Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kirsten Wise
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:Kirsten Wise
[edit]I don't see any evidence of a free license or equivalent at the source.
Yann (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Kia ora, just wanted to note that these two other photos we're uploaded by me under the same rationale so would also have to be deleted if these are.
- So the website stating conditions isn't sufficient as a free license? In the section here Use of website Images/Photos it states "All other images/photos on the website are copyrighted to the Napier City Council, if you use these images you must state that the images/photos are copyrighted to the Napier City Council" - to me that's just them asking for attribution if you use it which implies you can use it. I did read some of the relevant pages on commons about licensing, it is unclear to me if this falls afoul of the guidance there. Having a look at other files tagged with this same Attribution template just now, I didn't find any that were this situation (though most of them were dead links to license pages so who knows what they said) seems like a point against these images though. Interested in what the outcome is here. Cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is not a sufficient permission. It is not irrevocable, and it doesn't allow derivative works, etc. Since they already allow some limited use, they may be willing to release some images under a free license. Yann (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Have you asked NCC about it, TheLoyalOrder? That's a very good idea as they seem open to making their content available; they just haven't gone about it the right way. I can guide you through the process of getting formal sign off from the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if they reply in the positive and you want a hand with the next steps. Schwede66 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had asked previously two months ago but they ignored me. Maybe you could try? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've done so. Let's see whether they get back to me. Schwede66 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had asked previously two months ago but they ignored me. Maybe you could try? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you asked NCC about it, TheLoyalOrder? That's a very good idea as they seem open to making their content available; they just haven't gone about it the right way. I can guide you through the process of getting formal sign off from the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if they reply in the positive and you want a hand with the next steps. Schwede66 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, this is not a sufficient permission. It is not irrevocable, and it doesn't allow derivative works, etc. Since they already allow some limited use, they may be willing to release some images under a free license. Yann (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleteas per the concern raised at File talk:Kirsten Wise.png. Schwede66 05:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wait I've communicated with the mayor's PA, first by email and then by phone. Basically, their intentions are identical to CC BY 4.0, but she now understands that this is not what it says on their website. I've informed her of NZGOAL and she has asked me to put that in writing, so that others at their council can decide to make the necessary changes. She's asked me to write a suitable copyright statement for their website, which is what I've done. She will now try and get that approved internally. She thinks that given that NZGOAL basically asks them to provide material with an open license, this should not be too hard to achieve. I therefore suggest that we wait a wee while until I hear back from her. If they change their website accordingly, I'll let you know. If she can't get this sorted out, we can action this in a wee while (e.g. in a fortnight's time). Schwede66 00:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the licensing is vaguely worded but unfortunately a free license can't be definitively seen. Kiwichris (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - the conditions on their website discussed above are not sufficient for Commons. If their intention is to allow free re-use, please have them use a Commons-acceptable license on their site, or have them confirm the permissions of these files to COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)