, isn't it beyond our mandate to rule on how other people license an image? For example, although unlikely, it's possible the Flickr user did get consent from from the sculptor. We would assume good faith that it's a valid license. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing statements on Flickr are critically evaluated just like any other licensing statements. Since the sculptor isn't attributed, it's pretty clear that the sculpture is not being reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We cannot just assume that every Flickr user has thought of every copyright aspect of their uploads. Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming diligence and good awareness. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alright well I don't see any way to argue this as it seems clear cut according to the above written guidelines, you may want to look at the rest of the images in Category:Butter sculptures. The only thing is, why are these "guidelines" and not policy, and why are we doing a Deletion vote and not speedy? Is there some controversy or subtle points about pictures of sculptures that require hashing it out each time? Green Cardamom (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing statements on Flickr are critically evaluated just like any other licensing statements. Since the sculptor isn't attributed, it's pretty clear that the sculpture is not being reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution license. We cannot just assume that every Flickr user has thought of every copyright aspect of their uploads. Assuming good faith is not the same as assuming diligence and good awareness. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Assuming that all Flickr users got consent for their images would be condoning Flickrwashing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. – Adrignola talk 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
