- File:Centpacrr.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This is a user page image which was uploaded by Centpacrr (talk · contribs) in 2010. This image depicts the user, but like many pictures of users was taken by a third party holding the user's camera. The image was listed at WP:PUF by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), who was concerned by the presence of a watermark. Centpacrr provided an explanation for the watermark and uploaded a clean version without it. There was no further discussion, and the image was then deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- (NOTE: The June, 2010 image replaced a different, older image using the same name that had been uploaded in January, 2007. - Centpacrr)
Centpacrr asked Fastily to undelete the image, and he declined to do so. When pressed for an explanation, he delivered what I think is a remarkable justification for a closing administrator:
Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F. From the first sentence - "you get [a copyright] automatically every time you produce creative work.". In other words, the party who pushed the button on the camera owns the copyright to the work, not the owner of the camera. As for File:Centpacrr.jpg, please do not re-upload it. I do not feel you have been completely honest with us about the origins and purpose of this photo. You neither took the photo yourself (you therefore have no legal right to publish this file under a free license), nor did you explain the occurrence of a watermark on one of the deleted versions. Don't bother trying to come up with an excuse for that; given your track record, there is no way for me to know whether you're lying or telling the truth. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If Fastily is correct, then we should probably have a fire sale of Wikipedia user pictures. I'm unfamiliar with our policies having been applied in this way previously, and it feels punitive. Fastily apparently has an antagonistic relationship with Centpacrr and so certainly should not have involved himself. Witness this exchange with Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Copyrights, etc:
I find the photo rules here mystifying, which is why nowadays I only upload photos that I've taken and don't bother with fair use anymore. In regard to the Centpacrr complaint, I'm lost. Can you point me to where you explained why the Schumin picture is allowed but the Centpacrr picture is not? I'm not trying to rile you, I just don't understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I never did, actually. I have an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior and uploads, not SchuminWeb's. I evaluate files based on their own merit, and not in comparison to others. Nonetheless, if there is a concern with SchuminWeb's photos, this should be brought up with him, not me; I do not speak for him. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Centpacrr had brought up the very real point that SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), another administrator he has clashed with, has numerous pictures of himself on commons which were clearly taken by a different user. SchuminWeb states on one that it's "Own work (my camera, taken for me, so close enough)." I welcome everyone to draw their own conclusions, but SchuminWeb is very active in images and I must assume he knows what he's talking about. This exchange makes it quite clear to me that Centpacrr was being singled out and punished for getting under the skin of an administrator. We have to be better than that.
There are long discussions at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Four improperly deleted free image files and User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Question re licensing of pictures of myself for those who want more context. I'm not concerned about the other three images under discussion, and I'm not about to defend Centpacrr's overheated rhetoric. I think, however, that it's wrong to use bureaucracy as a weapon, and punishment isn't a rationale for deletion. I don't think an objective administrator would have deleted this image, and whatever Centpacrr's track record on railroad-related images I think it very doubtful that he's lying about an image depicting himself, and no one has produced any evidence that this image is anything other than what Centpacrr says it is. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained earlier, the questioned digital photograph of me was taken in the NHL International TV broadcast booth at the Wells Fargo (then Wachovia) Center in Philadelphia in which I was working on the telecast of Game 6 of the 2010 Stanley Cup final between the Philadelphia Flyers and Chicago Blackhawks played on June 9, 2010. A few minutes prior to the start of the telecast, our stage manager (a friend and co-worker of mine for more then 30 years) asked me to snap a picture of him with his camera and offered to do the same for me with my camera. This we both did and then returned the cameras to each other. The whole process took about thirty seconds which was all the time we had for this after which we both went back to work preparing for the worldwide telecast (our feed went to 160 countries) of the game which was to begin a few minutes later.
- Since that time the camera, flash card storage media, and original digital file of this image have all been in my sole custody and control. I subsequently added the "watermark" for another non-web use but failed to remove it when I decided to upload the image to WP on June 20, 2010, for use on my userpage replacing a older (2002), different TV booth image of myself that had been uploaded three-and-a-half years earlier in January, 2007. As soon as it was pointed out to me that the watermark raised confusion about its origin, I removed the mark, reuploaded the "clean" file on November 10, 2011, and added a brief account to the summary section of the image host page as to how it had been created. (Photograph made using uploader's camera at his request. Used only on User:centpacrr userpage.) The image has never been used on any other website or printed publication. Centpacrr (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a technical correctness about who owns the copyright, though I suspect most reasonable views of the situation as described is that there is an implicit assignment of the rights. It's also true however that when someone merely strips a watermark off an image and makes a vague statement about ownership that usually attracts a fair amount of suspicion and so more scrutiny. If I couple that up with what some of the background I can see with brief look through some surrounding discussions, I can see how we are where we are. I'm not sure the attitude on either side of the debate is particularly a constructive one for the collegial building a free-content encyclopedia. If the image is the one Cetpacrr links, the general utility value of the image is low (it's not going into an article), and if the primary outstanding concern is that of if the friend owns the copyright or not, then I can't see why a restore would be an unreasonable outcome - unless we really want to open the whole can of worms of formal copyright assignments/releases for similar images. Of course if someone else comes along with a credible claim of ownership of the copyright we should probably delete it again. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When you hand over your camera to a complete stranger like this, what are they going to assume about the resulting image? Are they going to imagine that you'll subsequently make no copies of it? (eg by getting the film printed or by downloading the image from camera to computer?) No - their most reasonable assumption is that you'll use the photo as if it were your own, copying, printing, uploading at will without asking permission to do so. If they had an objection to you doing this then why would they agree to take the photo in the first place? What would be the point in investing "artistic effort" to take the picture and own the copyright if there is zero expectation of ever seeing the image again - let alone getting some kind of value from it. IMHO, when you ask someone "Would you mind taking a picture for me?", the implication of your request is very clearly "Would you mind taking a picture for me and assigning your copyright to me?"...even if not specifically stated, it's absolutely obvious. Furthermore, in almost every case, the person being photographed does all the artistic work - deciding what people should be in the picture, where they will be standing, what will be in the background and (perhaps) even where the photographer will be standing. The person being photographed will also make all of the camera settings and simply say "Push that button" to the photographer. Truly the person taking the picture is performing an almost identical role to the self-timer function that so many cameras have. At most all they are doing is framing the image - which is something that we've long decided has no artistic value (National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). That being the case, the photographer has virtually no artistic input and no reasonable expectation that such artistic input that they do provide has any likelyhood of being honored as a copyright. Even if there were some legal case for the photographer owning the copyright, how could they possibly prove that they own that copyright? There is zero practical possibility of them ever proving that they own the copyright - so Wikipedia isn't going to get sued in the first place. This case is one of SchuminWeb finding any flimsy excuse to delete images uploaded by Centpacrr - that is WikiStalking and a flagrant abuse of admin powers. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's helpful to start attributing motivation to an individual in the DRV setting, if there is a problem that's one for RFC etc. This is especially true when you seem to be jumping to a false conclusion as to who actually did the deletion - it's not SchuminWeb. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: While SchuminWeb did not personally delete the images, he was one of the two editors who had virtually simultaneously opened the PUF discussions and commented on in favor of deletion; when I asked Fastily to undelete said he would not decide until SchuminWeb commented again which he did again in favor of deletion. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Overturn deletion - I don't see any issues with this picture. It's not like we're talking about a cribbed glamour photo of Jennifer Lopez here. It's just a snapshot of the editor in a broadcast booth. I know from past interaction that the editor has a close association with Philadelphia sports teams, and having also seen his previous picture (which no one had any issues with), I don't see any reason to doubt that the picture is genuine - nor should the deleting admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think that in terms of a straight application of policy, Fastily is correct. The photographer is the copyright owner. Deciding to imply a copyright assignment is a risky thing to do, and if we do it, it needs a community discussion. As noted, this is likely an issue with broad implications, and perhaps a common sense exception should be established. I don't think we should invoke WP:IAR to overrule the close, but would suggest an RFC may be in order to consider whether an exception can, and then should be made for this image, and those with the same problem. Monty845 07:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there any "community discussion" about the photo of Schumin and Wales, which Schumin openly states was taken by someone else? Or does that blatant "IAR" apply only to certain users' photos? In fact, when you use the word "exception", in reality an "exception" was already made - by the deleting admin, who is essentially calling the user an impostor - as gross an assumption of bad faith as I've seen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm suggesting is that the policy would require those pictures, and all others with the same issue be deleted as well. However, before going on a deleting spree, I'm suggesting an RFC occur to see if the community wants to overrule the policy as applied to this circumstance. If not, then those photos must be deleted, and if the community does create an exception, then this image can be undeleted. Monty845 16:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be appropriate for one of us (probably not Centpacrr) to nominate the Schumin photo for deletion, as it is no more qualified to be on wikipedia than Centpacrr's pic is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per WP:COMMON. When you take a picture of someone with their camera, in the situation described, no reasonable person would believe that copyright hadn't been turned over to the owner of the camera. When you, on vacation, get someone to take a picture of you and your family, there is an obvious agreement that the photo will belong solely to you. I've taken a large number of similar pictures, and I can't imagine anyone would agree that I owned them. Hobit (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re above comments: The real issue under consideration here is actually "is the retention of such self images as mine really an "exception" to WP's established common practice, or is it actually the opposite, i.e., that the deletion of such images is what constitutes such an exception to common practice?" If the former is the case, then why would such long standing files as those posted by an admin expert in this area found here, here, here, here, here, as well as the several hundred other similar "self" images posted in the "Wikipedia:Facebook Directory" located here, have not been deleted as well for violating Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F? As both historically and currently practiced on WP, and under WP:COMMON as noted above by Hobit, the consensus of the community clearly seems to indicate that the accepted standard is that the copyright of such "self images" should be assumed to have been transferred to and vest in the owner of the camera (who thus has sole custody and control of the image file) unless some affirmative evidence to the contrary exists. The specific issue and principle under consideration in the instant case here is not "copyright" per se, however, but the application of accepted common practice within the community being made uniformly and fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively. Centpacrr (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent that there is an implied assignment of copyright, what evidence is there that the implied assignment would authorize releasing the photo under a Wikipedia compatible license, rather then something more restrictive? Its at best a legal grey area, and at worst a clear copyright violation. Regardless of what common practice has been, I don't think its appropriate to head into such a grey area without a broad based community consensus to do so, not just on the basis of no one has objected before consensus. Monty845 16:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all well and good, but administrators aren't free to depart from common practice whenever it suits them, particularly if they're motivated by personal animus (which seems possible). The broad community consensus, as evidenced by the links Centpacrr has posted, is that such images are okay. A single deletion at WP:PUF doesn't seem like a good way to proceed. If Fastily thinks the community, and his fellow administrators, are getting copyright wrong, then he should open an RFC. He shouldn't blow away someone's user image, refuse explanations, and then force us to do all the heavy lifting. That's manifestly unfair. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now nominated the Schumin picture for speedy on the grounds that it's a copyright violation.[1] If they delete it, then so be it. If they refused to delete it, then Centpacrr's picture MUST be restored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also asked the user Delta to come here and comment.[2] He is a stickler for copyrights, so we should value his opinion on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There appear to be two issues here: (1) in general, who owns the copyright in a picture taken of an individual on their own camera by someone else by informal request; (2) was this picture, and this contributor, treated fairly and reasonably by comparison with numerous other contributions apparently in an identical situation.
- (1) I Am Not A Lawyer, but it seems likely that in the UK at least, and probably in other EU countries, the copyright belongs to the camera operator while the owner has an implied licence to use the picture at their own discretion [3]. This may or may not help.
- (2) It's really rather clear that the answer to this question is "no" and that the deletion was handled poorly. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Deletion here would be copyright paranoia. I think we can realistically assume consent in situations like this, or treat it as an implied gift between the parties. or as Cusop suggests just above. In social situations, I think that's what everyone assumes,and not just between Wikipedians. . The only restriction in the community is a very different one: that if an editor here does not want his photograph shown, we honor that request just as we honor his preference to have his name be anonymous. Fastily has been engaged in some very questionable deletions, has been called to account for them at ANB, and I see this as another facet of the same. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per this comment. Tools were used because an admin had "an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior..." Deletion should be weighed by the facts on the image. Nothing has been produced to counter the reasonable presumption that it's his photo of himself, an assertion commonly found and uncommonly challanged on Wikipedia. 12Minutes to 10pm 01:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - while the details of the copyright law in this case are fuzzy to say the least, I can't imagine any court in any country taking the view that it is a copyright violation to own a "holiday snaps" taken by a third party using your own camera. That's ludicrous. Unless there is some specific case-law on this matter, Wikipedia should take the view that this is an OK thing to do in order to avoid the need for immediate deletion of thousands of hard-to-find photos that are (arguably, strictly) incorrectly labelled. I would strongly recommend going to ArbCom for a decision on this - but in the meantime, let's not set a precedent and start a mass deletionist orgy through images of this sort. I'm concerned at SchuminWeb's actions as an admin have repeatedly and consistently over-stepped the mark over the last few months - I believe a review of his status as an admin should be undertaken. This is as clear a case of WikiStalking as I have ever seen. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my comment above, without trying to establish if your concerns have merit or not, DRV isn't the place to implement them, as you haven't got the name of the person doing the deleting correct, it doesn't speak well of objectivity. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: While SchuminWeb did not personally delete the images, he was one of the two editors who had virtually simultaneously opened the PUF discussions and commented on in favor of deletion; when I asked Fastily to undelete said he would not decide until SchuminWeb commented again which he did again in favor of deletion. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Overturn and slap Fastily with a trout the length and detail of Centpacrr's explanation tells me that he is telling the truth. Keeping this deleted it copyright paranoia. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Are there any Wikimedia Commons policies or guidelines that speak to this issue? –xenotalk 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note One of the original revisions (admins only) bears a stanley cup watermark, which was cropped out by the uploader in a later version. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Original Raw Image Files: To dispel any further issues or confusion about the origin of this file, I have posted a screen capture of the original raw image (DSCN5499.jpg) with its data panel on my server here, a second of file (DSCN5498.jpg) with data panel of the image taken immediately before that one here, and a thumbnail index of all the images (DSCN5498-5506) taken that day here. The two data panels show that I transferred all these image files (which had been created between 6:40pm and 10:30 pm on June 9, 2010) from my camera's (NIKON COOLPIX P2 2.4DS/OF4 s/n 30179586) memory card to my computer's hard drive at 12:45:56 AM, June 10, 2010 where they have resided exclusively ever since. When, how, and why I subsequently cropped, adjusted, and/or digitally added/removed anything to or from any of these images would therefore be an irrelevant factor as to their custody, control, ownership and rights status. Centpacrr (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn First, I've not read all the above rambling back and forth, just given it a cursory overview, and I'm somewhat familiar with this situation. Personally I think is is a ridiculous example of immaturity and over-reach. Certainly all involved have better things to do than harrass this editor over an image that is more than reasonably his. Give him his image back and go find something more useful and constructive to do with your time. JBarta (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
