Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by Guillaume Vachey

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:Images by Guillaume Vachey

Per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images - unfortunately these images all are on Flickr with a Public Domain mark but no language to indicate that they have actually been released into the public domain by their author. As the PD mark is not a license, these images are not freely licensed. Note: Even though the specific image pages claim to be CC0, the Flickr sources are only PD-mark.

!Votes

Hope no one minds but I've collapsed the list above and added a "!votes" header - I feel the endless scrolling could cause issues so to make it easier for myself and everyone else I've made these changes, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - These all appear to have been uploaded by Artix Kreiger who has now been indeffed, Anyway as the PD mark isnt really CC there's no other option that to delete. Sad really as there's some great images above but it is what it is. –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep (I've only checked File:Citroen SM & Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (38769283895).jpg / Flickr )

I recognise the problem with Artix Kreiger. Despite that though, the sourcing from Flickr is objective and not swayed by the vagaries of a Commons uploader.

From Flickr, I see this labelled as PD, and labelled as such here. So, based on that alone, why would we seek to delete it (whatever the uploader did)? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that on Flickr they are posted under the Public Domain Mark (and not Creative Commons 0/Public Domain dedication). The PD-Mark is not actually a license and because it is not a license any image on Flickr with it is not actually released into the public domain and we cannot use it unless it is Public Domain for some other reason (US government or PD-old for example) or the Flickr uploader explicitly states they have released it into the Public Domain elsewhere. We also cannot legally re-license a PD-mark image to CC0 as the uploader here tried to do. Finally, for what it is worth, I did not tag these images for deletion based off their uploader, rather because they are not freely licensed and part of PD image review. Mifter (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So where stands the first !vote, making the point that the deletion is because the uploader has been indeffed - or else why mention that?

So is this Commons shooting off one foot, Sad really as there's some great images, because it's a wikilynching, or shooting the other foot, because a clear indication that the Flickr uploader wants these treated as PD is going to get ignored by Commons as Commons is too simplistic and dogmatic? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps I should've explained better - If I upload PD mark images unknowingly then I always CSD that image and so do many others - I only mentioned Artix as A) these images were all uploaded by them (as opposed to being uploaded by 5 different uploaders) and B) They probably wasn't aware that these shouldn't of been uploaded (or should've been CSD'd)

"Sad really as there's some great images" is self explanatory - There's great images here but because they're PDMark we can't have them, I don't have the greatest knowledge when it comes to PDMark but all's I do know is that they cannot be uploaded, We actually have a PDMark template where once added to that image the image would be deleted in I think 7 days ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Flickr image info	License	License tag
Some rights reserved	Attribution	{{Cc-by-2.0}}
Some rights reserved	Attribution-ShareAlike	{{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
Public domain	Public Domain Dedication (CC0)	{{Cc-zero}}
United States government work	US government work	{{PD-USGov}}, Category:PD-USGov license tags
No known copyright restrictions	Unclear	{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} Preferably add a tag like {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-US-expired}}
No rights reserved	Public Domain	{{PD-author}} or {{PD-copyright holder}} (retired by Creative Commons)
Public domain	Public Domain Mark (PDM)	{{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-US-expired}}, USGov, etc. when labeling existing public domain works {{PDMark-owner}} when Flickr uploader is clearly the copyright holder, and not yourself {{Cc-zero}} when Flickr uploader is clearly yourself, better to also do convert on Flickr
All rights reserved	None	NOT OK
Some rights reserved	Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs	NOT OK
Some rights reserved	Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike	NOT OK
Some rights reserved	Attribution-NonCommercial	NOT OK
Some rights reserved	Attribution-NoDerivs	NOT OK

I've added a table to the right which might help ?, –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Briefly on the licensing, as everyone knows, we have a legal obligation and ethical obligation to follow licenses as given and respect copyright. All the images in this request are erroneously listed as CC0 on Commons (fixable though still an issue) but the main issue is that as the PD Mark is not a legal instrument, putting it on an image on Flickr does not release the image into the public domain or otherwise legally state an image creator has released any rights. Creative Commons also states that "PDM is not legally operative in any respect" and in short, because it is not legally operative, it is not a license we can use as the creator has not actually released their copyright. Mifter (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons is happy to declare images to be PD if Commons decrees (with all the weight of its assumed legal opinion) that an owner's claim of copyright "is invalid" (cf the monkey selfie). Commons will change versions of CC licences, even over the objections of the author. Now, why are you telling me that Commons cannot manage to host images that a Flickr author obviously wishes to dedicate to the PD (and yes, I understand the legal difficulties of this), even when they're a still-active Flickr user? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Has anybody tried to contact Guillaume Vachey to confirm, that really intended to release the images? Maybe he will change the license on Flicker to CC-0 and we can close this case. --MB-one (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I just got a message from Guillaume and he made all of his picture licenses to CC0. --Vauxford (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Kept: Flickr Owner has kindly changed all the images to CC-zero. So there is now no reason to delete. --Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)