Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir-john-wolstenholme.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.
Recent photograph, no evidence of free license. Per source: "All colour photos used on this site were taken by us and we own the copyright to them. If you would like to use them on your site please feel free and a link back is always appreciated" While the website states: "please feel free" to use, it does not specify any Creative Commons license, nor indicate if commercial use/derivation is allowed per COM:L. --Animalparty (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've sent the Stanmore Tourist Board an email asking what license I should include. Their website states they are staffed by volunteers, so I may not get a response for a while. Ficaia (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete Please note that COM:VRT permission is required in this case because the image was already published somewhere else online. Unless appropriate permission is received, this image unfortunately cannot be kept here.- @ShyAlpaca482: I don't understand. If they email me back and provide the proper license I should include, what am I supposed to do? The website explicitly states that people are free to use their images elsewhere. Ficaia (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: Please have them email the template found at COM:VRT/CONSENT or use the Interactive Release Generator (also found at that link) to generate an email template that they can email. Then, they should email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once this email is received, the process of verification will begin. If the licensing status of the email can be verified by the VRT team, then the image can be accepted here. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: It seems ridiculous that I have to get them to send an email, when I am the one requesting their consent to use an image (consent which is already given on their website). I suppose I'll ask them to do so, but it sounds rather rude. Ficaia (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: Because of the way current copyright law is specified, it requires that explicit, legally binding consent be given in any case of reuse. I also wish that this could be different, but that is unfortunately not the case. Wikimedia Commons operates under the precautionary principle and therefore requires files to be licensed under an acceptable license before accepting files and must verify the status of any claims of permission given. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- To update you all, I received this reply from the website:
- "Yes that’s ok I took the photo so there’s no problem with anyone else’s copyright, so if you credit the website that would be fine.
- I might have another one from a different angle with his face showing, but it would be on one of the old hard drives, if I get time I will take a look for you
- Cheers Graham"
- I've asked them to email that information to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as instructed. Ficaia (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: Because of the way current copyright law is specified, it requires that explicit, legally binding consent be given in any case of reuse. I also wish that this could be different, but that is unfortunately not the case. Wikimedia Commons operates under the precautionary principle and therefore requires files to be licensed under an acceptable license before accepting files and must verify the status of any claims of permission given. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: It seems ridiculous that I have to get them to send an email, when I am the one requesting their consent to use an image (consent which is already given on their website). I suppose I'll ask them to do so, but it sounds rather rude. Ficaia (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Ficaia: Please have them email the template found at COM:VRT/CONSENT or use the Interactive Release Generator (also found at that link) to generate an email template that they can email. Then, they should email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Once this email is received, the process of verification will begin. If the licensing status of the email can be verified by the VRT team, then the image can be accepted here. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: I don't understand. If they email me back and provide the proper license I should include, what am I supposed to do? The website explicitly states that people are free to use their images elsewhere. Ficaia (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an VRTS email received for “File:Sir-john-wolstenholme.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2022032710003239. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Sir-john-wolstenholme.jpg” under ticket:2022032710003239. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- The permission came from an official of the organization where the image was published before. Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Thank you for verifying OTRS. I can now withdraw nomination given that credible permission has been obtained. But lastly, the creator of the photograph (Graham? The Stanmore Tourist Board?) should be indicated as they so choose to assure proper attribution ("Credit: Unknown" seems misleading and less than ideal). Cheers all. --Animalparty (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Animalparty Yes, of course. I now added the photographer's name. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep Because proper VRT permission was received, I change my vote to keep. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept, we have now the permission. Taivo (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
