File talk:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg
Flickermail sent to Flickr author regarding license. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The flickr owner (Saudi) licenses his other images freely on his account. A TinEye search finds no identical copies of the original uncropped image that were uploaded on the web before February 15, 2005 when the first picture was placed on Commons by Guety. Dubai is located on the Saudi Arabian peninsula where the flickr owner lives. So, he could easily have taken this image himself. Finally, user Guety has uploaded many flickr images on Commons with the right license as this shows.
In addition, user Paddy, who re-edited the image on the same day it was uploaded, was an Admin on WikiCommons from January 12, 2005 (see this) until October 6, 2008 (when he was de-administered due to inactivity) as this page notes He, too, would have known if the license was cc by 2.0 at upload in February 15, 2005. Paddy later uploaded these images on the same day as Guety's upload (Feb 15, 2005) with a 'cc by 2.0' license from Saudi's account and they all passed flickr review on the same license:
Comment: Admin MBisanz has now just noted to me here the results of an internet archive search. The search results shows that this image of Gellar--as Saudi states--was taken on December 9, 2004 and was uploaded on a 'cc by 2.0' license to flickr by Saudi in January 30, 2005--just 2 weeks before the same image was uploaded here by user Guety. See this link It was seen by then Admin Paddy about 3.5 hours later on Commons. While the image does not show up in the search, the flickr link is identical to the one cited on the source image by user Guety and Paddy would certainly have done his own inspection of the license before he uploaded an edited version of the image. The photographer says it is indeed Gellar and 1 message on the image asks Saudi whether it was taken at the [Dubai] film festival as user Guety notes. Saudi replies in the affirmative and this is also established by the 'dubai' tag he created for the photo here. The photographer (Saudi) also states that he was very close to Sarah Gellar when he took the picture...as the cropped photo on Commons shows. Since Saudi licenses his images freely, the image license was almost certainly "cc by 2.0" at upload here on Commons in 15 February 2005 only 2 weeks after Saudi posted the image on his flickr account; it is hence, non-revocable. All Saudi's remaining images on his flickr account are licensed as 'cc by 2.0' too. Please note that the original 1024 X 768 pixel version of this uncropped image was the standard 'large' size for images on basic flickr accounts like Saudi's and this is his image. If it was a copy vio, the resolution would be much much smaller and Admin Paddy would notice this. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)- Comment: Paddy confirms here that he would have checked the original image license before ever editing the image itself. So, Admin Paddy--at the time in 2005--certainly reviewed the photo and found it on a 'cc by 2.0' license. Hence, it is non-revocable. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
