User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2017/March

could you please be more careful...

Could you please be more careful?

You applied a {{Nod}} tag to File:Kyle_Schlesinger_Austin_2016.jpg -- even though it bears an apparently valid Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

I can see applying a tag like that -- if you had a reason to be concerned about flickr-washing, or reasonable equivalent. But, if you had that concern, surely you should have explained it, somewhere. Surely I should be able to look at the file, and FIND the explanation for your concern?

You are aware that individuals are entitled to upload self-portraits -- particularly when they are the topic of an article on one of the wikipedias?

I am going to ping @Kyle Schlesinger: , the uploader. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. I apologize for the "nod". That was a typo of "npd". I added the template because the person depicted in the photo is en:Kyle Schlesinger which is also the same name of the uploader of the photo. So, if the uploader and person shown in the photo are one and the same, then either this is a selfie or it was a photo taken by someone else. Given the pose, etc., it does not look like a selfie to me which means it might have been a work for hire. If that's the case, then my understanding is that permission of the photographer or evidence of a copyright transfer still needs to be provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, but for the last couple of decades digital cameras, even the cheapest, come with a self-timer. So, that the image shows Schlesinger doesn't mean Schlesinger wasn't the photographer.
• You are correct, it is possible that Schlesinger handed his camera to his neighbour, girl-friend, or a passer-by. Technically, that would make the passer-by the owner of the image's intellectual property rights. But, IF that were the case, in what universe would there be any reason to force an uploader, like Schlesinger, to jump through the extra hoops of getting a formal release?
• IF the photographer was his neighbour, girl-friend, or a passer-by, and you asked them, right after they handed the camera back to Schlesinger, whether they thought they retained any rights to that image, they'd laugh. They'd think you were joking. If you explained to them that you didn't think a verbal agreement between them and Schlesinger was sufficient, and you were demanding legal paperwork, you'd probably make them mad as hell.
• Under what circumstances do you think a photographer, other than Schlesinger, would exercise intellectual property rights? Would an embittered ex-girlfriend tell Schlesinger he no longer had permission to upload images she took with his camera? She could hardly blackmail him, when it would only take him a minute, or a couple of minutes, to take a selfie with the self-timing feature that even the cheapest cameras come with. Geo Swan (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I just want to point out that an account with the user name Kyle Schlesinger does not mean that that the account holder is the same en:Kyle Schlesinger. As for the other stuff, it seems that you are arguing Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie which is not part of Commons:Own work#Not own work yet. FWIW, I did add the template in good faith. Perhaps, the uploader will see your ping and provide a little more clarification. Maybe this discussion can be linked to or added to the file's talk page for future reference. I asked an uninvolved admin about this at User talk:Didym#File:Kyle Schlesinger Austin 2016.jpg and their reply was that further verification is needed. So, perhaps things aren't so clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)