Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fani Willis 2023.jpg

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.

File:Fani Willis 2023.jpg

[edit]

Misunderstanding in backchannel communication - campaign has not agreed to release image into the public domain Bremps... 01:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign has refused to release the image into the public domain, as they don't want a photo of Desvignes and Willis circulating around. They had agreed to release the image into the public domain earlier as a result of a misunderstanding. Bremps... 01:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they've agreed to release an image into the public domain, regardless of whether that's the result of a misunderstanding, I'm not sure if that release can be revoked. TarnishedPathtalk 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, actually. I'll send email screenshots tomorrow to let others be the judge. Bremps... 07:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload, but file is COM:INUSE at multiple projects. --Rosenzweig τ 09:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I just want to clarify the point that the Image is "INUSE at multiple projects." While this is technically correct, it looks like most of the projects are importing the image automatically from Wikidata. The INUSE argument remains valid but it appears to be based on a single edit to Wikidata rather than multiple independent edits to different projects. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Here are the relevant emails. The first set of emails predate the second set by about five days. Bremps... 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bremps, my reading is that their first email reply from her unambiguously releases the image into the public domain. Public domain release AFAIK can't be undone. Whether that meets WMF's requirements though is another question. Ps, I thought it was rather cheeky of her to later offer to fill out the forms if you made a article for her. TarnishedPathtalk 01:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, politicians gonna politick. C'est la vie.
Anyway, I called for help at the village pump so we can get more eyes on this. Bremps... 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I would tend to delete it, if alone because if I understand correctly the correct VRT process was never followed. Otherwise we are in the awkward situation where we say "We don't accept proxy statements", so the release is not considered valid at Commons, but we will clearly never get a direct statement. So at best the license will always be considered unverified, and the image should be deleted on those grounds anyway. Felix QW (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the VRT the only way to verify an image's copyright status? Can we link the screenshots instead? Bremps... 07:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of VRT in this process is to be able to carry on confidential correspondence to validate that the permission really comes from the source that owns the copyright: that they really are who they say they are and that they really own the rights. If that is not in question, then there is nothing special about VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The original file being deleted is fine as Desvignes did not want to be associated with this so do a better crop of this current image, crop out Desvignes completely and then suppress/oversight that version of it and then change the description to not mention her at all, just Fani and where the image was taken...simple...the image was already released by her under a free licence and with free licenses, there are not "take-backsies".--Stemoc 07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Stemoc. It was clear from the Emails screenshots linked above by Bremps that an unambiguous release to public domain was made. It quickly became clear that Desvignes got their neck bent out of shape when they were cropped out and they tried to bargain with Bremps to create a WP article for them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why the COM:VRT process exists. It's hard to verify emails not directly from the person, and the suggested email content is more precise and worded in a way which tries to get the copyright owner to think through the ramifications before agreeing, all to prevent misunderstandings. The first email question said "release into the public domain for Wikipedia" which may imply to only allow usage on Wikipedia, and that may be what they were agreeing to (in their minds). I think it's different when the copyright owner puts up an explicit statement when they are distributing the works themselves; in that case we can judge the statement on its own merits. While I don't doubt any of these exchanges, I think we need VRT to sign off on it, since this is the only evidence for public domain status, and anyone who uses it, if it comes to a court case. That is policy, for a reason. Even if the email was verified, they could argue they agreed to a Wikipedia-only license (which is legally valid, but would fail our own policy). So  Delete for me unless VRT is satisfied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Clindberg. The phrase "release into the public domain for Wikipedia" is not clear. Glrx (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Having looked at the email text, there is no discussion of copyright. Instead there is a simple request to release the image "into the public domain." Unfortunately, there is no clarity about which sense of the term, "public domain" is being used here. While we on Commons recognise "public domain" as meaning free from copyright, there is also the alternative sense of "available to the public." The second sense doesn't require a release of copyright restrictions (for example, you can make a file available to the public but insist it is for educational use). This is also within the time period we allow for courtesy deletions. Given that the implications weren't explained and the permission was given by the subject of the photograph (was the uncropped version clearer on whether it was a selfie?) I don't think our justification for retention is sound. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source image is clear that it isn't a selfie. Our "permission" is not from the photographer and we lack evidence that the subject who gave permission holds the copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote in my initial email "Assuming that one of your staffers took it and you own the rights to the photo... ". Bremps... 16:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that isn't evidence, it is merely an assumption. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I interpreted the "yes" from the Desvignes' campaign as an implicit acceptance of that premise, but I understand that other Wikimedians see it differently. Bremps... 17:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "own the rights to the photo" is ambiguous. Does it mean "copyright", "right to possess a copy," "right to distribute," "right to sub-licence," or something else? This is why we have standard templates for the VRT process to remove misunderstandings. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agreed with Clindberg. Personally, I don't think the email exchange is sufficient enough. Legal language should be clear as possible and not confusing or ambiguous. If someone is interested in sharing a photo, I would just direct them to COM:CONSENT. It allows them to release it themselves, with clear legally binding language suitable for the site. PascalHD (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep Although I agree the emails may not be clear enough, it is clear enough to me that they've agreed to release the photo into the public domain. They were asked to release the image into the public domain... for Wikipedia, but I am sure a parliamentary candidate knows exactly what public domain is. Their staffers should, at least. The intention to delete the image because it does not help her candidacy does not convince me. The whole picture should not have been deleted in the first place. But anyway, I don't have a strong opinion and respect those who lean on the delete side. --Bedivere (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per other people who think the file should be deleted. I'll also point out that the email was pretty clear they released the image "into the public domain for Wikipedia", not more generally, and this project requires an image be used "by anyone, for any purpose." So the image clearly cant be hosted on Commons regardless of if it's "PD for Wikipedia" or not. Although it's legally questionable if an image can be released into the public domain by a random staffer of a political campaign who probably didn't take it to begin with by saying so in an email to yet another random person on the internet. That's clearly not a legally binding release by the original creator or publisher. Although you could maybe get away with uploading it to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment User:Krd appears to have deleted the file as it had an expired no permissions tag alongside the link to this discussion. Does an admin want to make a decision on this discussion now, or should we leave it open to gain a broader consensus? From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fani_Willis_2023.jpg&oldid=886632188"