Commons:Deletion requests/File:J.delanoy and Jimmy Wales.png

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:J.delanoy_and_Jimmy_Wales.png

[edit]

This is a deletion request to make the point for Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg; similar situation, in a country with copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete The fact that no one cares if it is being used does not mean we ignore COM:PRP. The person taking the picture is the author of the work for copyright purposes, unless this was a work for hire, I don't believe there can be any reasonable doubt of that. The subject could be explicitly granted an exclusive license or have the copyright transferred but that would require a contract. It is also clear that the photographer is granting an implied license, by virtue of the fact that they took the picture in the first place. Unfortunately there are two problems with an implied license: 1) it is restricted in scope to what would have been agreed to had formal negotiations been performed. Again, per the precautionary principle I don't believe we can categorically state that photgraphers would be okay with their work being reused commercially, for instance. 2) Unless there has been consideration, an implied license is revocable, which means the photograph couldn't be distributed under the non-revocable CC/GFDL licenses. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:J.delanoy_and_Jimmy_Wales.png

[edit]

J.delanoy is not the copyright holder and thus cannot release the image under a free license. (See above for expanded reasoning.) VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again,  Keep. I don't think we're ever this picky with userpage pics anyway. I know it may not be legally applicable, but I think this is when IAR can be applied. (Also, I don't see a point in reopening such a recent DR. Unless there is a serious legal issue with this photo, I think we can stretch this a little bit as J.delanoy requested the photo taken for him, etc.) ←fetchcomms 03:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your opinion and I really do understand where you're coming from. What the question really comes down to is how seriously we are to take the precautionary principle (and IAR is Wikipedia, not Commons, for what it's worth). The point in reopening the recently closed deletion request is per the instructions at Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal since the closing admin refused to even address my prior point, let alone provide a statement as to whether they would reconsider it. Since that section further states that "admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so" and as this seems to me to be exactly what happened I felt that this needed to be addressed and not simply ignored. Either we are holding userpage pictures and the like to a different standard and we need to make that clear at COM:DR, COM:PRP, and COM:L, or all images should be held to the same standard and require verifiable permission if they are not uploaded by the copyright holder or otherwise clearly freely licensed/PD/etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, meta:Ignore all rules is a Wikimedia-wide guideline. However, straying from the project scope by ignoring basic principles of copyright law and deliberately hosting incorrectly licensed files does not improve the project. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer; I hadn't seen that on meta before. I've retracted that part of my statement above. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Commons is a repository of files that anyone may legally use for any purpose, and we should work at all times to be a reliable source of such free files. Commons is not a repository of some free files that anyone may legally use for any purpose plus some non-free user page files where we stretch the truth a bit about who is the copyright holder and pass them off as being just as free as other files. The photo was taken in the US, where works for hire require either an employer–employee relationship or a written contract. Owning a camera does not make one the author or copyright holder of photos taken with it any more than owning a brush makes one the author or copyright holder of anything painted with it. Only the photographer can issue a valid license. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - I most certainly am the copyright holder of this image.
  • This photograph was taken using my own camera, which I legally purchased with my own money (which I legally earned at the place in which I was lawfully employed, which itself was in full compliance with all applicable laws governing the employment of persons at their consent) from a retailer which legally obtained the camera (either directly or via a third party, e.g. a wholesale electronics firm) from the camera's manufacturer, Sony. Both (or all) of these parties (Sony, the retailer, and any third parties) were in full compliance with all applicable laws regarding the creation and sale of electronic devices, in all applicable jurisdictions in which the actions leading to this device's creation and transportation took place.
  • Furthermore, the photograph was taken using the camera's self-timer feature, a software device which will mechanically (i.e. with no further human intervention) trigger the shutter exactly ten seconds after the shutter button is pressed. If I recall correctly, I pressed the shutter button with my own hand after enabling this feature on my camera. Are you suggesting that my camera's computer should hold the copyright for this photograph? Because that is the only possible entity other than myself which could hold copyright for this file.
  • In addition to this, prior to creating the photograph, I obtained the explicit permission of Jimmy Wales to create the photograph. He gave his consent after I explicitly informed him that I intended to upload the work to the Wikimedia Commons in order to display the work on my English Wikipedia userpage. Both of us understood that this action implied publishing the image under a free license, allowing others to copy and/or modify the image if they wished (as long as they followed the terms of the license). The other subject of the image (my own person) is not subject to the restrictions surrounding the usage of a likeness, as I am clearly not required to explicitly give consent to the creation of an image of myself which I create with my own hand.
  • Finally, this request is a classic case of double jeopardy, if I may use such a term for something so trivial. This photograph was already the subject of a request for deletion for this exact reason, and that request was closed by an uninvolved administrator as keep because there was "No valid reason for deletion".
The first time that this file had a request for deletion filed against it was rather annoying, but I do understand Mr. Kuiper's frustration, even if I do not necessarily agree with his position or his methods. I am frankly not amused at all by the re-opening of this nonsense. I used to wonder why people hated Commons. Now I know. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to understand this vexing problem.
Regards, J.delanoygabsadds 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ownership of the camera is irrelevant (as I explained above), but the information that it was taken using a self-timer is and would have saved a lot of time had it been mentioned sooner. If the camera was not handled by another person when the photo was taken, we can keep it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I asked someone else to take the picture for me, the copyright would still belong to me, since I would in effect be commissioning the portrait. I am not a lawyer, nor am I studying law, so I will not attempt to give a full legal explanation of how copyright works, (largely because I am not sure that my unprofessional assessment would be fully or even partly accurate) But I based on my limited understanding, I have come to the (inevitable) conclusion that this entire discussion is completely inane. I have never seen wikilawyering on this scale before, and I only have to wonder why you are not going after any of the many other Wikimedians who have uploaded photographs of themselves to Commons. See w:en:WP:FACEBOOK for a large collection. I would be very, very interested to know why my image, out of all of those images, is being "singled out". And especially after so long. It's not like I've hidden the picture - it's been displayed on my userpage for nearly 18 months, and many, many, many, many, many' people have seen it since then [1]. Somehow, I'd imagine that at least a few of the ~1000 people who are viewing my userpage every month (even though I very rarely edit due to real-life commitments) both understand copyright fairly well, and know of the processes required to remove violations. The fact that no one brought this up for nearly a year and a half, and then only to make a point, is very, very telling. Regardless, I wash my hands of this nonsense. If the picture is deleted, I honestly do not care. I have better things to worry about, such as the three finals I will be taking in the next 96 hours... J.delanoygabsadds 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As LX said: if no other person handled your camera then you are the sole copyright holder and there's no issue. As the image is not level as it would generally be were the camera on a tripod or placed on some surface in order to use the timer and you did not clarify the situation during the previous deletion request I at least (and I imagine Pieter Kuiper as the previous nominator) presumed it was taken by someone else, and so I renominated it per policy in light of the copyright situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No new argument since last time. This discussion is going nowhere. Yann (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:J.delanoy_and_Jimmy_Wales.png&oldid=48015770"