Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 November 6



File:ColleenBallinger2012.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * File:ColleenBallinger2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It's very unlikely that Ms Ballinger owns the copyright to this file. The photographer would need to provide a statement to the effect that they are willing to release the file. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This photo is a selfie taken by Ballinger. She then expressly released it to the pubic domain here, writing  "I, Colleen Ballinger, own all of the copyrights to this photograph, and I hereby release it into the public domain." -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can it possibly be that the editor proposing deletion hasn't bothered to look at the image page, in which from the first (6 March 2012) it has been clearly stated that the picture is a selfie? Nor is the statement unverified: the facebook page is unequivocal. This proposal is timewasting nonsense.  Tim riley  talk    17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like others here I'm perplexed bu this: if someone gives express permission to release a selfie, how does she not own copyright, and how is this not free? - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The article on Colleen Ballinger is currently being considered for DYK here. If anyone has time to look at the article, kindly see if you can respond to the concerns of the reviewer. I am happy to make any necessary changes to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed highly unlikely that such a high-quality image was a selfie, nor was the position of the body necessarily obviously indicative of that being the case. However, looks like a slip-up on my part to be closed. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - a 'selfie' taken by Colleen for which she owns the copyright and which she has made freely available. I really don't understand what the problem is. Jack1956 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral. To please assume good faith! As Panyd says, given the setting and quality of the image this could easily be a studio photo made up to look a bit like a selfie. As a result, it's not entirely clear that the copyright for the image is owned by Ballinger. However, as she has so clearly made the public domain statement I don't think there's a risk for us to host it here (or better, on Commons) as per the public domain notice. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I most certainly haven't questioned the nominator's good faith, merely raised the question of his/her competence, diligence and respect for other editors in being "100% sure" that this image is not PD, despite the clear statement on the image page.   Tim riley  talk    21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my fault, because when, a few years ago, I asked Ms. Ballinger to release one of her images to the public domain so that we could use it, she identified it to me as a selfie. But at the time I did not know enough to ask her to send an e-mail to OTRS about that, and instead I merely identified her as the author and stated on the image page that she took the photo herself.  I no longer have that facebook private message exchange (and I doubt that it would be viewed as more reliable than my word for it), and I am no longer in communication with Ballinger, whose career has gotten much more successful and busy since then.  But it would be nice, where the uploader states that an image was taken by the subject, if folks have some doubt, before nominating an image for deletion, they would query the uploader about it. Happy editing to all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A gentle and wise conclusion, Ssilvers. Thank you.  Tim riley  talk    21:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps "good faith" was the wrong phrase; perhaps "please be civil" would have been a better phrase to use. Questioning competence and diligence of someone that is reasonably raising something for discussion doesn't make for a constructive discussion. I'd encourage you to think about whether you are respecting other editors by making such comments.
 * Thanks for your clarification of the history here. :-)
 * Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These repeated calls to return to a non-issue are very tiresome. My point was that if the nominator had done the minimum of homework the issue would not have arisen, and that remains demonstrably – and now, I note, admittedly – the case.  Tim riley  talk    21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator had reason to be concerned about the provenance of the image, so I think that the nomination was well justified. The new information posted here has helped clarify the origin of the copyright notice for the image, which is very useful. But please don't resort to hyperbole - there haven't been "repeated calls", and trying to describe this discussion as "tiresome" is rather rude, as is the reference to a "minimum of homework". I think you owe Panyd an apology for your comments here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to apologise for. The comment certainly wasn't rude – perhaps a mildly brusque molehill – out of which mountains are growing at a questionable rate. Time to move on Mike, there are better things to do than keep flogging the dead equine of a non issue. – SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. I have twice been "pinged" to return to this pointless discussion, and the nominator has conceded that his/her professed "100%" certainty in accusing the uploader of passing off a copyrighted image as public domain was 100% wrong - as was evident from a moment's glance at the image page. This discussion should never have begun in the first place, and we could have got on with editing. I rather take exception to being accused of rudeness for using plain words to describe plain facts. We should all be willing to admit our errors, and the nominator has done so, and in my view it would be otiose to press for an apology from him/her. Concluding this unnecessary brouhaha would, as SchoCat says, be the most sensible option, me judice.  Tim riley  talk    22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you're wrong - an apology is owed, regardless of how decorative and symbolic comments on this topic are getting. I maintain that Tim's comments were rude and out-of-line. But we are going off-topic from copyright concerns to etiquette, so perhaps this is the best place to end this conversation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine: others think you're wrong and making too much of a meal about this, but yes, this is certainly the best place to end this nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

[Left] Is there a minimum amount of time that this discussion must remain open, or can it be closed now, and the puf template removed from the image page? Also, I would appreciate it if you would all stop arguing, since you have all stated your feelings more than once already. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep – see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. As per Ssilvers, let's close this as "keep" now before any one else from WP's civility police distort the words of AGF editors such as Tim. Cassianto talk 22:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Tim Riley has nothing to apologise for. He is quite rightly a little miffed at the time wasted on these pointless discussions which could have been avoided if the nominators did a little research before putting an image up for deletion. I have had the same problem myself on several occasions. Jack1956 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The way the woman is positioning her right shoulder could indicate that she is stretching for something, maybe a camera switch. I note that she claims to be the copyright holder, which does not necessarily mean that she is the photographer as someone else could have transferred the copyright to her. I am not convinced that there is sufficient reason to assume that her claim is incorrect. The image should probably be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Diannaa, would you or someone please close this? It has been open for nearly 2 weeks. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.