Commons:Deletion requests/File:أطفال قتلى في هجوم حزب الله.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion 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:أطفال قتلى في هجوم حزب الله.jpg

[edit]

Contested copyright violation, social media has versions, e.g. X which could not be derivatives. RAN1 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two days before what? The event happened just yesterday on July 27 and the image was uploaded to Wikipedia on the same date. We have analyzed here that it was on Wikipedia before any social media and proved that AdityaRajKaul is not the photographer. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Results from google reverse image search, exact matches, I see some listed as being "2 days ago", so I added this. I don't have Xitter access on this machine so I have no further info at this time. Comparison of dates of upload is good idea. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the post? I'm having a bit of trouble duplicating this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is the post added to x.com 15 minutes after it was uploaded to Commons. -- Geagea (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The X post I linked has been deleted. There's a blurred version at Bild with bystanders at the top of the image who are cropped out of the version here. RAN1 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If they uploader can share some other photos they took of that location - even less interesting photos - such context might make the authorship claim more credible. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-credible claim of authorship, no EXIF data, this has the same image with some more blurring, predating this by an hour or so. I simply do not believe the claim that this is the author's own work, coming right next to basically an active crime scene. Nableezy (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And here it is on twitter unblurred, which, if I can decipher timezones correctly, was an hour and a half before it was posted here. Nableezy (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It was the same image which was discussed here where the timestamp was already discussed to be done after Commons and not before.
    2. When you have posted the link the image was already deleted there for a week, so not sure what is the purpose of doing such post. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this image can't be the source as it has no timezone and more importantly it's more blurred that the one on Commons and one couldn't take a more blurred image and unblurr. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That post appears to have been made at 23:56 27 July 2024 UTC; seven hours after it was uploaded here. The Twitter link doesn’t appear to work; are you sure you provided the correct link?
    At the moment, I think Keep, as I’m not seeing any evidence this is a copyright violation, although I would like to see the VRT submission processed as I think that will resolve this conclusively. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter link for works fine for me. And I find the claim of own work to be utterly disbelievable. If it was their own work it would have EXIF data, but it doesn’t. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EXIF data may be removed when people do not want to share personal info to get exposed and killed. Wikipedia rules do not mandate EXIF use. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oleg Yunakov: What do you mean by that? RAN1 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geolocation data became redundant when the coordinates were published, the EXIF data must have been removed automatically by whatever was used to propagate the image. RAN1 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah removing the brand of camera and type of lens is really something that people do for protection. Just say you want to keep the image because you want to use it for propaganda, sheesh. Nableezy (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written you a warning for violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule. If you have any questions on the image copyright I'll be happy to help you. But please retrain from personal attacks in the future. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have any questions, and the fantastical claim that removing the camera brand is something that somebody would do here because of safety is absurd, and the reason for that absurdity is transparent. Nableezy (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there are exactly zero valid reasons to delete this image in accordance with the Commons rules. If someone will attempt to do so he/she will get a request for admin rights removal. Your "fantastical" claim when you at all cost try to suggest to delete the image just because you do not like will not help. This just proves the potential point that whoever took it might want to remain anonymous as when others think in propaganda views in relationship to images people may get hurt (example: Charlie Hebdo shooting). Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since you used this image in a DYK nomination at ru.wiki (diff), what you're saying is hard to believe. RAN1 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - Based on the discussion above, there is sufficient doubt that the uploader is the individual who took the picture and had the copyright claim for it. If the claim can be proven, then restore it. Commons is not censored Bastique ☎ let's talk! 19:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Camera EXIF can be confidentally shared with VRT if uploader is the photographer or Twitter photographer can assert that they are also the uploader. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:أطفال_قتلى_في_هجوم_حزب_الله.jpg&oldid=951490140"