File talk:Caroline Agnes Brady.jpg

The previous publication criterion has been met
It has been suggested that "No published source has been provided to satisfy Non-free content criteria: Previous publication." The previous publication criterion, however, is concerned with works that have been leaked without permission from the copyright holder, not with works that have been disseminated with the permission of the copyright holder. Per the standard for meeting criterion #4:
 * "Very often, such as for most non-free content emanating from the news and entertainment industries, meeting this criterion is not in question. In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally 'leaked' and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia. ... If, in this regard, an item of non-free content is questioned or is likely to be questioned, then details of an instance of prior publication with permission must be determined and recorded at the non-free media's description page." (emphasis added).

There are no such concerns here. The American Association of University Women, which holds this photograph in their files, explicitly gave permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. The photo was not "leaked," nor has anyone suggested that it was. Because there are neither suggestions nor allegations that it was leaked (and because permission has been provided), there is no need for "details of an instance of prior publication with permission" to accompany the image's use on Wikipedia. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons for WP:NFCC has to do with WP:NFCC. If a non-free photo can be shown to have been WP:PUBLISHED, then there's a good chance that information about its original copyright holder, original date of creation, etc. can be found to aid in verifying its copyright status, etc. The fact that the AAUW has the photo in its files doesn't necessarily make them the original copyright holder or source of the photo. Moreover, having their permission to upload the photo is nice, but irrelevant for non-free content purposes; it would only really matter if they hold the original copyright and are agreeing to release the file under a free license. It would be much more helpful to know more about the photo (i.e. who took it and when it was taken), and not automatically assume it had to come from Brady herself; she would most likely not be the copyright holder of the photo even if she did send it to the AAUW herself since subjects of photos are not typically considered to be their copyright holders. You may feel that There are no such concerns about this file's previous publication, but another editor feels there are; so, the more information you can find about the photo the better the chance there will be of addressing these concerns. The burden is upon the uploader of non-free content or the editor wanting to use it in a particular way per WP:NFCCE to provide a valid non-free use rationale that establishes how all ten non-free content use criteria are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever WP:NFCC's relevance, it is expressly intended "to help determine the material's potential market value." Here, the potential market value for Brady's photograph is effectively zero. As to previous publication, the "concerns" that have been expressed have nothing to do with the the point of the previous publication criterion. The only reason the issue was raised was as an end run around discussion of the other non-free criteria. The standard for previous publication states that occasionally, "non-free content may have been originally 'leaked'," and that "[i]f, in this regard, an item of non-free content is questioned ... then details of an instance of prior publication with permission must be determined and recorded at the non-free media's description page." (emphasis added). No concerns "in this regard" have been expressed, so there is no need to determine or record details of previous publication.
 * In any event, the distribution of the photograph to (or by) Brady or the AAUW could be interpreted as a publication, to the extent that the relevant definition looks for "distribution." It's not as if someone broke into Brady's house and stole the family photographs; all indications point towards a history of intentional distribution, from, e.g., a studio photographer, to Brady, to the AAUW, to Wikipedia. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLISHED is applied to images in much the same way it's applied to possible sources, but is also as defined in WP:PD. The image doesn't have to necessarily be available online to be considered published; so, if it could be established to have been used somewhere in a published work than that might help clarify the original copyright holder of the file. If the only time the file was "distributed" was when it was sent to the AAUW, then I don't think that would be considered making tangible copies of the photo available to the public at large; if, however, the AAUW got the photo and then published it in some book or on some website, then that might meet the definition of "published". As I mentioned above the AAUW doesn't seem to own the copyright over the image and it's also unlikely that the subject of the photo Brady herself owns the copyright over it as well. If a studio photographer took the photo than it's generally assumed that said photographer holds the copyright on the photo unless it can be shown otherwise. So, the origin of the image, etc. in addition to the NFCC concerns need to be resolved for the file to be kept if it needs to be licensed as non-free content. Finally, please try to assume the the others who may have expressed concerns about whether the file meets WP:NFCCP are also WP:HERE and expressing their concerns in good faith. Their concerns may turn out to have been unwarranted, but labeling them as an end run around discussion of other non-free criteria could be seen as implying that they're attempting to somehow game the system just to get the file deleted. All ten non-free content use criteria need to be clearly shown to have been met, not just some; so, if there are concerns about even one, then these should be addressed as best as possible. Perhaps, it would be better off to do that WP:FFD instead of here. Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think our views have both been made clear. I'm happy to discuss at WP:FFD if necessary. Until then, I will note that this article file has been nominated for deletion for a lack of stated publication history; despite the above discussion, it is undisputed that this non-free content criterion only applies when there are concerns that the "content may have been originally 'leaked' and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission"; and it is also undisputed that nobody has expressed concerns that the file in question was ever "leaked." The file should therefore be kept. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has nominated Caroline Brady (philologist) for deletion so I'm not sure which "article" you're referring to. Moreover, NFCC#4 applies to whether a non-free file has been published, not just whether it has been "leaked". Being "leaked" is given as one possible example, but the definition of published which is going to most likely applied here is WP:PD. There's no indication that any tangible copies of this image were made publicly available prior to it being uploaded to Wikipedia. This is sometimes acceptable when a file is licensed at c:Template:PD-heirs or some other license releasing it into the public domain, but I don't think that really works for non-free content used on Wikipedia. The image could've also been tagged for speedy deletion using rfu per WP:FREER as well since there exists a free equivalent image being used in the article which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free one. This was pointed out in the discussion at Talk:Caroline Brady (philologist) by someone you pinged for a third opinion about the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)