Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro a trabalhar.jpg
This deletion debate 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:Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro a trabalhar.jpg[edit]
Transferring my copyvio mark into DR, contested via file history. Image shows photographer pt:Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro at work, uploaded apparently by a webmaster of photographers website. Unclear copyright status as previously published via offical facebook (2012), presuming that Gonçalo Lobo Pinheiro couldn't take this picture of himself, so any kind of permission (whoever the real photographer was) is needed. See also User talk:Gunnex#GLP's purported copyvios. Gunnex (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I had brought up the matter previously at Commons:Village pump#Flagging a doubtful license. Of all the photos uploaded by User:Glp (talk · contribs) this was the one that caught my eye — the others must be replaced with hires/EXIF versions and subject to a proper OTRS alright, but I could not see how this could be said to be authored by the person it depicts (unlike his self portrait, still waiting to be undeleted by Gunnex). However User:Jmabel had me schooled by the village pump — and yes, photograpic authorship can be given to whoever gives «sufficient direction to be the effective author». I’m not sure who is the meanest mightiest expert in deals professional photographers in Commons, wheather Gunnex or Jmabel, and who is expected to be credited for this one image so that it is accepted as genuine, but I’m getting the popcorn.
- Meanwhile I strongly urge User:Glp (talk · contribs) to put an end to all this by signing an OTRS for each image (or having it signed by his boss) and uploading them in their original form by use of link that says «Upload a new version of this file».
-
- Presumably we can get a blanket OTRS from him for images uploaded from this account: no need to have a separate OTRS for each image. Also, as I previously remarked on the Village pump, it's not obvious that he wouldn't hold he copyright on this. He could have used a timer, or someone he employs could have taken it, or he could simply have given sufficient direction to be the effective author. The legal copyright holder of a photo is not necessarily the person who snaps the shutter. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
While the photos do need an OTRS permit, they do not have to be uploaded in higer resolution. Nothing in Commons policy demands that. ---89.244.171.153 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the uploader Glp (talk · contribs) is not able to obtain permission(s). Instead, he reuploaded files already deleted with missing permission. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:NélsonÉvora@17m.jpg.Gunnex (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: File is missing permission. Should be restored upon reciept of OTRS permission FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
