Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the video is listed with a Creative Commons Attribution license it's not VOGUE Taiwan's video. The origin of the video is a clip of an interview with Architectural Digest (which the original video does not have the CC license) so VOGUE Taiwan most likely doesn't have the right to put a different license on it. Clip is at roughly 4:27 of the Architectural Digest video.|source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxPPdlo72ho&ab_channel=ArchitecturalDigest
Not an obvious case, sending to DR per COM:UNDEL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Althougt these captures were from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian --RevengerTime (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete Need to refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg as both have the same issue and the same decision should be done to both. en:Condé Nast both Vogue and Architectural Digest are both brands under Condé Nast. Per en:Vogue (magazine) Vogue Taiwan is an international offshoot/edition under Vogue American; it does not have any direct affiliation with AD. I don't believe it's a simple answer but there needs to be consensus among the Wikimedia admins as how much authority Vogue Taiwan has to relicense videos from other YT channels like AD, GQ, Glamour that are associated with Condé Nast especially when original source is still available on YT and not under the CC license. It would be different if the verified YT channel was "Condé Nast" but it's specifically "Vogue Taiwan" re-posting the videos with subtitles and I don't believe you can just assume Vogue Taiwan has the license rights to change the original video's license. Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- adding Günther Frager and Tanbiruzzaman since they approved the license reviews of File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 02.jpg and File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 03.jpg respectively Diddykong1130 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Vogue and Architectural Design are brands not companies. These brands are owned by Condé Nast and Condé Nast can license their content as their wish. The Taiwanese Vogue may be produced under a franchise agreement, but if that is the case, then it is unlikely the Taiwanese franchise has an agreement that allows them to (re)license original Vogue content under CC-BY. I wouldn't mind having that discussion, but it likely belong to COM:VPC. Günther Frager (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
