Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kmilling

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 uploaded by Kmilling (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation

Timtrent (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- I took that photo myself at the 2016 Jelling Musikfestival (May) with my Canon 500D camera. I edited the photo in Photoshop CS, why camera details may have been lost in the process. I guarantee I am the photographer behind the photo :) -- Kmilling 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Timtrent and Kmilling: Tim, I can see why you were suspicious (basically no EXIF, we have nothing else from this contributor, etc.) but presumably this is legit. See https://www.flickr.com/people/ken_ley/.
  • Tim, will you consider your concerns satisfied if at https://www.flickr.com/people/ken_ley/ Kenneth will indicate that this Commons account is his, and on your user page here link back to that? Kenneth, assuming Tim is OK with that, is that OK with you?
  • Also, Kenneth, did you specifically want to be credited as Kmilling, not Kenneth Ley Milling (In the wikitext, "[[User:Kmilling|Kenneth Ley Milling]]")? - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel@Kmilling all I was concerned about was and is proof of correct licencing. If this will prove ownership and release under our rules I will be completely content Timtrent (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Picture seems consistent with the work on that site. EXIF is not a requirement, just one more piece of possible evidence. So, Kenneth, if you do what I suggested above to link the two accounts, that should be enough. Would that be OK with you? Much simpler than going through the whole COM:OTRS process with confidential emails & all that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmabel@Timtrent -- I found the original photo (before I edited it). If you want to see that, I'll happily mail it to both of you. Just provide a way for me to do so, if need be :) Is there anything I can do in the future when uploading photos (as you can sense from my flickr-account I have quite a few). I usually always crop and edit photos before I publish them. But then naturally the photos lose their original camera tagging. Any ideas? -- thanks alot, Kmilling - 08:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmilling I have no need t see the original. An idea is to upload the full file here with EXIF, and then derive a file from it by cropping and uploading the derived file, linking the two. I am not an expert in these matters, though. Timtrent (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent - it sounds like a way forward to link the two, as I don't know how to copy the EXIF details from an original photo to an edited version. Thanks again for your advice and your patience -- Kmilling (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. @Kmilling: No need to do it this time, I think we're now confident that you are "real" (and I think this should be closed as "kept"; not doing it myself because I am now an involved party). Please do the thing about linking the pages to one another if you haven't already -- it will save a lot of grief in the future.
    • A lot of us routinely first upload the image as it came out of the camera, then use the "Upload a new version of this file" link to upload the version we really want. See File:Ultralight over English Boom Trail County Park, Camano Island, WA 02.jpg for an example where I did this yesterday (you can also see what it ends up looking like, where it shows the file history). - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jmabel is there a way we (by which I mean you(!)) can in some manner affirm the licence on the file such that it is safe for the future? Timtrent (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only in that this conversation will be linked from the talk page for the file.
      • Also, @Kmilling: it would probably be useful if you upload this image (ideally with EXIF) on your Flickr account (which is clearly under your control) with an indication that you are the source of the Commons upload, and then link that image on Flickr from the "permissions" area of the "information" template on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jmabel, I am not sure what you mean by: then link that image on Flickr from the "permissions" area of the "information" template on Commons. I don't know what "permissions area" or "information template" is, I'm afraid :) Where is this "permissions" area, and is that "template" one I find on Flickr or here in the Wiki Commons universe? I'm confused. But, I have done as you suggested, and uploaded the original photo to my flickr account too. It is called IMG_9065 - complete with EXIF details and all. I hope this works. Thanks for your patience once again -- Kmilling - 15:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Kmilling: But on your Flickr account you say "All rights reserved"! Which is it? Are you free-licensing this or not? - Jmabel ! talk 12:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once you address that licensing on Flickr, I can take the next step on the Commons side. - Jmabel ! talk 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jmabel, which copyright setting is approved/recommended by WikiCommons? I don't mind sharing the photo with Wikipedia/WikiCommons. But, I don't what to share it with commercial magazines etc.. I hope that makes sense. What does people usually do here? Sorry to be so much trouble ;) -- Kmilling - 14:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jmabel (talk) - I've set it to Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International now. Would that suffice? It's what Flickr recommends. Cheers, -- Kmilling - 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Kmilling: Non-commercial is no good for Commons. Now, legally, there is no requirement that you offer the same license via Flickr that you use on Commons, but all of this has me worried that you don't understand licensing well and may not understand what it means to offer a license with particular terms.
          • I think that at this point we have established that this Commons user is the same as the Flickr user and so the copyright issue is resolved. If User:MGA73 is satisfied that you understand the licensing and that you really mean to grant the license you have offered here, then I say keep. (MGA73, your comment on that is very much elicited.) - Jmabel ! talk 13:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jmabel: Yes I agree that it is the same person on Flickr and Commons but I asked about NC to make sure that @Kmilling: agree to commercial use. We could close this DR and say license is not revocable but I think the best would be to check if uploader really wanted to license the photo with that license. Especially because a happy user could result in more great photos for us :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I will have a look at it and try to guide Kmilling in Danish elsewhere. --MGA73 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Original file with EXIF has been provided. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Kmilling&oldid=616938452"