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.
That is obviously the date of the upload. I do not know why the metadata got stripped. I know the background to this photo because I talked to the photographer for about an hour, encouraging her to become a contributor to Commons. She's deeply into rowing (she and her partner build rowing skiffs). Their company is near Cambridge, where New Zealand's high performance rowers trains. She knows all the New Zealand high performance rowers personally. She's a brilliant photographer and commissioned by Rowing New Zealand to be their official photographer in Tokyo. She's very arty and uses many of her photos as the basis for digital art; here's a link to her website. She is fond of many of the rowers, including Tom Murray. We talked for a long time about this particular photo before she had even uploaded it. I expanded the article as a way of working together. With that as background, I would suggest that this deletion request has the potential to be very damaging. Bagumba, what I would like to see happen is that you withdraw it immediately. Schwede6608:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a creative artist, I hope the uploader, Vera Bucsu, can appreciate that we try to protect people's rights to their works. For me, a timestamp that is earlier than any version on the internet would quell any concerns. Or send in the above linked consent form. I do apologize for the inconvenience, but imagine if someone lifted your work and uploded it to Commons; you'd want us to do due diligence so that your works were protected. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is obviously the date of the upload.: Sorry, I was referring to the date in metadata (which happens to also be the upload date).—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was also referring to the metadata date and noted that it matches the upload date. So yes, we are talking about the same thing. Not sure whether the photographer tinkered with the file just before uploading it. If you want, I can ask her. Schwede6609:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's her file, she's done nothing wrong. Unfortunately, rogues before her have passed other's photos off as their own, so seeing if the same photo existed somewhere else beforehand is one of the things patrollers do as due dilligence. If she can upload the original with an earlier date or submit the consent, I think it'll be squared away.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "submit the consent" bit. It's happened before that I didn't fully understand things on Commons. Podzemnik, you've previously shed light on things that I didn't get; maybe you could chip in. The way I understand it, marking a photo as {{own}} and giving it a licence as part of the upload is legally the exact same thing as the photographer submitting the consent email. So given that she's already done the former, what would sending the consent email to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) achieve? That consent exists already. But as I say, maybe I don't understand something. Schwede6621:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, theoretically we should have a consent email for this as the image was published elsewhere else first. However, User:Schwede66 explained the situation and I don't have any doubts believing him. I know him personally, he's one of the most experienced and trusted editors from the whole New Zealand. Consent emails are to confirm uploader's identity - but Schwede66 confirms the identity of the uploader so that's more than enough for me. In cases like this one, we need to trust each other. I did see in the past OTRS tickets being accepted based on fake permissions. If I follow the chart at Commons:IAR, the situation is clear: ignore the rules and do what's right. Leave the photo here, don't delete it, and move on to more obvious copyright issues. You can start at Category:Media needing categories as of 4 May 2021. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close I've talked to the photographer and whilst she does not usually publish source files for her artwork, she was willing to make an exception to end this issue. See the photo on this page. Can we now close this? Schwede6600:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kept An nominator, withdrawn with no objectors. The mentioned new upload satisfies original concerns about older file versions found on the internet.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, theoretically we should have a consent email for this as the image was published elsewhere else first. However, User:Schwede66 explained the situation and I don't have any doubts believing him. I know him personally, he's one of the most experienced and trusted editors from the whole New Zealand. Consent emails are to confirm uploader's identity - but Schwede66 confirms the identity of the uploader so that's more than enough for me. In cases like this one, we need to trust each other. I did see in the past OTRS tickets being accepted based on fake permissions. If I follow the chart at Commons:IAR, the situation is clear: ignore the rules and do what's right. Leave the photo here, don't delete it, and move on to more obvious copyright issues. You can start at Category:Media needing categories as of 4 May 2021. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
