Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Pierre Holtz"

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/"Pierre Holtz"

Pierre Holtz for UNICEF. I dont think Humanitarian and Development Partnership Team in the Central African Republic (HDPT CAR) had the authority to license the photos.

I cant find Pierre Holtz's online presence. And if UNICEF is the holder, and no waiver is given, then this batch can probably be undeleted in 2007+95+1=2103.

Roy17 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see what the nominator is complaining of. These are sourced from Flickr, CC-by-sa, from https://www.flickr.com/people/hdptcar/ Why should I believe the nominator, rather than the original source? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he is concerned about the mismatch between the source releasing the photos (HDPTCAR) vs. the affiliation of the photographer (UNICEF), which isn't unreasonable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The UN and HDPTCAR appear to have been partners in various initiatives (see e.g. [1], [2]) so it's plausible that HDPTCAR had the authority to release them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Holtz photographed for the European Photopress Agency. See for example Mia Farrow visits Central African Republic 01358314, which is File:Mia Farrow in discussion with EUFOR soldier (2530868572).jpg. "Source EPA". See also EPA terms of use. He also photographed for UNICEF. UNICEF's copyright terms do not seem to allow free sub-licenses. (From EXIF of a photo by another photographer: "Rights - © Notice: UNICEF photographs are copyrighted and may not be reproduced in any medium without written permission from authorized UNICEF staff. Permission is available to UNICEF partners and bonafide national/international media for specified use relating to UNICEF-supported issues or programmes. Permissions are granted for one-time use in a context that accurately represents the real situation and identity of all human beings depicted. All reproductions MUST be credited, including, at a minimum, the copyright symbol - © - UNICEF and the last name of the photographer. Reproductions without credit are not authorized. Image content may not be changed by digital or any other means, except cropping. Images may not be used in a commercial context; may not be archived by any non-UNICEF entity; and are not available for personal use.") -- Asclepias (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very general observation. It is certainly no indication that UNICEF cannot re-licence its licences to whoever it feels like!

As far as I can tell from looking at Flickr, there is a project HDPTCAR which had some collaborative work with UNICEF, and indeed with Pierre Holtz. They have published images from that work themselves, under a free licence (And please note, that these works still are in copyright! Copyright and free licensing are not exclusive). This is all a fairly typical situation for such and entirely in accordance with hosting them here. It raises no suspicions.

To oppose this, I would have to take the word of a single Commons editor against HDPTCAR's public claims through their public Flickr channel. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely. If Pierre Holtz was asking this, and gave some reasonable indication (such as OTRS, or a public posting on their own off-wiki and traceable blog) then I might give it more credence. Likewise for UNICEF. But as it is, I'm extending good faith to HDPTCAR and I have no reason to start doubting them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned too that I've seen no previous editing history from the nominator here, until a number of bulk deletion requests in recent days: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 創造未來，迎接康莊. As yet, none of them appear even slightly plausible. Making false, or even grossly careless, bulk deletions is likely to be seen as disruptive and could attract sanctions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now raised at COM:AN/U#Bulk deletions and an unauthorised 'bot by Roy17 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to add on to my nomination, but since User:Andy Dingley chose to comment ad hominem repeatedly, I would like to make some clarification.

These photos were created by Pierre Holtz for UNICEF. Crystal clear.
HDPT CAR was not a parent nor a subordiante of UNICEF, so it had no authority to license UNICEF's photos.
As User:Asclepias has pointed out, UNICEF reserves all rights for all their works.
On the other hand, https://www.flickr.com/photos/hdptcar/ published not only photos from UNICEF but also many different organisations under various CC licences.

Conclusion: an obvious case of an organisation's poor management and disregard of other organisations' copyright.

Now take a look at what Andy Dingley has said so far. Clumsy arguments of assuming good faith in a flickr account, when I have pointed out in my nomination that HDPT CAR identified itself as a collaboration platform of many organisations, which would be quite unlikely to have control over partners' copyright, and copy-pasting personal attacks. I chose not to respond to such baseless attacks because I believe any other sensible users could weigh in.--Roy17 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming ignorance of our 'bot policy and saying "bots don't need to be approved" is going to need more to back it up than, "Oh, he's being mean to me and it's all just an ad hominem". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Andy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is 100% correct. The flickr user uploaded photos he has no rights to share. A similar thing happened at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Charles, Prince of Wales in 2018 - the Northern Ireland Office uploaded photos taken by Kelvin Boyes / Press Eye and posted to flickr as Creative Commons. On investigation the uploader confirmed that they didn't have the permission to do this and the files were deleted. Yet flickr still shows CC-BY-2.0. Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: correctly licensed per Flickr source. If you believe the Flickr uploader incorrectly licensed the photos, contact them and ask them to change the license on Flickr first. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]