Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharon Aguilar.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.
From Facebook. No permission. Yann (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- What permissions are missing? Clearly states: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." Added to commons by subject and owner, on the same day as FaceBook. By timestamp, looks like it was added before FaceBook.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)- The EXIF data says that the author is John Taylor. The uploader has another name, so I don't think he is allowed to decide a license. Unless you know that there are the same person, but it can't be deduced from the information available here. Yann (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Under what policy is the EXIF "author" also the "owner"? That's merely the name of the owner of the camera. The uploader has the username "Sharon Aguilar" -- who does not appear to be a "he". What proof do you have that the uploader is not Sharon Aguilar? Did you use the email link on the User page? Are we expecting legal documents for proof of ownership on commons now?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)- Yes, if the uploader is not the author, we need a written permission. That's the policy. This is not to create problems, but to protect the authors' interests. In this case, I could agree that Sharon could publish a photo of herself. The issue is that we don't know if the account is created by the real person, or by a fan. I could create an account called Madonna, and upload images of Madonna taken on the web. That would be copyright violations. Just a mail from Sharon Aguilar saying that the account is her, and that she allows the publication of photos would be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're going down a legal rathole here, as there's been no copyright complaint.
- I suggested that you click the email link for User:Sharon Aguilar, which you have not indicated you have done. You did post a notice on her Talk page, but most folks have no idea they should check there regularly, nor what to do in any case.
- Meanwhile, we have a user who has asserted she is Sharon Aguilar, that she is the copyright holder of this work, that she has granted a license.
- Commons policy states that is all that is required. It even appears that she has gone the extra step (in the footnotes) and linked to "the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required." Presumably, she was prompted by the upload page, since this is her only post on wikipedia anywhere.
- That link yields another (smaller) copy of photo itself, where she clearly states: "Photo by: John Taylor Hair/Makeup:Lynda Esparza. Thank you John and Lynda! My first solo pro photo shoot!! =)"
- You're acting as an agent of Mr Taylor protecting his imputed interests, and I see nothing that indicates you're authorized to do so. Otherwise, the usual safe harbor provisions apply.
- Since she has posted in 2 prominent places, I'm pretty sure the professional studio would have brought legal action for infringement by now. So, as a self-appointed agent, you really have no standing.
- Did you actually check the dates and times of posting in two places? Or did you simply search for the word facebook, and nominate a large number of photos for deletion?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)- I'll answer that last. On this date alone, I see that you nominated 60+ others on the same day in the same hour before this one, in many cases more than 1 per minute. Presumably a script. Not even remotely meeting the nomination requirements:
Please give reasons for your opinion, preferably based on your knowledge of:
- I'll answer that last. On this date alone, I see that you nominated 60+ others on the same day in the same hour before this one, in many cases more than 1 per minute. Presumably a script. Not even remotely meeting the nomination requirements:
- I think you're going down a legal rathole here, as there's been no copyright complaint.
- Yes, if the uploader is not the author, we need a written permission. That's the policy. This is not to create problems, but to protect the authors' interests. In this case, I could agree that Sharon could publish a photo of herself. The issue is that we don't know if the account is created by the real person, or by a fan. I could create an account called Madonna, and upload images of Madonna taken on the web. That would be copyright violations. Just a mail from Sharon Aguilar saying that the account is her, and that she allows the publication of photos would be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Under what policy is the EXIF "author" also the "owner"? That's merely the name of the owner of the camera. The uploader has the username "Sharon Aguilar" -- who does not appear to be a "he". What proof do you have that the uploader is not Sharon Aguilar? Did you use the email link on the User page? Are we expecting legal documents for proof of ownership on commons now?
- The EXIF data says that the author is John Taylor. The uploader has another name, so I don't think he is allowed to decide a license. Unless you know that there are the same person, but it can't be deduced from the information available here. Yann (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- any binding copyright law;
- the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; or
- any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on.
- --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that discussion with you is quite useless. So the image will probably be deleted by another admin, unless the necessary permission is given. Yann (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Until prove otherwise the file has no permission. If the author want to send one please follow the instructions in COM:OTRS. For now, we can't afford to have a possible copyvio on-line. Béria Lima msg 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have boldly restored the image, as it was deleted just after two days since the deletion request had been created. Guilty until proven innocent is not the way we deal with things at Commons; please use the customary term of 7 days before closing this request again. Thank you! odder (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong? I'm the owner and provided the picture. I posted it on FaceBook, too.I own the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon Aguilar (talk • contribs)
- Hi Sharon, To protect your rights, we need to be sure that somebody is not stealing your files. The easiest would be to send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying that your agree that your files are under a free license. Best regards, Yann (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, there is not a scintilla of evidence that somebody is stealing her files.
- Sharon Aguilar (talk · contribs) posted the file.
- The file has a free license that was included during the upload process.
- The size of the file is 8.35 MB.
- The same user clearly states that she also posted it on FaceBook.
- A similar file was posted at her FaceBook business page, where it is among 280+ other photos of the same "musician/band".
- The size of the file is 553 KB on FaceBook.
- It is technically infeasible that the file here was copied from FaceBook.
Keep --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, there is not a scintilla of evidence that somebody is stealing her files.
Kept: as per William Allen Simpson. Yann (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
