Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo of Jessica Polka.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.
Bullocks. Please proof first that said website has copyright. Someone can provide them with a picture and a website can claim copyright GerardM (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please enlighten me: when can something be speedy deleted as copyvio and how can someone prove that a website has a valid copyright claim? --Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- The correct answer is not. What is the point of a speedy deletion except for there to be a valid reason? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the question should better be: how do you know that a copyright statement is inappropriate? Personally, I think we should err on the side of caution. In short, it is not us who have to show that the website has a valid copyright claim, but it is you who has to show that its claim is invalid... --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- The correct answer is not. What is the point of a speedy deletion except for there to be a valid reason? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- As you can see from the image metadata, this image was created in 2018. The website you found is a speaker listing for a conference that occurred in 2019; I provided them the image, and the copyright claim appears to be a blanket statement in the footer.Jessica Polka (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- And how do we know that by giving them the image copyright was not transferred to them? --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- I did not transfer copyright.Jessica Polka (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- That would make no difference. The file was uploaded here (and hence the CC licence granted) in 2018, and the licence is perpetual. It would not be affected by any later change in the ownership of the copyright. --bjh21 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Unless it was not free when it was uploaded. We need proof of that... --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No you do not need proof of that. That is bad faith. You ask at the time of upload if it is free. At that time you check the legitimacy. The problem here is the bad habit that is speedly deletion exactly for this wrong reason. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tough luck for the copyright holder then... --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apparantly you don't understand copyright. When someone slaps a license on whatever, it holds that he has the power to do so. It does not follow that he has copyright. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- And if someone uploads an image and slaps a CC license on it, it doesn't follow that they have the right to do so. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apparantly you don't understand copyright. When someone slaps a license on whatever, it holds that he has the power to do so. It does not follow that he has copyright. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tough luck for the copyright holder then... --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: The deletion discussion has been somewhat sidetracked. The problem here is that the image was uploaded by the subject, but the copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject. It would be necessary for the photographer to provide a consent for the image to be licensed. This may be done, for example, at Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator. --Stifle (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
