Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with © Cynthia van Elk
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.
Files found with Special:Search/© Cynthia van Elk
[edit]Copyright of these images belong to Cynthia van Elk, a freelance photograher, not works from the Dutch Government
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371713753).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371796864).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371905855).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52370542612).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371714203).jpg
- File:UNGA22 WHoekstra LGBTI-2016 (52370757532).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371906225).jpg
- File:UNGA22 Hoekstra at LGBTI event (52371489706).jpg
- File:UNGA22 WHoekstra LGBTI-2037 (52370757977).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have written to Cynthia and left a message on Flickr. It isnt cleat to me what "copyright Cynthia van Elk" is meant to mean. Just because she is freelance then it doesnt stop stop her from generously donating her copyright images via cc by sa. Moreover we ought to be able to assume that the Dutch government are big enough to make their own mistakes, why do we/our volunteers have to overcheck their work? Victuallers (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have had a reply from Cynthia - she says "Thank you for checking this with me. The photos are free to use but my photo credits need to be included with each publication. " so no issue I think as that is what cc-by-sa means. Victuallers (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not all the cases that the copyright holder allows the government to upload their images using a free license like this. IMO at least a clarification is required. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. IMO, you identified a possible area of doubt, although not a substantial one. That is now resolved. There is always an opportunity to imagine further areas of doubt, but at some point we have to move on. Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- No comment noted Victuallers (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. IMO, you identified a possible area of doubt, although not a substantial one. That is now resolved. There is always an opportunity to imagine further areas of doubt, but at some point we have to move on. Victuallers (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not all the cases that the copyright holder allows the government to upload their images using a free license like this. IMO at least a clarification is required. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have had a reply from Cynthia - she says "Thank you for checking this with me. The photos are free to use but my photo credits need to be included with each publication. " so no issue I think as that is what cc-by-sa means. Victuallers (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Author has confirmed the license on Flickr is correct. — Ætoms (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep. The tagging on Flickr was sufficient on its own, and now we've had it double checked and verified straight from the horse's mouth. --Xover (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)