Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] July 2

[edit] File:Witch's_Rock,_Costa_Rica.jpg

It was uploaded by my assistant and it is NOT public domain. Sean davis (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC) error in uploading by assistant, not for free use, please delete asap.

This was uploaded by my assistant and was NEVER meant to be public domain. Sean davis (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, or devalue wikimedia in any way. I had an assistant that I instructed to help me with some website SEO and the tedius task of backlinking and he posted some photos to wikimedia in hopes that it would help the rating. Well, it wasn't the only idiotic thing that he did, so I let him go a while ago. Recently, I saw a poster of this image, and I found the creator and asked how he obtained the file. He led me to wikipedia. I am not suing anyone, and have no interest in litigation. I just want it removed if possible, and I believe that it would be the ethical thing to remove it. It was a mistake, by a kid of 22 that I hired and I need to deal with. I barely know how to work wikimedia (obviously).Thanks for your consideration. -Sean Davis

{{copyvio|delete at once}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.162.183 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1. Jul. 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Copyvio, not in use, copyright holder requested deletion. Hekerui (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep Uploaded in November 2006 - too long ago to start having regrets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Does not matter whether it is "too long ago to start having regrets" for the case that the assistant never had the rights to publish the image under a free license. In this case, the image has actually NEVER BEEN in the public domain or anything similar. Therefore there is no other way than deleting. Yellowcard (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  The image was uploaded by User:Sean davis with a {{PD-self}} license, and one should be able to rely on that. Otherwise I suggest closing the account and nuking all the uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  While I also tend to deletion, I think Pieter is right in that we should request OTRS confirmation for all (few) other uploads of User:Sean davis. This would be File:Barbershop, Bocas Del Toro Panama.JPG, File:ArenaL volcano.jpg and File:Beach and coconut Bocas Del Toro Panama.JPG.

  And there comes another problem to my mind. If in the past two years, when this image appeared to be legitimately licensed as PD, somebody re-used the image outside of Wikimedia and is still using it, he might become at risk to be sued for copyright-infringement by the real-world Sean Davis. Could we keep a record of the complete history of that image on Commons? --Túrelio (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Why would we keep the history of this file? It doesn't matter whether we hosted it and claimed it was PD, the re-users can be sued anyway. If we keep the history, we only risk lawsuits for ourselves. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm, writing a line about "being a commercial photographer" on your userpage doesn't make you/me an artist, and it weren't "we" who claimed it to be PD, it was the uploader himself, who as of yet doesn't deny he uploaded his images himself, except the one that he wants to have deleted now. --Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Story about the assistant is dodgy considering that the four pictures were uploaded within minutes of each other. Lycaon (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete This is exactly the reason why we require OTRS permission for work by known artists. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  I do not see what difference OTRS would have made. The photographer's commercial assistant would have answered that this was PD. We should treat this in the same way as if one had negotiated a commercial license with the assistant. One would not shred the travel brochures or pay extra just because the photographer came back and regretted the deal the assistant had made. (This image is now on http://www.seandavisphotographic.com/ under "travel".) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case, when this is somehow kept someone can request OTRS from the official website (because even now, how do we know it's really the photographer OR the assistant?) - none will come, this will be deleted in a week. Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  With exception of the b/w image, the two other images by this uploader are also found on the website (travel) mentioned by Pieter. As a result of this request I've tagged all three other images by this uploader with the permission-missing-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Whatever the outcome of this DR, the story about the assistant etc is fishy. It looks to me like a license revocation. Sv1xv (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - The author would have had to commit several grave errors of judgment for his explanation to make any sense. The most obvious ones would be to give his assistant access to his personal account on Commons, and not to check the uploads done in his name for several years. In practise this would mean that he tacitly made the decicions of his assistant his own, and thus now has to live with the result. But then, it seems more likely that this is just a clumsy attempt at license revocation, and there may well be no assistant involved at all. --Latebird (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep I'm kinda offended the he thinks we would dumb enough to believe that. Regardless of the assistant (yeah right), it's been here way too long for anyone to believe it was a mistake. Guys, this is going to happen a lot. Once images here find their way into commercial publications, the authors are going to try to act like it was a mistake or something. Deleting these for them is completely unfair everyone else. If he was honest with us, I would consider the lack of usage (which I can't even check right now) and the fact he was the author/uploader, but I'm not to inclined to do any favors after hearing an excuse like that. And almost 3 years!? Please. Rocket000 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking vote based on the email I received (the same thing he posted above). I still don't buy it, but regardless it's still an author's request for an unused file. At least I think it's unused; CheckUsage is still down. I would like if he could send OTRS permission for the other ones so this doesn't happen again. Rocket000 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still opposed to deletion. User:Sean davis wants to delete this image because someone started using it. That is not a reason to delete. Complying with his request might cause problems for people that use commons images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also a complication for the author if he is honest. You think he's lying, I'm not sure. Hekerui (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying he is lying. I just would not want to do business with his enterprise. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:FlashForwardtitle.png

Probably protected logo, cannot find any permission in the OTRS system, and the licensing will probably not be valid since the uploader is not the copyright owner (otherwise this should be proved via OTRS verification). Yellowcard (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it can be kept when tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}, though. Yellowcard (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Personalisation_de_l'habillage_de_Firefox_avec_l'extension_AnyColor_0.2.6_.png

AVRS (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is the last discussion that led to deletion of the original logo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox-Logo-Orginal.png. I also think that this image is problematic and should be discussed, too: File:Personalisation de l'habillage de Firefox avec l'extension AnyColor .png. BartłomiejB (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And this one, too: File:Habillage gris par défaut, car pas activé AnyColor.png. This also contains Firefox logo, although it is smaller at least: File:Downloadmanager firefox.PNG BartłomiejB (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please only add closely related images to the deletion request, or it won’t work (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox 1 5 0 3.png, Commons:Deletion requests/Screenshots with non-free logos, User:AVRS/to do). --AVRS (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Roue_de_Falkirk.jpg

AVRS (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC); AVRS (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment License seems similar to the [CC sampling+ license - free, but probably not worthwhile uploading here. I suspect considerable editing would be needed to make this completely free - just cropping or clipping may not be enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Amelia_and_Frank_Hawks.jpg

no evidence of copyright nonrenewal Mangostar (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the following message was sent to the Purdue University:

Dear Shauna (borger@purdue.edu)

I would like to use two images found in the Purdue University Libraries e-Archives,: 1. Old ID Number xv.c.25, New ID Number b13f12i10 Title: Amelia Earhart and Frank Hawks and 2. Old ID Number xv.c.7, New ID Number, b13f15i13, Title: Pilot Frank Hawks in flight

to illustrate an article on Wikipedia about Frank Hawks. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Monroe_Hawks>

I am an author and researcher with nine books in publication and 13 films in which I was a technical director or consultant, and intend to use this publicly accessed article as the basis of an a scholarly work in the future, but have had some difficulty in obtaining images for illustration.

Can you release the two aforementioned images through accepting the following: I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=673&CISOBOX=1&REC=1] and [1] .

I agree to publish that work under the free license [2] LICENSE [images: choose at least one from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses text: CC-BY-SA version 3.0].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk <wzuk1@shaw.ca>

The archivist wrote back on July 6, 2009 to confirm that the Purdue Library holds title to the work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC).