Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katherine young 5182935.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.
Also
File:Greg Grandin 4072356.jpg- File:Ida E. Jones 5182799.jpg
- File:Jonathan roth 5182943.jpg
- File:Lorene Cary 5183058.jpg
File:Nell Freudenberger 4092379.jpg
No permission. It was marked on flickr as "Public Domain Mark", which has no legal effect -- it's as if there was no license at all. The uploader also marked it as PD-author, but there was no documentation of this on Flickr. There was, however, a link to the Flickr user's Commons page, which said that they were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep on the source page at https://www.flickr.com/photos/73455099@N07/47825666182/ the image is clearly marked "Public domain", and it is also quite clear that it was uploaded there by the the photographer. For such images we use {{PD-Author}}. I agree that images coming from flickr need to be checked to ensure that we know which PD template to apply and to ensure that there are no clear signs of uploading other people's images but I have done that already. --Jarekt (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: There's an important difference between the w:en:Public Domain Mark and {{PD-Author}} -- the fallback license. The fallback license makes sure that the work may be used freely even if "the public domain" doesn't have legal meaning in their country. As the consensus at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images found, "we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, I contribute a lot of images to Commons and to Flickr, and on flickr whey you are choosing which license you want to pick for your photo, one of the licenses in "Public Domain". Then flickr displays prominent "Public Domain" on the page with a link to PD Mark because PD Mark is the only think to link to. Here on Commons PD templates like {{PD-old-100}}, etc. also have a link to PD Mark which does not invalidate the template. Could you point to anything on flickr page that makes you doubt that author of the image released it to the public domain? I do not, and public domain images are allowed on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The thing that makes me doubt that the author released the photo into the public domain is that they did not. As Creative Commons explained: "The PDM is not a legal instrument like CC0 or our licenses; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work.... PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide." Of course, using the PDM to mark images that are actually in the public domain (e.g. {{PD-old-100-expired}}) is fine. However, as this author did not legally release the photo into the public domain, the photo is not in the public domain, and not acceptable for Commons. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- In flickr you do not choose PD-mark, you choose option called "public domain" and flicker displays it as a "public domain" on the images. So as an author when you choose the release terms as "public domain" that means the same as when commons user choose to use {{PD-Author}}. The link to PD-mark does not mean PD-mark is a legal instrument, just like our links to the same place from out PD templates. We do have special procedures related to such flickr files, to ensure that files are released to PD by the authors, which I verified. --Jarekt (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- In flickr you have a choice between "Public Domain Work" (which is the PDM) and "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" (which is the CC0 deed). As an author, legally, one has effect, the other does not. The PDM is only for use when there is some other reason that the work "is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world" (Source: Creative Commons FAQ. Of course, for our other PD templates, there is such a reason: the reason listed in the template. Since there is nothing making the work legally in the public domain, it should be deleted unless permission is properly given. I think I already did, but I'll link (again?) to the consensuses on these: RFC, Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that flickr's CC-0 license is more clear than their "Public Domain" designation and I prefer if people use that license. However their "Public Domain" designation by photographers is identical to out {{PD-Author}} which is still a valid copyright tag on Commons. Also all this legal nuance and preference of Commons is not very well explained on flickr and their CC-0 was a rather recent addition for for years if you wanted to release to public domain than "public domain" option was your only choice. --Jarekt (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- In flickr you have a choice between "Public Domain Work" (which is the PDM) and "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" (which is the CC0 deed). As an author, legally, one has effect, the other does not. The PDM is only for use when there is some other reason that the work "is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world" (Source: Creative Commons FAQ. Of course, for our other PD templates, there is such a reason: the reason listed in the template. Since there is nothing making the work legally in the public domain, it should be deleted unless permission is properly given. I think I already did, but I'll link (again?) to the consensuses on these: RFC, Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- In flickr you do not choose PD-mark, you choose option called "public domain" and flicker displays it as a "public domain" on the images. So as an author when you choose the release terms as "public domain" that means the same as when commons user choose to use {{PD-Author}}. The link to PD-mark does not mean PD-mark is a legal instrument, just like our links to the same place from out PD templates. We do have special procedures related to such flickr files, to ensure that files are released to PD by the authors, which I verified. --Jarekt (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- The thing that makes me doubt that the author released the photo into the public domain is that they did not. As Creative Commons explained: "The PDM is not a legal instrument like CC0 or our licenses; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. It should only be used to label a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions around the world, typically very old works. It should not be used to attempt to change a work’s current status under copyright law, or affect any person’s rights in a work.... PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide." Of course, using the PDM to mark images that are actually in the public domain (e.g. {{PD-old-100-expired}}) is fine. However, as this author did not legally release the photo into the public domain, the photo is not in the public domain, and not acceptable for Commons. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mdaniels5757, I contribute a lot of images to Commons and to Flickr, and on flickr whey you are choosing which license you want to pick for your photo, one of the licenses in "Public Domain". Then flickr displays prominent "Public Domain" on the page with a link to PD Mark because PD Mark is the only think to link to. Here on Commons PD templates like {{PD-old-100}}, etc. also have a link to PD Mark which does not invalidate the template. Could you point to anything on flickr page that makes you doubt that author of the image released it to the public domain? I do not, and public domain images are allowed on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: There's an important difference between the w:en:Public Domain Mark and {{PD-Author}} -- the fallback license. The fallback license makes sure that the work may be used freely even if "the public domain" doesn't have legal meaning in their country. As the consensus at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images found, "we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete (as tagger) per my part in the discussion above. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)- Delete per nomination. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is Slowking's work, and they are ardent public domain, so a modicum of realism and sensibility in any re-interpretation of the license as applied. If you are unsure, then go and ask them at enWS. Watch out for wikilawyering. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757: The file File:Katherine young 5182935.jpg was relicensed on flickr to cc-by-sa-2.0, however since licenses on commons can not be revoked that file has now {{PD-Author}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. I think that should solve the issue with that file. Can you remove your DR nomination for that file? --Jarekt (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: Yes. As File:Katherine young 5182935.jpg is now compliant with COM:L,
I withdraw my nomination for that file. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- File:Greg Grandin 4072356.jpg and File:Nell Freudenberger 4092379.jpg were also re-licensed on flickr. --Jarekt (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A consensus is developing at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Double standards for Public Domain Mark to treat PDM as {{PD-author}} if it is clear that the uploader is the creator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:PDM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
