Commons:Deletion requests/File:DrRogerLibbyin2014-200.png

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.

File:DrRogerLibbyin2014-200.png

Photograph appears in the banner of http://www.drrogerlibby.com/, which is a copyrighted website. If this is the author's "own work" he should present proof of such to OTRS. If not, then a compatible license from the copyright owner to use the image is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you note above, the photograph of Dr. Roger Libby was taken for his website which you can view at http://www.drrogerlibby.com I hope the appearance there is proof enough that he is the rightful owner because it was a work-for-hire and all rights were transferred to Dr. Libby who is the owner. The photographer did not provide an itemized receipt connecting the payment to the image specified, Seattleditor (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Seattleditor (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Dr. Libby is the owner, then why did you upload it as your "own work"? You didn't take the photo, and you don't own the rights to it. (For those looking on, it's been shown conclusively on en.wiki that User:Searchwriter, User:Seattle24x7 and User:Seattleditor are the same person.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't adequate. Please see Commons:OTRS, and follow the procedure.

For now, I agree with BMK above and add it is copyrighted, licensed material on Commons, in blatant contravention of every Commons policy against that sort of thing. And is not a true CC copyright license, until and unless proof is submitted to OTRS otherwise. Basically, the claim of a CC license isn't valid until then.

Since you admit that Dr. Libby, not you, owns the copyright, Dr. Libby will have to file the OTRS ticket. See, both BMK and I are aware that the file above referenced for deletion contains a factual misrepresentation: We are aware that in the author field, Seattle24x7 is not the author (or the rights holder), and you just confirmed that to us. I recommend reading the whole OTRS page before proceeding.

I also note that a similar file, for similar reasons, was deleted from WP in 2014. ref: w:User talk:Searchwriter#File permission problem with File:DrRogerLibbyin2014.png. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete en:Roger Libby is going to be deleted due to non-notability. So his portrait is out of project scope anyway. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, please help me with specifics. You argue against, yet your argument is for, based on my policy understanding, it is a CC licensed image at this point (that is the point we contend). Can you please, pinpoint for me, a "project scope" item that I may comprehend? Thanks, Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "project scope" argument holds much water - our scope is not simply to host images for Wikipedia articles, it's to be a general repository of images within certain limits. If an image has a reasonable chance of being useful, it should be within the scope of Commons. In my opinion, this image would comply with that - the problem is not scope, it's of ownership and the ability to license. An editor has uploaded it as their own work, but it's clear that the image is owned by Dr. Libby, not by the editor who uploaded and licensed it. That makes it inapplicable for inclusion here, unless and until the owner of the image contacts OTRS and specifically licenses it to us with a compatible license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, twice read, twice agreed. It doesn't help me with Taivo's argument, I'm still confused how that can be an argument to delete. But, I'd also agree that my question is largely academic here. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for those admins here having the delete power: The only article on WP, en:Roger Libby, that uses the image has been deleted. Notability turned out to be less of an issue than an apparent e-mail from the subject of the article, pointing out that he felt that maintenance tags on the article might rise to the level of "defamation", which in turn invokes the en:WP:BLP policy, to delete that which is "potentially libelous".

Whatever all that means, given that 3 editors here agree that the file should be deleted, I re-!vote delete, but especially for the issue that @Beyond My Ken: above originally pointed to, the lack of OTRS permission to use this on Commons. Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio by single purpose account / sockpuppet Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]