Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black-headed Shrike-babbler Biodiversity Heritage Library.jpg
" This image was originally posted to Flickr by BioDivLibrary at http://flickr.com/photos/61021753@N02/7609253578. It was reviewed on 2014-05-30 18:50:42 by FlickreviewR, who found it to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0, which is compatible with the Commons. It is, however, not the same license as given above, and it is unknown whether that license ever was valid." The user's other uploads have been without proper source/license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep — @Ellin Beltz: Could you please provide some additional details about why you think this file has an improper source or license? As far as I can determine the file has an accurate source and proper license. The comment from the FlickreviewR bot is not a reason for deletion, in fact that statement by the FlickreviewR bot is one of the "green" status indicating that the source license is compatible with commons; and even if it wasn't, per Commons policy we could still host it (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). I'm one of the two uploaders of this file, but I don't think my uploads can accurately be characterized as having "been without proper source/license." —RP88 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This is most likely a housekeeping problem as the review bot was confused, and I'm not having any better luck figuring it out. I apologize if you were offended by comment, but searching your gallery found some other problems as stated above. Problems are usually problems with the templates, and not usually a judgement on the user. It is most likely that the file was tagged with an out of copyright tag as well as the cc-2.0 tag. We are clearing through a backlog of over 50,000 images without "source", please understand this review is needed due mostly to template errors. Thank you so much for your help resolving this issue. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your "searching your gallery found some other problems as stated above" comment as I have received no notice regarding any image other than this one. Are you sure you are not confusing this image with some other image or confusing me with some other user? The review bot does not appear to have been confused by this image or recommended it for deletion. The tag it applied was {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass-change}}, which is a "pass" template, it's just reporting "FlickreviewR bot checked with Flickr and and this image's license on Flickr is compatible with Commons, but can't confirm that the current license tag is the same" (which makes sense, as the license on Flickr is CC-BY-2.0, but I applied the much more complex {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|cc-by-2.0|attribution=[http://biodiversitylibrary.org Biodiversity Heritage Library]|deathyear=1881}} license tag to this image. —RP88 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, the uploader of the image, the original one has some other problem uploads. You weren't the original uploader of the image to Wikimedia Commons. I think yes it can be hosted, but it needs proper licensing especially due to some of the other images in the gallery of the original uploader - who in good faith apparently uploaded a pile of wonderful natural history images - with incorrect licenses, wrong sources, and possible copyright problems. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like you think there are problems with this file. Before I uploaded the larger resolution version I fixed all the problems I found, but since I did those fixes long before you nominated this file for deletion I can only assume that you found my fixes to be insufficient. However, I can't address your concerns if won't tell me what they are. What do you need? —RP88 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I did state the problem at the beginning the licenses that are on the page are at issue. The flickr reviewer found that the license on the page here and the license on the source page are not the same. I agree totally with you the image is old enough to be kept, but it's not a 3D work of art so any license other than "PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923" is contradictory to that license. Please don't be upset by the process, I don't want to delete this image any more than you do, but this is the only process we have to work through license conflicts. I really appreciate everything you did to fix this image template so far and will happily withdraw my nomination when it's complete. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now I think we've teased out the issue. If I understand you correctly you think that this work should have a license tag of {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1881}} while I think it should be {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|cc-by-2.0|attribution=[http://biodiversitylibrary.org Biodiversity Heritage Library]|deathyear=1881}}. We both agree that the underlying work is in the public domain and that the correct tag for the underlying PD work is PD-old-auto-1923, we only disagree about whether to use PD-Art or Licensed-PD-Art to assert that the photograph can have no independent copyright. Here is the difference between PD-Art and Licensed-PD-Art:
- {{PD-Art}} is used when the photographer of the PD work claims their own copyright in the photo itself. However, via the PD-Art tag, Commons asserts that in some jurisdictions the photo will still be PD (for example, in the US per Bridgeman v. Corel) but possibly not PD in other countries (most notably the UK).
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is used when the photographer of the PD work claims their own copyright in the photo itself, but is nonetheless willing to offer the photo under a Commons compatible license. However, via the Licensed-PD-Art tag, Commons asserts that in some jurisdictions the photo will nonetheless be PD (for example, as before, the US) but in other countries (e.g. UK, etc.) it may not be PD but it can still be safely reused in one of these in these countries by complying with the terms of a free license.
- This case is specifically covered at the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag page in the When should the PD-Art tag not be used? section under the "When the photograph has been released under a free license" bullet point, which says "When the photograph has been released under a free license: In such cases use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} or {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} - this ensures the photograph is reusable anywhere in the world, including jurisdictions where such photographs are definitely or possibly copyrighted. Note that these templates explicitly say that in many jurisdictions the photograph is not copyrighted." —RP88 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
