Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg

• File:Liz Truss official portrait.jpg
• File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped).jpg

Per VP discussion, this image is obtained from Flickr and licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. It is different from the one published on the UK Government website A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Hérisson grognon (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is her official portrait, it's important to illustrate it. -Helloiamauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloiamauser (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Should be kept. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloiamauser and Tim O'Doherty: Please provide a valid reason. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it illustrates the subject well, is an official portrait and a high-quality image. Odd that you didn't ask Hérisson grognon to provide a valid reason though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The license is clear... Hérisson grognon (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as an anon user, i agree w/ helloiamauser and tim o'doherty. she is best illustrated with their official portrait, taken when she had the title. deleting this and using the prev image is outdated.

141.193.118.4 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep this is her official portrait and she is best represented that way. -Pickmyusernameidc2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickmyusernameidc2022 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - this was her official portrait during her tenure as Prime Minister and should be used to depict her THeShavidow1 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloiamuser, Tim O'Doherty, Pickmyusernameidc2022, and THeShavidow1: kindly provide copyright rule-based reason why the image can be kept. We do not question the usefulness or timeliness of the subject, but rather the question is about the inconsistency of the metadata copyright claim (claiming non-commercial use is forbidden) as compared to one at the official UK government site. Just a note, Wikimedia Commons cannot accept content that cannot be exploited commercially by end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasons made by ThatRandomGuy1, the image is just a cropped version of the one displayed on the government website so is under the OGL while the full image is not THeShavidow1 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image is actually the same as the one published on the UK Government website. It is however cropped and at a lower resolution than the Flickr image. As per the closure of this discussion, I think the image should be kept as it is part of the cropped area and therefore under the OGL even at a higher resolution, while the full image that it was extracted from should be deleted as it goes beyond the crop published on GOV.UK. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are two other versions of the GOV.UK image on Commons (this file which is the same as the GOV.UK file but at a higher resolution and a cropped version here). These files appear to have the same issue as the one A1Cafel nominated for deletion. That is, the original file is from Flickr and has been licensed there under CC-BY-NC-ND and not the OGL. However, they are still licensed to Commons under the OGL as in their permission section there is a link to a National Archives copyright advice document which says: Crown copyright is administered by the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office from The National Archives. Any application to deviate from OGL as the default licence for Crown copyright must be submitted to the Information Policy team at The National Archives and can only be authorised by the Controller. I'm not sure about this, but the image A1Cafel has nominated for deletion is also a crown copyright work, so surely this advice would apply to that file too? Including the full official portrait of Truss that it was extracted from and not just the cropped one shown on GOV.UK? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Number 10 has since confirmed on their Flickr page that All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/v... and that only Material marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, it's worth noting that The UK Government Flickr account has different wording: Crown copyright pictures on this flickr profile can be downloaded in high res format and used in accordance with the terms set out in the specified Creative Commons license. Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may not be downloaded or redistributed.. Something about events in breweries comes to mind. I have written to the Cabinet office, asking them to standardise on the OGL wording, for all government Flickr accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Official portraits are fine, yeah people who run that flickr page are morons, every image they release under a free licence can and should be used on commons but the person uploading it to commons needs to ensure thay put the OGL license as well as the one its released under on flickr, if they tagged an image as NC and/or ND but that same image was used on their gov.uk page, that image is allowed to be used here but the user needs to link to the .gov.uk page as well as the Flickr page in the source of where they got the HQ version and put the OGL licensing template in the image, yes its a pain in the posterior but our Wikimedia UK arm has failed us many times by not getting this fixed for over a decade now so we are using this unfortunate "compromise" instead.. now all this does not apply to Official portraits, regardless of whatever license it has been put under on flickr or any other site, if its an official portrait of a cabinet minister, its OGL which this image is ...--Stemoc 03:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stemoc: The opposite outcome seems to have been (wrongly) decided in a similar case recently, see VPC discussion. See also my Twitter posts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah official portraits are 100% OGL regardless off what license it gets put under but other images could be debated, we had to make a compromise a few years back of only using images on OGL if that image is used on that gov.uk website and only that specific image even though all images involving all govt ministers and not just the PM are technically OGL.. the issue is that all images are 'crown copyright' first then OGL and because flickr doesn't offer either licensing, they are using those closest to it which honestly is cc-by but they lack the knowledge apparently on doing it correctly, EXIF should then becomes useful but they always have those wrong too lol and in most cases contradictory as one part would say its for editorial purpose only and NC-ND but then another part will say its under OGL which allows commercial and modifications...i sometimes think the OGL situation is worse than the Brexit situation they have right now.. Stemoc 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I think it matters why UK government works are OGL. The difference between the US government and a private individual is that works by the former are public domain by law; 17 U.S.C. § 105 is the required evidence of permission. So even if a work does not have a valid free license, as long as it is verifiably by the US government, it is automatically public domain no matter what the page says. For a work by a private individual, it becomes freely licensed only upon the application of a free license by the author. I was able to find UK government licence guidelines, which state: "To facilitate re-use, public sector bodies must: [...] Use a standard licence that is as non-restrictive as possible." It then continues: "The Open Government Licence (OGL) is the default for central government departments and agencies, and the preferred licence for all other public sector bodies, in cases where information is supplied for re-use and no charge is made. [...] The Non-Commercial Government Licence is an acceptable alternative when the OGL is not suitable. Crown bodies may use this only if approved by The National Archives." So the question is: 1) Did the National Archives actually authorize the Flickr account to use an NC-only license, or did some random employee accidentally hit the wrong button? 2) If the Flickr account is in violation of UK government policy, what is the corrective measure? For US government works, if some agency claims copyright in violation of US copyright regulations, the corrective measure is that such claims are null and void, and the works are public domain anyways. But if Person A releases a work under CC-BY-SA and Person B makes a derivative work under ARR, the corrective measure is not that B's work is automatically CC-BY-SA; rather, A can sue B for copyright infringement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, Flickr does not allow a choice of the OGL itself (or the NCGL); rather they only allow the actual CC licenses. So if they choose CC-BY, then the file is also actually licensed under CC-BY as well as the OGL, which they may not want. So maybe this is simply dual licensed OGL and CC-BY-NC-ND, so that the free license is the one with the wording and legal code that the UK government controls. I don't think we can take the Flickr license as "where otherwise stated" and assume away the OGL, basically. It would need to be a non-Crown copyright work, or need some other particular statement, to not be OGL given the statement on the Flickr account, for me. So I guess  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Clindberg. This is a mess, and one must be careful not to apply PD-USGov style assumptions to UK works, but even in light of those cautions this particular photo seems to be a good case for the reasoning Clindberg articulates above. Absent actual evidence the photo is owned by a third party, or that it is subject to a proper application to deviate from the default OGL policy, it is reasonable to assume OGL in this case (this !vote is not support for making that blanket assumption in all Crown Copyright cases). --Xover (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Somebody has to decide on this DR after such a long time. The listed file is the same (apart from cropping and resolution) as previously available on https://web.archive.org/web/20220930174959/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, with the OGL licence. The current official image, as published on https://web.archive.org/web/20220905130934/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss has been made at the same session, by the same photographer, and is showing somewhat more of a smile. On flickr the old version is still available. Imho, if the UK Gov did not want this image with less of a smile to be published, they would have removed it from flickr by now. As they cannot select the OGL license on flickr, they used CCBYNC licensing, which formally we cannot cuse. However, on Commons, we do use the OGL licence, so I think the image can be kept with the OGL licensing. Therefore decided to keep the image, including two cropped versions. --Ellywa (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]