Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from the Centerpartiet Flickr stream

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 in Category:Files from the Centerpartiet Flickr stream

[edit]

Most of the files have been deleted from Flickr.

  • Some of these files say:
    • "För fri publicering (ej för reklam eller marknadsförings syfte) ange fotograf Anna-Karin Nyman" ('translated: "For free use (not for advertisement or commercial purposes) please attribute to photographer Anna-Karin Nyman") (meaning they are not suited for Wikimedia)
    • Please atribute to Foo-person. (Which meant that we have no permission that the photographer/copyrightowner agreed to release the files under these licenses.
  • Some of them says in EXIF-data:
    • Copyrightowner - Foo-company AB (Inc.), meaning that the Flickr-account did not own the copyright.

There may be more files from the same flickr-account, which is not in this category. Please also include them in this deletion request.

Josve05a (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under 14 § lagen (1960:730) om rätt till fotografisk bild, the Centre Party presumably holds the rights to all of the pictures taken before 1 July 1994. I found four such images, which should be  kept:
 Delete the rest. Permission is needed from the photographer, and judging from the EXIF metadata, the party is unlikely to have such permission. In the cases where the images are portrait photographs, permission is needed from both the photographer and from the one who requested the creation of the the photograph (for example the Centre Party, the European Union or Regeringskansliet), per Article 27 of the Swedish copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Only delete files that have contaradicting EXIF or other statements. Do not delete files that are properly marked on Flickr and do not have contraditcting EXIF. For example, I cannot find anything that suggests that File:Vasterteg claes 02.jpg would not be properly liensed with CC BY 2.0. --Ainali (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also vote keep on all other yet uncontended images above that have a valid license on Commons AND either
1. Were uploaded by Flickr upload bot, OR
2. Are still available on Flickr (or other source) with a Commons compatible license.
On all other images I abstain voting. --Bensin (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly why this DR exist. I contends the CC-by license these images should be kept. Just because they were uploaded to FLickr under "a good license", doesn't make them "okey". The flickr-account doesn't own the copyright for at least 3 of those files (I only checked 3), the photographer does. It even says so in the descriptions of those files. Flickr upload bot only checks againt the license on flickr, not if the flickr-user owns the copyright to release the files under that license. Josve05a (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not contending the deletion request of the files with contradicting EXIF or descriptions on Flickr. Per the precautionary principle they should be deleted (even though it is quite likely that the photographer forgot to change his or her standard EXIF text in the camera or editing software and that the copyright claim in the EXIF is false). But files with no contradictions should be kept or we might just delete everything transfered from Flickr ever. --Ainali (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Centre Party doesn't seem to have bothered checking whether it had the right to publish any of the images under a free licence, as evidenced from the EXIF metadata. Therefore, we have to assume that the Centre Party didn't have such permission and that the licence claims are invalid, except when images were taken before the law was changed on 1 July 1994. Just the fact that some of them do not have copyright statements in the EXIF doesn't mean anything. Some photographers do not add copyright statements to the EXIF metadata, but that doesn't automatically mean that they renounce their rights or transfer them to someone else. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Center Party account on Flickr is most likely a multi user account so you cannot deduct that one mistake is valid for its uploads. And your argument about the EXIF is equally valid the other way around. Just because some of the images have a copyright statement in the EXIF does not mean anything. If a photographer has his or her camera set to that, it will be added to all photos taken with the camera, even if it is a monkey who actually takes he photo. Just because the camera adds it to the photo does not really mean it is always valid. With this said, I do agree per the cautionary principle that files with contradicting EXIF should be deleted. Files for which one cannot find any evidence of copyright infringement at all should be kept. --Ainali (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is a procedural close. It is clear that these files have several different issues. Please reopen smaller, single issue, DRs, taking into account the various comments above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Files_from_the_Centerpartiet_Flickr_stream&oldid=265922842"