Commons:Deletion requests/From Flicker (non commercial)

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=From Flicker (non commercial)|year=2024|month=August|day=19}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||From Flicker (non commercial)|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/From Flicker (non commercial)}} at the end of today's log.

From Flicker (non commercial)

[edit]

We have a number of images of a pregnant women including the ones below. Reading this person flicker page the license appears to be none commercial [1] and [2] with the third image being deleted [3]

Being none commercial these images would be unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons correct? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears per here [4] that the person who took the photo gives permission for it to be release under a license usable by Wikipedia? User talk:Inferis Should we follow up on that? (ie. verify this person identity?)--James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I give explicit permission to have the images on Wikipedia, would that be enough? Inferis (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not if the license is non-commercial today but how it was in 2006 when the image was uploaded! On the second image, FlickreviewR had checked that the licence was cc-by-sa-2.0, i.e. it is ok for commons... Vonvon (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so we have verified for all this images that they where released under a license which allowed commercial reuse in 2006. However since that point in time the license has been changed on flicker to not allow commercial use however it does not matter here as we go with how it was originally released? A couple of the images BTW have already been removed. Should we return them than? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have BTW required acknowledgment of release under a license which allow commercial reuse by the owner of the images.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Flickr_files#Guidelines, "Images verified as freely available should be considered free, even if the license on Flickr changes." This has been a very long standing and repeatedly upheld guideline on Commons. It seems directly applicable to the images verified to be free licensed more than 4 years ago, and their derivative works under compatable licenses. I'm rather at a loss as to why this is even considered needing a listing for discussion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment How about adding {{Change-of-license}} to those images so we could see clearly what is going on and avoid mistakes? :S --Dodo (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add the template. Infrogmation (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --Gloecknerd (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The users whos images they are denies ever having released them under a license which allows commercial use "Besides, as far as I can remember, the license has always been non-commercial. Inferis (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)" [8] Thus we have a problem. Do we have any way to verify that a mistake was not made earlier?--James Heilman, MD (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. All files were first uploaded and later confirmed of being in a free license. As Infrogmation says, later change of license or disappearance of a photo on flickr is not an accepted reason for deletion from Commons. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/From_Flicker_(non_commercial)&oldid=48245481"