I don't believe the Flickr user who licensed this under Creative Commons is the photographer. The Flickr user's photos can be found here. Nesodak (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flickr uploader is posting all sorts of things he didn't take him/herself. If someone wants to flickrmail them and ask if they took it, fine. But until then it's too suspicious (no other photos from the same event, low/web resolution) to take on faith that this is self-taken. Mangostar (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the combination of WP:AGF and the zero likelihood of an IP claim by New York state mean that this image's very useful function need not be deep-sixed for fear of legal action. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the copyright policies is that it not's so much a fear of getting sued, as it is encouraging people to donate freely-licensed photos. Nesodak (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your view that no fair-use images ought be used anywhere? Such a conclusion is the natural result of your reasoning. This image isn't even so restricted as a fair-use image is. In fact, as the product of a government agency it is probably in the public domain already, if we want to reexamine the veracity of the uploader's claim. Without a complaint by a third party, though, I think we should assume good faith. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, but I don't think that many state governments release their work into the public domain, unlike the US federal government, which does. Most of the New York State government sites I looked at have a copyright notice. But I really don't see any possibility that the official photographer of New York would have a Flickr site with only one crappy web-resolution government photo on it - and that photo doesn't even have any metadata attached to it. It's far, far more likely that they stole this photo from somewhere and put a fake license on it. Nesodak (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the uploader hasn't commented here, despite being notified. I asked on the user's talkpage how they determined the licenser was also the copyright holder. Also, the same uploader has apparently uploaded Image:Paulfrancis.jpg with a fraudulent license from the same Flickr page.[1] I sort of suspect the Wikipedia user User:Mrprada911 and the Flickr user 2008 in ny's photos are one and the same. I will ask on their talk page. Nesodak (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, however I did find the images at the same flickr site. Describing the license as "fraudulent" is a bit much, if I misread all rights reserved, then by all means the photo should be deleted (in the case of francis.jpg image). I'm sure the Senate photography office is more than happy to release a copy of the photo, so I suggest instead of casting aspersions on me, we work towards improving the situation so the photo can be displayed properly licensed et. al Mrprada911 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was
Delete - noncommercial only image. If the original uploader can be convinced to relicense, please feel free to reupload, or ask me to restore. WilyD13:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it helps illustrate the subsec topic and seems to be a mostly free image. If a totally free alternative was available, I would support deleting it. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is that Wikipedia's content can be used for non-commerical purposes, so they consider it convenient to steer clear. Perhaps some sort of fair use with copyright owner's approval would work. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
