Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by the African Union Mission to Somalia

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:Photographs by the African Union Mission to Somalia

It's with sad emotions I'm forced to create this deletion request per the closing comments of Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images.

Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms. Therefore, we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Public Domain Mark 1.0 is not the same as Public Domain or {{PD-author}}. If someone could please email the author(s) and please ask them to either license under a free license or specify that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law, as per {{PD-author}} (which the images are claiming they have, but which they haven't according to Public Domain Mark 1.0 of which they are tagged on Flickr).

Josve05a (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(discussion)

•  Comment Russavia has expressed on IRC that he will contact the authors. Josve05a (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Undoubtedly, some people will see the size of this DR and want to yell at Josve05a for it. It is based on the results of a RFC that has been open since April, however, and the situation seems fairly clear... that the mere statement, on Flickr, that a work is PD does not meet our requirements for a 'justification' of why it is PD. These files, essentially, fail 'PD-review' as a group... some might, individually, be fine upon inspection, but we should not be hosting several thousand files upon the mere 'assertion', without any justification, that they are PD. If they are not 'inherently' PD (as in the case of something like PD-USGov), and it is actually a case of them being CC-0, then that license must be explicitly stated by the Flickr account... without that, as it stands I don't think the PRP will let us keep these. This is a different situation from something like PD-USGov, where the 'US origin' lets us ignore the copyright status in other countries (and it's a common misconception that US Govt works are PD worldwide.... they are not). These are non-US works. Revent (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

•  keep them all: wait longer; work harder. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I find a clear copyvio on Commons, instead of tagging them as copyvio, I should contact the author and request a relicense before notifying parties here on Commons (via DRs)? We can't keep them when there are issues with them. They need to go, both per the legal text and per PRP. We need to act on the licens the images are under now, not what they might become if we are lucky (and work hard). Josve05a (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So, the African Union Mission to Somalia posting their own photos to Flickr is a case of «clear copyvio» for you? Not a case of Flickr allowing misleading wording in their dropdown form items and people failing to notice? Well, my work in Commons is about promoting free knowledge, not about gotcha moments on those unfortunate people who forgot to read the small print. This matter needs fixing and fixing needs time! In this case, of photos by the African Union Mission to Somalia (and not funny selfies for the lulz by Gabe H. Coud), COM:AGF trumps COM:PRP. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me aress those points in order mentioned.

1. No, not obvious copyvio, that was an exaple for which I reused your arguments to to its sillyness.
2. I'm not about gotcha moments (what is that even in this context?). But there is a legal problem here. The author has tagged them with one legal text, we can not change that.
3. If they read the fine print (~10 lines in total, all equal small) or not is not a matter of discussion, they have agreed to one legal tet, not some other, even though they may have similar names (compare PD with CC, similar names with different postfixes). Now they have chosen a tag "PD Mark 1.0" which is supposed to be used for things such as PD-arts, and not be used to release things to public domain, since that's not a thing, you can't. That's what the second row in {{PD-author}} is there for.
4. No, in the time between noticing this problem, we can't wait for the authers all to notice (and care) and relisense them, we must still abide to our reusers, and we should not rely on that we ‘might’ be able to get them to relicense the images, in any case we should not be disseminating them in the meantime.

Josve05a (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry for the late participation. My comment is more suitable at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. From https://creativecommons.org/about/pdm and https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ we can see PDM 1.0 is not intended to be used by authors. So tagging them with {{PD-Author}} is not correct. "The Public Domain Mark is recommended for works that are free of known copyright around the world. These will typically be very old works. It is not recommended for use with works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions if they also known to be restricted by copyright in others." So the use of this mark for new works is a misunderstanding by the Flickr users. The only thing we can do is to ask them to relicense license them in CC0 or any other compatible license here. Jee 02:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Kept: AMISOM has changed license to cc-0. A mass flickr rereview is pending. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)