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

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This image has been discussed at en:wikipedia. From the thread at w:User talk:Feadering:

Although the image has been released under creative commons at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx it claims the image is a self-portrait? It doesn't appear to be so. Failing to give correct attribution to the photographer invalidates the claim of releasing it. It appears to be a copyright breach - who owns the copyright that it can be released? I have tagged at Commons as disputing the license.--Matilda talk 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your request at my talk page Kim Carr owns the photo, he was not the photographer but all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner. The photographer does not need to be attributed. Please restore the photo and caption.
The page claiming to release it says The image of Hon. Senator Kim Carr by Kim Carr - it doesn't say all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner in fact it claims Carr took the photo himself - that is how I read "by Kim Carr". As such I dispute the licensing claimed at Commons (and have done so there). Moreover at Commons you have licensed as public domain something that was licensed under creative commons. Wikipedia takes copyright issues seriously. Accordingly you need to take the permissions associated with the photograph seriously. While the copyright tagging with the photo is disputed it should not be included in the article. --Matilda talk 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the image on commons. It isn't PD and doesn't need to be PD. The permissions are ok now. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Timeshift has aligned the permissions, I am concerned as to whether Kim Carr does indeed own the copyright. He asserts he took the photo. On my talk page, User:Feadering acknowledges Carr didn't take the photo but all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner. The photographer does not need to be attributed. I see no evidence that rights have been relinquished, that Carr owns the photo and the photographer does not need to be attributed. --Matilda (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just like the image here. The way I see it is that it is a photo of the person, on the person's official website, in this case his official ministerial site. And the photo has been released with cc-by-2.5. If there is a copyright issue in terms of who took it, that issue now falls with the ministerial site, so if copyright has been breached it is their problem not ours. It is a photo of the minister, from the ministerial site, with a cc-by-2.5 license. But if i'm wrong i'm happy to be shown why. Timeshift9 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added query here. I maintain there is no need to know the author. It is a cc-by-2.5 image hosted on the minister's site. Timeshift9 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has now admitted that the copyright is held by the Commonwealth of Australia see note left on my wikipedia talk page. he seems confused about what that might mean as he thinks the notice http://minister.innovation.gov.au/pages/ITRMinister_CopyRight.aspx might allow the copyright disclaimer releases it for public reproduction. It doesn't in a form that is acceptable to wikimedia. The same image is used on this page http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm where again the Commonwealth of Australia asserts copyright. --Matilda (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is an image of the minister, on the official ministerial page, explicitly released under cc-by-2.5. I continue to see no issue here. Timeshift9 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright was not his to release - it is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. If he wants to release an image, he first needs to actually ensure for himself that he owns the copyright. Secondly he should release it on a website that is not a Commonwealth of Australia website. --Matilda (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In legal speak the minister is the commonwealth of australia. When will you be reverting Matilda? Timeshift9 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commonwealth of Australia copyright applies to the entire website. I agree with Matilda that its non-commercial, no-derivative license is unacceptable. This photo, however, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia License. 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. If Matilda questions the attribution, she should contact the Ministry about it. Unless and until they withdraw (or modify) their license claim, the CC license should be good enough for Commons. In any case the new Copyvio tag is inappropriate: According to the template text, it should be used only for obvious cases. —teb728 t c 02:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Timeshift9 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If a photo is explicitly released under a free license on a government website, the appropriate standpoint for the Commons should be to assume by default that the license is genuine. If an editor suspects that there is a problem then they should email the person or authority concerned for clarification. It's not our job to second guess whether or not Mr. Carr really did take the photo that he claims he took. -- Hux (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general copyright blurb covers the website as a whole. The explicit application of the CC license to the photograph overrides this. Hence the photo licence is compatible with Wikipedia. This debate is silly. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This IfD is a waste of time and Matilda knows it. Timeshift9 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:080040_-_015_Sen_Kim_Carr_24_Jan_08.jpg&oldid=13151115"