Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antón Gómez-Reino 2019.png
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.
This screenshot has not been found in the video (what it is licensed with a cc-by). Asqueladd (discusión) 23:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Asqueladd, have you seen the license and where does it come from? It is a clipping of the screen thumbnail of a video with express permission. If there were any type of restriction, it would be specified or not licensed. Therefore, I think it is not appropriate at all to request the deletion of this photo. Phalbertt (discusión) 00:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Phalbertt. I don't think the license of the thumbnail is related to that of the video. Do you have jurisprudence of deletion requests in Commons about it in one way or another? Greetings. Asqueladd (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello again, Asqueladd. I don't know the jurisprudence but I read the official YouTube help page on licensing. It says verbatim "You can only mark your video with the Creative Commons license if all of its content can be included in the CC BY license. Here are some examples of content to which you can apply a license: Original content that you have created." Therefore, if the cover is not included, the CC license that they specify could not be used. Therefore, if they use it, it will be because all the original content is under that license. Regards. Phalbertt (discusión) 00:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Phalbertt. Yes, yes, but I still believe the same. I note that you tend to think about your uploads to Commons that everything is fine and everything can be done unless it is indicated that no, and it is rather the other way around. On the other hand, the raster images that you upload, those that can be uploaded, of course, could you upload them in .jpg (with all the highest quality if you want of course)? The .png loads slower and also with the scaling does funky things. Greetings . Asqueladd (discusión) 00:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- You may be right in what you say, Asqueladd, but above all, I always do it without an active will to want to break the rules. Certainly, from the massive deletion of files that were made, I try to go with lead feet regarding licenses and that is why I usually go to YouTube videos with licenses, eldiario.es or Flickr pages or official websites with explicit CC. In this case, when I uploaded the photo, I was understanding what YouTube's regulations say, not referring to the lack of specificity as a method for casting the photo. I think this photo does not violate any regulations and should not be kept for deletion. On a personal basis, I do not understand the rigidity of the wiki in Spanish with respect to the English one or that the encyclopedic value and the intention to contribute that content are not taken into account.
- Regarding the theme of the photos, I have no problem uploading them in .jpg. I have always uploaded them in .png by the standard format in Photoshop and not to lose quality with the compression of the image but if so we avoid rare things and delays in loading photos, without problem. Cheers! Phalbertt (discusión) 00:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, again, Phalbertt. Regarding the alleged rigidity of es:wikipedia vis-à-vis en:wikipedia, what do you mean? There are surely pockets of rigidity here and there (in both sites), but I am missing the connection with the things dealt in here. Asqueladd (discusión) 00:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I referred to the possibility in the English wiki to use non-free material or to upload content on it. It was a simple personal note, Asqueladd. Regarding this photo, I think the matter has been clarified so as not to keep your erasure request, right? Regards. Phalbertt (discusión) 01:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ah. Ok. Regarding the pic, I don't think so. Unless proven otherwise (with a consistent set of Commons resolutions in that regard) I see no reason to think those "covers" not featured in the video are released under the cc-by license. If there is no "jurisprudence", what better time than now to find out and solve the ruckus with a deletion request here. To walk on firm soil and all that. Cheers. Asqueladd (discusión) 01:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I referred to the possibility in the English wiki to use non-free material or to upload content on it. It was a simple personal note, Asqueladd. Regarding this photo, I think the matter has been clarified so as not to keep your erasure request, right? Regards. Phalbertt (discusión) 01:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, again, Phalbertt. Regarding the alleged rigidity of es:wikipedia vis-à-vis en:wikipedia, what do you mean? There are surely pockets of rigidity here and there (in both sites), but I am missing the connection with the things dealt in here. Asqueladd (discusión) 00:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Phalbertt. Yes, yes, but I still believe the same. I note that you tend to think about your uploads to Commons that everything is fine and everything can be done unless it is indicated that no, and it is rather the other way around. On the other hand, the raster images that you upload, those that can be uploaded, of course, could you upload them in .jpg (with all the highest quality if you want of course)? The .png loads slower and also with the scaling does funky things. Greetings . Asqueladd (discusión) 00:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hello again, Asqueladd. I don't know the jurisprudence but I read the official YouTube help page on licensing. It says verbatim "You can only mark your video with the Creative Commons license if all of its content can be included in the CC BY license. Here are some examples of content to which you can apply a license: Original content that you have created." Therefore, if the cover is not included, the CC license that they specify could not be used. Therefore, if they use it, it will be because all the original content is under that license. Regards. Phalbertt (discusión) 00:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Phalbertt. I don't think the license of the thumbnail is related to that of the video. Do you have jurisprudence of deletion requests in Commons about it in one way or another? Greetings. Asqueladd (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Let some admin comment and tell us something about it. Even so, I remember again that the cover appears. The thumbnail of the video is part of it and, as I mentioned above, YouTube regulations require that all content be subject to such license and more if it is original of the one that uploads it, as is the case. Even so, let's wait to see what they say. Cheers. Phalbertt (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I beg you not to distort the issue. That the thumbnail is "part of the video" is your personal assumption. The assumption that it is not is precisely the reason for this deletion request. That thumbnail is not featured in the actual video (and when you download the video to modify it and to do cc-by stuff, the "cover" is not there, d'oh). "It is part of the video because it is part of the video" is a circular reasoning. And COM:PRP applies.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Asqueladd, sorry but I don't agree. Following your argument, the cover of a book is not part of it. The thumbnail of the video on YouTube you have to attach it and it may or may not be inside the video. In a lot of videos there are thumbnails to contextualize the subject that are not as such within them. However, these thumbnails are part of the file that is uploaded to the web. It would not make much sense to release the video and not the cover, when the regulations require that all content be released. Regards! Phalbertt (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: This image or a version of it was already deleted once via a DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Phalbertt). The image is essentially a derivative of an original that no longer exists and the source provided is not the original source. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Attention: Nat, last time, you insisted on deleting the photos without even wanting to understand objective reasons. Have you seen the license and where does it come from? I repeat you here and on the other file. It is a clipping of the screen thumbnail of a video with express permission. If there were any type of restriction, it would be specified or not licensed. Therefore, I think it is not appropriate at all to request the deletion of this photo. As I told you, if you read the official YouTube help page on licensing, it says verbatim "You can only mark your video with the Creative Commons license if all of its content can be included in the CC BY license. Here are some examples of content to which you can apply a license: Original content that you have created." Therefore, if the cover is not included, the CC license that they specify could not be used. Therefore, if they use it, it will be because all the original content is under that license. The thumbnail of the video is part of it and, as I mentioned above, YouTube regulations require that all content be subject to such license and more if it is original of the one that uploads it, as is the case. Phalbertt (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to find the original source. The YouTube video is not the original source, and therefore the image's licence is in question. It was previously deleted because of that. And you've chosen to reupload the same image with the same information with no regard of what is actually required. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll repeat here my points: "(1) The image in the video thumbnail is a derivative, not the original. (2) the image that you've uploaded, therefore, has another source. (3) That source is, most likely, the PODEMOS website. (4) That website contains no mentions, based on a examination of it, that the images are licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 or otherwise freely licensed." --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to find the original source. The YouTube video is not the original source, and therefore the image's licence is in question. It was previously deleted because of that. And you've chosen to reupload the same image with the same information with no regard of what is actually required. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: re-upload of previously deleted file. Never re-upload a previously deleted image; instead use COM:UNDEL.
Additional deletion rationale: it may seem that the author of the thumbnail photo is the same as the video (Podemos). But the photo is not real in itself; it is a collage. Therefore we know nothing of the original photo, not its source, author, date. We can't determine its copyright status. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
