Talk:Patera Building

Image File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg is posted subject to Orphan Works Licence OWLS000258 Nigel PG Dale (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I am looking for some help here. Each time I put up the above image, others take it down. The image is available on Geograph, and I have an 'Orphan Works' licence for its use. On line and Wikipedia were specified as the uses to which the image should be put. As part of the orphan works procedure, I made extensive efforts to trace the poyright owners without success. Do Wikipedia accept the orphan works/Geograph licence? Wikimedia Commons do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel PG Dale (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel PG Dale: it appears that the image is only available on Geograph because you uploaded it there.[1] You are listed there as the photographer and copyright holder, but the above note indicates that this is incorrect. If so then this is licence laundering, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia and on Commons. Commons accepts Geograph licenses only when they are validly applied. Commons only accepts work that is either explicitly freely licensed or is in the public domain, see c:Commons:Licensing. English Wikipedia also accepts fair use images (see Wikipedia:Non-free content), but I think this picture would not qualify. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Verbcatcher, I can't win. I took advice from another user who told me that the way forward was to seek an orphan works licence, which I duly did. Please explain how I should use this image for which I have a licence. The copyright owner is unknown.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that you have obtained a licence from the UK Intellectual Property Office?[2] I am not familiar with that process. I suspect that it would be unacceptable on Commons (and on English Wikipedia), partly because of the seven-year expiry. You could ask about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I am confident that you should not claim to be the author (i.e. the photographer). The license does not mean that you own the copyright, so you cannot issue a valid Creative Commons license. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the exchanges that are archived at c:User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2021#a photo has been deleted and at c:User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 2021#Image File:Geograph-6864623-by-Nigel-Dale.jpg? If so you appear to have misinterpreted Jim's comments. He described an image as an 'orphan work', but he did not suggest that you apply for an orphan works license and he appeared to be unfamiliar with the license that you have obtained. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Patera Building exhibition stand NEC 1981.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, You have worked against the spirit if Wikipedia by removing the Mark Whitby graphic that explains how the Patera Building's unique structure works. You seem to wish to protect the copyright of Whitby - who doesn't need your help. Readers who are interested will be worse off after your intervention. This article is of current interest due to the impending listing of the building by Historic England. Please reinstate the imageNigel PG Dale (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)