File:Trabalhos.jpg

I can't see permission for the new "bigger rez" upload. License at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessykalaynne/7490186336/ is "all rights reserved". I asked the new uploader but didn't responded. Moreover the original uploader has only one upload, so her right is also questionable. JKadavoor Jee 12:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep: New uploader responding here; humble apologies for my tardiness. The copyright notice on the Flickr page (© All Rights Reserved) means that Commons should not host this image as free, in any resolution. However the lowres image was apparently uploaded (donated as CC-by-sa) to Commons 3 months before its bigger rez version was uploaded as copyrighted in Flickr. So the matter seems to be only about whether licensing can be restricted in terms of resolution — a question which has an established answer in Commons policy, right? -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Google search gives me links to http://jessykalaynne.blogspot.in/ and https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/XMHDa2UB6akHuJnl1XNiTtJVokmCye6_u9dAwn0oRsE also but they also have a newer time-stamp. Anyway little chance for this photo taken by the subject herself and hosted here. Sorry Tuvalkin if my original DR has any offensive tone. JKadavoor Jee 12:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(Tone is cool.) Both the date difference and the personal tone of the original description of our image (surprisingly articulate, even if naive) makes me think that it is very likely that, unusually, the upload to Commons was made by the subject of someone close on her behalf. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Two issues:

We can't keep the new version, anyway.

Confusing username. I don't know we have a relevant policy here.

What about removing the promotional description, keeping only the name of person? JKadavoor Jee 15:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply:

• Concerning the higher resolution version — I have been trying to find the relevant policy, no success. I seem to remember a case such as this where it was defended that a license covers any resolution of any given image, and that licensing only a lowres version is not an option (unless the photographer keeps the hires original offline all the times, of course).
• Why is it confusing? If the user is indeed the subject, this is the expected username. As a model, she’s a wanabe public figure.
• I agree. It should be kept in the file history, though, as it uniquely makes the case for a geniune upload 3 months earlier than the blogpost.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• 1. The license is applicable to the work "as is". We have many users who sells higher resolution versions and donate limited resolution versions here.
• 2.You said above that you assume the uploader may be a close relative of the subject. In such cases, he/she can't use the name of the subject, if the subject is a known person as in this case. WP has such a policy; didn't see such a one here.
• 3. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kept: The image is apparently freely licensed here. The only issue is resolution. Although I could understand an argument that a much higher resolution version is a different image for copyright purposes, I think that is not the case. Therefore, I think that once a photographer has licensed any version of an image, all resolutions have the same license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)