Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sanija selfie.jpg

File:Sanija selfie.jpg

Ne evidence that Sanija approved release. Ђидо (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also affects: File:Sanija Ameti, 2021.jpg. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 04:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep (switched to delete, see comment further down). "Ne evidence that Sanija approved release" suggests the scenario that this is her private photograph and that someone is sharing it without her permission, but the same photograph is used as her portrait on the official website of the organization of which she is co-president. I believe that she took the selfie, uploaded it to her organization's website—and—to Commons, in order to update the information about her on Wikipedia. There is no specific reason to suspect that the uploader is not the author. Per COM:MYWORK: Usually, stating that it is a selfie will suffice if that is really the case, though in some cases you may be asked for additional evidence. This should be the "usually" case and not a case when we really need to ask for additional evidence.—Alalch E. (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Note the conversations at File talk:Sanija selfie.jpg and at Commons:Village pump#Own work selfie upload with a contested "no permission" tag— Alalch E. (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Uploader did essentially two contributions across all Wikimedia projects: Added Sanija's selfie, and updated some info about en:University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, a month later. People interests are diverse, but simplest explanation is that Sanija, who just took presidentship of a political party, probably has no vested interest nor knowledge of school she didn't go to, nor has any association with.

  Simpler explanation is that User:Sasouks and Sanija are two different people. It is even quite probable that uploader is someone close to Sanija, but who went to said school.

  Second, this is clearly a selfie, so it was taken by subject herself, so she is the author.

  Now, it is also quite possible, even overwhelmingly probable, that Sanija gave that image to another person to update Wikipedia article with it. It is also likely she has no objections to Wikipedia use.

  However, knowing, being aware and approving of use of image is not same as legally releasing rights via CC license.

  I am encountering this a lot with images of public personas -- I find out that copyright laws are very hard concept to grasp for majority people. Most of them think that giving a copy of image to someone is same as giving them license to share it, or that because they are subject of the photograph, and they hold a printed copy of it in their album, they own copyright on it.

  Ђидо (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  You have written many good things here, but I was specifically basing myself on the image being released via a free license based on the customary assumption that the uploader can be believed unless there is evidence to the contrary. It's about the burden of proof. Now that we have evidence that Sasouks is probably someone else because the association between that username and another real identity has been established, I am very happy to change my recommendation to delete, as I did below. Alalch E. (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Speedy keep https://youtube.com/watch?v=N70wQfqxuCE the author of this image is aware of it being used on wikipedia in Dec 2022.

no evidence that she considered this copyvio and filed dmca requests. RZuo (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete Although weakly, but just because she's aware that the image was on Wikipedia that doesn't mean she wants anyone to use it for any purpose. There's been plenty of instances in the past where people gave permission for an image to be on Wikipedia but then it was deleted on our end because "Wikipedia" isn't a general license that allows for other uses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  There's also no special reason to think that the person who uploaded this as an own work released under CC BY-SA 4.0 has submitted any false information. — Alalch E. (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason they can't file VRT permission like everyone else in a similar situation does then. Not to accuse you of anything but you seem to really be against any kind of standards for inclusion here. We don't need a "special reason" to delete the image. That's not how this works. The fact that there's zero evidence she's the uploader and/or released the image under a free license is more then enough. If in fact she is and did then there's no reason she can't file VRT permission like everyone else though. Honestly I find your instance that the uploader shouldn't have to more then a little wierd. Who cares? If she uploaded it then she can just file VRT permission. Its not a big deal and makes zero difference what-so-ever outside of assuring the file is freely licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They could perhaps, but do they even know that they are asked to? They last edited in 2021. Our practice is to trust the uploader unless there is reason not to. The discussion at the file talk page, linked above, suggests that the image wasn't on the internet before being uploaded here, and that she is aware of the image being published here. If that's true, we need quite strong evidence for a "significant doubt" about the image's copyright status. –LPfi (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@LPfi: There's two reasons to doubt this. Both of which I think are totally valid and have certainly led to similar images being deleted in the past. 1. There's nothing on our end or anywhere else to indicate that the uploader is Sanija Ameti 2. From what I understand the images were already available on other websites being uploaded to Commons. One or both of those things would result in the image being deleted in any other instance. No insult to you or anyone who thinks the images should be kept, but this whole thing really just comes off like bad faithed white knighting. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they are valid in this case.

1. Usually we trust the uploader, by policy. In this case there is even some evidence that she knows about the uploads. If she didn't agree with having them uploaded (on the terms indicated by the uploader, whether or not it was her), she should have protested.
2. Is there some evidence? My reading of the file talk page thread is that the earlier occurrence(s) had lower resolution.

(There is nothing anywhere indicating that photos I have uploaded were taken by me – I can prove that, sort of, for most photos, but there is no guarantee I'd see a "no permission" message in time, nor that I'd bother to dig the proof up. I indeed hope that Commons doesn't let them go if I'm not here to defend them after a few years, let alone photos more important than those of mine.)

–LPfi (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This deletion request should also handle the extracted image File:Sanija Ameti, 2021.jpg, which was deleted as "no permission since" by User:Aafi. Either both are copyright violations or neither. It is very bad for Commons that you can get images deleted by just slapping that template on them (how would a user not active since 2021 notice?). –LPfi (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@LPfi, thanks for the ping. I have restored the image and added a DR template linking to this page. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Considering that it seems undisputed that the photo shows Sanija Ameti and that it is a selfie, and considering that the uploader Sasouks claimed "own work" and issued the free license as "self" on Commons, then the valid argument to keep the file would be based on the assumption that User:Sasouks is Sanija Ameti. It was correctly mentioned that the default assumption is that claims of uploaders can be believed unless there is sufficient reason for doubt. Then, the question is essentially if there is sufficient reason for doubt. It was mentioned that the contributions of Sasouks to the Wikimedia websites [1] are related to the political movement co-presided by Sanija Ameti, Operation Libero, and to the university HES-SO. On the internet, Sasouks is a pseudonym used by Sarah Kopse-Scholberg (for example on X.com [2] and on Instagram [3]). It happens that Sarah Kopse-Scholberg was associated to Operation Libero [4] and to HES-SO [5]. Although maybe not an absolute certainty, it seems very probable that: A) Sasouks on Wikimedia is Sarah Kopse-Scholberg, B) Sanija Ameti and Sarah Kopse-Scholberg are not the same person, and C) therefore Sasouks is not Sanija Ameti. To keep the photo on Commons, it is not sufficient that the author is aware that the photo is on Wikipedia if a free license has not been issued by the author. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Asclepias. Thank you Asclepias for your excellent research. Now we actually know why the image is getting deleted, and that's why it's important to run a normal DR discussion when the situation is not so straightforward. Here, specific evidence was needed to judge if it's reasonable to maintain the default assumption or if it's more reasonable to consider the assumption rebutted. I believed that it's reasonable to maintain the default assumption and I had also done some research of my own causing me to lean in that direction, but the new information provided by Asclepias is stronger evidence to the contrary. Alalch E. (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks Asclepias. I think it is important to keep to proper procedure, and deleting only based on a {{No permission}} is not proper procedure. I hope Sanija Ameti will go forward herself to provide authorisation, in a way that allows communication (read: verification), but if she doesn't, I agree that we cannot keep the file. –LPfi (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's proper procedure when there is no evidence of a permission. Here, there was evidence of a permission, but this initial evidence has been deprecated by stronger subsequent and contradicting evidence. Alalch E. (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)