Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mastitis in breast.jpg

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baby nursing using nipple guard.jpg, User talk:Túrelio#File:Baby nursing using nipple guard.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baby sleeping after feed with nipple guard.jpg.

User account who uploaded the file did not have permission to do so from the copyright owner. User account has been deleted at the request of the copyright owner. All photos uploaded by the account should be removed from Wikipedia for violating copyright 80.2.44.22 18:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - the copyright was never transferred for this image and I still retain copyright. I did agree for the image to be uploaded on condition of anonymity. But the uploaded has created an account to give me due credit - using an identifiable name for me. This needs to be changed/ removed as this is not what was agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXANONXXX3245 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning copyright:  Question Where did the uploader get the photo from if they were not the author? If the author has transferred copyright to somebody else before uploading the photo, please provide an evidence through VRT. Ankry (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning privacy:  Keep The image is used, no identifiable person visible and per ticket:2022120210007201 permission of the subject is still valid. Ankry (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning privacy - the user name associated with the image can be linked to me. Please remove this and all meta data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXANONXXX3245 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder allowed the upload of the image to wikimedia as part of the wikimedia breastfeeding project on the condition that it was anonymous. This condition was broken by 1. The project lead creating a user account in the name of the copyright holder to upload it to wikimedia meaning every usage attributes the image to to the copyright holder and 2. The photo metadata has location data to where the copyright holder lives. 80.2.44.22 22:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed location-data from the metadata. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But it is still being attributed to the copyright holder using a username they use on multiple social media platforms making them easily identifiable as the subject of the image. Is there a way to change the image author to "anon" or something similar? Diskojim (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The true copyright-holder should contact the support-team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) and ask them to change the author-entry for this (and eventually the other image) to one of her likening. The support-team volunteers are a closed usergroup bound to confidentiality. So, her email will not be made public, though a record will remain in the confidential OTRS-space. --Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, The copyright holder has contacted wikimedia via that address so hope this can be resolved. Diskojim (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have created this account to comment on this issue. I am the copyright holder and subject of this image. I have emailed the above email address regarding this matter.

Thank you for removing the meta data from this. But the person who uploaded this has used a name that is identifiable/ links to me (I suspect with honest intentions). Could this please be removed/name changed as a matter of urgency as this can link to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXANONXXX3245 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The required GDPR changes have still not been made. Can someone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXANONXXX3245 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel this is more of a privacy issue than of copyright violation. The copyright issue seems to be resolved however the username used which is seen publicly should be hidden from public logs to safeguard the privacy of copyright holder. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently we have four oversighters on the Commons and I hope they can help on this. Pinging @Minorax who is one. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAafī and Ankry: Just a question though, who is the author of the file? --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Minorax, I checked the VRTS dashboard and I didn't find any email yet on this. But as this discussion appears, the author is the one who goes as XXXANONXXX3245 and the uploader is someone who uploaded images on their behalf but making the name public (creating a user account with that name) which they were not supposed to do. What name the copyright holder wants to make public is likely subject to VRTS since they prefer being anonymous. That's to say, the crux of this is that, the uploader's username be hidden because it affects the privacy of the copyright holder. Best, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAafi: Ok done. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Minorax: TheAafi said that the username should be hidden from public logs. The username has been hidden from the file history (by hiding the first revision), but has not been hidden from the logs; I can still see it there. Brianjd (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Minorax: I think, I cannot share this information due to privacy policy. There are tickets about this in sister projects::commons queue: 2022120210007201 & 2022120210011591; currently waiting for a volunteer to handle them. In my opinion there are doubts whether the uploader was the author (photographer). But still doubts only, not an evidence. Ankry (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ankry, I was now able to access both of these tickets. I'm confused on several things and that makes me understand your feelings of leaving this ticket to other agents. The copyrights holder claimant has to explicitly explain 1: Who is the photographer of these images if they are not self-clicked and in this case copyrights would be with the photographer whom we do not know. 2: Once images are uploaded on social sites like Reddit and Facebook, all of their EXIF data is erased, and the images that are being discussed have full EXIF data. 3: per ticket:2022120210007201, EXIF data sounds similar to me and which makes me feel these images to be "self-clicked" but we need a clear explanation on how were these shared with the uploader with full EXIF?

  Uploader uploaded the images with full EXIF and the copyright's holder (claimant) doesn't tell us "how the uploader got access to these images" (which appear to be self-clicked, if we argue logically)? I mean if we say these aren't self-clicked, someone could've clicked these with deception. EXIF data and VRT ticket suggest these are self-clicked so I would stick to this. The crux is: how did the uploader get access to "self-clicked images containing full EXIF data"? Who to believe and who not? This is a mess. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheAafi: Refering to the associated DR: if we believe that the uploader is not the copyright holder, then the license template is false and we should not host this image without explicit free license permission from the copyright holder. It is unclear to me whether the declared license was ever granted (in the required written form) and the declaration "I do not want the photo to be deleted" is not a license. Ankry (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right @Ankry. I was sent them a response in the ticket that I was handling other than the one that you had left. Let us see if we get any response there. Otherwise this one should be deleted as well for having no adequate license/permission details. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Mastitis in breast.jpg” under ticket:2022120210007201. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per VRTS permission. --Ankry (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]