Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Simon Hanna

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.

All of these photos, uploaded to the Financial Times Flickr stream by myself (Scott/Russavia), have "(C) simon hanna 2012" in the EXIF data. Due to uncertain licencing status, all files in this category (and nominated here) need to be deleted.

Pricymocks (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment After having gone through all of the Financial Times photos, there are numerous others that I have placed in this category by Simon Hanna, with the same EXIF notes. If deleting files in this DR, please check the category for the stragglers. TempIDforDRs (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This user was banned by WMF from all activity at Wikimedia projects. This includes filing DRs. Jcb (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted I decided nevertheless to delete them all. They were all unused, undescribed and uncategorized. Educational value (a lot of people on some party and on a conference) was not obvious. Some people could be famous, but due to missing description it was impossible to improve the situation. Taivo (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The images have "(C) www.image-revolver.com/ Simon Hanna 2013" in the EXIF data, therefore the Financial Times CANNOT make these available under a CC licence.

Хмеймим (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Are you seriously suggesting that the Financial Times, a prominent business publication, is going to lay itself open to copyright infringement charges by republishing some photographer's works on Flickr without permission? It's far more likely that they bought the rights to the images and/or that these are works for hire. Don't come back unless you can provide evidence that the photographer has filed and won a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Financial Times for these images. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Yes Nyttend, I am. There is a difference between reposting a photo, and reposting a photo under a creative commons licence. As someone who has dealt for some years relicencing and such things, this is quite the common occurrence. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Conor Ashleigh and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (Conor) for an example, which was reinforce here. Unless there is something from the photographers themselves, the files need to be deleted, not only to protect myself, but also re-users. 101.186.54.25 09:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Without solid evidence that the Financial Times has infringed the photographer's copyright by publishing these in an unauthorised manner, there's no reason to believe that these are infringements or a risk to reusers, and I'm not particularly interested in seeing useful content removed for your protection, anyway. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nyttend I have dealt with copyright holders over a number of years, and have an eagle eye for such things. It is standard procedure on this project that if imagery is made available by someone other than the copyright owner, permission needs to be sought. This is especially true when it appears that one party is claiming (C) ARR over images they have taken. As such, I have sent the photographer this email asking for permission to keep them on Commons under CC-BY. Also Nyttend, you comment "I'm not particularly interested in seeing useful content removed for your protection" is quite an petty and nasty thing to say; if you are willing to keep images on the project in order to screw over the copyright holder and punish an editor, then you seriously need to consider what the hell you are doing here. 106.68.30.18 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted
Nyttend, we have worked together here and on WP:EN for a long time. I respect your opinion but I am very surprised at your naivete here. This kind of thing happens all the time and we are required under the Precautionary Principle to assume the worst when there is a significant doubt over the status of an image. In this case, I think there are three possibilities:

  1. That the Financial Times simply posted these as Fair Use images of perhaps important people at a perhaps important event.
  2. Most likely, that the Financial Times has a license to use the images in its print works and in its web activities. Their Flickr maintainer thought he or she was posting correctly under that license, ignoring the fact that the Flickr feed is CC-BY and the license did not permit that.
  3. Much less likely -- that the Financial Times purchased all rights to the images and, therefore, has the right to license them CC-BY.

Note, by the way, that the images are no longer on Flickr. That, of course, does not change their status if they were validly CC-BY, but it is an additional indication that the license was not correct. Also note that the Financial Times, a highly respected institution, is not listed at http://www.simonhanna.com/Clients-+-Awards/1/caption while a number of much less well known companies are. That proves nothing, but strongly suggests that (1) is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]