Commons:Deletion requests/Anthony Albanese portraits

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Anthony Albanese portraits|year=2025|month=January|day=04}} to the description page of each file.
Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Anthony Albanese portraits|plural}} ~~~~
Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Anthony Albanese portraits}} at the end of today's log.

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.

Anthony Albanese portraits

The portrait is not made by the Australian government. The portrait is featured prominently on [1], and its copyright policy states "With the exception of the Coat of Arms and all photos and graphics, this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence." (emphasis mine). The picture existed on May 11, 2022, before Albanese even won the election and became prime minister: [2] --FunnyMath (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status is unclear. We need a specific license rather than a blanket "all images on this website" thing. The image is used in other places on the web, including the ALP, none of whom give any attribution or sourcing. We cannot use an image that just "falls out of the sky" like this. As an aside, I don't believe that just because the Commonwealth owns an image it is automatically free to distribute. The US federal government has that policy, but Australia does not. --Skyring (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we should keep it 2600:1700:8C37:D830:150D:26F0:61B5:64BA 21:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the web page's copyright information:

Wherever a third party holds copyright in material presented on this website, the copyright remains with that party. Their permission may be required to use the material. This department has made all reasonable efforts to:

clearly label material where the copyright is owned by a third party
ensure that the copyright owner has consented to this material being presented on this website.

There is no indication on the website that the supplied photograph is under copyright by a third party. The photo was likely taken by a third party photographer/photography studio, and licensed by the government. This is common, for instance this photo of Albanese, which was taken by Lightbulb Studio, but licensed by the Labor Party under a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. I imagine that this is a similar situation. Most photographs of Australian politicians are taken by a third party photographer, but held under licence by the Commonwealth Government, such as this photo of Scott Morrison, which comes from the same webpage. I am currently seeking more information about this photograph of Albanese, and will provide it once I find more. However, I do not believe that this image should be deleted. -- DTH89 (talk page) 9:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep - per above rationale, that image of morrison was released under the same licence in 2014 but he was the PM of australia in 2018. I also looked these up before updating the current image of Albanese. His team have also released another image with the same licence and both can be used on wikipedia IMO, but i personally prefer this image because he is wearing glasses in them and Albanese just like Morrrison is bespectacled and is more recognized that way--Ste moc 04:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Labor Party photo is a different situation entirely. Their copyright policy [3] explicitly only allows that one picture to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, and not just any photo of Albanese. We shouldn't keep a photo just because it looks better than other photos on Commons. We need proof that the photo is freely licensed. I will be OK with keeping the photo if we get VTRS confirmation from the Australian government, the Labor Party or whoever the copyright holder is. FunnyMath (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as stated in the licensing info provided by the uploader, the photograph was published on a website where all material (including images) is published under CC 4.0 except for content supplied by third parties. It is not unreasonable to assume the Australian government owns the licence to a portrait of the prime minister that they are using on their own websites. Further, the copyright disclaimer of the department website states the department has made "all reasonable efforts" to label material where copyright is owned by a third party. Is the deletion request asserting that the department has made an error and has failed to label a third-party work in this way? In any case, the arguments made by the original deletion request appear to be be 1) this was not made by the Australian government (but whether the Australian government created the work is not the question, the uploader is not relying on this in the licence, indeed a work being made by the Australian government does not give it any sort of special status) 2) this was published on pm.gov.au which does not license images under CC (but this is not relevant, as the photo was also published on pmc.gov.au where images are licensed under CC). Liguer (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]