Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 8, 2022

i am admittedly a little concerned about the copyright status of the image currently being used in the blurb. although the uncropped photo appears to have been posted by steve pemberton himself to his official twitter account for use by wikipedia in this tweet, the details on commons for the uncropped image do not appear to be accurate. the uploader of the uncropped image has claimed the photo to be the uploader's own work, even though the uploader is presumably not pemberton himself. subsequently, the uploader may not have had the legal right to release the photo under cc by-sa 4.0.if pemberton's tweet is to be interpreted as a statement of ownership of the copyright of the photo and a statement that the photo was being released under a commons-compatible license (or, alternatively, a statement that, although the copyright had previously been owned by him, he had already previously waived all rights to the photo in perpetuity), then i am assuming that someone knowledgeable with how commons works can update the details there accordingly. however, i am admittedly skeptical that the tweet is such a statement, as the wording pemberton used, "copyright free as it's my own photo", is not actually true unless he took it himself and waived all rights to it. (it being his own photo does not automatically make it free of copyrights.) i am also somewhat surprised that pemberton did not word his tweet more clearly, given that he is an award-winning writer and therefore presumably is able to convey his ideas clearly and is familiar with copyright law, which makes me question whether or not he actually understood what releasing a photo for use on wikipedia entails.in addition, i am not sure if he took the photo in the first place, due to (1) the height at which the photo was taken, as it is unusual to be able to find a location to place a camera at that height; (2) the inclusion of the sign behind him, as he presumably would have framed the picture without it if he took the photo himself; and (3) the natural-looking smile, as photos taken by self timers often have frozen smiles. if it was taken by someone else, it is likely that the photographer would be happy to release all rights to pemberton (if the photographer has not already done so), but this has not been made clear in the tweet.the filer of a deletion request at commons for a now-deleted picture (presumably of pemberton, but i cannot confirm because it was deleted) voiced the opinion that "[i]f this photo was taken by Steve Pemberton, Commons needs a clear statement that he's okay with it being CC-licenced for commercial use in perpetuity". i do not know if the photo currently used in the blurb was taken by pemberton, and although it is clear that pemberton wants to see it used in wikipedia, i do not think it is clear that "he's okay with it being CC-licenced for commercial use in perpetuity".to be clear, i do not believe we are in danger of being sued by pemberton (or by the photographer if pemberton did not take the photo), but i think the proper procedure for uploading images for use in wikipedia has not been followed. although i believe such details are regularly ignored for many other images used in wikipedia, at wp:errors suggests to me that we should be more conservative with images scheduled to appear on the main page, so i thought i might bring this up in case something should be done about it.pinging  (fac nominator),  (blurb drafter, who used a different photo),  (tfa coordinator for this month), and  (deletion request filer at commons). dying (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed this, but it sounds like your concerns have merit. I advise pursuing this at Commons. I'm afraid I don't have the time to take the lead one this. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)