Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"48973657@N00"

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files found with Special:Search/insource:"48973657@N00"[edit]

On several files the description contains license incompatible statements like "You may syndicate this content for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute credits to me. Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis." or "Copyright See-ming Lee / info [at] seeminglee [dot] com / All rights reserved.".

1110 files down the crapper

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Radical Faeries Drum Ritual - Gay Pride New York 2007 - Event (694745417).jpg says "Copyright See-ming Lee / info [at] seeminglee [dot] com / All rights reserved."
File:Gay Pride New York, June 24, 2007.jpg says "You may syndicate this content for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute credits to me. Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Trung:
That leaves 1110-207-489=414 files with neither. Among those you will find files like File:Vin Nolan.jpg that do have the "non-commercial" notice at the source. Whatever may be left after all those are subtracted would be deleted under COM:PRP. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Are all photos from the stream of Flickr user See-ming Lee? If so, I note on their "About" page on Flickr they specifically state: "Many of my photographs are licensed via Creative Commons (CCBY). Where marked, you can use them as long as you credit me as “See-ming Lee” or “See-ming Lee 李思明 SML”, and ideally link back to the photo page." [1] I think that clarifies that the photographer/uploader understood the license and wished to share them under the indicated Creative Commons license with attribution, despite the dubious template wording. So if all photos in this request are from that user (I only spot checked half a dozen), I would be strongly inclined to Keep. (P.S.: Note that the "About" page also has the Flickr user's email and links to them on other social media - considering this involves such a large number of photos apparently in project scope, I'd suggest contacting them if others feel licensing is still unclear.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Infrogmation: Yes they are, they were selected by Flickr ID. Given the number of valuable files it will be worth contacting the Flickr user indeed, I was going to suggest that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps nominator Alexis Jazz could explain their concern more fully?

    Isn't there nothing that stops the creator or owner of intellectual content from releasing it under multiple licenses? It has been a long time since I paid attention the the GNU software world, but I think I recall Stallman, or his associates, explaining how someone might release software under a (free) GNU license, and yet have clients who paid him or her for a limited, non-free license, if, for instance, they were going to pay for on-going development of a version tailored to their client's specific requirements.

    The passage from the content creator that triggered nominator's concern may merely be an indication there are conditions they will license their content to someone prepared to pay for it.

    A content creator can not claw back the rights they released under a free license. I suggest that, in general, when an apparently competent content creator has both released some content under a free license, and has also appended text about a more limited license, we are completely entitled to continue to use that content under the terms of the free license. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geo Swan: that's not really what the notices are suggesting. "All rights reserved" is pretty clear and "Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis" suggests "I will allow you to use this photo commercially if I like you, or maybe we can work out an arrangement in which you pay me money to make me like you". The only other option is that the notices were added automatically, but if that's the case, why did they select the "right" license but insert the "wrong" description? Maybe just an error? I'll Flickrmail the user. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Irrevocably licensed under CC-BY-SA at Flickr, these licenses having been confirmed by the license review. — Racconish 💬 19:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Not as clear as I thought. — Racconish 💬 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Racconish: The license chosen on Flickr (and automatically confirmed by User:FlickreviewR 2) is not what is questioned here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep I uploaded three of these images, five years ago. I left a thank you note on the flickr description page that told the flickr user I had uploaded them to the wikimedia commons, and explicitly said "Thanks for using a CC license that allows re-use." So Seeming Lee was explicitly told how we were interpreting his licenses, and has had five years to voice his or her objections. Since they didn't voice any objections I think we can safely assume the CC license was not an unintended newbie mistake.

    As with the commentor, above, I do not see the passage that triggered nominator's concern on the three images I uploaded. Perhaps nominator could be more specific as to where they found this passage?

    If the passage that triggered nominator's concern is only on some of these 1000 images, perhaps only those images should be listed here? Is there any reason why we can't quickly close this overly broad nomination, and ask nominator to consider a nomination that only names images that included the passage that concerned them on their flickr description page? Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geo Swan: your three images indeed do not have such a notice. But see the searchlinks above: 207 files say "All rights reserved", 489 say "Commercial usage will be considered" and a number of the 414 files that leaves us with also have a notice on Flickr, but the notice wasn't copied to Commons or has been removed since the file was uploaded. So it's not just "some", it's most of them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Multiple licenses are fine on Commons, so long as one of the release statements meet COM:L. Clearly the Flickr user has used a default text statement and later varied the licenses. The photographs I checked were still of the same acceptable license on Flickr even though it is a year later. Fæ (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Please note that for images that are marked for Creative Commons (CCBY) and permit commercial uses, you cannot package my photographs and sell them as stock yourself. Commercial licensing means photo usage in newspaper / journals / books / online / etc with credit line, not resale as artwork and stock usage for commercial gains. However, I am happy to license my works for those usage, you just have to ask via email."
Sadly more statements which are incompatible with the licensing that was chosen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment See-ming Lee has Flickrmail, inviting them to send permission to OTRS and/or join the discussion here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Geo Swan and Fæ. --Wcam (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can understand Alexis Jazz's concern on contradicting terms in license and in text descriptions. Many volunteers commented in COM:VPC discussions that what mentioned in user written custom text has preference over default boilerplate texts. But here it seems the text under photos are a replica of information in EXIF and the user may provide a free license later. The profile page explicitly mentioned valid license. Its quite true that the user can't change the EXIF without re-uploading. Changing of text under each photo is also difficult. But changing the license of entire Flickr stream or a set is very easier and I assume it is what happened here. Contacting the photographer is good; but it will give room for them to change their mind if they prefer it now. So a  Keep for me. (BTW, I'm not very happy with the term "Please note that for images that are marked for Creative Commons (CCBY) and permit commercial uses, you cannot package my photographs and sell them as stock yourself." in profile page.) Jee 02:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hold on. First, as several of us have noted, rights holders are entitled to release their intellectual property under multiple licenses. Readers get to pick the one they want. Second, the release of rights, via a free license, can't be clawed back. Flickr subscribers seem to think they can claw back the rights they released with a free license merely by replacing the free license with a more restrictive license. I don't know if that is Flickr's fault. Nevertheless, people can't claw back rights once they released them. We know that the flickrreview robot confirmed that everyone of these images was under a free license, at the time it was uploaded. What we don't know is whether Seeming Lee's main flickr page, or other pages, bore those passages that triggered the nominator's concern was present, then.

      I am going to repeat this, as it is important, and nominator and other contributors, like Jkadavoor aren't acknowledging it.

      Finally, even if, for the sake of argument, Seeming Lee did have the passage in question somewhere, at the time we uploaded it, people can release their property under multiple licenses, other people, like us, get to choose which license we want to use.

      I suggest that even if the passages that concerns Alexis Jazz was present on the 217 image pages, at the time they were uploaded, that would be irrelevant, as we get to choose the license we want.

      Returning to the GNU software example, where some freelance programmer wrote some really cool software, and released the first version that worked, under a free license, why would someone pay them to use the software under a more restrictive license? Why? If version 1.0 of their software is really good some company may decide it is worth money to have a version 2.0, that is even better, and gives them a competitive advantage to their competitors, who use version 1.0? Anyone else who develops a version 2.0, based on the version 1.0 source code, is license-bound to release their version 2.0 under the original free license. But a company that pays to use the developer's code under a more restrictive license, can pay to have the version 2.0 source code private.

      Why would someone pay to license an image someone has released under a cc license? Maybe there is some reason they want to be able to use the image, without explicitly crediting the photographer, and they are prepared to pay for that privilege?

      Every couple of months I come across an instance of an image I know has already been released under a free license, or is in the public domain, that I see re-published with a credit to an image service like getty, saying "file photo". Getty, and other wire services, have clients who are prepared to pay getty to use images, which, for all they know, might be public domain, or available under a free license, because they want to be free of the burden of keeping track of who to credit. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • @Geo Swan: Don't get me started on Getty. "All rights reserved" was present on 217 image pages at the time of upload and "Commercial usage will be considered" on another 489 image pages. We know this, because if the text wasn't there at the time of upload the text couldn't have been copied to Commons. You mention the FlickreviewR bot, but this is not what is questioned. I don't think the Flickr license was changed for any photo. The problem is that the description for most photos contradicts the license that was chosen on Flickr. The "multiple licenses" is also not the issue. It's not like we can choose between CC-BY-SA and "all rights reserved". What kind of choice is that? Either the description is in error, or the chosen license is. In addition to that, the about page puts restrictions on commercial use for CC-BY photos. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • This is a random pick from my side. There are several such cases where we had taken decisions favoring to authors. And if an author mention a license with some additional restrictions, it is not multi-licensing. It is something like CC- license (exact opposite of CC+ license) which is not recommended and invalidating the license itself. So I stick with my opinion above. Jee 06:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Photographers can't legally claw back rights they released under a cc-by-sa license - or any similar license. The example you pointed to - isn't it an instance of a courtesy deletion? On a case by case basis we decide when we will delete an image, as a courtesy, even when they were properly licensed.

          I just re-read your initial comment, looking for the reason why we would grant a courtesy deletion, in this particular case. Did you think you offered a meaningful reason for courtesy deletion? If so, could you try rephrasing it? Geo Swan (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • Pardon me – I am not sure how to reply to these comments. These are my photos. I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use, which Wikipedia grants. The photos are under Copyright in the sense that I do sell prints / stock if they are intended for commercial use. If you feel that they are confusing, I am sorry — the photos were licensed a long time ago before I had a proper understanding of how CC-BY works. I don’t have an issue with them being on Wikipedia with attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeminglee (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @Seeminglee: well, yes but this is not Wikipedia, Wikipedia allows for fair use and has a more lax uploading policy and if people want to upload something here that is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons I always direct them to upload things to Wikipedia where almost every file is permitted (if they are in use), however on Wikimedia Commons things need to be licensed according to Wikimedia Commons and not to Wikipedia, non-commercial files are not allowed, if you want to keep your images here for usage on Wikipedia you should tell us now that commercial usage is allowed, otherwise files in use will have to be migrated to Wikipedia and the rest will have to be deleted. If you want you could grant a commercial license and they can stay here but if you don't then they will all have to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Please read Commons:Licensing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read our propaganda
  • @Seeminglee: Mostly what Donald Trung said. The license you seem to have intended to use is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. That license isn't allowed on Wikimedia Commons though. English Wikipedia allows some fair use, but not if a similar free image is available. Even if the quality of the free image is lower. Some other language Wikipedias (e.g. the Dutch Wikipedia) don't allow fair use images at all. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use of your photos without restrictions. (it only requires attribution and sharing alike) To keep the photos here, you should provide clear permission (also for commercial use) to OTRS. If you decide to send them permission, make sure to also provide a link to this page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Seeminglee: -- first things first:
  1. Let me thank you for taking fine images, and sharing them with the rest of the world. You deserve to be thanked, even if you released your image as "all rights reserved".
  2. Let me thank you for releasing your images under licenses that allow re-use. The world needs more people to allow their images to be re-used.
  3. You wrote that "I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use, which Wikipedia grants." I am sorry, but Alexis Jazz and Donald Trung repeat a misconception in your comment. Both the wikipedia and the commons allowed images licensed with a restriction to non-commercial use -- up until 2005. In 2005 both projects changed the policy to no longer support non-commercial licenses.

    There are several creative commons licenses, each intended for slightly different purposes. There is a creative commons licenses that allows viewers to re-use the image, provided they explicitly credit the photographer, and the license they released the image under and provided they re-use the image in a non-commercial context... but it is not cc-by-sa. I think it sounds like you wanted cc-by-nc

  4. Can you release an image under what we call a "free" license, and also release the image to be used by a third party, who pays you a usage fee? Yes. As I wrote above. A third party might pay you, to license your image, to be free of the cc-by-sa requirement that they explicitly credit you.

    Can you release a relatively low resolution version of your image under a free license, but only release the high resolution version to paying customers? Frankly, I don't know.

  • I've uploaded close to ten thousand images flickr contributors released under cc-by-sa. For several years I left an explicit thank you on the flickr page, as I did with three images of yours. It was very rare for people to tell me they made a mistake, and they didn't mean to release their images that freely after all. In two cases I initiated a deletion discussion, like this one.

    One photographer, a young woman who took photos on a school trip was able to convince the community to grant her a courtesy deletion.

    The other photographer had been an amateur photographer for over four decades. They had personally uploaded about 200 of their images here, themselves. They became abusive, accused us of stealing from him. And the community did not decide to grant them a courtesy deletions. The fact that they had personally uploaded 200 images here, under cc-by-sa, severely undermined their claim they did not understand cc-by-sa.

  • I wrote above that those who own intellectual property rights, including photographers like yourself, are allowed to release images under multiple licenses. I wrote above, and I believe it to be true, that someone who wants to re-use an image gets to choose the license they re-use that image under. Cc-by-sa requires explicitly crediting the photographer, and explicitly repeating that it is only available under the cc-by-sa license. Another license may not require crediting the photographer, but would require an exchange of funds. The re-user gets to choose.

    This is why I disagree with Alexis Jazz's concern that some of your images seemed to be double licensed.

  • Legally, a cc-by-sa license can't be clawed back. Many flickr contributors seem to think those rights can be clawed back, just by revising the license on the image's flickr page. But, legally, re-users are allowed to continue to re-use an image under the license it was released under, even if the rights owner changes their mind. Further, people who find the image under the re-user's site are allowed to in turn re-use it under the original license, even if the photographer changed their mind. The only people who would be restricted by the new license they put on the image's flickr page would be new flickr viewers, unaware of the other places that re-used the image under its original cc-by-sa license.
  • I thanked you five years ago, when I uploaded three of your image. I will close with a final thank you. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Geo Swan: "Can you release a relatively low resolution version of your image under a free license, but only release the high resolution version to paying customers? Frankly, I don't know."
You can, but it may not be a good idea. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. It looks very interesting. It is so complicated I'll need to take my time re-reading it. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure who you are asking about fair use images... Yes, enwiki has a WP:NFCC policy, which has somehow become much more restrictive than the fair use in US law. There is a relatively small number of these NFCC files, and there are strong restrictions on how they are used. So, they are not what you and Seeming Lee were talking about. I didn't mention them, for that reason. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep It is a bad idea to have such a big DR with different issues. This should be close, and some groups of files with the same issue should be nominated separately. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: they all have the same issue, the photographer seems to be confused about what CC BY(-SA) means. Nomination in groups is not completely possible. Files with "all rights reserved" notice on Commons could have been separated and files with "Commercial usage will be considered" notice on Commons could have been in a separated DR, but a part the other files also has these notices on Flickr, but the notice wasn't copied to Commons or has been removed after it was uploaded here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep If they truly do have the same issue then they are all validly licensed. Seeming Lee emailed me about File:Diana Eng, Fairytale Fashion, Eyebeam Open Studios- Fall 2009, 20091023.10D.55465.P1.L1.SQ.BW, SML.jpg explaining the change of license and that he had "read the finer print of Creative Commons". I quoted the email in the image comments. He then emailed me with this link where the image is explicitly and unambiguously licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kiss in Black and White 20091219.7D.01550.P1.L1.SQ.BW SML (4211914177).jpg

  •  Keep Paz e bem!

A foto no Flickr está sob licença aceita pela Wikimidia Commons 12:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk)

Note: removed your section header. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The photos were released on multi-licencensing and one of them is cc-by-sa-2.0 that is valid on Commons. Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Electron: where is this "multi-licensing" everyone keeps talking about? All I see is the stated Flickr license, accompanied by statements in photo descriptions and on the about page that are incompatible with said license and an offer to contact the photographer to license the photo on other (to be determined) terms. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that when two people look on something they can see different things. I see multi-licensing, you see problems. But I see no problem. They say if somebody want to find a problem it will find it, at last. Electron ツ ➧☎ 08:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Electron: yeah but.. that doesn't answer my question. You say you see multiple licenses. So can you list the licenses we can pick from? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only me see that. Read the discussion above... But OK, let see e.g. File:Young man.jpg. The main license is cc-by-sa-2.0, checked by the bot. 2 others: You may syndicate this content for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute credits to me. and Commercial usage will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I see, at least, 3 different licences here. Electron ツ ➧☎ 23:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Alexis Jazz: , an intellectual property owner, like a photographer, is allowed to release their property under as many licenses as they like.

    Take me, for example. I started thousands of enwiki articles. I also contribute to non-WMF wikis. Sometimes an article I drafted gets deleted, so I will port it to a non-WMF wiki with looser inclusion standards. Sometimes I want to write an article about someone, or something, but I think that topic won't yet measure up to the wikipedia's inclusion standards.

    I give up many of my rights, when I submit an edit to a WMF wiki. But I still own the central rights to my content, and I am completely entitled to submit it to other wikis, with different licensing.

    There have been a couple of occasions when someone thought the wikipedia should have an article on a topic, and cut and paste the article I wrote for the other wiki, without attributing that content to me. Annoying.

    So, yes, any rights holder can release their intellectual property under multiple licenses.

    I offered some examples of when someone might license their property under multiple licenses. While cc-by-sa is pretty free, it still imposes conditions on re-users: (1) explicit credit; (2) explicit listing of the original license under which other people can re-use the image. Someone might have a context where they want to re-use an image, where honoring the conditions of the CC license aren't convenient. That person might be prepared to pay the photographer for permission to re-use the image, without honoring the conditions of the CC license.

    In the case of Seeming Lee's 217 images, and their apparent confusion over cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc... I'd be just as inclined as most people to agree to courtesy deletion if we were talking about a small number of images, that they had only uploaded to flickr in the past few days. But they were advised we were re-using their images five years ago. That strongly erodes the sympathy I would feel for someone who said they were a clueless newbie.

    In general, not just this group of image, I think we are entitled to ignore confusing text in the text portion of a flickr image's description page, when the flickr contributor has explicitly picked a free license. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Geo Swan: , I am honestly confused as to how these "multiple licenses" work, if The exact same work is published on two different websites by the original creator making it their intellectual property thus their copyright © and on Website A there is a statement that claims "Copyright ©: All rights reserved" and Website B has a statement that reads "CC-BY-SA" and that commercial (re-)use is 100% percent allowed, then what rights would this person have? Wouldn't a court dismiss the first license because they said that they would allow commercial use? Now let's say that I want to write a book and will use one of your images, you have uploaded that image to both Wikimedia Commons and some random non-free website, I publish my book and you then sue me for copyright infringement saying that on the non-free website you had "all rights reserved" and therefore are entitled to the money I make from selling my book, I then say that you had (also) published to Wikimedia Commons with a free license and I appropriately attributed you so I simply followed the terms of copyright. Would a court rule in your favour? I think not as the most permissive license would be the only license upheld by the law and claiming you own all rights on something you gave away for free wouldn't seem legally sustainable. If something is on Wikimedia Commons it is by definition allowed to be re-used commercially, you can't prove that I took the image from "the non-free source" because it's the same image, so the most permissive copyright would be the strongest copyright. I don't think that "dual-licenses" really exist, only the right(s) of the most permissive license which in this case would be commercially allowed, so the moment See-Ming Lee signed the license they gave away their right to retain and/or request any profit from their imagery. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Unless you put something in the public domain, your license places obligations on the licensee. If you encounter an image with multiple licenses, you are free to pick the one that you like best.

      Cc-by-sa requires the licensee, the user, to explicitly credit the photographer, or whomever they sold their rights to. The photographer is free to say: "Alternately, if you don't want to explicitly credit me, you can re-use my image, if you pay me money -- $100 for each web-page where you re-use it, or $1000 to re-use it on up to 100 web-pages."

      When that photographer does a google image search to see where their image is being used, and then checks each image, they can check to confirm the re-users are either fully complying with the cc-by-sa license, or are one of the web-pages where someone paid them cash money to re-use the image without credit. If they find a web-page re-using their image without honouring the terms of either license they can consider legal action. If I recall correctly, under the Digital Millenia Copyright Act (DMCA), the first step is to contact the official webmaster at the site where they foundinhe image.

      With regard to your specific example, if the photographer licensed the image to someone, so they could re-use some of their images, without explicitly crediting each one, the re-user shouldn't use "all rights reserved". The author of a book, for instance, should only have "all rights reserved", on their copyright page. Alternately, their copyright page could say something like "all images in this book are the work of the author or are used by permission."

      With regard to your specific example, the photographer may have published their photo in a book that said "all rights reserved", and subsequently decided to release the image under a free license.

      Occasionally commons is contacted with one of these "DMCA takedown notices". When that happens to an image you uploaded here you get an email, or a note on your user talk page, telling you an outsider claimed that they owned the rights to an image you uploaded. The note says that, unless you take certain steps to challenge their assertion their rights were being violated the image would be deleted, in N days. I got one of these notices, years ago. I checked. The image in question was one I found on what seemed like a legitimate web-site (not flickr), with an apparently valid free license.

      The way commons licensing works, the legal responsibility lies on the uploader, not commons. I can't remember whether the image in question was still on the site where I first found it. I didn't take any steps to defend my upload of the image. Geo Swan (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @Donald Trung: , one last thing -- if you upload an image you found, from a web-page that has a credible free license, and then someone sues you, because that image has a different license, and possibly a different person claiming authorship, on some other web page, I think your defense is "I believed the license on the site I found it on was credible". If the image is still on that site, you get to pass the buck, and the judge will ask the litigant, "why the heck are you suing Donald Trung, instead of the guy whose web-page he found the image with an apparently valid license."

      It is an argument for submitting every page where you found an image to an archive engine - or maybe even several archive engines.

      Since the complainants first step is a DMCA takedown, if the web page where you recorded you found the image no longer has it, I think all you have to do is do nothing, and let the WMF delete the image. Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Eugenio Hansen, OFS why did you create a special discussion for File:Kiss in Black and White 20091219.7D.01550.P1.L1.SQ.BW SML (4211914177).jpg? It is not one of the 217 with problematic claims on it. Geo Swan (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I asked Seeminglee on his talk page what he actually wants. I (just now) also left him a link to his talk page on Flickrmail. Whichever way this goes, we could at least listen to what he has to say. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Alexis Jazz: -- excuse me? I don't mean to be a dick about this, but why would what seeminglee wants, in June 2019, be relevant to this discussion?
    1. Haven't we clearly established that Seeminglee~commonswiki willingly and knowingly released 6 images here, using a cc-by-sa license in 2009? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    2. I am frankly very concerned that you should ask Seeming Lee what they want, again. Don't repeated questions to them give the strong appearance that you are offering them a truly extraordinary "do-over"?

      Releasing one's rights, under a creative commons license, or a GNU license, is IRREVOCABLE. No one has a right to claw back their rights. Even Jimbo Wales wouldn't be allowed to tell us, "when I uploaded that image, I meant to release key rights, so it could be freely re-used -- but I changed my mind." We choose to grant photographers courtesy deletion, if they offer us a good reason. Good reasons in the past have included: (1) I am a newbie, and I didn't really understand the cc-by-sa license; (2) Pilot error, pilot error, pilot error. I was really tired last night, and I hadn't thought through my act; (3) I uploaded this image of my naked friends, getting frisky, I genuinely thought they were cool about it, but they subsequently freaked out! I throw myself on your mercy! They will never speak to me again, unless you delete that image.

    3. You offered a reply to my point that we knew, through the flickrreview robot, that these images were properly licensed when they were uploaded, but we didn't know whether they had to passages that disturbed you, at that time. Sorry, your claim that we DID know the flickr image description also bore those passage didn't make a lick of sense to me.
    4. I am disappointed to your explanation as to why we shouldn't regard the passages that concerned you as an amateur attempt to multi-license the image. If the image is multi-licensed we get to choose which license we prefer.
    5. A new point. We recognize the creative-commons licenses, by name, because people with a deep understanding of intellectual property law spent a lot of time to make sure they were legally sound, didn't contain contradictions, or loopholes. The same is true for GFDL, and all the other GNU licenses. Very few people are competent to "roll their own licenses". I suggest this is yet another reason to rely solely on whatever license a flickr uploader chose from among the choices flickr offers, and to simply ignore anything that looks like an attempt to add a roll-your-own multi-license.
    6. I still don't understand why you included 1110 images in this nomination, when only 217 had passages that concerned you. Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, all these images were irrevocably released, even if someone uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons today and writes "© All Rights Reserved" on that image it still would be a free image because they irrevocably gave p their rights in favour of making it free, See-Ming Lee knowingly kept using this license type and the error may have been on their part, but they deliberately didn't change the license so  Keep all, even the ones with contradictory statements aren't factually protected by law. Excuse all the spelling errors as my phablet keeps scrolling to the top of the page and I have to manually scroll down 1100 files every half sentence. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Trung: also in response to the fifth point of Geo Swan above: people may have been spending a lot of time to make sure the licenses are legally sound, but that doesn't mean the platform implementing them does so correctly. I do not know what the license picker on Flickr looks like, but Wikimedia made it too easy (depending on the interface you are using) to upload your work without making it clear what the chosen license means. Resulting in things like "Wow, I feel robbed.".
Can these licenses legally be enforced? Maybe, every case is different. In the case of Seeminglee, after what I've learned during this DR (reading some of his blogs where he talks about CC and finding out he interacted with Wikipedia before regarding licensing) I have to say I doubt it. But every case is different. An amateur is not the same as a professional, some sites and interfaces make it very clear what the license you have chosen means while others almost hide it in their T&C. Even the country where the photographer lives probably matters. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geo Swan: I'm not exactly in the mood for this..
"but why would what seeminglee wants, in June 2019, be relevant to this discussion?"
If they plan to sue commercial re-users we might consider either taking the photos down or add a warning to them. Or maybe Seeminglee would say "I make a lot of sales on (list of small number of files), could those be taken down?" and we could consider that.
  1. Those aren't even up for deletion (they don't have the Flickr ID so weren't selected)
  2. Not exactly how I worded it to him
  3. They were in the description, if you are saying they weren't I'm eager to hear your explanation for where those passages came from
  4. The photographer said himself it wasn't a multi-license attempt: "I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use [sic], which Wikipedia grants."
  5. That is a terrible idea
  6. 217+489+unknown number of images for which the description was not copied or modified here on Commons after uploading here - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Okay, your reply to Donald Trung above offers a clue as to why you made several comments that contain key misinterpretations. You write there that you are not familiar with how flickr contributors choose how their images are licensed. I'll answer that, in a minute, but what it explains is how you can repeatedly assert that we know that passages that concern you were present in the flickr image description from day one.
  • Flickr image description pages start with a title, which the flickr person can go back and edit, at any time. Flickr shows no record, no revision history, of changes to the title.
  • Next is the actual description, which the flickr person can go back and edit, at any time. Flickr shows no record, no revision history, of changes to the actual description.
  • Next are a series of comments, from fans or critics of the image, or from the photographer, which the author can go back and edit, at any time. Flickr shows no record, no revision history, of changes to the comment.
You seem to have assumed that since the initial description, and comments, are sequential, they are fixed, and can't be edited.
In particular, your very mistaken comments that the text in question, "all rights reserved", etc., were present from day one, now seems to be a forgiveable but very misplaced assumption that they were in the description from day one, when, since flickr allows the owner to go back and edit the description, without any record of having done so, the passages in question may have been added the year following the upload, or just last year, or even just last month.
How do flickr contributors license their images? If they do nothing all their images are published as "all rights reserved".
Alternately, they can pick their own default, from a drop down menu, that listed about a dozen choices, including all rights reserved, and both cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc, and a couple of other cc licenses. In recent years they added public domain. That is my current default.
When uploading an image, or a batch of images the flickr user can over-ride their usual choice, from that same drop down menu.
There is, or was, a way for a flickr contributor to change all the licenses on all their images to something else. Or they can change the licenses on any individual images. There are ways for a contributor to change licenses on a subset of their images. As per above, they choose the new license from that drop down menu of about a dozen choices
  1. Okay, you didn't nominate the six files that Seeming Lee uploaded himself. But you don't seem to understand the point I was making. In 2009 Seeming Lee understood what the cc-by-sa license meant.

    Last time I looked we had over 40 million images. About a third of the images I upload are {{Own}} images. If I am typical we have over 10 million {{Own}} images. When do we second guess people who upload {{Own}} images, and tell them we don't believe they really understand the rights they released, so we aren't going to accept the license they used? When? Never. We never do that.

    If Seeming Lee had uploaded even just one image here I would argue that proves he understood the cc-by-ca license.

  2. Sorry, but anything that implies how he feels about how he wants his images licensed, in 2018, has any control over images he published with a proper license in 2009, is a bad idea. He can't claw back his rights. Period.
  3. See above. The short version is that, since you have never uploaded any images using flickr you made the forgiveable but very seriously mistaken assumption that image description was fixed at the time the image was uploaded.
  4. No, they did not say the problematic text was or wasn't an attempt to use multiple licenses. In their June 2009 comment, above, they seem to be conflating the cc-by-sa license they applied in the past with a cc-by-nc license, which may be their preferred choice, now.

    Seeming Lee is fully entitled to decide he no longer wants the images he has on flickr should no longer be published under the cc-by-sa license. He can erase all his images. He can make them all private. Or he can change some or all of them to use cc-by-nc.

    But what he has to understand is that everyone who downloaded a copy of the image, when it was published under a cc-by-sa license, are absolutely, completely entitled to continue using it under the license that was current when they downloaded it.

    Should we stop using an image when the photographer decides they no longer want to distribute it freely? Of course we should -- unless it is one of the limited kinds of instances when we feel sorry for them, and extend a courtesy deletion.

  5. A terrible idea? My suggestion that we "...simply ignore anything that looks like an attempt to add a roll-your-own multi-license."

    Haven't you seen other people's attempts to draft a roll-your-own license? They can be wildly ambiguous. They are often drafted by well-meaning individuals who have overly simplistic understandings of licensing. When well-meaning individuals who have overly simplistic understandings of licensing try to roll-their-own licenses we can't know what they really meant.

    This is why OTRS should insist individuals choose one of the licenses we recognize.

    A point I believe your comment to D. Trung establishs who were unaware of how flickr allows flickr contributors to choose their license. It makes them choose a standard license. Flickr ignores any license-like passages in the text.

    The point has been made many times in this discussion -- photographers are allowed to release images under multiple licenses. There are good reasons why someone might offer mutliple licenses.

  6. When Seeming Lee writes they are "open to commercial licensing" all that might mean is that they would exchange being paid for their image, in return for waiving their right to be explicitly credited, while still allowing their images to be used, for free, by those who comply with cc-by-sa.
Finally, you wrote: "If they plan to sue commercial re-users we might consider either taking the photos down or add a warning to them. Or maybe Seeminglee would say "I make a lot of sales on (list of small number of files), could those be taken down?" and we could consider that."

No responsible lawyer would recommend a lawsuit against anyone who complied with their original cc-by-sa license. So, no, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove images when we think the photographer might initiate a totally frivolous lawsuit.

What if a photographer realizes, at 30 years old, that images they published under a free license when they were 20, actually held significant licensing value? I'd say tough luck.

Every couple of months I do a google image search of images that have my name. I don't do it because I am vain. I do it to get an idea of the extent to which people who re-use the images I upload properly.

Most images I upload, that are re-used, and credited to me, are not my {{Own}} images. Rather most of them are free images I found that someone else took, and published under a free license, or is in the public domain. But I feel good when I find a magazine or website re-uses one of my own images. When I tell my older brother and his wife about these images they routinely ask me why I am not trying to get paid for those images. And the reason is that the people who are re-using my images, and crediting me, are people who made a big effort to search among free images, and comply with their obligations. There may be lots of people who are re-using my images, who aren't crediting me. I don't care about them. I put all my images (so far) in the public domain.

In the years since he uploaded his images under a cc-by-sa license Seeming Lee may have seen magazines and professional websites re-using images he uploaded under a free license. He may have decided, like my family decided, that he made a mistake publishing them under a free license, because he doesn't realize that it was his initial choice of a free license that won those images their popularity. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In 2009 Seeming Lee understood what the cc-by-sa license meant."
It's 2018 now and I think he still hasn't fully grasped the concept given the statement he made on this page "I have licensed them with CC-BY-SA for non-commercial use [sic], which Wikipedia grants.".
"When? Never. We never do that."
Doesn't mean we shouldn't. But usually they never make any statements that contradict the chosen license. (most of the time because they simply don't care, regardless of having understood the license or not)
"He can't claw back his rights. Period."
I never said he could. His rights and us keeping the photos or not are not the same thing.
"The short version is that, since you have never uploaded any images using flickr you made the forgiveable but very seriously mistaken assumption that image description was fixed at the time the image was uploaded."
Nope, the one who is mistaken is you. (but you are forgiven) I don't know what the description said when the image was uploaded to Flickr (and never claimed to know that), but I do know what it said when the image was uploaded/transferred to Commons. So it's impossible the passages were just added last month.
"When well-meaning individuals who have overly simplistic understandings of licensing try to roll-their-own licenses we can't know what they really meant."
..which is why it's a terrible idea to just ignore it. If a similar photo can be obtained from a photographer that doesn't try to create their own license, go with that instead.
"When Seeming Lee writes they are "open to commercial licensing""
When did he use those words?
"No responsible lawyer would recommend a lawsuit against anyone who complied with their original cc-by-sa license."
So they call Lionel Hutz. And they may actually have a case if the site/interface they used to upload their images wasn't 100% clear about the consequences of the use of that license.
"He may have decided, like my family decided, that he made a mistake publishing them under a free license, because he doesn't realize that it was his initial choice of a free license that won those images their popularity."
That's very true. People may think they could have gotten rich, but if they had not used a free license their photos would have been completely forgotten and ignored. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to keep suggesting we don't know whether Mr Lee actually understood the differences between a cc-by-sa and cc-by-nc license. but in this comment Simonxag quoted an email from Lee:
Simonxag quotes an email from User:Seeminglee
"The photo is in fact CC-BY-SA. When I first released the photo it was licensed CC-BY-NC-ND but I have since changed the license ever since I read the finer print of Creative Commons and understood that ND disallow cropping, and NC disallow opensource use. Please feel free to use it. If necessary I can repost another image with more accurate licensing on the tiny credit corner - but best if you just go in and crop it out if necessary!"
He has copied OTRS.
Are you sure that it is respectful to keep suggesting that Mr Lee, who according to User:Seeminglee, is a professional art director, doesn't understand intellectual property?
In 2010 Mr Lee "read the fine print" and claimed he understood the differences between cc-by-sa, cc-by-nc and cc-by-nd. Really, who are you to suggest he did not understand what it meant to put cc-by-sa on his images? Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wrote "No responsible lawyer would recommend a lawsuit against anyone who complied with their original cc-by-sa license." And you, Alexis Jazz, wrote "So they call Lionel Hutz. And they may actually have a case if the site/interface they used to upload their images wasn't 100% clear about the consequences of the use of that license."

    Just what did you mean here?

    Yes, if someone who downloaded a Seeminglee cc-by-sa image from the commons does not comply with their obligations under cc-by-sa he could consider taking legal action. But, in what way are Seeminglee cc-by-sa images any different than any other cc-by-sa images? Any photographer who finds a re-user isn't complying with their cc-by-sa obligations could consider taking legal action. So what? Commons, WMF, you and I and other individuals who upload images here, that did comply with cc-by-sa, are not responsible for whether our re-users know how to honour their licenses.

    Should we then delete all cc-by-sa images on the off-chance one of our re-users won't comply with their license obligations? What's next? Delete all {{Own}} images in case the uploaders lied? Delete all PD images, because maybe the uploader made a mistake, and they weren't PD, after all.

    No, cc-by-sa is not hard to comply with. It is not hard to figure out how to comply with it. The responsibility lies completely with our re-users. Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently there are in Category:Self-published work (URL) and I quote “This category contains 21,070,665 files which is 44.46% of all 47,389,679 files in Wikimedia Commons.”, 6 (six) of which were uploaded by See-Ming Lee himself. Part of this can be attributed to a culture where if users ask if they can upload media from the internet “the community” always shouts “No!!!!!” even before they know if the file was released under a free license or is in the public domain, in fact I know people who have been contributing for years and didn't know that you can upload images that aren’t your own work if they're free and “the community” isn't doing free culture any favours by telling users in the intro of the mobile app (many people’s first introduction to Wikimedia Commons) “you may not upload any image you found on the internet or wasn't taken by yourself” of course those that misleadingly write these discouragements fear deletion requests like these where the licenses are vaguely placed because most content producers aren’t copyright barristers. The images uploaded from See-Ming Lee’s Flickr account are uploaded here by a large number of users who found their images simply useful. Does See-Ming Lee still owns the copyright to these images? Yes, but to what extend they're allowed to enforce this depends on the license and they repeatedly wrote “free” for over a decade, if this was an incident it could be forgiven but this is systematically uploading images with a license that's commercially permissible.

I myself recently saw one of my images recently in an article entitled “A Major Dutch Bank Is Considering a Cryptocurrency Wallet for Its Customers” by Giulio Prisco on w:en:Yahoo! Finance, which is a major international publication that’s part of Oath, Inc. a subsidiary of Verizon Communications (like Flickr was until recently). Can I go back now and change the license on that image of a Rabobank and demand money 💴 as it’s a large firm with lots of cash? Nope, and why would I? It would be easy for them as I know that their Yahoo! Search engine and AOL (America On-Line) search engines must have offices in the Netherlands to take pictures of a Rabobank there (although both search engines are powered by Microsoft Bing and I’m not aware of any Verizon office here), using most free images on Wikimedia Commons is a convenience and not necessarily a necessity. Even though I’ve been falsely (and in bad faith) accused of being a paid editor every image I tag here as {{own}} is freely released and is done so irrevocably, my wife actually found the above article in Yahoo! Finance and her literal question was “How much money did you get for this?” I laughed it off but she was raising eyebrows. Over the years I’ve seen my images in “Indian, Finnish, German, Dutch, Turkish, Swedish, and American newspapers 📰, used on websites for local projects and even a charity”, if I were selling my images or used licenses that are as ambiguous as See-Ming Lee’s that list would've been shorter. A better example would be an upload by User:GVR (Grote Vriendelijke Reus) which was used on coincards issued by the Royal Dutch Mint which means that his image was used on tens of millions of holders for € 5,- coins (see archived discussion in Commons:De Kroeg (URL), Alexis Jazz actually would be able to understand this), if GVR would now try to retroactively get copyright or even if they had published this same image on a website with the statement “© All Rights Reserved” a court would still rule in favour of the Royal Dutch Mint because they irrevocably gave up their rights for a profit when they published their images to Wikimedia Commons, and the Royal Dutch Mint credited them appropriately ok each of the tens of millions of coincards. I reckon that this is the type of situation See-Ming Lee wishes to avoid.

Licenses also can’t change retroactively which is why the whole “irrevocably” release these images as [license] is deliberately when users publish their images here to Wikimedia Commons, Alexis Jazz keeps asking what See-Ming Lee wants as if their opinions today have any legal ⚖ effect on something which they contractually signed away years ago, if this was an error they made then they could've fixed it but still today their images are commercially licensed (as in for commercial re-use) and prior to this deletion request made no effort to either enforce this or even to change these licenses on Flivkr. So why would OTRS permission be needed all of the sudden?

Even if we take into account that they would want to have their images “on Wikipedia but not on Wikimedia Commons” (note that this user has both a Wikipedia-account and a Commonswiki-account so the argument can’t be made that they were ignorant of the fact that these are two separate things.), then we could say transfer the images that are in use to local Wikimedia projects where local files are permitted and delete the rest, and then comes the long search for similar files (even of inferior quality) to replace them that are already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, sure I often find articles with local files like w:vi:Tiền tệ Đại Việt thời Tây Sơn (URL) or most articles mentioned in w:jp:Template:江戸時代の貨幣 (URL) where there are free images available on Wikimedia Commons (in some cases uploaded by the people who uploaded images there, and in both cases uploaded by me), I don’t either report or replace these as sometimes these images are freely uploaded to the original photographer to Wikipedia but not migrated to Wikimedia Commons and removing them will get them deleted, in this case with See-Ming Lee this could happen to the images they did want to be commercially available but were just blanket transferred to local Wikimedia projects.

A deletion of all these images could only be seen as “a courtesy deletion” and would end up giving “the community” (both local and global) more work, if See-Ming Lee started this deletion request themselves I would have also been opposed to deletion (also because I’m an inclusionist Wikimedian, and also because they gave up their rights to enforce take downs when commercially used and properly credited), but in this case a few problematic descriptions are used to overwrite deliberately selected licenses so See-Ming Lee has very little to say against them being hosted here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Trung: I never made this DR to protect the photographer. I made it because uncertainty about the license may pose problems to re-users. A response from Seeminglee would be useful. If they make a reasonable request, like removing a small number of images he sells many copies of, we could consider it. If he plans to sue some commercial re-users I think we should put a warning on the file pages. If he says he will be more careful with licensing in the future and the passages with "all rights reserved" and "Commercial usage will be considered" can be ignored, we can close this DR and everything has been cleared.
"which means that his image was used on tens of millions of holders for € 5,- coins"
I'm guessing more like tens of thousands, nevertheless, impressive and a great photo!
"a court would still rule in favour of the Royal Dutch Mint because they irrevocably gave up their rights for a profit when they published their images to Wikimedia Commons, and the Royal Dutch Mint credited them appropriately ok each of the tens of millions of coincards. I reckon that this is the type of situation See-Ming Lee wishes to avoid"
I would never recommend GVR to sue the Royal Dutch Mint as it must be an honor to see your work being used for things like these. But if GVR would sue, he might not even need Lionel Hutz. He released his photo with a Share Alike license. If the holder was not released under the same or a compatible license, the CC BY-SA license would be null and void. I don't know for sure if they released the holder with a Share Alike license or not. I would expect it, they are professionals right? Courts have ruled in the past that companies that used GPL code had to release their own source code and make it available with a compatible license. But this is a bit off topic probably. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: A bit off topic (although not per se) but yeah the coincards themselves usually have a production number of 158.000 specimens around (according to sources such as Coins4All and Coins-Stamps-Rotterdam.nl), but the image will get re-used such as in the official coin-almanac of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nvmh.nl) and literally every subsequent publication, other coin collecting catalogues that cover Euro coins and Dutch coins and generally just sources on the internet (and let’s not forget that Roman, Ancient Greek, and Chinese commemorative coins from over 2000 are still being regularly discussed today) so when I mean tens of millions I don't mean directly but in re-prints, websites, catalogues, Etc. Now let’s use a worst case scenario for See-Ming Lee’s images based on the above statements, image if one of See-Ming Lee’s images that are licensed here as free to use commercially but are required to be appropriately credited and shared alike but have the problematic description which is simply overlooked by the person who selects the photograph, these files then are used just to use the same Grote Vriendelijke Reus (User:GVR) example here used by the Royal Dutch Mint, the Royal Canadian Mint, or the Royal Australian Mint or whatever to simply be used as a background image on a coin or medal that will be produced 100.000 times, and now magazines, websites, and catalogues list 📃 these and use See-Ming Lee’s image a few million times, this isn't just one publication but hundreds within a few years, See-Ming Lee by chance finds their image in an almanac, who do they sue? The almanac or catalogue? The Royal National Mint? The person who uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons? I know fully well that you started this deletion request over the ambiguity of the license, but according to this entry at PlagiarismToday published in 2008 the default license is “All rights reserved”, and unless this has been changed since 2008 See-Ming Lee deliberately added a free license to their Flickr photography. This is not just one file or one album briefly, this are 1100 files over a period of years all released with licenses compatible to Wikimedia Commons, and when the Flickr2Commons application still worked for mobile devices I imported lots of files from museums and archeological sites and it wasn't uncommon for certain uploaders like Carole Raddato to have whole albums that were “all rights reserved” or have one or two files in an album that were free while the rest weren't and vice versa, this shows years of deliberately licensing files to be commercially used by See-Ming Lee, if this concerned Wikimedia Commons where the UploadWizard only gives you options that require you to license your images for commercial re-use then if you request a deletion of a useful educational image after a week or so I can understand a courtesy deletion but the default license on Flickr is “All rights reserved” which users change knowingly. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can be kept as far as I'm concerned. Seeming-lee now seems to be using CC BY-NC for new uploads and hasn't changed the license for old photos. They also can't be bothered to respond further on this DR. If they don't care, neither do I. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_insource:%2248973657@N00%22&oldid=322213640"