Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 154745016@N06

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.

Files found with Special:Search/154745016@N06

[edit]

Flickrwashing. Account purports to belong to the person in the photo. 0 followers etc

Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Went down the rabbit hole regarding File:Willi Gohl Conducting the 640 massed uni choir at the United Nations.jpg. It was previously published in International Choral Bulletin in 2010 without a credit (p. 17). I tried searching U.N. photo archives for the image, but nothing pops up with Gohl's name or the Third International Choral Festival. It's possible {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} or {{PD-UN-doc}} would apply, but it's uncertain. File:Auckland University Festival Choir at the UN.jpg appears to be a photo from the same event. It matches the layout of this U.N. video, but I'm not seeing a point in the video that might have been screen-capped. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gbawden: @Tcr25: Night of 1,000 voices permissions were granted by Hugh Wooldridge ages ago, around 25 May 2018 acording to confirmation received on that day. The image of Williams with the Wagner sisters is a selfie (taken with his iPhone), as was the photo of him in Festival Choir uniform (time-lapse on a tripod), as was the photo of him at the Ecco Stadium with Osborne (iPhone), and was uploaded with this ID for each image. He is therefore the Copyright holder for these images. Please advise what to do to reinstate the images, since using the current method causes these to repeatedly lost. I do not understand why these keep getting deleted and then reinstated, and why the permissions once granted keep getting lost.
    Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chrisdevelop, do you know if those permission emails went through the COM:VRT process? If so, there should be a ticket number that should be added to each file to indicate that the permissions have been confirmed. It looks like a ticket for File:Willi Gohl Conducting the 640 massed uni choir at the United Nations.jpg was opened in 2018, but it was never resolved. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for researching this and especially for the wonderful video from the UN of the choral performance we had assumed lost, which is indeed the same as for the photographs, both that taken by Williams 'File:Auckland University Festival Choir at the UN.jpg' and for the B&W owned by the IFCM. Permissions were granted 5 years ago, and in two cases, those who had authority no longer work for their respective organisations, so it's embarrassing to have to approach them again half a decade later and (in your words) "go back down the rabbit hole" to find who's repaced them in their roles. As this keeps happening, can you clarify why it has taken 5 years for these images to be marked again for deletion, after spending all this time otherwise unchallenged by anyone? Since some of the depicted events took place 51 years ago, the chances of finding the original photographer are slim. Is there not a public interest policy somewhere in Wikipedia where if all reasonable efforts fail to unearth the person you handed a camera to decades ago, the image can move to the public domain? For example, how could we find the photographer of Oscar Wilde with Alfred Douglas taken more than 100 years ago, oblivious to future IT developments? Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made an ask at COM:VRT/N regarding the ticket opened in 2018. That is not a fast process, so it could well be a few weeks before a response is made. As for why the deletion review came up five years later, someone noticed one of the files and found the license information to be questionable. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: Many thanks! Just to be clear, there are 9 images for deletion listed above that have been up for ages, and had permissions granted by the respective copyright holders. Meanwhile, given the long turnaround time anticipated, and to try to protect the article, I'll arrange for them all to be contacted again, to see if they still have the original ticket numbers. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The VRT response notes "The permissions were never explicitly given, and there is no clear correspondence after the VRT agent's response in September 2018. New activity on the ticket dates few days ago but nothing is clear. Explicit permissions have always been missing in this case." Something in the COM:VRT/CONSENT process must have been missed on the prior submissions. I'd suggest reaching out to the VRT team for help in navigating the process, but there may be a need for new declarations from the copyright holders. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was great to get a quick response! If you look at the two emails I adduced above, you can see that these were sent by the respective copyright holders back in 2018. I am not in direct communication with them, but I will do my best to get these resent, and as you suggest contact VRT. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the info at COM:VRT/CONSENT they will need follow a very specific path for submitting the authorization. Just having the email isn't enough; it has to be submitted properly. I would suspect something slipped in the process in 2018 and thus the approvals didn't get verified. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following six images have just been released by the Copyright Holder (Derek Williams) under Ticket#2023090110000189:
Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: I've had a detailed look through the video you kindly sourced, and can point to where I believe at least one of the photos was taken by Williams:
22:13 - Williams visible 3rd row back, 2nd from left (to the right of the woman in the mauve top), still in green coat, takes photos
23:12 - starts to unbutton green coat in preparation for the start of the performance
26:20 - visible 3rd road back, 2nd from left (still to the right of the woman in the mauve top), now without the green coat - revealing brown jacket worn by men of the NZ choir
27:47 - Williams closeup, backmost of image starting rightmost, panning to leftmost by 28:02, when the camera pans out
This associates the two images beyond reasonable doubt to the same person at the same venue. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Chrisdevelop, the issue isn't so much confirmation about the veracity of the photos/video, but the ownership and ability to release copyright permissions. If the photo were a screenshot from the video, then the videographer (or the organization they worked for) would need to provide the permission. But a photograph would require a different permission. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and this video establishes Williams as the photographer of the still image in this ticket from 1972. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:Mimi, Nigel and Derek.jpg
  2. File:Sgt Pepper Bootleg Beatles.jpg
  3. File:In Auckland University Festival Choir uniform in NYC.jpg
  4. File:Auckland University Festival Choir at the UN.jpg
  5. File:Derek Williams with Katharina Wagner and Eva Wagner-Pasquier.png
  6. File:Derek Williams with Katharina Wagner and Eva Wagner-Pasquier.jpg

Having said that, we should  Delete all of the other images for which permissions haven't been provided/ or that permissions have been rejected in the past, and those that do not concern the new ticket. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked the subject Derek Williams for images back in 2016 to start the article after the radio interview, he uploaded them to a Flickr page created as a holding place for the images from his iPhone, and sent me the links. There was no 'license laundering' whatsoever. I used these links to add the images to the article. All the images listed above were taken either by his iPhone or for the UN images were scans of slides he took during the University of Auckland Festival Choir 1972 tour. When they were challenged, the actual persons who had held his iPhone for those he had not clicked the shutter to take the photos himself were contacted where possible. The images 1, 3, 5 and 6 were selfies, so that makes him the copyright holder. Image 2 was taken at the same concert as for image 1 and I uploaded it to the Bootleg Beatles article via the Flickr link I had been given. Unfortunately, those who had clicked the shutter and contacted Permissions to release the images cited the Flickr link instead of the Wikimedia link, leading to confusion I presume at VRT as to which images they were releasing. The other images are still being tracked down for permissions. Can you please clarify what you mean by "a very interesting manner"? I don't have VRT login rights, so cannot view the tickets you cited. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisdevelop It is okay to upload images on Flickr and then transfer them to Commons but we need to make sure the Flickr source is compliant with our license policies. It should not be flicker washing. We need permissions from explicit copyrights holders, and a justification about how they are the right person to release the permissions. That's what was asked back in 2018, and some tickets were considered COM:LL because there were different people releasing the same file or perhaps because a lot of your uploads were deleted for failing the license requirements. Coming back to these specific files that are subject to the new ticket, selfies don't require any permissions and can be kept here if they come under the COM:SCOPE. I would really like to excuse myself from commenting on that part. For the images in which Derek is the subject of the image, we need clear permissions from actual copyright holders/photographers. This is simple. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi Thank you for clarifying all this. So for now, we have the 6 images in this thread, which are all by Williams, and so far as I know, all released by him. Other images not listed in this thread include that taken at Gorbals Sound, which has been cleared in Ticket#2023090210004807 and the photo taken with Williams' iPhone by his then student - nominated under Ticket#2018052410015405, cleared by him per Wikimedia Commons Permissions emails. In both of these, the Flickr addresses were used rather than the Wikimedia address, which is what I understand led to VTR being unable to connect the permissions with the images. So far, is all this correct?
Next, we have the 'Night of 1,000 Voices' photo taken in 2007 at the Royal Albert Hall and the '3rd International Choral Festival at the United Nations' taken in 1972. For both of these, there have been delays, with the former being re-requested from Hugh Wooldridge whose company owns the image and for which he gave permission for use by email to us, and the latter being over 50 years old, with the photographer possibly now deceased, and the copyright owned by the International Federation for Choral Music. Both these parties have been contacted, and have yet to reply, but as soon as they do, we'll know one way or the other, however in both instances, emails were sent in 2018 agreeing to the use of the respective images.
Last is the image of Williams at the Royal Geographical Society book launch with Andrew Goudie and Russell McGuirk holding their respective publications. We had no idea that the image on the front of Goudie's book would land us in this minefield. Derek Williams has since heard back from the RGS as copied below. The RGS do not agree to commercial use of the image outwith Wikipedia without permission. Is there some way this image can be licensed solely for use within Wikipedia, to which use the RGS do agree?
Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisdevelop, could you please stop posting non-public personal details of others such as an email address here? This breaches privacy policies. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your long permissions-texts from here as well because they are seriously not needed and are redundant. Please make sure you do not post email addresses of others again. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi Thanks. The email address for the Royal Geographical Society images is published on their website, which is where we found it, as is Williams' email address on his, so I did not think of them as being private. That said, do you have a solution for the RGS concerns? Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also advise you to stop identifying people here. You are free to use descriptive names (photographer/copyrights holder) until and unless the name itself is public. To your question about hosting images that do not allow commercial use, you might want to read en:WP:F for information about English Wikipedia's local policies related to fair-use images. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. A simple solution to everything in my opinion is that: a legitimate copyrights holder (with proof) or a photographer sends a release. If there's uncertainty on permissions, it should be avoided. We do not generally approve forwarded and proxy permissions on VRT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi OK, thank you for this additional information. FYI Andrew Goudie has a Wikipedia article about him and Russell McGuirk is named in the Williams article, and the other two copyright holders have their names on their images so are also not impacted by privacy concerns, however I will avoid using names or emails in any other situation. It'll take a while to read through everything at en:WP:F, but for the six images discussed above all by Williams, and I understand cleared for use on Wikimedia Commons by him, are we good to go? Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Most of them now have ticket permission, one didn't get permission, and one was deleted as a duplicate. EDIT: Deleted two others that don't have any VRT tickets attached. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_154745016@N06&oldid=810407773"