Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stonehenge front half.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Stonehenge front half.jpg

[edit]

No permission from Frédéric Vincent. Uploader calls themself: Johann Dréo. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Commons:Grandfathered old files: "Prior to 8 January 2006, it was only required that the file be properly licensed and attributed, with no specific statement of permission being required on the image page. ... It has been a custom on Wikimedia Commons to grandfather in these files, rather than to delete them." Unless there's a reason to doubt, but that's not the case here. This file was uploaded on 18 May 2005. See also [1]. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no statement of permission from the author and this is obviously not own work by the uploader, so no, this file is not properly licensed, because a proper license means that the copyright holder agrees with that license. {grandfathered} cannot be used for apparent copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be missing the point of the guideline. We do not delete valid files that were uploaded in compliance with the rules that existed at the time of their upload. Just because at some point we change some uploading rule for future uploads, that does not mean that we delete the files that were validly uploaded before then. There is no apparence of violation. The uploader wrote that he uploaded this file to Commons on behalf of another person who asked him to do so. It is attributed. It is licensed. That was done with full transparency. There is not any fact to doubt the validity of the upload. As far as we can tell from the available evidence that does exist in the form of the statement of the uploader, there is permission from the author. What you might say is that we don't have the same form of evidence of permission that we would require about files uploaded after 2007, but that's not a reason to delete this file. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this upload was invalid in 2005 and should have been deleted in 2005, but it was somehow missed. The grandfather guideline was never meant to legalize such files. Jcb (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that the upload was not valid in 2005? You have not mentioned any fact. The file has more than 12 years of use, it is used in many articles and it has been reused in many publications. It is not an unused file hidden in some corner of Commons. It was not missed. It is kept because it is understood that it meets the requirements. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly not uploaded by the copyright holder and there is no mention that the copyright holder would have agreed with a release into a free license. Only if such a claim would have been made by the uploader the file could have been {grandfathered}. But the uploader didn't. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned already, before 2006 it was only required that the uploaded file mentioned the attribution and the license, and no other statement was required. Now, one can't interpret the words "properly licensed" used in the guideline to mean requiring some additional statement that became required at a later time, because such interpretation would amount to ignoring the guideline, whose point is exactly to remind that such additional statement was not required before 2006 and that it is not required retroactively. It can be noted that, even if the uploader had no obligation to do so, he actually did add an additional statement later, although not on the same page, as we shall see below in the chronology.
  • But first, let us say a quick word about the uploader. He was on fr.wikipedia since about 2003, he was an administrator there for 9 years, before he became too busy in his life and slowed his contributions. In 2005, he transferred the files he had uploaded from fr.wikipedia to Commons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any user should be treated differently than others. I'm saying that this uploader knew what he was doing, did it well, openly and clearly, and did comply entirely with the rules existing at the time.
  • Now, let us recapitulate the facts.
  • On 5 November 2004, Nojhan uploaded the two photographs to fr.wikipedia: first, at 22:08, the first file, "Stonehenge 1.jpg" and, at 22:14, the second file "Stonehenge 2.jpg" (cf. fr:Wikipédia:Log d'upload/novembre 2004).
  • On 18 May 2005, Nojhan transferred the two files from fr.wikipedia to Commons. In the process, he used this occasion to rename the files with more precise filenames. At 10:16, he transferred the first file, formerly named "Stonehenge 1.jpg", to Commons under the new name "Stonehenge back wide.jpg" (cf. [2] and [3]) and, at 10:20, he transferred the second file, formerly named "Stonehenge 2.jpg", to Commons under the new name "Stonehenge front half.jpg" (cf. [4] and [5]). He correctly attributed both files to Frédéric Vincent and indicated the license CC-by-sa 2.0 (cf. [6] and [7]) (technically, he saved the text of the description of "Stonehenge front half.jpg" at 10:21, one minute after the image was uploaded at 10:20, but are you going to argue about that?).
  • On 24 September 2005, in answer to another user, he reminded them that "Hi, the picture is not mine, but has been taken by Frédéric Vincent. I have only uploaded it on common for him." (cf. [8]).
  • On 12 September 2009, he added to the description page of the first file, "Stonehenge back wide.jpg", the additional line "Uploaded by nojhan, as asked by the orignal author." (cf. [9]). He did not add the same line to the description page of the second file, but remember that there was no obligation to do so, since the files were already correctly attributed and licensed when they were uploaded in 2005. And from the whole situation, it is quite obvious that it is the case for both files.
  • On 28 October 2011, in answer to an external reuser about "Stonehenge back wide.jpg", he again repeated the information (cf. talk).
  • In short, everything has been clearly and adequately done from the start.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are actually saying is that if I would have uploaded the work of somebody else back in 2005, with attribution, and with the template of a free license, but without the permission of the author, everything would be fine in your opinion? Well, I strongly disagree. Jcb (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer asked the uploader to upload the file for him. It was done "as asked by the author". Since it was the author who requested it, it was obviously with his permission. You are making up without any reason an unsupported accusation of "without permission". Back then, Commons assumed good faith. It reaches an even higher level of safety considering that the uploader is a trusted user. In the total absence of doubt, we still stand by it. We do not delete valid and useful files. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“The photographer asked the uploader to upload the file for him. It was done "as asked by the author".”
Is this disputed by the author, Frédéric Vincent? If yes, do we have any evidence of this? Grasyop ✉ 14:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I can ask the author to make an official statement, what is the correct process (in french, ideally)? NoJhan (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salut NoJhan, ce sera en effet le plus simple pour que l'on aille perdre du temps ailleurs que sur un cas évident de bonne foi, qui plus est précisément prévu dans les guidelines. Sur fr:Aide:Republication/Image, tu as l'exemple d'un mail type (vise le cadre noir « Modèle de courriel à envoyer à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org. ») que Frédéric pourra envoyer à partir d'une adresse qui laisse à penser qu'il s'agit bien de lui, l'ayant-droit. C'est assez simple, mais si tu n'étais plus actif/plus en contact avec la personne/autre ç'aurait été galère avec les pinailleurs d'ici. :D Totodu74 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ce serait bien qu'il écrive clairement qu'il t'avait bien mandaté et que la photo était bien sous licence CC-by-sa 2.0 dès le début. (Et ne pas faire l'erreur par inadvertance de copier le modèle avec version 4.0, ce qui risquerait de créer une situation problématique pour les réutilisations déjà faites.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author don't have an e-mail "showing he's who he claims to be", because he's just a random person. If he sends this e-mail from his random gmail address, will it serve the authorization purpose? Should I ask him to register on commons? I'm afraid he will just let you delete the picture, because he dislikes overcomplicated bureaucracy… NoJhan (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to be clear:
  • Firstly, as explained in the guideline, a mail or any other action is not required for these pre-2006 files that were correctly attributed and licensed. Unless someone finds an actual reason to think that you might have either lied or made a mistake when you tagged the file as CC-by-sa 2.0 when you uploaded it. So, this discussion could be closed easily by a reasonable admin if, while you're here, you would please, here and now, reaffirm that when Frédéric asked you to upload these files on his behalf, this included that he clearly agreed that they were licensed with CC-by-sa 2.0 (or with any free license that he let you choose, depending on the actual agreement between you two). In this situation, a mail from Frédéric is not necessary but of course it would still be a good thing to have it, to be on even safer ground and if only to avoid more discussion. Or, if that was not the case, then you could say "Oops, come to think of it, I think he may not have fully realized that they would be under such CC license", in which case we will need a mail from him.
  • Secondly, even if it were a new file uploaded today and for which a mail from the author would be required, the level of evidence about the identity is adapted to what is reasonable for each type of case. See the page Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, at the section titled "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." and on the same page the additional explanations in the last paragraph at the bottom of the section Commons:OTRS#E-mail template for release of rights to a file. The logic is that we need stronger evidence for cases where it matters, for example when a photo has been previously published somewhere, or when it comes from a professional photographer, etc. But when a photo was never published elsewhere before and it is sent by, like you say, a "random person", we do not expect the person to use anything other than their usual mail account or to create a website just to be allowed to upload their photo to Commons. Normally, if there is no reason to doubt, it would be pointless to ask a lot of evidence. The OTRS volunteers have some discretion to adapt to each case. If there is a doubt or if a case is important or special for some reason, they may ask some evidence, reasonable to the situation. For questions about the details of the treatment of the OTRS mail, you can ask the OTRS volunteers on the page Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard.
  • If Frédéric sends a mail, he should mention his two files, or more if there are more, so he doesn't have to go through this again later if a deletion request is made about another of those files.
-- Asclepias (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for cases like this, a message from a gmail address will normally be sufficient. @Nojhan: If Frédéric sends a message to OTRS, he should receive an autoreply with a ticket number. It would be helpful for a quick solution if you could post that ticket number here. To closing admin: I suggest to leave this open for at least 1 week from now, hoping that we receive something at OTRS in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep if you want to change long standing consensus, then you need to go submit a proposal, until then keep. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I don't like it any more than Jcb does, but the pre-2006 guideline is clear -- in the absence of any information to the contrary, all that is required is attribution and license and we have both of those. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the authorization has finally been sent to OTRS anyway. NoJhan (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Stonehenge_front_half.jpg&oldid=273422950"