Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 104959762@N04

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/104959762@N04

Batch 1. Unfortunately their licensing terms are incompatible with commons. Yes it is released as no known restrictions on Flickr but the image descriptions state NC -

see https://pioneer.mazinaw.on.ca/licensing-terms/ which states "Permitted Uses

The Cloyne and District Historical Society (CDHS) allows personal, educational and other non-commercial uses of the Content on the following terms:"

You may not use the CDHS Flickr Content for commercial purposes.

Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Flora MacDonald Denison

Discussion

 Comment Seems like a hailshot. Why include photographs that are clearly very early 20th century and Public Domain? Vysotsky (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If its from their Flickr stream we technically can't use it. Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This is a nomination dump that clearly no one is going to deal with one by one. Some of these image are clearly in the public domain, such as File:Flinton Hotel (Stewart House) Tavern License 1900-1901 (15853239873).jpg or this one File:Walt Whitman Inscription on Mazinaw Rock - Bon Echo (21173474953).jpg that seems old enough. We know several archives and museums practice copyfraud by claiming copyright over works that are not in copyright. I suggest regrouping these into smaller more manageable nominations based on their actual copyright infringement not just the say so of the source. Besides that, the uploader is not active to defend the nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep They were added in 2014 to Flickr Commons with "No known copyright restrictions", which appears to be renouncing any previous restrictions. They had the option of using a CC-NC license and did not. If they withdraw their new license, we can then use that new information to decide on deletion of any that may still be under an active copyright in the US. Any post-1989 images would be under an active copyright and pre-1989 images require a copyright symbol and year, and registration in the copyright/copyright renewal database. This should have been a question at Village Pump, rather than jumping straight into a deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep and if there are any that there is good reason to think are not PD, nominate them separately. Clearly a lot of these are PD; someone posting them to Flickr and saying they are NC has no legal (or moral) force. I'm not going through them one-by-one to see if some might be problematic; clearly many are not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep No valid reason for deletion (nominator: please learn about dual licensing before making any further deletion nominations); too many images under one umbrella. I'm not clear why we'd consider an external (to Flickr) website to override a licence on Flickr, but if we did, we'd need to also take account of the text there saying "Before sharing this Content on Flickr, CDHS consulted with the donors of content to determine that there are no known copyright restrictions and that no rightful copyright holder can be identified.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Kept: per discussion; no consensus for bulk deletion. Notes: from looking at a sample, majority of images seem likely to be {{PD-Canada}} as well. No prejudging relisting individual image or smaller related groups of images if there is reason to think are not yet out of copyright. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)