Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lonibug

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 Lonibug (talk · contribs)

I hope there is a way we can keep these files but we lack a license for the photographs themselves. This user first started uploading files under cc-by-sa-3.0. Another user, Jgmikulay, came along after them and started adding {{PD-1923}} to some of their early files. Those early files like File:VictoriousCharge1898.jpg are fine. The uploader, Lonibug. eventually stopped adding cc licenses to their photos and started only including {{PD-US-1923}}. I assume because they did not think both were necessary. Now 7-8 years later, some of these later files cannot be kept unless we assume what they intended and add a license on behalf of the uploader. The following files are missing {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Can we just add them?

• File:WashingtonMonument1885.jpg
• File:TheIdealScout1915.jpg
• File:SteubenMonument1921.jpg
• File:GoetheSchillerMonument1908.jpg
• File:RDWhiteheadMonument1910.jpg
• File:TAChapmanMemorial1896.jpg
• File:SpiritofCommerce1881.jpg
• File:R.D.WhiteheadMonument1910.jpg
• File:WolcottMonument1919.jpg
• File:BurnsMonument1909.jpg
• File:LaphamMemorial1915.jpg
• File:Elk1901.jpg
• File:WilliamAStarkeMemorial1921.jpg

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

KEEP - Unfortunately, user "Lonibug" died in 2016 and will not be able to make any changes to the licensing of her uploads. However, I found she had uploaded many of these files to her Flikr site, including Ideal Scout, Steuben, and Goethe Schiller with a CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. That's a very strong argument that she would have been fine with adding CC-BY-SA-3.0 to all these files now. I vote KEEP and add CC-BY-SA-3.0. Johnson487682 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I have gone ahead and put {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} on those that were duplicated on Flickr. This is a tragic story. I am glad her legacy will live on and hope she rests in peace. There are only three photographs that have issues remaining. I agree is it not a big leap to assume she also intended for these to have a Creative Commons license as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Kept: We can only assume that the photographer wanted to release the photos into the public domain. Although she is deceased, it is quite possible for the heirs to her estate to re-license her works. It is correct to include the various Flickr and other off-wiki licenses but it would have been incorrect to move such licenses to the 3.0 version unless there has been community agreement. We did this some years ago when all GFDL files being relicensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Also, please do try to use more appropriate templates such as the {{Art photo}} template. --Green Giant (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)