File talk:Jesinta Campbell.jpg
This picture has a questionable licensing status. In a thread on reddit called "Did photo's of Miss Australia but her agency said I couldn't use them. Fuck that" started by the photographer, the photographer out-right states in the thread's comments that her agency did not want the photos used by him. Not sure of the copyright law in the home country (ostensibly Australia) but it's not obvious that this image is kosher with Commons' policies. This photo was not taken in a public place and the subject likely would not want the image used. Unless the photographer has a signed release form given him copyright status, he likely does not have copyright (depends on particulars of country of course). Will nominate for deletion. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- A photographer has copyright to his work by default, unless specifically signed away. Whatever the problem was between the photographer and the agency, his licesing of this photo means that he retained copyright and it makes it kosher for Commons. The photographer also states in the thread that the subject of the photo was pleased by the result and it is in no way degrading for Miss Campbell, as seen by the reaction to the photo in the thread. Miss Campbell is a figure of public life and cooperated freely for this photo. Therefore I'm appealing the speedy deletion. --Wladi001 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are you 100% sure the photographer has copyright? I did not see him state that explicitly in the thread. Even if he did and I missed it or if he wrote you a private message, keep in mind that it may not be true. Just a reminder that Wikipedia is not a legal-free zone and you may be held legally liable for your contributions. Unless the photographer has an actual release form, he likely does not have copyright. As a Wikipedian, I also think it wise for us to stay clear of legal gray issues that could harm the image of the project. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure that the photgrapher has copyright because he licensed the photograph for free use using the OTR template in which he specifically guarantees it. Also, thank you for your advice, but I'm familiar with the copyright law in my home country. And of course I'm also interested in keeping harm away from the project, but as long as we have a guarantee from the photographer (who should know best about the status), I see no harm in keeping this beautiful picture. --Wladi001 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I forgot to consider OTRS aspect of the upload. One last comment, legal issues should not be thought of as confined within one's own country. Every now and then a news story comes along that highlights this. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am sure that the photgrapher has copyright because he licensed the photograph for free use using the OTR template in which he specifically guarantees it. Also, thank you for your advice, but I'm familiar with the copyright law in my home country. And of course I'm also interested in keeping harm away from the project, but as long as we have a guarantee from the photographer (who should know best about the status), I see no harm in keeping this beautiful picture. --Wladi001 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are you 100% sure the photographer has copyright? I did not see him state that explicitly in the thread. Even if he did and I missed it or if he wrote you a private message, keep in mind that it may not be true. Just a reminder that Wikipedia is not a legal-free zone and you may be held legally liable for your contributions. Unless the photographer has an actual release form, he likely does not have copyright. As a Wikipedian, I also think it wise for us to stay clear of legal gray issues that could harm the image of the project. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
