Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Photo by Mark Tantrum

Source says "Copyright material on the Governor-General/Government House website is protected by copyright owned by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on behalf of the Crown. Unless indicated otherwise for specific items or collections of content (either below or within specific items or collections), this copyright material is licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence." (underline added) Image's metadata say "Copyright holder 2018 Mark Tantrum" which seems to be the "indicated otherwise." Alternatively stated, the CC-by 4.0 license applies only to "copyright owned by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on behalf of the Crown" which this image explicitly does not. COM:OTRS from Mark Tantrum needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - You really are... petty..again, as mentioned many times before, you really don't seem to understand anything and i'm kinda pissed at the admins here for not blocking you basically for being a "troll"..since you don't seem to understand how things work in this country for a change, let me tell you, none of the NZ govt ministries have their OWN private photographers unlike say the US and Uk Govt, they are all hired and paid for for major events which also includes major dignitaries coming to NZ. Tantrum in this case is the Govt's hired Photographer for major events. I think Gettyimages has made a lot of people stupid on this project as they don't understand the difference between getty photographer and "freelance" photographers, Tantrum is a freelance photographer and just like your previous DR we discussed, he has released his images to the NZGovt and they can release it under any licence they choose as they OWN the copyright, ignore the exif as the "All copyright reserved" stuff is infact a default setting for all freelance photographers as wikimedia (commons) is literally the ONLY organization in the world that takes what EXIF say 'too seriously' There are 1000's of getty/wired and even USGovt images on commons whcih carry that information on their exif data..you genuinely don't seem to understand anything in regards to copyright licensing and you IMO are a liability to this project...--Stemoc 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons: Deletion requests/Files in Category:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex in 2018--A1Cafel (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse you were involved in previous deletions, its literally written in the copyright section of the website and i quote Unless indicated otherwise for specific items or collections of content (either below or within specific items or collections), this copyright material is licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence., if they don't own the right of the images, they will indicate it by using a specific word or line such as "Photo Supplied" as indicated here for example, those words imply they don't own the rights to that image as it was supplied/given to them or "Photo courtesy" such as this example where they specifically say its copyright for example, "Photo (c) New Zealand Defence Force" or another example, " Photo: (c) RNZRSA", they will specifically USE the word (c) to acknowledge they don't own the rights to that image, had the images not been released by Mark, they would have used it as such with a (c) after his name or the full "Photo (copyright)".

I have been following the NZ Govt for years (more than a decade actually) and they don't launder licences, if anything, they are one of the very few Govt's in the world that gives credit where its due...Mark Tantrum is their official hired Photographer, the one they hire for major events as they want to get the best images for a event involving some high level dignitary which includes Royalty as NZ is a commonwealth country and Royals (King) are the head of their country, a lot of good images have been deleted on commons from the NZGovt because people like you don't seem to understand copyrights and attribution....The keywords that deems an image not free are mentioned above, it does NOT include 'Photo By' which is more of an 'attribution" than a copyright acknowledgment and maybe if you ACTUALLY read the licence, then his images fall under "creative commons-attribution". The previous deletion of Megan Markle's images should definitely be reverted if it was taken by Mark... Stemoc 01:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Elcobbola, Engelberthumperdink, M.nelson, and 25stargeneral: that has involved in the above DR. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still send a email to Mark Tantrum ro clarify the copyright status. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't, because we have no idea what you tell photographers and you cannot be trusted!. Stemoc 22:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! Schwede66 23:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Stemoc says, the only issue is the EXIF, and I can guarantee you that staff of the GG aren’t aware of those implications. The office of the GG has implemented government's strategy (NZGOAL) of supplying material (written or photography) with a free license without anyone understanding the finer details. The intent is entirely clear. Schwede66 18:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Stemoc’s comment is indeed relevant. It is easier to believe that the photographer simply forgot to change the Exif metadata. On the other hand, I cannot see why first-world countries’ governments would engage in license laundering of ordinary photographs. We need to reach a consensus on this type of deletion request as soon as possible. It seems to me that it is reaching a level that can be considered as destabilizing behavior. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (…) Anyone willing to send Mark Tantrum an email? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s not necessary. Look up NZGOAL; that’s what is happening here. Schwede66 18:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way,  keep and restore everything deleted here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rubin16 i agree. Please undelete the lot. Schwede66 18:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep and also Restore the Meghan photos (I voted to delete those, BTW). I find Stemoc's explanation convincing, and the copyright notice is clear. Though given the EXIF, I would not be inclined to agree that this nomination was made in bad faith. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Stemoc's points are compelling and I firmly believe NZ Gov would not expect people to go into the minutiae of it (i.e. the EXIF) but rather take it at face value. To me, this is apparent from the line "Unless indicated otherwise for specific items or collections of content (either below or within specific items or collections)" - emphasis added. NZ Gov would make it plain and clear (for the ordinary, average, reasonable bod) whether or not it is copyrighted/reusable, on the face of it. Either a 'courtesy of' line below, or a '(c) Joe Bloggs' caption within the picture. Let's face it - the EXIF data is not available until after the download and I don't think the NZ Gov is in the business messing people around who then realise they can't use it after all. It's getting all too technical - take a step back - and see the policy intent of releasing the pictures under the stated licence, unless it is made plain and clear they are not included. On this basis, I too also believe the previously discussed pictures may have been deleted prematurely and we should Restore them. Thanks. FotoFree (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per @Stemoc. DDMS123 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This photo is from the same source as the current photo of King Charles III, and the authorization of Charles III is no problem. The copyright information of this photo should also be found.

  File:Prince Charles in Aotearoa (cropped).jpg 2401:E180:8861:61A8:6FC7:ED69:FCBE:BC90 07:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buckingham Palace Reception (5 May 2023). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]