File talk:Mary Phagan.jpg

Query

The image as uploaded [1] had no source. There is an assertion that it is in the public domain, but no evidence for it. I cleaned up the original image, but then felt uncertain about it as it has no source. I searched for a source, and found a version of the image that had been published in the Atlanta Journal. So I uploaded that version with a link to the source: [2]. The new version was reverted but the link and licence retained: [3]. As the link is to the version that was reverted I thought it was not appropriate that the link and licence remain, so I removed them. The link and licence have been replaced.

I am now uncertain as to which version is appropriate and what links should be applied. Looking closely it is the same image, though framed in the newspaper version. The original image appears to be from the original source, possibly the picture itself. As a framed version of the original image was published in 1913, is it permissible to use a scan of the original photo, and link to the newspaper version as evidence that the important elements of the image had been published in 1913? SilkTork (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that the photo wasn't (a) materially published by the Atlanta Journal and (b) wasn't published elsewhere contemporarily.

It is inappropriate to overwrite this image with that newspaper image. If necessary, that image can be uploaded separately. Licenses should not just be deleted either; it always seems so underhanded to have a license deleted and then the image disappear seven days later, when a DR could have been done and a proper discussion made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have found Commons:Overwriting existing files which provides some information on overwriting. Your info about not changing licences but instead taking a dubious file to a deletion discussion is useful. SilkTork (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)