Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy Perry California Dreams Tour 01.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.
This file was initially tagged by Yann as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Flcikr washing, source is [1], but EXIF data says CC-BY-SA-3.0. Yann (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It does look like Flickr washing to me. The EXIF states "This photo is straight out of camera and unedited" and yet it has no make of camera - don't think I know any cameras that do not declare themselves on the EXIF info and as such the EXIF is likely edited to some effect... --Herby talk thyme 10:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- The flickrwash occurred here. That account had uploaded several images at Flickr, taken from other sources. The images were removed quickly after they had been uploaded here at the Commons and passed our bot's review. This Katy Perry photo is the only one that remained at Flickr, but it's clearly not this "Alex Mars"'s work but that of Devon Christopher Adams. I see no reason to assume that Devon flickrwashed anything; that account appears to belong to a prolific concert photographer. What is strange about Devon's photo is that he obviously went to great length to edit the EXIF, not to falsify anything but to add a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in the EXIF. See Flickr's EXIF display. At the same time, Devon also chose CC-BY-NC as the display license, like for all his other photos. I suggest contacting the photographer via devoncadams.com and asking him what he intended: CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC? If the latter, delete, otherwise keep. If no answer: delete per COM:PRP. Looking at his other uploads this set appears to be one of his earlier uploads, and I get the impression he was experimenting how to best get license data into the EXIF. Even earlier uploads of his have nothing in the EXIF, and recent uploads of his have "For licensing information email <email address>" in the image description and "Usage Terms: Non Commercial Attribution"; see for instance here. So I suspect that he intended CC-BY-NC. Lupo 11:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sensible thoughts thanks Lupo - consider my vote suspending pending looking further at Lupo's suggestion. --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention: I have contacted Devon via e-mail. Lupo 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sensible thoughts thanks Lupo - consider my vote suspending pending looking further at Lupo's suggestion. --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Hopefully Admin Lupo can clear this situation up about the strange camera metadata. Only 2 images from Devon's flickr account passed flickr review including this photo where the flickr license is CC BY SA 2.0 Generic. So, the flickr account owner should know how to change licenses on flickr. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Devon has confirmed via e-mail that he changed the EXIF license to CC-BY-SA-3.0 in response to a request to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. E-mail thread forwarded to OTRS, file tagged as {{OTRS pending}}. My follow-up request to also change the display license at Flickr went unanswered. Lupo 06:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS pending, so no point keeping this open. Green Giant (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)