Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from &C
Files in Category:Files from &C
[edit]These files are all sourced to YouTube videos that, at one time, were marked with a CC-BY 2.0 license. In ticket:2020070910005741, an authorized representative of &C states that the CC-BY marking was accidental. The YouTube videos have since been changed to the intended YouTube Standard License, and &C requests that we delete these images.
(This is a procedural nomination, I have no particular opinion on the outcome. Three other DRs 1 2 3 have been merged into this DR.)
- File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2.png - and File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2 (cropped).png
- File:Chantal Janzen en Nikkie de Jager.png
- File:ChantalJanzen2020.jpg
- File:ChantalMonic2019.jpg
- File:FredvanLeer2019.jpg
- File:Gorgels2019a.jpg
- File:IgonedeJongh2020.jpg
- File:KajGorgels2019.jpg
- File:Kemper2019.jpg
- File:KemperGorgels2019.jpg
- File:Koningsbrugge2019.jpg
- File:MaryamHassouni2020 license link.jpg
- File:MonicHendrickx2019.jpg
- File:MonicHendrickx2019a.jpg
- File:NienkePlas2019.jpg
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The license is irrevocable (and wouldn't be very useful if it weren't), and though I'm normally willing to offer lenience in the case of one-off or occasional human error, here, despite what the representative says about "accidental", I think the company just changed its mind. You'll notice the first one, File:Chantal_Janzen_en_Nikkie_de_Jager.png is from April 2020, File:Koningsbrugge2019.jpg is from June 2019, and most of the months in between are also represented by the other images, so this was an "accidental" marking repeated at least 16 times, and over the course of almost a year at least? I think it's more likely that the company got a new administrator who doesn't like that the old administrator marked the old things CC-BY, and wants to take it back. A license to reuse isn't very useful if the issuer can arbitrarily take it back at any time, as no one can use it for anything without the continuous fear that it could be revoked. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per GRuban. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These 14 images were taken from videos uploaded to YouTube by the license holder between March 2019 and April 2020, with a Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed), as can be seen at the Internet Archive, etc. Two of the images were license reviewed at a later date, one on 26 March 2020 and one on 10 July 2020. Both reviewers confirmed that the video was available there under the stated license on that date. Ten of the videos were uploaded to YouTube with the same correct CC-BY license in 2019, 4 in 2020. As this license is irrevocable, the case is crystal clear. Vysotsky (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Once the licence is given, the owner cannot withdraw the licence. So keep. Ymnes (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete (the NikkieTutorials photos), the original source for that image is NikkieTutorials’s own copyrighted video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOOw2E_qAsE). Someone later using screen stills from that in a CC-licensed video doesn’t mean that those images are suitable for Wikipedia commons. Umimmak (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed. The first two NikkieTutorial photos (Both File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2.png - and File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2 (cropped).png) have nothing to do with this deletion request, as they are no "Files from &C". All others are evidently {{keep}}, but these two do NOT belong in this deletion request. Vysotsky (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. The license is irrevocable, using it over a year is not what should be considered 'by mistake', so keeping the images per the webarchive, except for the NikkieTutorials images. --Ciell (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)