Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Vogue Taiwan

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.

Files found with Special:Search/Vogue Taiwan

Extracted from Vogue Taiwan video screenshot. Per Special:Diff/1009207199/1009209986, Condé Nast confirmed the CC license in Vogue Taiwan YT channel was added mistakenly.

Tvpuppy (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Tvpuppy (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC): Other images from Vogue Taiwan that was deleted on March 13 can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:陸弈靜.png[reply]

Comment - Conde Nast published hundreds of videos under a free license for several years, but now suddenly it was a “mistake”? I can see assuming good faith and allowing one or two videos over a short time frame to be a mistake attributed to some technical error, but this went on for years. The CC license is irrevocable, and I’m not buying it. RachelTensions (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per RachelTensions. CC licenses are non-revocable, regardless of the reasons Condé Nast published their videos in that way. The videos should remain free to use within that timeframe. In contrast, the current deletion request sets a precedent suggesting that a CC license can be revoked simply by claiming it was added by mistake. Prince of Erebor (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per @RachelTensions, CC are non-revocable. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maybe videos from now on could be assumed expressly as non-CC even if licensed that way based on good faith, but the previous one openly licensed CC (even now retracted) are still CC. Bedivere (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of issues were the Vogue Taiwan YT channel was reposting videos belonging to other YT channels (Vogue, British Vogue, Teen Vogue, Glamour, Wired, Vanity Fair, Architectural Digest) with subtitles added and changing the license to CC when original content was copyrighted. Yes Condé Nast owns them all, but that does not give Vogue Taiwan the right/authority to overwrite original licensing especially when the original video source is still available. Unless the screen shot came from original content that Vogue Taiwan created I don't think Wikimedia Commons has much of a standing to keep the images. Diddykong1130 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ File:Billie Eilish for Teen Vogue 2021 2.jpg to the list Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the photos should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine which ones are content extracted from other Condé Nast subsidiaries and which are original content by Vogue Taiwan, such as original interviews conducted by them, instead of simply and hastily deleting all of them. Prince of Erebor (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vogue Taiwan is not the copyright holder of these videos, so the license was never valid. These licenses were not more valid than the ones added by license washing people we often see on Commons. I would not accept Condé Nast argument (We made a mistake.) if the free licenses were added by them. The whole point is to determine who is the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and would not object if the final decision is to delete the photos as a good faith error or to avoid potential legal issues. But I have some doubts about your statement, Yann, as I mentioned above. While I cannot identify the copyright holders of every photo listed above, for the five I added, they were all sourced from original interviews by Vogue Taiwan, and it is clear that they hold the copyright; in contrast to some photos mentioned by editors at Commons:Village pump#March 2025 update from WMF Legal on "Vogue Taiwan and possible Copyright Washing" discussion, which were taken and owned by other Condé Nast subsidiaries. I believe this also applies to many other Asian celebrities whose portraits are sourced from Vogue Taiwan's original content. Shouldn't the images be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and should images copyrighted by Vogue Taiwan be kept according to your statement? 👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Taiwan is owned by Condé Nast, and Conde Nast is presumed to be copyright holder.

This isn’t a case where the images were licensed to some third party who then published them under an invalid license. These images were released under a CC license by Conde Nast themselves. 2605:B100:B12:42BD:9408:5A7D:9849:2F9F 19:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not a fan of the precedent this might set but it seems like a special circumstance that has almost zero chance of happening again. I don't think the legal team would have made the request if following through on it means taking down images every time someone intentionally changes the license on them either. That's not what happened here. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Keep: Many of the original source of these images are from Vogue Taiwan specifically. Those should be kept has CC licenses are non-revocable, but those that are not otherwise should be deleted. Nkon21 (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WMF Legal Team's response, quoting Condé Nast, is clear. Given the potential (none of us have crystal balls) legal risk to editors, as evidenced by the ANI vs. WMF precedent (which, while not copyright-related, demonstrates the possibility of legal action against Wikimedia editors), and the fact that some of my uploads are affected, I support immediate removal due to Condé Nast's acknowledged licensing error. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: WMF Legal's guidance is clear, there were never actually freely licensed and their wording essentially says they would argee to a DMCA request. Yann's deletions of many Vogue Taiwan uploads was correct, and these files must be removed to ensure the continuing trust of our reusers who depend on our determinations of free use. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]