Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Horner

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.

Files in Category:James Horner

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license).

Josve05a (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was in a Flickr gallery of StarCard organisation. Originally it has a full copyrigth. When Horner died, I asked the organisation to change license in order to use it on WP. The answer I received said: Hi, the attribute - "Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons" is not an option in the flickr drop down menu. I have selected Public Domain so there are no restrictions. Hope this works for you now?. many thanks. StarCards (see in https://www.flickr.com/mail/72157654582745710). It is, for one unknown reason they couldn't change to CC-BY-SA as I demanded, and chosed some wider license. Image must be keep as it's the only one free image from a dead person. It's obvious that the image belongs to StarCard; it is their core business. Even they show a hardcopy of the WP article in their flickr gallery. Thanks,--amador (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep previous reasons. --amador (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Amadalvarez. This is infuriating. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This picture has obviously been released as PD by StarCards. I just don't understand the argument. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I chcked when the image was released, it was under an appropriate licence, if there is an error, its on COMMONS side, not flickr...--Ste moc 01:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Seems like an open and shut speedy keep. Tabercil (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. See below. Josve05a (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Tabercil: Where has StarBel explicitly stated that they "grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."? CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0. Please reopen and see Commons:Village pump#Deleting thousands of Flickr images over faulty PD marking. They have not agreed to this license, only marked it as PD Mark 1.0, which is not compatible with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick check on the StarCards Flickr feed - all other images present there are licensed as "All Rights Reserved". The fact that only this one image has had its license changed to be "Public Domain" seems sufficient to me as it was a willful act by them to make that change. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabercil: We can not act on willful acts. We need explicit permissions. (Hence why systems such as OTRS was created and is so rigorous.) An no permission has been given as to release the image per the legal meaning. Josve05a (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josve05a/PDM Given that it isn't that "open and shut" and that it is being discussed at VP and AN as well as other DRs (Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/pending) I'm reopening a prematurly closure, in order to get the full 7 days. Josve05a (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here and here. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (as nominator) per Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted. Josve05a (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All other Public Domain Mark DR's has been closed as delete, or been renominated to later be closed as delete, unless the license changed on Flickr. (see the categories) Josve05a (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus Ezarateesteban 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:James Horner

Consensus can't overrule copyright issues. It might be a valuable photo, but fact still stands, it is under {{Flickr-public domain mark}}} and not {{PD-author}}.

Josve05a (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, a third deletion request? Really? What new point are you making? What's different now? Blythwood (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the only DRs that has been kept amongs ALL other Public Domain Mark images, whi is this DR different from all the rest? Uniformity. What has changed is that all other has been deleted, but this remains. {{Flickr-public domain mark}}} is pretty clear cut. Josve05a (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "uniformity" is your option, why don't we change the license of the other DR to give them the same as this one ?. It's really amazing your obsession to delete this picture. What do you pourpose to fix the problem, but delete ?. Probable we can explore it. Thanks to be (pro)positive. --amador (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like StarCards have indeed attempted to release the image to the public domain, so perhaps it should be accepted on Commons. However {{PD-author}} shouldn't be used, because they haven't agreed to the "fall-back" license of that template. The statement "this applies worldwide" on the template is also optimistic. --ghouston (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is perfectly clear that the PDM is not acceptable on Commons. Among other things, it can be changed at any time. We require that licenses be irrevocable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]