File talk:Rachelhoward.jpg
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 5 January 2012 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Reason not to delete this image[edit]
I have looked into the history of this image on en.wikipedia.org, from where I transferred it. All uploads on en were by w:User:Balance1969. I have accessed deleted contributions to arrive at the following:
The image was first uploaded on en.wiki with the filed name w:File:RachelHoward.jpg (NB note upper case "H")
23:14, 14 May 2008 First uploaded by Balance1969, but with no licence info (no info at all, in fact)
23:16, 14 May 2008 A bot tagged it as lacking licence info, and left a message on Balance1969 user page.
23:20, 14 May 2008 Balance1969 uploaded the image again, but still with no licence info.
22:03, 20 May 2008 In the next 15 minutes, Balance1969 made 4 edits to get the formatting right so the image appeared in the info box for the article w:Rachel Howard
20:45, 20 May 2008 Balance1969 uploaded the image once more, but still with no licence info. This was the third upload of exactly the same image. I presume Balance1969 was trying to get the licence info to appear, but, being inexperienced, was failing to do so.
22:11, 20 May 2008 Balance1969 uploaded the image for the fourth time, this time with a slightly different file name of w:File:Rachelhoward.jpg and also succeeded in creating an appropriate licence, namely {{cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, which comes up as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}}
06:03, 22 May 2008 The first image file was deleted by an admin for "Lack of licensing or source information"
23:09, 23 September 2008 The second file, with the licence, had been on en.wiki for four months, and in use not only on w:Rachel Howard, but also on the high profile article w:Damien Hirst. Nobody had any issues with the licence, so I transferred it to Commons and deleted the en.wiki file as a duplicate.
The fact that it is now threatened with deletion on Commons, I find troubling and is certainly a discouragement for transferring files.
The reason given for proposing to delete the image is "This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status." But the author and source are given as "self" in the licence, i.e. as w:User:Balance1969.
Note that the uploader could not have taken it from the Rachel Howard site,[1] as there are no photos of her on the site. This indicates also that it is not a photo that was once on there and has since been removed/replaced.
The photo does not appear to have come from the internet either. I have checked 42 pages of 827 images on Google images. The photo is not there.
Polarlys asks, "Who took this photo? No information provided on en.wikipedia.org, only contribution by original uploader." Information was provided on en.wikipedia.org, namely "self", i.e. w:User:Balance1969. The fact that this was the user's only contribution, and the nature of its usage, shows that the uploader was most likely to be strongly associated with the subject. As 1969 also happens to be the birth year of w:Rachel Howard, the subject of the photo, the uploader is very possibly the subject herself, who could easily have taken the photo on a timer.
There is no evidence to suggest anything other than this is a legitimately uploaded image with the required licence. Surely for deletion to take place, there has to be a valid reason to seriously doubt the legitimacy of the upload. I have shown there is no reason to doubt it.
I am emailing the contact on the Rachel Howard site to see if any light can be shed on this.
Tyrenius (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- We need someone who says: "I took this photo". Uploading and putting a template in, isn't enough von Wikimedia Commons. We need such a statement by the photographer, not the subject. Not finding an image via google, doesn't mean anything, most content from databases doesn't appear there. --Polarlys (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It is only speculation that the uploader was the subject, so let us discount that speculation then. Not finding the image via google does mean one thing: it means the uploader did not find it on google either, so that is one obvious possibility of malpractice ruled out. It is not on the subject's web site either, so that is another obvious possibility of malpractice ruled out.
Let us follow through the upload procedure on wikipedia for a user who has taken a photo themselves, owns the copyright and wishes to upload it. When a user clicks on the generic "upload file" link, they get to a page with various options. One of these is "Entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it".
By clicking on that link, the uploader asserts that they are the author of the work, i.e. "I took this photo".
The user is then taken to another page, which says, "Use the following form to upload a file that you, personally, created. To upload a work of a different kind, please return to Wikipedia:Upload. This form should be used to upload a work that you created from scratch. The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative". Additionally, it is important that your work not incorporate third party clip art unless that clip art is public domain. The image must be completely your creation – meaning that you took the photograph, painted the painting."
By using that page, the author is once more asserting, "I took this photo".
The author would then have followed the procedure on en:wiki that demonstrates what you require. But according to what you say, when the image is then transferred to Commons, the authorship then has to be stated additionally in a different way. If that is indeed the case, this is surely a highly problematic glitch between the two projects, and needs to be addressed to prevent legitimate uploads on wikipedia being deleted when they are transferred to Commons.
