Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruitbowlwithmelons.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:Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg

[edit]

Mauro David died on 6 January 2007, more than a month before User:Mauro David uploaded this image. Death date confirmed by [1]. Unless that user represents his heirs, they are not entitled to release the work under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite bad that an image without permission was candidated first as featured picture and then as picture of the year. Anyway, it seems that the image was copied from here http://www.documentabout.it/ING/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.jpg (this is the page of the site), as the resolution of the two images is the same: 1988x1412. It's true that the author died before the image was uploaded, so it's unlikely that he wanted his painting to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, no OTRS permission means deletion, even if the image is candidated as POTY 2010. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: the users who voted for that image on POTY should be given a second chance to vote. I think that if the image will be deleted, all the users who voted for it should receive a message to inform them that they can vote for another picture. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is important to make sure users have a chance to vote for another image, this issue should probably be expedited. Else it could be deleted with just hours to go before the voting ends, leaving people without time or notice to submit a new vote. At any rate, Theo10011 told me on IRC that he had notified the POTY committee of the issue, so the matter is in their hands. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when I visit http://www.documentabout.it/RID/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm, Google Chrome warns me that it's a site which hosts malware. I would prefer to find a more reputable source. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Saibo's view here that the site itself is probably not malicious, so I don't believe this is relevant to the licensing status of the image. --Avenue (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make this clear: I do suggest NOT to VISIT the source page - it could infect your computer. I just mean that it is probably not the site owner's intention to host malware. Btw: did you want to link this section --Saibo (Δ) 04:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the link to the section is more informative than the diff I gave. --Avenue (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - be careful with this link, KIS2011 warned me: "The requested object at the URL: http://www.documentabout.it/ing/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm Threat detected: object is infected by HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer". RedAndr (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This archived copy of the linked page scans as clean of malware.[2] I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it still has the same warning. RedAndr (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just sent e-mail with OTRS permission request (in english only, i do not speak italian) to the mail on www.maurodavid.com site. --Jklamo (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up in Italian.--Chaser (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My email bounced.--Chaser (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My as well. --Jklamo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail address on the domain registration is info@maurodavid.com. Can we try that address? I don't normally do OTRS requests, so I'd prefer that someone with more experience make the contact. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely clear, from what I can see, but I think so. The documentabout.it site looks very similar to maurodavid.com at first glance, but also hosts larger images than any I've found on the latter site. Access to high resolution images of his many artworks seems suggestive but not conclusive. (The main page at maurodavid.com doesn't seem to have changed much since archive.org first crawled it in early 2004.[3]) According to whois, the maurodavid.com site was registered with Tucows Inc by "David Mauro" from Napoli, with the whois record created on 19 Oct 2001.[4] The documentabout.it site was registered by "David Armando" from Napoli on 9 Sep 2003.[5] The first four edits to this image page here, all on 25 Feb 2007, were by User:Mauro David and User:Armando David. While I don't see a perfect paper trail here, I'd be surprised if the documentabout.it site wasn't legit. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's strongly possible that the image was uploaded by the artist's heirs, but "I'd be surprised if it wasn't legit" isn't the standard of proof required on Commons as I understand it. Commons:Permission seems to be very clear on this point: when a user declares a free license for a work that they did not make, OTRS clearance is required. In this case, we know with near-certainty that the author did not upload this image, so explicit permission is necessary. I really don't see any wiggle room on this front. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: documentabout.it / seems to be image-hosting better-quality pics of mauro's works, as stated above. http://www.documentabout.it/
it is also worth noting that (as far as i could tell from a quick, non-comprehensive, check) the ONLY painting-photo @ documentabout.it which is cc licensed, is the one under discussion here. it is also in-use @ several wikips, mostly as an example of "hyperrealism"; & there was apparently an article abt the artist @ wikip/eng (not sure abt other wikips), which was deleted, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mauro i don't have the admin access to check it, but i assume it's abt the same person; the name order "david mauro" is the same as on the artist's biopage here: http://www.maurodavid.com/Note_biografiche.htm
having read all the artist's site's info, via google translate, it appears that the website's author worked closely with the artist (& his family) to create that site. it seems pretty clear that at some point they (with either the artist, or the artist's family/estate) decided to create a presence for mauro @ wikip as well. given the close association of the site creator with the painter (not to mention the fact that the site is still being hosted/maintained 4 years after the artist's death!) i would expect the image rights to be "in order"
Lx 121 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's a reasonable conclusion to draw from what we can see, but again, my understanding of Commons permission requirements is that we require a higher degree of certainty than "it looks like the image was probably uploaded by the artist's heirs or at least somebody who worked closely with him." Tim Pierce (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, but the cc-licensing of the image-file @ the source image hosting site (which is pretty clearly associated with the artist's official site), and ONLY that one image, which was to be used @ wikip, is the CLINCHER Lx 121 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "the clincher" of anything except the knowledge that someone who probably worked with Mauro David at one time put his images up there under a CC license. Commons:Permission has a good example of how this can go wrong. I don't doubt that there's a strong likelihood that the upload is legitimate, but "the clincher" here is still OTRS confirmation. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, "the clincher" here is the explicit CC-BY license on an almost certainly official website. We accept files from Flickr and from pseudonymous Commons users (me included) with much less certainty about copyright ownership, and we have a better paper trail for this image than for the vast majority of our images. This is nothing like the example on Commons:Permission, and OTRS confirmation is unnecessary here. The only things we really need to change are the source link and the {{Self}} component of the license tag on the image description page. I'll do that now. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should also have been a CC-BY-2.5 license tag, not CC-BY-SA. Now fixed. --Avenue (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that documentabout.it is an "almost certainly official website." I don't agree, and I don't think Commons licensing procedure permits making that assumption. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I'm assuming anything about the website. I have concluded, based on various facts detailed above, that the image's source page is almost certainly part of an official website established in conjunction with the painter and that the license shown on the source page is most likely valid. These facts include the similarity of the two sites, the nature of their content, the domain registrants' shared surname, and the dates of their registrations (years before the image was uploaded here). If you have considered all of these facts and still disagree with my conclusion, so be it. Let's move on to policy.
As far as I can see, the only (proposed) policy page you've mentioned is Commons:Permission, and nothing there applies to an image that is available under a free license according to its source webpage. The most applicable policy I'm aware of is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which says that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted". I appreciate that the evidence we have for the validity of the license (and hence the freedom of this file) isn't absolutely conclusive, but I wouldn't describe any remaining doubts as significant. --Avenue (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: STRONG KEEP! image appears to have been provided by the artist's website creator (evident if one reads through the artist's website info) who would reasonably be expected to have the rights to do so. the image is not simply a "rip" from the site; filesize is significantly larger. we should probably try & pursue an otrs on this, but the default assumption is that the upload was authorized. Lx 121 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i stand corrected abt the file source, BUT the file appears to be cc licensed see here: [[6]] therefore KEEP & restore to the r2 poty vote asap! Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no reason to believe the artist's website creator has the right to license to work. Typically, an artist would license the website creator to display the works, not assign copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
technical point, not carping, but just to clarify; no one is talking about "assigning copyright". a cc-license IS just a license. Lx 121 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep What I've found out about the site displaying the CC license (see my response to 99of9 above) strongly suggests to me that it's legitimate. In the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, I think we should keep the image. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep tentatively, I think. We do not require OTRS if the file is licensed at its source, under the rationale that the person with access to first publish it should be the same one with the ability to license it. There appears to be no other source for the high-resolution version than that documentabout.it site, so that would appear to be the original source, and it is plainly licensed there. The server date for the image is May 21, 2006, predating the upload here -- so, the local upload could not be trusted, but the license on the source page on the other hand is enough. If there is another, earlier source for the high-resolution image (without a licensing statement) then things would change, but given the current info it seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so if we tentatively assume that this is a keep, then that leaves the question:
WHAT ABOUT POTY2011?
the images was a poty finalist & R2 voting is (still) underway, this image was disqualified over the licensing/rights issue; now if we've agreed that it's legit, then what about: a) returning it to the competition? & b) how to deal with the harm done, in removing it from the voting list for MOST of the R2 scheduled polling time?
Lx 121 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late to simply restore it to the competition, at least if you are concerned with it having a fair chance. Most of the votes were received in the first few days, especially 30 and 31 May. Personally I think people were too quick to remove it from the competition, but there's no point carping about that now. Short of restarting the final round of POTY voting (which seems excessive), I think the only way for POTY to be fair to this image is to let it be entered into next year's competition (assuming there will be one next year). Perhaps it should even be entered directly into the second round. This is probably not the right forum to discuss this, though. --Avenue (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep there is good reason to believe that the CC license holds. --torusJKL (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The source site has had the CC license for a long time; also, the website says, (translated by Google) "Urged by friends and relatives, this site has been created, despite some initial reluctance and suspicion, with the active collaboration of the artist who personally oversaw the photos, the choice of his favorite paintings and simple setup General." It seems he approved all this before he died. ←fetchcomms 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg

[edit]

No OTRS. Copyright violation. 82.120.39.145 13:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the previous deletion request above? The reason we think it's ok is that it was clearly marked with a free license on the (official looking) source site. --99of9 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently free per source site. -FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg&oldid=100208246"