- File:Iliria PB.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This image was one of over one hundred images User:Gerd 72 uploaded over a period of 22 months -- most of which were nominated for deletion in one indiscriminate mass nomination. The nominator's justifications for the nomination, if I understand them correctly, were: (1) that User:Gerd 72 uploaded some images that were scans of previously published images; and (2) many of the remainder of the images came with embedded exif data that showed that they had been taken with approximately a dozen cameras. Well the exif data shows that this image was uploaded on the same day it was taken. So, I think it was inappropriately included in an indiscriminate, overly broad mass deletion. Note: This image was uploaded to the commons, where it is currently nominated for deletion -- based solely on its inclusion in the overly broad August 30th nomination for deletion from the wikipedia. That is how I came across the problematic xfd -- I was looking for images for an article on Damen Stan 4207 patrol vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question if this remained on the commons, do we need a copy here? I really don't understand image policy wrt the commons so any pointers would be welcome. Hobit (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this DRV as the image is still available on the Commons, with liberty to relist if the Commons version is deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sole justification for the commons deletion is that the image had been deleted as part of the August 30th mass nomination I am asking to be reviewed here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally nominated this and all of the uploaders image at WP:PUI and they were subsequently deleted. User:Geo Swan has raised the image deletion here as they do not agree with my mass nomination. I have explained more on my talk page but basically Gerd 72 has uploaded 167 images as PD-Self, some of which were scans and only 73 had EXIF data of which 18 different cameras were used. The uploader has suggested that he has more than one camera and has used those of his colleagues. Seven of the images uploaded as his own had EXIF data to show that they were taken on three different days by a Canadian Forces combat photographer and were marked as DND/Crown Copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested the review of a single file -- File:Iliria PB.jpg. I have acknowledged that this mass deletion included some scans of previously published images which don't comply with respecting intellectual property rights. But I don't think the existence of some images in the mass deletion that actually merited deletion is an argument for endorsing the deletion of this image -- which is not a scan of a previously published image, and which, according to the exif data, appears to have been uploaded less than two hours after it was taken. Of course the original nominator and the administrator who closed the {{pui}} should feel free to comment here. But, in this discussion, I would be most interested in comments that actually addressed the question of whether the deletion of File:Iliria PB.jpg should be endorsed or over-turned. Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As closing admin I did review the data - as well explained by MilbourneOne. The information referred to here I think does reflect my understanding of the problem with the bulk of images here. Skier Dude (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does whether "the bulk" of the other 167 images targeted in this deletion merited deletion justify the deletion of this particular article? Even if all the other 166 images in this mass deletion merited deletion, and this one particular image's inclusion was a mistake, shouldn't this one particular image's deletion be overturned? Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd look at all the information in front of us and decide if we are certain the licensing as declared is correct, the history involving other images must have some impact on that certainty. In your example it would seem to be an extension of AGF into the suicide pact territory to believe that someone could upload 166 with false or misleading copyright status, but just happened to upload 1 correctly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the nominator or the closing administrator ever claimed all 167 images were copyright violations. Rather the closing administrator merely asserts "the bulk" of the images are probably copyright violations. Accepting, for the sake of argument that, say, 55% of the images were copyright violations, springing from a good-faith newbie misunderstanding of our policies -- should that trigger the deletion of all the good-faith contributor's other uploads? If we accept that newbie's copyright violations were good faith mistakes what percentage of them have to be bad before we authorize the mass deletion of all their images? Now, please bear in mind that neither our nominator or closing administrator can tell us how many of of the images were actually copyright violation. Please note that this particular image was uploaded within two hours of being taken. I have suggested the exif data establishes this particular image was not a copyright violation. So far no one has offered a justification for deleting this particular image. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If User:Gerd 72 owns Canon EOS 350D with a serial number that ends in 4972 it would go some of the way to assuring us that some of his uploads are OK. but so far he has not commented. Interesting only seven of the 170 odd were taken with this camera, , two in 2006, three in 2007, and these two of the Iliria (patrol vessel) in 2008, the subject image and the one on commons (File:Patrol Boat Iliria.jpg) have original file numbers 175-7593 and 175-7594 and were taken within seconds of each other. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I haven't claimed all 167 were copyvios either. I said in your example which was one where they all merited deletion and given that the only scenario being discussed is one of uncertain copyright status it is not unreasonable to take your example as being all did fail for that reason. My basic point is the same we look at the bigger picture and determine a level of certainty, so your calls to concentrate on just this image (or that's my reading of your comments) are in my view misplaced. I'll admit I haven't looked through this in any great detail but the uploaders comment on the PUI page shows no admission of newbie mistake about license selection etc. they claim that all the images are PD and taken by themselves or colleagues. In that instance AGF isn't a call to look the other way, we have what we believe to be an unreliable source on the origins of these images (even if it isn't a malicious unreliability) and we treat it as such. Aside that I personally think there are too many unanswered questions about some of the images to be comfortable keeping them without more than the superficial detail we have. For instance the uploader states they have a camera which is an office one, to me this naturally suggests that part of their job is taking such photos. In which case there is a not insignficant possibility that the copyright of these actually belongs to the employer and we have no reason to believe they have been authorised to be released in such a manner. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per 82.7.40.7. The fact that this image was uploaded with a significant number of questionable images is sufficient to justify deletion. This is not a case where the correctness of the license for this image is unquestionable. Tim Song (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are seriously mischaracterizing the situation here. Please check the upload log. There was no mass upload of questionable images. There was a gradual and intermittent upload of images over the course of two years. Granted, that this inexperienced contributor's uploads contained some copyright violations. IMO, WP:AGF, and our other civility policies should have obliged our nominator and the closing administrator to consider that the copyright violations were good faith mistakes. The record shows that, until I wanted to use this particular image, no one took the time to try to make sure the uploader understood our policies. Treating inexperienced uploaders as vandals, when they may have made simple good-faith mistakes, and no one explained what they did wrong in a way they could understand, is very damaging to the wikipedia project in general. Our uploader is one of that group of inexperienced and/or intermittent contributors who are particularly poorly served by our deletion processes. The record viewable to those of us who aren't administrators strongly suggests our uploader didn't learn that a mass deletion of all their uploaded images until three weeks after they had been nominated, and they had already been deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting not all his images were nominated for deletion, perhaps the others in the upload log need to be looked at. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard from the uploader -- I heard from the uploader. I suggested, a week or so ago, that he or she initiate a ticket through our OTRS -- to confidentially establish that they were in a position to snap these photos. Yesterday they told me they took my advice, and initiated that ticket. I got another note today. In that note the uploader started to further sort out the provenance of their uploaded photos. And they indicated a willingness to further sort out the provenance.
- Yes, today's comment seems to indicate a continued good-faith misunderstanding of the copyright status of scanned images.
- Yes, I believe that if any of images the uploader was given by colleagues are brought to DRV, challengers are entitled to ask for an OTRS ticket from each colleague.
- As I wrote above, I would prefer participants here addressed whether they thought this particular image complied with our policies. I believe the notes we have exchanged indicate a willingness to comply with our policies on intellectual property, and that it is a mistake to treat them as a vandal who had tried to intentionally mislead us.
- The uploader said the Canon is "the camera used by my PIO" at their NATO job. Some participants here have asserted, as if it were too obvious to require discussion, that the copyright of any images taken on a camera that belonged to their employers automatically belonged to their employers. IANAL. I don't know that. Geo Swan (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't mischaracterise my comments, what I actually say is: "For instance the uploader states they have a camera which is an office one, to me this naturally suggests that part of their job is taking such photos. In which case there is a not insignficant possibility that the copyright of these actually belongs to the employer and we have no reason to believe they have been authorised to be released in such a manner.". I have not said it is always the case as you imply, nor do I say it's so obvious that it doesn't require discussion, I have termed it as another unanswered question (implying that it can be answered i.e. discussion) and I said there is not an "insignificant possibility". If I write computer software as part of my job, who do you think the copyright belongs to? Me or my employer? If I do some sideline personal work maybe not so clear? What if I declare this rather nifty thing I wrote for work is now (and always was) a sideline project which I'm happening to let work use?
- Apply that to photos, lets say I take 100 photos for work whilst taking some personal ones along the way, do you think at the end of the day I could pick and choose which ones I wish to declare as my personal ones? There are various factors involved in the answer for these questions.
- For a similar comment see this weeks signpost article in the comments section User:Simetrical states "Also, under US law, they don't hold copyright by default if they took the photograph as part of their job as someone's regular employee – copyright is held by the employer in that case (barring agreements to the contrary)." and there are some of the factors, the law of the nation involved (it's be the same under UK law IIRC, if you are acting as a work for hire the product of your work belongs to your employer) and the barring other agreements. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have looked it up first, but see Work for hire --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence above where I say "...some of the factors, the law of the nation involved...". That particular article seems to be based around the US Law though it notes similar principles are applicable in other countries. Ireland is explicitly mentioned, on the talk page someone mentions the basic status in the UK. It would seem pretty much common sense that if someone's employment requires them to produce some copyrightable work either the law will be in favour of the employer owning the copyright (or the economic value derivable from it) or the employment contract will layout terms covering similar. I would think it quite an abnormal case for an employer to have to license or purchase the copyright of works produced by direct employees in the course of their employment as a separate action on a piece by piece basis. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What a mess. After reading through all of the discussion, I once again am reminded why it is so beneficial to keep conversations in one place. For me, Stifle's suggestion makes the most sense. The file currently is available on Commons, the uploader maintains a page there, and both primary participants here have commented there. I don't see the point in further splitting an all ready convoluted discussion to possibly restore an image that still would subject to speedy deletion as being a copy of the one on Commons. If the original uploader is correct, and he owns the rights to the image, then as a free image it would be on Commons anyway, so that really is the proper venue. It would make more sense to have the discussion here only if the image would be used in the article under a claim of fair use. Finally, if someone would be good enough to post the OTRS ticket number here that would be most helpful - I could not find it in the OTRS permissions queue. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
