Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saffron Blaze

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 uploaded by Saffron Blaze (talk · contribs)

Per "I would welcome wholesale deletion of all my works" in these edits (uploader request due to licensing dispute after the conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa).

The following all have a regular {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} or similar and are thus not directly affected by the license issue (but are still included in this nomination – see exchange between Jeff G. and Brianjd below):

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 Delete The deprecation of the license tag has essentially rendered these "not free" and as such they should be deleted. I have no desire to change the license as an alternate course of action. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Better to be safe than sorry. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete per nom. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep File:Upleadon Church.jpg: this one was uploaded with and still has a regular {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and as far as I can tell, it never had the now deleted {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}}. Same for File:Lower Slaughter Cotswolds.jpg, File:Blue Church Prescott.jpg, and possibly more (I did not check them all).  Delete the rest. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

   Keep Also at least File:Niagara Falls Storm.jpg and File:Prairie Rainbow Canola Flax.jpg. These are images uploaded long ago and in use, so courtesy deletion should not normally be considered. –LPfi (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  @LPfi Courtesy deletion is irrelevant; this DR is supposed to be for files affected by {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}}, and these files are not affected. The conclusion is the same: the files you named should be kept.

  @Jeff G.: Perhaps you should strike the irrelevant files from this request. Brianjd (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've clicked my way through all of them and moved the ones without the template to the bottom. With that, we're down to about 40 images that actually need to be considered for deletions --El Grafo (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  @El Grafo: Let me clarify that this DR is for all of the user's uploaded works per "I would welcome wholesale deletion of all my works" in these edits. Not just the ones with only the unacceptable license.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeff G. The quote continues: … or at least those that used the license. We should take advantage of this alternative option, as there seems to be no support for a courtesy deletion here. Brianjd (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Brianjd: This DR is about all of the uploader's works. If you want to make a DR about just those that used the license, please feel free to do that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeff G. The nomination might be about all of the uploader’s works, but it seems clear that the discussion is about the license, and therefore about only the works affected by the license. It was the uploader themselves who pushed the discussion in that direction, right from the start: The deprecation of the license tag has essentially rendered these "not free" …. Brianjd (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Brianjd: I started this discussion about all the user's files. Please stop derailing it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: I’m derailing this discussion? I wasn’t the one who took this discussion in a different direction, nor was I the one who struck a bunch of files from this DR without removing the DR tags from those files. I added those files back to this DR, but kept them in separate lists, and adjusted the description of the second list. Pinging @El Grafo, Saffron Blaze, SHB2000, Murgatroyd49, LPfi, Richard Nevell, Ykraps, Pigsonthewing, Nosferattus, Tuválkin as users who contributed to this DR, possibly unaware that its definition keeps changing. Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging @Tuvalkin (who was missing from the above list). Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’m well aware of the topic of this dicussion and I’m against any deletion, as none is warrented. The files licenced with a substutited template are as valid as those licenced the regular way and neither should be deleted because licences are not revokable. (By the way: it seems that some of the collegues discussing here are misinterpreting the meaning of the wiki tech. term "substitution" — pro tip: it’s not just a fancy word to mean "replacement"…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeff G. So, your rationale for deleting those unaffected by the template issue is what exactly? They have a valid, irrevocable license. There are a couple of featured pictures among them. Why would we delete them, there is nothing wrong with them. We don't normally do courtesy deletions just because the uploader changed their mind. What is different here that would make us change that stance? El Grafo (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @El Grafo It was a perfunctory courtesy deletion request based on "I would welcome wholesale deletion of all my works" in these edits on behalf of the author of those edits. I would be comfortable with keeping the files with valid, irrevocable licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete per Saffron Blaze's comment. I'll be sorry to see them go, especially the photos of abbeys. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Delete Can't use them without a valid licence. I'll be sorry to lose them but I respect Saffron Blaze's decision not to issue them under another. Lessons learned I hope for the next time someone proposes doing away with a particular licence. --Ykraps (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep those with a {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} licence but  Delete those with the now invalid custom licence. --Ykraps (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep all. The linked discussion was closed as (my emphasis) "There is a consensus that this license cannot be used in the future". These images are used by third-party publishers based on what we have here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I did wonder about that but the closer clearly states that the licence should be deleted, not that it should be kept but future use forbidden. If what you say is true, I will gladly change my !vote. --Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think the closure wording is odd. Anyway, we should leave a note that any reuser can find easily, with a (link to) the licence quoted and an attribution. I hope that the admin who deletes these files will include that link in the deletion comment. This should leave reusers with enough information. –LPfi (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, they explicitly say "cannot be used in the future". They also say "all instances of the license should be substituted". My reading is that the deletion to which they refer is of the licence template. Prohibiting the licence was not in the scope of the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's not how I understand "...this license cannot be used in the future and should be deleted" and "...all instances of the license should be substituted, and at last the license should be deleted altogether" (my emphasis). Unfortunately the closer, User:4nn1l2 has been globally banned so getting them to clarify isn't possible. --Ykraps (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Why else would the licence be substituted? The closer did not say "delete the template and tag the images as unlicensed". And, again, prohibiting the licence was not in the scope of the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think the point is that the licence cannot be substituted. Legally, only the owner of the image has the power to change the terms of its release and the owner does not want to. This leaves Commons two options: to accept the original terms, which consensus appears to be against, or to delete the images as unlicensed. That's how I understand it.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was referring to the technical process of substituting the licence template. This was done, as required by the closure of the deletion request for that template. There is not consensus against accepting the original terms; there is consensus that those terms may not be used in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom and legal uncertainty. Nosferattus (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Keep as licenses, even obsolete ones, are not revokable. Saffron Blaze holding their photography work hostage as a spat against the unrelated decision to deprecate this license (whether one agrees or not) is frankly shocking and should be discussed in AN/U. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, very nice to confirm they are my photos but quite odd to then suggest I am holding them hostage, but so be it. It was this kind of discourse that made it easy to to stop contributing here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  And this is why I always thought it’s a bad idea to wear both hats at the same time — content creator vs. content curator. Some people manage to bravely ignore the siren call and keep the two separated, but not all. (Proverbs about opera singing and schoolyard ball games come to mind.) And yet being an excellent photographer is still seen as a plus when it comes to evaluate the work of any of us, even mentioned as such in RfAs… I think not: if someone’s an excellent photographer, then let them post their work in Flickr or wherever, whence we can harvest it if properly licensed — and that would bring any licencing issues to a more general level (as happened with CC-zero in Unsplash, or with Flickr’s own self-PD mark), avoiding sad spectacles such as this thread. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete The license template that was used was not an acceptable one and the uploader has chosen not to license their images according to a Commons-acceptable license. I don't know how people want to keep it unless they plan on arguing for a different license to be forced on the uploader. Short-term benefit of keeping a few images with a long-term harm of people not wanting to upload images here if their terms can be forcibly changed on them in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Pure FUD. No-one is proposing to force a licence change on this or any other user. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing So do you want them kept with the prior license? Then what was the close about? I think the closer is wrong to state that the licensed can't be used in the future as Commons policy can change but that licensed is not sufficient for Commons and ergo the template is unnecessary and should be deleted. I also don't like deleting images just because the uploader changed their mind but in this case the uploader wanted them uploaded with a specific set of restrictions and I care more about that than whether a third-party publisher used it subject to the restrictions that Commons didn't agree to. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

    And correction. Delete the ones that didn't have a CC-by-SA-3.0 alternate license. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

    The close was about deleting a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

    If the template is deleted, then there is no valid licence statement for those images, and we cannot keep files without valid licence statements. Ergo, deleting the template means the files have to be deleted, regardless of what was discussed in that RFD. –LPfi (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Your comment is a non sequitur; the template was, on the instructions of the closer, substituted before deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

    Sticking again to the ones without CC-by-SA-3.0 alternative license, if the template was substituted then the images have a license that is restrictive on resolution which is against Commons policy. As Mike Peel asked in the template discussion, can we get the user to use a more standard license and the answer is a resounding "NO." Are you suggesting that those should be kept because the individually created license is the same CC-by-SA-3.0 or that the restriction doesn't go against current Commons policy? Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep at least those with a regular {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} or similar licence. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep all per discussion. And deleting these would cause large damage to Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question What was the original license text? Even if we can't keep the images on Commons, the license might be compatible with the English Wikipedia's licensing policy, and moving them to EnWiki would seem like a reasonable way to handle this if that's the case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: The closing admin of the Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa, has chosen to substitute by their own action the licensing templates on all files with this license. This can be seen for instance here (admins only). However, as for instance Krd remarked, this license is invalid for use on Commons, and most people in the discussion on the deletion request about the template were fully aware the images would be deleted as well as a consequence. Therefore, I decided that the files with the (substituted) license text should be deleted per this DR, as many of the people involved in the discussion on this DR are proposing. The files with the CCBYSA3.0 license should be kept imho, as this is a valid license on Commons. The request of the uploader to delete these files as well, does not need to be followed. Per COM:COURTESY, although not a guideline, we can conclude there is no obligation to delete files on request of the uploader, especially when files are of high quality and very useful as in this case. It is very sad to see a prolific uploader, Saffron Blaze leave the project. I was not involved in any discussion with Saffron Blaze, so please accept my thanks for your contributions to Commons, and I hope you can accept your images with CCBYSA3 are kept and valued on the project. --Ellywa (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)