Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Abbott official photo.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
Not necessarily deleted, but like with the Julia Gillard photo it should be investigated - It has been pointed out by @Skyring: and @Nick-D: that the copyright claim for this image is questionable and the relevant page to do with copyright status on the NAA website is badly worded, and therefore the image is unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete A look at the source website gives a page of copyright information that says "With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence." This is not a suitable licence for images used on Wikipedia. (See list here). --Skyring (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep???: see discussion of the Gillard photo. Errantius (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- See response there. --Skyring (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The linked copyright statement on the NAA website seems perfectly clear to me that the relevant licence for the image is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, as uploaded. The NAA site quotes: As far as practicable, material for which the copyright is owned by a third party will be clearly labelled. The National Archives has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that this material has been reproduced on this website with the full consent of the copyright owners. There is no such labelling of different origin of the photo so why do you assert that the APH site is the original source? Spaully (talk)
- Because the National Archives doesn't go out and create its own material. Official portraits are the province of Parliament. Each Member or Senator is photographed for various publications including webpages such as this one and naturally if another department wants a photograph of a politician they will use this official image. Government departments or agencies will have their own in-house photographers for in-house purposes, such as an internal news event, a media release, photographs of buildings, staff and so on. A department might seek to have its own official portrait of the responsible government minister as opposed to one of them making a speech or cutting a ribbon or something. I've checked Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and they are of little use for this image. Google Image Search tells me that the largest size of this image comes from the ALP which is obviously nonsense. It is certain, however, that this image did not originate with the National Archives. --Skyring (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning but it feels like you are over-reaching for a reason to delete. The basic facts appear to be that the uploader has sourced the image from NAA website which itself has a clear copyright statement stating that NAA release the images under their license (acceptable to Commons) or clearly label if this is not the case. I don't think it is our place to dig further than this into their due diligence processes, especially for a non-controversial and widely-published image. Spaully (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Because the National Archives doesn't go out and create its own material. Official portraits are the province of Parliament. Each Member or Senator is photographed for various publications including webpages such as this one and naturally if another department wants a photograph of a politician they will use this official image. Government departments or agencies will have their own in-house photographers for in-house purposes, such as an internal news event, a media release, photographs of buildings, staff and so on. A department might seek to have its own official portrait of the responsible government minister as opposed to one of them making a speech or cutting a ribbon or something. I've checked Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and they are of little use for this image. Google Image Search tells me that the largest size of this image comes from the ALP which is obviously nonsense. It is certain, however, that this image did not originate with the National Archives. --Skyring (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I wrote to the National Archives of Australia to ask about the copyright status of the images in the Australia's prime ministers collection. Here is their response:
- "The images of Prime Ministers from Kevin Rudd onwards were obtained with permission from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If you would like to receive permission to use the images I recommend you contact the Department via the contact form here: Contact | Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (pmc.gov.au) with details of your request."
- In an earlier phone call, they confirmed that the NAA holds the rights to the prime minister photos before Rudd (John Howard and earlier) and these are covered under the website's CC-BY licence, but I don't have this in writing unfortunately. --Canley (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Like with Julia Gillard's official portrait, this photo has been found to have been uploaded with the wrong copyright, as per Canley's comments here and in the discussion page for the Gillard portrait. I've now moved for a speedy delete of this image, and its variants. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as per the information obtained from NAA. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
