Text from a second-party source isn't artist commentary, is it?

Someone's gone through a bunch of my Marryofblood posts and added artist commentary from the sources, but they were each a second-party source, with the image posted by the commissioner (Marryofblood) rather than the artist.

A couple of examples:
post #10841176
post #10837701

This doesn't seem right to me, but I want to ask whether it's actually correct.

Well, if that's the commentary from the source then it should be preserved.

If you were removing the commentary because it's technically not artist's commentary, you shouldn't be doing that. And you were.

Well, that seems positively misleading. But I will keep that in mind. Thank you for the responses.

In an ideal world it wouldn't even be possible to edit the commentary, only to add translations. Unfortunately with extractors breaking etc. that isn't really viable. Still, second-party commentary is absolutely useful, as it can contain relevant information such as credits and context. As with sourcing, only third-party gets iffy, first- and second-party are equal.