Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheikh Hasina with David Cameron.jpg

Also:

• File:Sheikh Hasina in London.jpg
• File:Sheikh Hasina in London 2011.jpg
• File:Sheikh Hasina in London cropped.jpg
• File:Cameron with Nikola Gruveski.jpg
• File:Nikola Gruveski 2010.jpg

Flickkreview marked it as unfree pic. But it has an OGL licsense of the UK Gov. Does OGL also apply for Flickr pics of the UK Gov? Sanandros (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the about page of the Flickr stream: “All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.” The photo page on Flickr states it is Crown Copyright. Ergo, it’s OGL. For more detail, please read the comment I made last month on my user talk page on the applicability of the OGL to the Number10 Flickr account, and the DRs linked therein. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. IMO it falls into the otherwise scenario. Please note that not all of the Crown Copyright images are necessary licensed under the Open Government License. See also this DR--A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: The way to interpret "except where otherwise stated" is that some of the photos in the stream are not Crown Copyright, and thus not covered by OGL, but when they're not "otherwise stated" they are Crown Copyright and thus OGL. For instance, this image on the No10 Flickr stream is marked in the description as "AP Photo / Richard Pohle" - i.e. it's taken by a photographer for the Associated Press. (Curiously, Number 10 have said in the metadata it is CC BY 2.0. I'm pretty damn sure AP are not releasing their images under a permissive license.) Where the photo states it is "Crown Copyright" or, for more recent ones, "Picture by [Photographer Name] / No 10 Downing Street", that's a sign it's a Crown Copyright created by a photographer working for Number 10, and thus an OGL image. Both the Sheikh Hasina and Gruveski images state in the description that they are "Crown copyright", and so they are not "otherwise stated" - very clear. It's unfortunate Number 10 does not make life easy for reusers because of the inconsistency between the Flickr metadata and the descriptions, but so it has been for a long time, alas. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A1Cafel has also tagged File:Cameron Qatar.jpg as being covered in this DR, although it is not listed as being part of the DR on this page. Unlike the other images which are not problematic for reasons I have explained, File:Cameron Qatar.jpg definitely is. The description states "PA copyright" - that's clearly not Crown Copyright and thus OGL, and should be deleted. As the uploader of the image, I apologise for the mistake. (On a meta-level, I'm going to try and find some time to see if we can have a category for all images uploaded from the Number 10 Flickr account - I wonder if it would be possible to use structured data or other tooling to keep track of them by source. I might also try and see if I can email Number 10's media people and ask if they can better label their photos on Flickr, although god only knows if that'll get any useful response.) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, except for the last file identified by Tom. —holly {chat} 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]