Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borderfieldstateparkrecent.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.
Another low quality image from the Beach Buem series, of questionable copyright status due to being uploaded by so many different accounts. See Category:Sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose this nomination, as its a very famous artwork wherein the author of the photograph David Horvitz, travelled to public access beaches along the California coast with the explicit purpose of photographing them to post freely on wikipedia. All of the pictures just so happen to have him quietly in the foreground. Thus, the copyright is clearly NOT questionable. The book, Public Access: Davd Horvitz, published by Motto Books in 2011 documents this project. https://www.mottodistribution.com/site/?p=27812 See Category:Sockpuppets of Albianmoonlight. ArtLosAngeles (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment No one is disagreeing that Mr. Horvitz had these (or similar) images in his book. I have seen several of them on a website of his as well. The problem is, that the uploader may or may not have the rights to upload this particular image. Most of the images are of small file size, low resolution and slightly blurry which often occurs when photos are swiped from websites and reuploaded here to Commons. Having been uploaded by multiple named accounts so far, it could be (for example) a group of 4channers who - having downloaded the images to their computers from Mr. Horvitz' webpages, or other sources - reuploaded them at various times with nonsensical user names. That secondary upload violates Mr. Horvitz' copyright to his images as the oddly named uploaders pretend that the images are theirs to freely license. Sometimes they don't even give Mr. Horvitz credit and it's only due to the sharp eyes of people like Binksternet that the duplicate uploads are detected. It would appear Mr. Horvitz may have a nominate account "Davidhorvitz" on which he could upload images if he so chose, but the rest of these users do not have his permission. Additionally with no OTRS filed there is no indication that Mr. Horvitz has given them permission to upload his images. Hence the "questionable copyright" statement above. Mr. Horvitz is welcome to upload his own art under his own name, but all these other accounts - apparent sockpuppets of Albionmoonlight do not. Copyright goes to the living artist, not to a pile of oddly named uploaders who upload the same images over and over - but with different uploader names. The rights of Mr. Horvitz are being protected by this nomination - not violated. I hope this makes the situation surrounding this nomination clearer. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons stated by User:ArtLosAngeles--Nowa (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The reason for the nomination is regarding COM:COPYVIO and protecting the rights of a living artist from others who would upload his work as their own. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- CommentEllin, You make an important point, but if you don’t think David Horvitz uploaded this as well as the other pictures in the "Beach Buem" series, why did you support his ban on Wikipedia?--Nowa (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete (c)status unclear --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Hedwig, could you elaborate on your copyright concerns? I see a sockpuppet concern in this discussion, but not a copyright concern.--Nowa (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This image is a continuation of the disruption of Commons and Wikipedia by agents or promoters of photographer David Horvitz, starting with this series of photos added to Wikipedia by anonymous IP in January 2011. Horvitz and Ed Steck acknowledged the disruption they caused in their publication Public Access. On page 7 of the 101-page PDF, you can see that this PNG photo which is up for deletion is the same image previously deleted as File:Borderfieldbeach.JPG, the same exact shot with one of the fence pales apparently coming out of the head of the distant figure. The IP added the shot to Wikipedia as "Image:Borderfieldbeach.JPG" on 6 January 2011. The same file was included in the big list of Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight, initiated by Ryulong on 23 January 2011 and deleted on 3 February 2011. The Public Access PDF says the image was created on 27 December 2010, so the current image was uploaded with false date information, asserting incorrectly that it was made on 30 May 2011. The Public Access PDF was published "in conjunction with the exhibition As Yet Untitled" which showed from 6 January 2011 to 23 April 2011. Again, this demonstrates that the photo under discussion was previously published with an earlier date, that the asserted 30 May 2011 date cannot be correct. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- CommentThank you for the summary. It helps to understand the history of the image. Are you saying, then that you don't think that the original copy of this image uploaded to Commons in January 2011 had the proper copyright license?--Nowa (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The only image(s) we can discuss in a nomination is/are the image(s) which are covered in its discussion. All the other images are not relevant to present discussion. I personally have no idea how many uploaders are contributing to this conundrum; it could be one or many. Without an OTRS or some clear speak by the uploaders/artists/4channers, we'll not know. But under the assumption that the title to the image is now quite cloudy, COM:PRP says Delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Well I can certainly agree that we should only be discussing images material to this nomination. The reason I bring up the January 2011 version of this photo is that the January 2011 version was released under a share-alike license. So that prior license should take care of any copyright concerns related to this present version of the image, no matter who uploaded it. The next step, of course, would be to take a closer look at the copyright issues related to the first uploading.--Nowa (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete because of uncertain copyright status. Either Aaabbbcccddd is wrongfully licensing Horvitz's photo or Horvitz is using multiple accounts to cover up his mischief. Green Giant (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: / . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
