Commons:Deletion requests/File:Badgers and fox foraging.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

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.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Released into PD by the photographer, John Campbell. Blythwood (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "released" under Public Domain Mark 1.0, which is not the same as {{PD-author}} since it does not include "grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." Please se the result of the Request for Comment: Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josve05a is correct, the 'release' under the Public Domain Mark is not a grant by the author of the specific 'license' described by PD-author. Such a grant must be explicitly stated. Revent (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, obviously. Revent and Josve05a, you keep harping that this was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images since April and now, so sorry, lets delete the lot. Were the authors contacted and asked to reconsider their tagging in Flickr, suggested they change it to something we can use? No?, in seven months time? Why not? Why now these toxic DRs badgering^(pun!) us to try and fix in seven days what you didn’t want to fix in seven months? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, obviously. Feel free to write up a letter to original photographers (not uploaders) asking if they wish for their pictures to be removed from Commons if you care, but it should be opt-in for deletion not opt-out. This business is absurd - going round mass-deleting images whose photographers have marked them as public domain is a totally unacceptable approach. I edit Wikipedia extensively and hadn't heard about this business until I logged in to upload some new photos today. Many of these photos may have been uploaded by people who have long departed the project - their contributions shouldn't be erased with a week's notice. Blythwood (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep and change the licenses the {{Cc0}} to clear up this legal issue at Commons. The license cc0 is OK but cc-pd is NOT. This is a simple solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Josve05a: If this is genuinely a problem, then we will need a form letter to write to individual authors asking them to relicence. Has such a letter been written yet to send out to each author? Blythwood (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, and neither is it done for FoP-cases or URAA-cases (unless someone activly does it individually) or in any case when we might have a possibilty to get a relicense. I just brought forth the problem. How we solve it is up to each and their own. Josve05a (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: per above Alan ^(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]