Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 all women.jpg

[edit]

photos is being used under wrong license. IT is no longer Creative Commons and all rights are reserved by owner. Owner wants all links and photos removed immediately. 216.14.49.242 00:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:File:Dapper Day Fall 2015 man and woman.jpg
 Keep Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, and these images were properly licensed when uploaded. If the licence on the source has changed, that does not affect the position on Commons. Rodhullandemu Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep unfortunately once a free license has been given you cannot revoke that license. Of course you can change the license at Flickr if you wish, as you have done, so from there it is not under a free license but the image uploaded is remains under the original free license you gave at the time. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Creative Commons licences are indeed irrevocable and you cannot change your mind just like that - Once you upload under a CC licence that's it it's staying here forever, You should've read the CC Attribution 2.0 Generic licence before uploading your image under it. –Davey2010Talk 17:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have before. See for example this discussion. GMGtalk 18:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and in that discussion it was agreed that it ought not to be a precedent. If irrevocable doesn't mean irrevocable we (Commons and Wikipedia) would be on a very slippery slope. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It was very nearly an under-the-table favor in many ways, and probably wouldn't have been done 1) without the person asking very nicely, and 2) without the approval of the original uploader. In this case, we certainly don't have #1, it was doubtful we'd get #2 to begin with, and after what the IP has been doing on their talk page, it seems increasingly unlikely they would agree even if they were around to comment. GMGtalk 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2 years of being here I've never seen courtesy deletions so it's a very rare thing - Anyway as I said at EN we could crop the image and delete the revision so the image solely focuses on the subject - That's the only offer I have, We shouldn't ever do courtesy deletions because as noted above it could set a precedent which we don't want. –Davey2010Talk 19:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I note that the image is c.6.7Mb in size. Have there ever been instances where, as a courtesy, the file has been replaced with one of much lower resolution which is quite suitable for Wikipedia and related projects, but which would be, as it were, "less commercially valuable" to another user at that resolution? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes: That's a little bit of confusing worlds unfortunately. On commons, it's either free or it ain't. If it is, we should keep the highest resolution version available, and upload even better quality ones if found. If it ain't, then it shouldn't be here at all. GMGtalk 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, I believe this would fall under merely discouraged, not prohibited. See also COM:WATERMARK. GMGtalk 14:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: This is another example of an image imported from Flickr to Commons in unsatisfactory circumstances. The COM:PEOPLE angle may not have been fully considered before doing this, and the watermark is less than ideal. As I've said before, Flickr should not be used as a rummage sale for images on Commons. There would be no great loss to Commons if this image was deleted.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - If only as a courtesy. See the page history here for further details on yesterday's discussion. I don't know that the COM:BLP argument holds water, since an image taken at a theme park is pretty public. Otherwise, the claim that the author "changed" the license is obviously full of holes. Still yet, it might be helpful to at some point write something to the effect of COM:Don't be a dick to people who might come back one day and become a contributor. It was pretty clear from the discussion yesterday that the user had no intention of licensing the image this way, and no idea whatsoever what that entailed. Yes, we're technically in the right to say "too bad so sad should've read the fine print", but again, COM:Don't be a dick to people who might come back one day and become a contributor. The image is of very little educational value and is water marked besides. No one is really going to miss it if is goes poof. GMGtalk 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Photo shows no context that makes it more than a picture of 4 (presumably-)non-notable people. Given the lack of instructional value, the improbability of its use elsewhere, the watermark, and the uploader's desire to remove it, I see no reason not to go ahead and delete it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No benefit to anyone keeping it other than smug 'we can so we will'-ness. Fish and karate (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The license-change is not a valid reason for deletion--we can host the image. But what's the COM:EDUSE, vs just being a private image collection that happens to have been publicly available? DMacks (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete .... Well shit this is awkward.... I thought "Dapper Day" was a person! ..... Having just read the article it's actually an event so yeah I don't see why this shouldn't be deleted!.... (I do want to state for the record had I known this was an event and not a person I would've gone with delete much sooner - Yes CC licences are irrevocable and yes it is a useful image however I don't really see the point of being awkward for the sake of being awkward ... The uploader made a mistake and under the circumstances the image should be deleted). –Davey2010Talk 15:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I indirectly contributed to the fact that we have this DR here; now I see that the issue well deserved a discussion. Maybe the discussion is, by now, ripe enough to close it. Thanks to everyone for an enlightening debate. --E4024 (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, free licenses are irrevocable and the photo is still in public domain. But nevertheless I'll delete it, because it lacks educational value. Here's simply 5 unidentified, probably non-notable women. Unused personal photos are considered out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dapper_Day_Fall_2015_all_women.jpg&oldid=271103150"