File:Boojum tree ucr botanical garden.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Copyright is held by me, and was licensed under GPL and CC BY; the copyright claimed in the deletion review is for Apache::Gallery, which is the gallery software used in my gallery. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn-Looking at the PUF discussion that led to the files deletion has led me to this page, the image source cited in the PUF. Looking at the source, it appears that the copyright does, in fact, pertain to the software, not the image. The deletion was based on a flawed premise, and thus should be reversed.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• If this is licenced under the GPL and CC-BY-SA, then doesn't it belong on Wikimedia Commons rather than here?— S Marshall T/ C 23:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The was uploaded to wikipedia before wikimedia commons, iirc. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• The external website provides absolutely no evidence that the image is licensed as GPL+CC-BY. No licence listed at all apart from a copyright notice at the bottom and the website contains absolutely no evidence that the website is operated by User:Dondelelcaro. If an image appears outside Wikipedia before it appears on Wikipedia, you need to provide some evidence of ownership, either through OTRS or by adding a statement to the web site confirming that the Wikipedia upload was legit. If no evidence of permission is provided, then this is just to be treated as a standard case where insufficient information has been provided, making the file deletable per WP:CSD#F11, see Commons:COM:CB#Internet images. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 01:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The image was uploaded before OTRS, but I have no problem stating that I am the copyright holder of the image. Secondly, my user page references http://www.donarmstrong.com, so there's little question that I am at least affiliated with my own server. Finally, I've added notice to the bottom of the page referencing the license state of the images in the gallery. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I do not doubt for a moment what you say but anyone with a Wikipedia account can claim to be you and say that they control your server. As Stefan2 says, you need to place a suitable free licence on your gallery or state on your server that you have made the claims on your user page (or use OTRS). Forgive me if you have done this and I have missed it. Thincat ( talk) 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Sure, but they'd be hard pressed to claim that one domain in 2006 in preparation for a question about copyright in late 2011. That said, it'd be trivial for anyone who questioned whether I was in control of that domain to e-mail me and ask. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The PUF discussion (such as it was) was not well informed but the source does not seem to provide any evidence of permission so speedy deletion was appropriate. The file has already been transferred to Commons (twice?) and deleted there for the same reason. [1] Properly licensed images can be hosted either here or on Commons but files tend to get moved to and fro. My own guess is that here will be a better ultimate location but I fear in our chaotic system there may turn out to be a strange attractor. Thincat ( talk) 11:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • It does not appear possible to substantiate ownership when the image is speedily deleted; that said, I have no problem following OTRS to demonstrate ownership. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Dondelelcaro needs to better substantiate his claim as others say above. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hopefully substantiated. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• This page now has a statement telling that all images on the web site are available as {{ GPL}}. This statement looks enough to me, although a software licence looks strange for a photo. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - This whole thing continues to raise questions. If you in fact took the photo, how tough would it be to upload it to Wikimedia commons and slap a Creative Commons licenses on it? Instead, you choose to get editors to spend seven days arguing the point at DRV? Then, instead of changing the license for the photo in question, you change a copyright license for your entire website. [2] And there, instead of an image license, you change your website to make images available under a free software license, rather than a license for photographic work. What are we supposed to do with that? Are you saying that because you used Apache::Gallery software to manipulate someone else's copyrighted work you then can change the license for the derivative work? Your website http://www.donarmstrong.com/ says nothing about you taking photos. Instead, it talks about literature minining [3] and working on a large study dataset, [4] both indications that appear to say you take other's content and create and manipulate datasets. There was no indication of where the original photo came from, which apparently was here. That's the link that should be used in your Wikipedia upload of the image. You have no problem stating that you are the copyright holder of the image, but are having problems proving it. Did you take the photo yourself? Did someone take the photo and email you a digital copy? How did this photo get creates and how did it end up in your possession? As for the image in question, [5] the photo is of poor quality (with all those people in the background) and I don't see it being used in a Wikipedia article even if the license issue is resolved. Also, we have plenty of Boojum. [6] I don't see what the end purpose of this DRV request is if it is not to use the photo in a Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • 1) It is understanding that reuploading the same image when it has already been subject to a deletion is acting in bad faith. 2) I'm using GPLv2+ because I am a free software developer, am intricately familiar with it, know it can be applied to any digital work, and am not particularly enthralled with the CC's licensing process. But I'm not sure why that matters. 3) Why does what I have to do have to do with whether or not I take photographs? As you can probably figure out from my resume, I work at UCR, so I have access to the botanical gardens, and regularly see the multiple Boojum trees there. 4) The photo was originally used in the wikipedia article as there was no other good photographs of boojum at the time I edited it. Finally, I would appreciate if you would avoid attacking me by claiming that I am acting in bad faith. Dondelelcaro ( talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• I think you are mistaken about the nature of the GPL, though it's commonly used for computer software, the license itself does contemplate other works. The GPL V3 preamble is "The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works" (my emphasis), the V2 and V3 licenses define the term program to be broad and define source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", rather than taking the meaning of source code in purely software terms.

  The galley software is (AFAIK) a perl module for apache which dynamically prepares html galleries of images [7], exactly as it's being used and adds that message to the bottom of it's generated galleries. I do not see how you can infer from use of that software anything about the image being someone else's copyright or being "manipulated" in some way. Nor do I believe that his can be used as evidence of difficulty proving ownership. Nor can I see how you expect to prove he does, if he took it himself, beyond him saying "I took this myself" what evidence are you expecting?

  I think we are making far too much of this. If that site wasn't there and he uploaded it, then we wouldn't question his right to license it (absent some reasonable evidence that it wasn't his to license). In this case the site is there, and he's demonstrated that he is reasonably in control of it, we should accept that at face value. Frankly if I were the uploader, and knew I owned the image, then at this point I'd, frankly, be thinking well bollocks to the lot of you. This is of course not withstanding the issue as to if it's a worthwhile image for wikipedia. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore [8] now has the proper license note. GPL is good enough for us AFAIK. Hobit ( talk) 02:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore I voted endorse above. The deletion was appropriate at the time but a suitable licence has now been placed on the source gallery. Thincat ( talk) 11:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Might be a good idea to strike the !vote above just to be clear... Hobit ( talk) 12:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  I wondered about striking my "endorse" but I had not changed my mind about endorsing. To avoid any appearance of double-voting I have now struck my bolded "restore". I now think the image can be restored. Thank you for the suggestion. Thincat ( talk) 18:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

  Thanks! Hobit ( talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply