Commons:Deletion requests/Image:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg

Image:080040 - 015 Sen Kim Carr 24 Jan 08.jpg

• Despite the claim that the image is released under creative commons, the copyright is held byt the Commonwealth of Australia and is not freely licensed. Uploader admits Commonwealth holds copyright here. The copyright relating to the image is explained at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/pages/ITRMinister_CopyRight.aspx . The image is also used at http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm where copyright again is held by the Commonwealth of Australia and explained quite clearly at http://www.pm.gov.au/copyright.cfm The uploader seems confused about licensing provisions - having uploaded claiming public domain but released it as creative commons. Another editor fixed that problem. It has been asserted that the two licenses are compatible. I can't see how the Commonwealth unequivocally claiming copyright and allowing use under certain restrcitive conditions is compatible with creative commons. It has been suggested on the image talk page that It is not unusual for content to have more than one license. And there is no reason to say that Mr. Carr has not ensure for himself that he owns the copyright For all we know it was taken by Kim Carr himself. It is quite clear that it is not a self portrait but a professional image. I do not believe the image was legally uploaded with the creative commons license - there is no way the Commonwealth of Australia allows its images to be used as Creative Commons. Matilda (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx If an employee or officer of the Commonwealth is overstepping their authority, that is an internal matter for the commonwealth. It is none of our concern. The CC license on the official ministerial webpage is sufficent for us to rely upon. 58.110.148.250 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per the anon above, strong keep. The source link comes from the minister's own official site, complete with picture and cc-by-2.5 license. Other permissions are totally irrelevant. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They are not other permissions they are copyright restrictions that appear on the bottom of the page purporting to release the image under Creative Commons. Timeshift + 58.110.148.250 and I disagree as to whether those restrictions override the permission. --Matilda (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, as long as all you're claiming is that the copyright notice on all their pages overrides the indivudal creative commons license, I have no qualms with that at all, as it's wrong so when this is judged the image will be kept :) Timeshift9 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

finally settled then?? I don't know how the image would have come to be on a Commonwealth government website releasing it for use on wikipedia if the commonwealth government did not want the image releasedFeadering (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Settle down Kim Carr staffer. Matilda believes that the MP does not have a right to overrule the authority of the commonwealth in terms of changing licensing on commonwealth copyrighted works. Regardless of if it is true or not, I share your view that the license is now ok from wikipedia's end, any dramas are between the MP and the commonwealth now. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If a government webpage says it is a CC license, isn't that enough? I think it unlikely that the Aust. govt. will sue wikipedia for use of the image in any case. --220.237.198.8 (SurturZ) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If Carr's ministerial page has a CC license for the image of said minister, indeed. Timeshift9 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

newsflash: we're not Wikipedia, and we don't host stuff when we can get away with it. We host stuff when it's freely licensed. No further thoughts at this time. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I believe may not be ok is the fact that the source link's photo is 800×610 pixels in size whilst the uploaded image to wikipedia is 3280×2504. Can any admin reviewing this just confirm that for the staffer? Thanks in advance. Timeshift9 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Timeshift - the copyright owner appears to have gone to some trouble to get this released for public use, and the fact a Government website now clearly states it's CC means we have every ground to believe it is so. There is no version anywhere on the Internet of this resolution, and the ones at pm.gov.au and alp.org.au are drastically reduced shots with less detail (top and bottom and/or sides removed). This department's willingness to do this gives us some hope for the future in our dealings with other MPs to get freely licensed photos that don't look like paparazzi drive-bys. Orderinchaos (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The non-free Commonwealth license applies to the website generally. It does not negate the free CC license on the specific image any more than the GFDL license on Commons generally would negate a CC license on specific image. If someone doubts the license or the attribution, they should contact the ministry about their concerns. Unless and until we hear otherwise from the ministry, the image should be kept. It’s not like the license was claimed by some newbie; the license is on an official ministry website. —teb728 t c 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have indeed contacted the website about my concerns. Note that just because I upload a photo I scanned in from a book I own and claim therefore I made the image to Flikr(another website) and paste it with a free-use license does not mean it becomes a free-use licensed image if copyright is still owned by the copyright holder. The uploader has said the photographer doesn't matter and Carr personally owns the image. I don't believe the uploader. There are other uploaders we done't beleive at times either. --Matilda (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you just give it up? Nobody else has an issue, as they shouldn't. It is an image of Kim Carr, on Kim Carr's official ministerial page, with a cc-by-2.5 license. Copyright is no issue, and seeing as you're persisting I might as well mention that it was you who said here that the current papparazi style photo was "excellent" followed by a smile, and then go on to say Carr's image is not for him to release and is also incapable of releasing it on a commonwealth website. You are persisting in pushing your barrow, I would suggest to stop. We as wikipedians want this, better photos released for wikipedia to use, we do not want to keep with the ameteur photos if we don't have to. Timeshift9 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are quite specific rules about uploading stuff to a .gov.au domain - unlike most domains it's actually supervised. I did some contract work for a government agency once and was amazed how nanny-statish that side of things all was. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it is supervised and that is why I have queried it as ministerial staffers may get to override the supervision for a time - but not for a long time. I note also that the page releasing the picture under Creative Commons claims the picture is "by Kim Carr" whereas elsewhere the uploader has admitted it is not a self portrait [1] - this indicates the upload of the release under CC was not professionally done or supervised. --Matilda (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As others have said here, even if that was the case, that's not our problem and the photo can be used. The sooner the 5 days is up and the 'keep' ruling comes down, the sooner we can all move on. Timeshift9 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep Everything appears kosher here. We have no reason to disbelieve the Australian government. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that a ruling dear administrator? Can we remove the tags and stuff from the image now? Timeshift9 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't closing the discussion. There's no reason why this can't run for the standard 5 days. howcheng {chat} 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep From looking at the source page in question, I would say it's fairly clear that the CC applies to the image, as it's unique to that one page. I can't see the webmaster going to the trouble of gathering up a press/publicity photo AND tracking down a CC label, uploading it, and adding it to the page code if not intended. As someone has contacted the office responsible, if we don't find an update to this deletion request in a couple days, I say close it as a keep. If they reply saying "Delete it" have them put it into OTRS for validation and we can act then on it. Otherwise, there's no reason to doubt a subject's own website. That would be like me putting a blinking arrow aimed at my own image on my own site saying, "This image is CC, rest of the site is Copyright," and then doubting my own intentions on my own website. :) rootology (T) 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Delete The image on Kim Carr's official webpage is indeed released under a valid license that is compatible with Commons. However, in terms of resolution, the image we have is not the same! It is common for a photographer to release lower resolution versions under a free license, but keep the original high resolution image as all rights reserved. My only question is, where did this version come from? It obviously did not come from the source cited (I've searched that site and could not find this high res version). If we aren't provided with a link to the actual source, let's delete this high res version and replace it with the one cited in the source information. Brynn (talk!) 20:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Tagged for Commons:Incomplete license - source info missing and irreconcilable with statements made elsewhere by uploader. Adequate source and creator data has not been provided. The page giving the release is not the source of this photo and is also misleading as it claims the photo is a self-portrait when it quite obviously is not and moreover the uploader has admitted elsewhere it is not by Kim Carr but has said "the photographer doesn't need to be attributed" --Matilda (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If we used the resolution photo, there shouldn't be a problem. Guy0307 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)