Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:O'TooleEbertPatric_by_Roger_Ebert.jpg

[edit]

The person who uploaded it en:User:Rebert is depicted in the picture. The metadata names Mark Von Holden/ DMI as author (who is a professional photographer based in New York City: http://www.markvonholden.com/bio.htm). No permission by him is stated. SpeakFree (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I would tend to give Roger Ebert a bit more benefit of a doubt as having proper license/permission than average random user. I note that this image has been in prominent use in Wikimedia since 2004 with no complaint. You should probably alert the image's uploader, en:User talk:Rebert, of this discussion (though he doesn't seem to have been active on Wikimedia since 2009). You might also wish to contact Mark Von Holden as to if he does/does not consent to the license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One should not be overawed by celebrity. Whether an image was uploaded by an Average Joe or a famous person shouldn't matter (they often have too busy lives to spend time learning the intricacies of copyright law). I'm not too familiar with the OTRS process so maybe someone who is could e-mail Mark Von Holden and ask him for permission in the proper form. SpeakFree (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing for being "overawed by celebrity". I'm just noting that it was uploaded by a known person who is generally intelligent and media savvy, so has a known record outside of Wikimedia beyond their few and occasional contributions in Wikimedia. Certainly that doesn't mean they are beyond questionging-- nor is anyone else; smart and experienced Wikimedians can make occasional mistakes too, and we strive for accuracy through multiple people second guessing. My point is similar to that which Night Ranger expressed as "Let's not be hasty here." I think this one is worth a bit of extra effort to try to contact both the uploader and the listed photographer before making a determination on the case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rebert probably uploaded the photo as a well-intentioned gesture after he received it from the photographer but unless the photographer transferred the copyrights to the photo to him he doesn't have the right to donate it under a free license. Especially because the photo was taken by a professional photographer and they are often are very protective of their work as its their bread and butter. He might not even be aware that the photo is on Wikipedia. Regardless there should be full clarification of the photo's copyright status. SpeakFree (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the original history on en:W, I note that it was uploaded in the pre-template era, with no claim of authorship nor license statement. I asked about licensing myself early on. en:User:AaronSw was the one who tagged it as GFDL; you might wish to ask them about it; the user is still active. (I recall that some other users were in contact with Ebert at the time and confirmed the account identity, but I have no further info about it myself.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm the person who was in contact with Ebert. Yes, he's in it. Yes, he uploaded it. For the other image he uploaded (of himself and Russ Meyer), he specifically agreed to release it under the specified free licenses and in the same e-mail acknowledged that he uploaded this one as well. This was a few years ago. Unfortunately, I'm a couple of cratered hard drives past that time and no longer can access the e-mail he sent me (and I don't care to give out his e-mail address in a public forum), but if you look at the OTRS info for the Russ Meyer image, it may have the additional statement about this one. If not, I can give an administrator here the e-mail address I have for him offline if you'd like to contact him. Let's not be hasty here. Night Ranger (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment COM:PRP seems to apply. I've encountered this policy in an earlier deletion request regarding a file predating the present permission request system. A user in that debate said "An image lacking permission is an image lacking permission. Copyright in many countries lasts 70 years past the creator's death. No one's going to cut us slack just because we didn't adhere to best practices at the time. Precautionary principle is policy.". So it would be best to get a response from the uploader and/or photographer. SpeakFree (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if someone wants me to give them the e-mail address I have for Roger then I can do that, but I would prefer it be a trusted administrator. I don't want to bother him myself. Night Ranger (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's better to e-mail Mark Von Holden instead as he is the photo's creator and his e-mail address is public (studio AT markvonholden DOT com, as listed on his website). Still it would be better if an administrator or experienced OTRS team member mailed him. SpeakFree (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one responded I decided to e-mail MVH myself. SpeakFree (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been away for a few days. That's probably fine, just so he knows that the image was uploaded by Roger Ebert. That info may be the difference between whether or not he lets us keep it. It's been so long now, but I think Ebery originally uploaded it to en-wiki and I subsequently moved it here, but again, it's been years. Night Ranger (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you very much for writing me. I just read the correspondance online and very impressed at how much discussion has gone into this one photo. I am also grateful as a professional photographer that you care about the copyright laws. The truth of the matter is I did take this photo. However I was staff at the time with DMI photo who owned the copyright. The company DMI was sold to Wireimage in 2006. Wireimage was sold to Getty images. Therefore Getty images owns the copyright and all images taken by DMI photographers. I emailed a few photos to Roger years ago during the Savannah School of Art and Design Film Festival as I was the house photographer and he was an honored guest. He asked for some photos from the festival for personal use. Thank you for contacting me and I hope this helps."
If you want a copy of the full e-mail please ask (allowing that I don't check Commons as much as English Wikipedia so you may leave a message on w:User talk:SpeakFree). SpeakFree (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I sent the mail to the OTRS team so they have it now. SpeakFree (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that this is correct: the OTRS ticket number is 2011110710011595. Therefore, this file should be deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Go to the site of the FilmMagic photo agency (a division of Getty Images), search for "Roger Ebert Peter O'Toole Jason Patric" (without the quotation marks) and you will find this image together with two other images from the same occasion crediting M. Von Holden as creator. I think there is enough evidence now that this image is not a free image and Mr. Ebert just didn't realize that when he uploaded it.

BTW: forgot to add this, the three images which were derived from this one (File:JasonPatric(larger)_by_Roger_Ebert.jpg, File:Roger_Ebert.jpg and File:Peterotoole by Roger Ebert.jpg) should be included in this discussion because if this one is deleted the other ones should be treated the same. SpeakFree (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per the above, looks like a misunderstanding between Ebert and Von Holden. Von Holden (the copyright holder) understood that he granted Ebert "personal use" of the photo but not the copyright, which was subsequently purchased by Getty, so neither Von Holden nor Ebert currently has authority to grant a free license on this. Too bad. Thanks for your work, SpeakFree. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. I just noticed there is another derived image, which I nominated also: File:JasonPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg. SpeakFree (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: I have purged English WP of all versions of this image and replaced them with a different image. I don't see how this could be maintained. SpeakFree (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per OTRS ticket, this image is copyright by Getty Images, and unfortunately we do not have permission for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:O%27TooleEbertPatric_by_Roger_Ebert.jpg&oldid=62366340"