Commons:Deletion requests/File:SofiF.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.

Based on Google translate from Swedish, all content from the source website http://cafe.se/sofi-fahrman/ is copyrighted. No evidence of CC-BY license. ELEKHHT 14:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be one of several pictures from the Swedish Café Magazine (Category:Magazine Café) originating, not from the link you give above, but from a now-closed Flickr account. The image page actually says this; it links to the now-deleted Flickr page, not to the page you linked above. It also appears that these pictures were available under a CC-BY license at the time. In this case and some others, the license was confirmed by an administrator. A few of these Flickr image pages (without the images) are available at the Wayback machine, and seem to confirm the license ([1], [2]). The issue may perhaps be whether the Flickr account actually belonged to the magazine. If there is no doubt that it did, then it seems that they made these images available on Flickr under a CC-BY license, but later regretted this and closed the account, withdrawing their liberal image licensing in the process. --Hegvald (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I wasn't questioning that the image was available on flickr at the time of the upload under a stated free license. However (1) the fact that the flickr account has been deleted is rather an indication of a possible flickrwashing. Furthermore, (2) as the official website of Café Magazine indicates a different license, it appears that they would have been inconsistent by releasing the image under one license in one place and another in another place, which I find unlikely. Third (3) the image description is dubious, indicating "8 December 2008", while the magazine published it "06 maj 2008", and the magazine as author instead of a photographer is dubious too. (4) The uploader has a record of copyvios in the same period, by which I only mean that is likely to have fallen victim to flickrwashing. To me this looks like a duck and smells like a duck, but I guess the best way to get 100% certainty would be if somebody speaking Swedish would ask the magazine to confirm that they owned a flickr account with the name "magazinecafe" in January 2009 when the upload occurred. --ELEKHHT 13:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for input at the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump (sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Bilder från magasinet Café). Hopefully someone knows more about this. --Hegvald (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The Flickr account was owned by the magazine. This has been confirmed by e-mail on SVWP. Also, the CC-licenses are afaik irreversible. // Sertion 16:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A CC-license is irreversible, but the CC is only valid if the licence was added by the copyright-owner. And we do not know if Café ever has owned the copyright of these pictures. (It's not obvious from the mail.) The CC-license was removed, maybe because it was a copyvio. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep because of the quoted email reply from the svwp discussion: "Vår Flickr-närvaro är ett steg i ledet att helt enkelt utforska och lära av nya kanaler. Vi vill inte agera “gammelmedialt” protektionistisk utan ser snarare ett värde i att vårt innehåll sprids för vinden. Vi är ett modernt magasin och vet att det kanske finns hundra siter där ute som är viktigare för oss och vårt innehåll än vår egen. Creative Commons-biten däremot är ett misstag. Eller i alla fall ett just nu, lite förhastat steg. Vi utforskar möjligheterna att delge delar av vårt material (som mycket som möjligt, om jag får bestämma) under creative commons-licens men vi är inte riktigt där än och alla bilder kommer under kvällen att “märkas om”. Vissa alltså tillfälligt." summarized as "the account is ours but the cc licence was a mistake". However,  Delete if it can be shown that the licence was put there by someone who had no right to do so. /grillo (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete We don't know who the copyright-owners of these pictures are. / Elinnea (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: license is irrevocable Jcb (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]