Commons:Deletion requests/File:PopeDementia.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

This deletion debate 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.

File:PopeDementia.jpg[edit]

This image is being stolen from my Flickr page. I would NEVER be stupid enough to use a CC license. Creative Commons licensing is a scam to deprive artists of the right to profit from their own work. 174.109.103.21 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You'll find that people respond much better to your requests when they aren't attacked and accused of being part of a scam. Your claim aside, we do have a report on this image from FlickreviewR that it was in fact available under cc-by-2.0.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep speedy - Random vandalism by the IP-number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you people are thieving my work, I see no reason to be polite. I don't give a rats ass what BOT, or alcoholic you people get your "information" from. PROVE TO ME THAT THIS IMAGE WAS UNDER A CC LICENSE. So far, you are asking me to trust you. Sorry, you've already shown that you can't be trusted. I want documented PROOF or I want my images removed from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.103.21 (talk • contribs)

IP-number is claiming this for uploads from different Flickr accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, only one account with different names due to namechanging. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't have to prove anything to you. You can trust us or not, as you will, but we don't have to do anything you ask us to. For everyone else, the original poster is lying. This file was reviewed by FlikreviewR, File:Rookwood_Pottery.jpg was reviewed by Kameraad Pjotr, File:Gebäude unter den Linden.jpg was reviewed by Dodo, and File:Noe Valley San Francisco 3.jpg was reviewed by Ecemaml. The odds that any of those was misreviewed is low; the odds all of them were is virtually nil.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Then BACK IT UP WITH DOCUMENTATION. Show me PHYSICAL PROOF that these images were using a CC license. PROVE IT. Don't ask me to take the word of DODO. And for a THIEF to call me a liar is pretty rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.103.21 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A computer script confirmed on 09:51, 30 May 2007, that this file in question was licensed on Flickr under the CC license. The script can deny reviewing it or fail to review it because of malfunctioning on various sites, but it is not possible that the script completes a review and does it wrong. Also other users - humans, not robots, see Prosfilaes and add the uploaders who searched for the image on flickr - reviewed other images, the multiple independent reviews by individual users AND a robot script even more confirm that this was licensed under cc-by. Well, it is arguable that someone can be disapointed if he licensed something and thereby gave permission to something that he did not want or not understand. At least it worth a friendly request to remove this, and unmake the licensing. But it is not ok to run in here and curse at people and even call them stealing and/or lying if those people did nothing wrong but following exactly your licensing on flickr and felt encouraged to share your images as you suggested with your licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

*Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Oh well, lets delete them all. I don't think those images are worth the frustration that flickr user has. Esp. the unused medium quality tulip images can be deleted straight away. Amada44  talk to me 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 

    • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete unused images, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for used images since I follow Simonxag statement. Amada44  talk to me 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I REITERATE: I HAVE NEVER USED A CC LICENSE. EVER.
    • Wikimedia's Flickr reviewing script is very strict and has been in use for years without any problems. Regardless of whether you consciously chose to use a Creative Commons license or not, your images were definitely marked as such on Flickr. So there's no reason to start making wild accusations. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Shame that flickr lets people change the license. We would have less problems if they didn't. Amada44  talk to me 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete unused, Keep used photos. They're crappy photos anyway. Probably better to delete them so we don't have to deal with this belligerent person who doesn't know how to use Flickr. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • My problem is that in this case, the picture is in use on two different Wikipedia projects. The unused images are probably worth quickly deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep For this and any of the uploads that are in use. I uploaded this (looking for decent images of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence). I looked in the Creative Commons CC-by section on FlickR, I did not make a mistake. Also I used Flinfo (which copied the license from FlickR and would have blocked a non free one) and the the move was checked by FlickreviewR (replacing my upload with the larger version). If you go through the images this guy has nominated for deletion, you will find evidence for CC-by licenses on dates ranging November 2006 to January 2008. You will also see he has changed his FlickR username twice and (checking FlikcR) now has opted to make his work available via Getty images. Even the change to the new "All rights reserved" license would have had to have been done deliberately. This is not some naive newby who hit the wrong button on FlickR., indeed he never claims to have made a mistake: he says, "I would NEVER be stupid enough to use a CC license". This is an individual who has had the benefit of a free license to distribute a couple of quirky images around the world and now (hoping to make money from them), wishes to revoke it. He backs his demands with abuse, accusations of theft, threats and (according to the evidence!!!) lies. --Simonxag (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep this and other images that are in use. It's clear they were validly released under CC license for an extended period of time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete any if unused, Downscale used pics. 62.254.133.139 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: How long does the license last? 62.254.133.139 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Answer: For ever. Wait no, until it becomes public domain. So when the creator dies + 70 years. Amada44  talk to me 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Question: and if the Flickr account holder withdraws a CC license? Assuming they were licensed at one point as Simonxag says, why can the owner of the photos not withdraw the license. In any event Wikipedia do not own the photos. For myself I have no problem with deletion. Where is it being used? Is it anyone notable? Apologies if I am missing something in policy, but it is very difficult to find stuff on wikipedia. Where does it state the license lasts until the material becomes public domain? 62.254.133.139 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It states it in the license that it is perpetual. A license that it is arbitrarily revokable is useless; imagine printing 20,000 books, and being told by the author that he revokes your license to use an image in it. Or worse yet, making a movie based of a CC short story, and after you've spent 10 million, the short story author revokes your license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment : perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) - I hate legalese but it would be helpful know where this leaves things, for myself I have no desire to dig my heels in if the image is not in use. 62.254.133.139 18:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The license states that with regards to attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Was the IP/Flickr account holder contacted first, to find out how he wanted them attributed? It would seem the CC license does require contact to be made to enquire about how the work should be attributed.62.254.133.139 17:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Does this help any, Flickr's FAQ says the following:
Can I license my Creative Commons content?
There is a chance one of your Creative Commons-licensed photos may catch the eye of a perceptive Getty Images editor. You are welcome to upload these into the Flickr collection on Getty Images, but your contract requires that all images you place with Getty Images be licensed exclusively through them. So, if you proceed with your submission, switching your license to All Rights Reserved (on Flickr) will happen automatically. Any image selected to be part of the Flickr Collection on Getty Images that had been in Creative Commons will automatically be designated for Royalty-Free licensing. 62.254.133.139 18:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
A question hour on licensing?
No, this does not help. The Creative Commons license is not revocable. The license terminates because of license failure or under the copyright law of the copyright holders jurisdiction. Thats 70 years following the authors death. You dont have to search for this on Commons etc, just read the license (§7) and the copyright law. Just because Flickr gives bad instructions how to sell your work under royalty-free licenses via Getty and that this requires to revoke the non-exclusive Creative Commons license has no effect on Wikimedia Commons reusing a photo under an irrevocable Creative Commons license.
The license does not require to ask the licensor before reusing, the license already is a permission to reuse. Attribution is required in a specified way or, if no specifications made, in a reasonable manner. That was done. The licensor has to make specifiations with his publication under the license, if he not makes specifications the reuse under an appropriate attribution is sufficient. The license does not grant the copyright holder the right to later ask licensees to change the attributiom or to later impose specific attribution requirements. Only for derivative works based on his work the licensor can demand removal of attribution to the extent practicable. Irrelevant here because this is not a derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so is the picture in use on wikipedia, is it likely to be used? 62.254.133.139 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No one ever contacted me and asked if they could use my images. Guess what! If they had, I would have more than likely allowed them to. In the past, I have allowed my images to be used without payment to me of any form. I draw the line at people just helping themselves. The fact that high resolution copies of my images are sitting out there is more than disturbing. Why would this be necessary? People can see 72 DPI images just fine and dandy. They don't need to have access to print reproducible version of those images. I don't care what you people think about me. I change my Flickr user name every couple of years. SO WHAT. It is NONE of your business. I reiterate that I have NEVER used a CC license. I have contacted Wikimedia MANY times about this and nothing has been done. OF COURSE I AM PISSED OFF. This is the first time that I am aware that ANYONE is even looking into this. Even people posting on this message board seem to be unaware of what the reach of a CC license is. Had someone contacted me and asked if they could use these images for this purpose I would have most likely just said yes. Maybe Wikimedia needs to seriously consider how images are acquired. I want my images removed and I will go away.

Hi there! Okay, I can understand your frustration and I am sorry about that! But, from the legal perspective there is not much you can do. The images where licensed as CC and which also means, that no one needs to ask you for permission (as you gave the permission with the license). Now this is not only up to me, other people can have different opinions and the decision about this will be based on a consent: From your 11 images here on commons 5 are used on different wikipedia sites: File:PopeDementia.jpg, File:SistersRisqueVivaLAmourRhodaKill.jpg, File:Noe Valley San Francisco 3.jpg, File:Prague Castle.jpg, File:Rookwood Pottery.jpg. What about deleting the other 6 unused images and reducing the resolution of the remaining 5 images to half the size? Could you live with something like that? Amada44  talk to me 10:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep at least those in use. I prefer not to downscale them, these are not particularly high resolution in the first place. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I Can fully accept that people make mistakes. My images were taken from my Flickr stream accidentally. No one is a thief. Fine. Take all of the images not in use off Wikimedia now. That will help. I want the remaining images at screen resolution only. I will pursue destroying this preposterous "unrevokable license" through legal channels and return to have the other images removed at a later date. It is a damn shame that this could have been avoided just by asking or telling me what it was you wanted to do with them. The fact that people called "Dodo", and others who are hiding behind screen names, are running this show speaks volumes as to the credibility of this "organization". It is obvious to me that you are not interested in the FACT that I have NEVER USED A CC LICENSE. No matter what you say, I am the one telling the truth here.

Please tell Getty Images that you don't believe yourself bound by any "unrevokable" license; I believe they're under the impression that you made an offer to sell your images under unrevokable licenses. I see no reason to bend to your demands, since you aren't actually making any concessions.
I find it bizarre that someone labeling himself The Jaundiced Eye would complain about people hiding behind screen names. You make the assertion, without proof, that these images were never labeled as being available under a CC license. Were it merely your word against Kameraad Pjotr's, the simple fact is that Pjotr has a long history here of doing things that lead me to believe him in this instance. When you argue against a computer and multiple humans who we have reasons to trust, it stretches the bounds of credibility.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This deletion debate 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.

Images by The Jaundiced Eye / ceriess[edit]

From these edits, and the flickr page [1], plus previous DRs, it seems that the flickr user believes we stole his images. Now, we didn't, they were CC-BY, all is good. However, I feel that since the licence was clearly selected in error, we ought to delete the image as a courtesy. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If it appeared that the photographer chose the license mistakenly then we should delete. That isn't the case at all. They haven't even claimed that. They claimed they never used a CC license (a demonstrable lie) and threw in a load of false accusations and abuse. At the same time, you'll notice that this same photographer has been changing their user name on FlickR: a minor point but it shows that they've taken charge of their account and curated it, hardly the actions of a naive character who just doesn't understand that interweb place. What they have actually done is changed their mind: they've recognized (possible) monetary value (quite possibly with the help of the images' exposure on Wikipedia!) and decided to exploit it via Getty images. The same thing could happen to any of us who release content under a free license, here or elsewhere, the free exposure might make the material valuable; only, oh dear, the free license, lets pretend it's all a mistake. So, though we should never try to exploit a genuine mistake, we should also not reward blatant (and if push comes to shove, provable), dishonesty. --Simonxag (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per previous discussion and Simonxag. Well documented that the photographer previously shared these under irrevocable Creative Commons license. "Courtesy" is not a phrase that comes to mind as the way to deal with someone who put the text "If you use this image without my permission I will sue the living shit out of you or maybe I will just find out where you live and kill you" on an image they previously licensed under Creative Commons [2]. (Though that one makes me rather wonder if there's any provision to declare someone incompetent to license their own work if they are actually criminally insane.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It took years for the person to notice the mistake. I'm a reasonable person; if someone changed the license two days or even two weeks after upload, and came to us saying that they licensed it under CC in error, I'd be willing to (even though the licenses are non-revokable) advocate for deleting the photos. If it takes three years for someone to notice, that's far, far too long. The right owner's temper tantrums have nothing to do with my decision, although he or she needs to be aware that it will effect other people's judgement. For me, it's entirely a timing issue. Three years is too long. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Kept Nothing has changed since last time. I see no need to do anything as a courtesy when editors on this project, and the project itself, are being accused of theft. Once we see a change of tune of the photographer, then we can consider a courtesy deletion, but until then we should not extend any courtesy to someone who treats this project and its editors with utter disrespect and discourtesy. russavia (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:PopeDementia.jpg&oldid=112553604"