File talk:Edna Adan Ismail, with graduate nurses.jpg

Edna Adan Ismail and her hospital have released this photo for use at Wikipedia and anyplace else. Nobody has any interest in restricting its use by anybody anywhere. With Edna's knowledge and consent, I added the photo, originally, to Edna's own Wikipedia article and, more recently, to the article about her hospital. When I claimed and released ownership of the photo I was acting in my capacity as Edna's personal representative in the matter. A highly trivial matter as far as Edna is concerned. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The complaint is clearly mistaken in that the file here is of vastly higher resolution than the one appearing on Edna's web site. Clearly this one was not derived from that one. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The complaining editor has made contradictory assertions that I have (1) stolen this photo from the web site while, at the same time, arguing (2) that I am acting here as the designated agent of the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital.

Furthermore, there is no copyright statement on Edna's [hospital web site] because (1) neither she, herself, nor the foundation, which she administers, has the slightest concern about the use of these photos and (2) I, as her web site administrator, never placed any such copyright statement on her web site.

And, even more further, it's just ridiculous to imagine that Edna Adan was both unaware and unapproving of this photo of herself appearing for all these months on her very own Wikipedia article page. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "complaining editor" made no such comments. Here's what I did, in fact, write:

I also notice you have posted an image of the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital, which is identical to a copyrighted one found on that hospital's homepage, yet you have indicated on that image's information page that it is your own work ("Own work by uploader"). And I sincerely doubt that this is somehow a "mixup" of some kind or other since you also uploaded months before that yet another image -- this time of none other than Edna Adan Ismail herself -- that is featured on the aforementioned website (1). However, you have this time indicated that the image was taken from (i.e. its "Source" is) the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital itself! Unless you are guilty of copyright infringement on not one but two counts, then you indeed are somehow very intimately connected with the hospital.

Also, it makes no difference whether the image uploaded to Wikipedia appears to be of "higher resolution" or not. This is because 1) any image editing program can be used to significantly alter a photo's appearance through functions such as 'sharpen', 'crop', and 'glow', the first two of which definitely appear to have been used on the photo in question. 2) The photos feature the exact same image content modified only perhaps for image resolution and other superficial details. The content itself -- that is, the relative positions of the people in the photo, the image angle & form, and the moment in time it captures -- is identical (proof: the Wikipedia upload; the original from the hospital's website).

What's more, Wikipedia's image policy clearly states that when an image lists a source with no evidence of permission:

*If a copyright infringement is blatant—that is, if the image is claimed under a free license when this is obviously not the case—it may be tagged for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion I9. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Those may, instead, be handled by one of the processes below. This does include images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis.

Contrary to the policy above, the editor that uploaded this image has offered it to the public for use as a "public domain" file despite the fact that nowhere on the website from which he got the image to begin with is such permission or image status indicated, much less via a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Those are the facts. Middayexpress (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)