Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joseph Lubin (24961256615).jpg
And:
- File:Joseph Lubin (24330658654).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24334421063).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24665763910).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24843297602).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24843300632).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24867940031).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24867941471).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24934965716).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24934969226).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24934970486).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24961252025).jpg
- File:Joseph Lubin (24961255915).jpg
This file was initially tagged by LexICon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photographer & copyright holder = Ivo Näpflin; so for clearly not an: "own work of Joseph Lubin" (= dep. person) or liftconferencephotos. Vera (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- An organization hired a photographer to document their conference. They became the rights holders of that work and chose to publish it under a creative commons license on Flickr. That's an extremely common thing. Vera (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- If so, there must appear photographer "Ivo Näpflin" in the author file of the summary, not "liftconferencephotos" nor "Joseph Lubin" as it is clearly no selfie. --LexICon (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Joseph Lubin is the person depicted in the photo, so keeping his name in the description is a very useful thing. The organization didn't bother to put the name of the phtogoraher in the description on Flickr so presumably they've made an arrangement with their phtogoraher that would allow them to use the photos that way. They are the rights holders, not the hired hand. If you think he deserves more than you are free to amend the file's description but that's in no way a reason to nominate them for deletion. Vera (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- If so, there must appear photographer "Ivo Näpflin" in the author file of the summary, not "liftconferencephotos" nor "Joseph Lubin" as it is clearly no selfie. --LexICon (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: If the photographer were an employee, then the organization would own the copyrights under the work for hire rule. However, if as described below, the organization simply hired an outside photographer, then the photographer owns the rights. While the organization may have licensed the right to use the images, it is unlikely that the license allows the organization to freely sublicense them. Our rules require that we assume the worst. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Restored all but four -- they have a CC-BY license from the photographer, Ivi Napflin, in the EXIF. Three of the deleted four have copyrighted text in the image, the fourth shows only his legs and is therefore useless. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)