Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Galerida deva.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
although all the flickr set is cc-by, the pictures are visibly watermaked (c) Nidhin Poothully. Surely he or she is the author and flickr user, but watermaking them and then making them cc-by is rather contradictory. I am not sure is this is allowed. -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 08:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are definitively wrong.
- If you had searched a little, you would have found that :
- 1/ all the images proposed by this photographer are made this way : "watermarked" (as you wrongly call it) and black borders, see this set for example.
- 2/ that in his profile the guy says his name is Nidhin_G_Poothully, and guess what, the copyright says © Nidhin G Poothully.
- I propose to close this deletion process now. Regards. PurpleHz 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some precisions:
- Every time I make a flickrreview, the second thing I check are other pictures by the same author (camera model, dates, locations and licenses). That's why I say that all his set is cc-by and watermarked as © Nidhin G Poothully, to be more precise.
- I have absolutely no doubt that Nidhin G Poothully, Flickr user, and Nidhin G Poothully, photographer who watermarks his own pictures, are the same person.
- As I state in my first message, the only doubt I have is if licensing them as cc-by and marking them with a copyright symbol is a problem for Commons, since those actions are contradictory, those licenses are incompatible.
- I hope that now my reasons for nominating are clearer. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as i know CC-BY is a copyright license, so the (c) mark isn't contradictory at all. The © just mean there is a copyright. Regards, PurpleHz 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some precisions:
Deleted. Although it's actually not contradictory the use of the (c) mark and the release of an item under a CC license, the fact is that the image has changed its license. It's not actually allowed, but I don't think it's worthy to keep the image provided that the author does not want to share it. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) PS: just two issues: Fernando has proceed in the proper way. Deletion nominations are ways to clarify the status of an image. From now on, he knows that a (c) mark and a CC license is not contradictory. PurpleHz, stay calm and civil (and "watermarked" is right; it's a usual commons parlance, so it's not Fernando the guy that doesn't has searched a little.[reply]
Restored. Deleting this image using this deletion request as comment is clearly not acceptable. Fernando Estel opened this DR because he doubted cc-by and watermark were compatible. Actually, they are not contradictory, so the image must not be deleted for that reason. The reason Ecemaml stated to close this DR is that the license is now "all rights reserved" on flickr. But Fernando Estel reviewed this image as cc-by, thus confirming it was released under cc-by before. The current status of this image on flickr is irrelevant. Flickr should not allow such license changes since free licenses aren't revokable, but as the copyright status was reviewed before the license change, the image must not be deleted for this reason on Commons. I restored it. guillom 14:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do know that licenses are not revocable. But this time, revocation didn't happen long after the image upload to commons, but almost immediately. In such cases, I tend to think that the author was not really aware of what the CC license meant and once known s/he decided to change his mind. What you say is technical and absolutely correct, but I also think that respecting the wishes of the authors is also an issue. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
