Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pankow 08 by Thorsten Murr web 2011.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:Pankow 08 by Thorsten Murr web 2011.jpg

Please delete this file. This is a joint request by author Thorsten Murr and uploader Blueser2805 in agreement with Ingo York. Thorsten Murr will also send an e-mail to permissions-de@wikimedia.org to confirm his identity. In other way you can contact the author here: [1]. Blueser2805 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info For related discussion about the article Ingo York and use of unauthorized photographs also look at
Löschkandidaten/19._Januar_2012#Ingo York (bleibt)
Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/York-Meinecke
löschung "nicht autorisierter" bilder in Ulla Meinecke.
File talk:Pankow 08 by Thorsten Murr web 2011.jpg
--Blueser2805 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There's no problem with the image or its license, it's a problem of the depicted person who, despite being a musician and playing in concerts open for the public and having been a member of a known music group, does not like to see images from him anywhere. --Denniss (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think it's not essential to keep a file, which was uploaded in december 2011 and only used in one article if author, uploader and shown musician vote to delete it.  Delete --Blueser2805 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I am the photographer of this pic. If a person was shot by me and feel hurt by this photo and its context I'm not going to show more of this photography in public. Whether current legal standards or the rules allow it or not on Wikipedia. Thorsten Murr, "snap-x64" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snap-x64 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • rpt.: I am the photographer of this pic. D-e-l-e-t-e it! Thorsten Murr, www.clearworder.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snap-x64 (talk • contribs)
  •  Keep - good photo, in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the person on this photo is demanding its removal immediately. violation of copyright by WP 10:23, february.18.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
No, it is not a violation of copyright: there is a CC-BY-SA license, verified with an OTRS ticket; Creative-Commons licenses are irrevocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
photographer withdraws the right for publishing by WP! ps: everything is irrevocable. it is simple arbitrariness from your side and nothing else. x 11:20/ febr.18.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
this is only arbitrariness by WP and people like you (user:pieter kuiper). you just deleted my entry-note... and that is clear proof of my statement ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.31.150 (talk • contribs)
I did not delete anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually me, no need to keep trolling comments. --Denniss (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment each unsigned vote is not helpful ! Please sign any comment with --~~~~
--Blueser2805 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Pieter Kuiper et. al. License is verified by OTRS and not revocable, pic in use, no infringement of personality rights (a good shot of a musician at work, at a public concert), no "authorisation" by the depicted person needed. --Amga (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not longer a question of licenses, it's a question of ethics. --Snap-x64 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is - the ethics of us having been given the image which was fully and properly licensed. --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nur weil etwas rechtens ist, ist es noch lange nicht richtig.--Snap-x64 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That translate for me as Just because something is legal, it is far from true. The issue is that this image has licensing via OTRS which means that it was made with a full knowledge of what that license meant and that license is irrevocable. --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)--[reply]

In real life everything is revocable - and we are talking here about a simple photo. (btw: with "richtig" I mean "correct" - so I would translate it.)--Snap-x64 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erh, no. In real life, perpetual licenses are, well, perpetual. You can't revoke it any more than you can revoke a contract of sale simply because you changed your mind several months down the line. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The IP edits on this seem to be mostly from open Proxies. I suggest protecting this page if such edits continue as there can be no certainly that it is not the work of one person. --Herby talk thyme 14:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- You can check my ID 24h/day on my website www.clearworder.de ... (I will insert here a copy of the following lines - look at "Kosmos" - also you can google this following lines and you'll find to my website :-)) We're not talking about a contract of sale, we're talking about a foto of a person. I gave the license for illustrating some true informations about a band. Now wp is using my foto to illustrate informations which are not true and hurting this person. That's the difference. (If you want to compare with a contract of sale: If you purchased a product that turns out in retrospect to be incorrect, you can cancel the contract as well.)--Snap-x64 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see how quickly you came back after the open proxies were barred from continuing. The license you issued is perpetual (irrevocable). You cannot revoke it, not even with reference to some completely irrelevant consumer protection laws. The photograph is used in de:Ingo York with the caption "Ingo York (2011)". This seems to be a photo of Ingo York taken in 2001, so that seems to be true, and I don't see how that's hurting the person. Even if there are factual errors in the article, removing the photo would not be an effective way of correcting them. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you're mixing up two completely different things here: you obviously think that you "gave the license for illustrating ... informations ..." to wikipedia (citation from your website: "Freigabe meiner Fotos für Wikipedia"). well, you didn't - you licensed your work under the conditions of cc-by-sa. the only way i can see you could probably try to have your image deleted is to wish for its deletion if the original mail contact for licensing your image(s) misleadingly talked about "free use for wikipedia". --JD {æ} 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- @the user LX above: What do you mean by "open proxies"? I use my normal PC. He stands in front of me on my desk. Comparison with a sales contract is not mine, but by another user, a few lines above. I just reacted. Just as I react to the fact that the photographed person feels hurt. This is not "interesting", that is sad. And very simple. -- @the user JD: Right, I mix things, because I basically just a matter that the photo will be deleted, because there is a real person feels offended by the photograph and its context. It goes against my convictions, to publish photos or text that other people hurt or offend. This may not be the purpose of Wikipedia.

The more complex and complicated a thing is, the easier the solution. The solution is: Delete.--Snap-x64 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of postings on this page have been made by someone who has used different IP address so as to appear to be different users. There is no suggestion it is you but it is happening and it is considered disruption.
A deletion request is not about the number of people who speak on it - it is simply about legality which the closing admin will take a decision on.
You say it goes against my convictions, to publish photos but it is you who granted permission for exactly that. --Herby talk thyme 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oh, come on: "It goes against my convictions, to publish photos or text that other people hurt or offend" - no need for more trouble. --JD {æ} 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing hurtful or offensive about this photo. It's a good photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we all know. but we all know, too, that this whole case is not about this particular question. read above. --JD {æ} 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, JD, it's not just about the photo. It's about the context.
1: I work professionally in advertising. You can believe me that I know how you can achieve with pictures and a context a specific effect. You can convert lies into truths. If you show a true picture and tell a lie, everyone will believe the lie, because the picture (visual truth) is more convincing than the words (verbal truth).
2: Whether and why a person is injured or offended is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the person is injured or offended. For whatever reason. It may be that we all like a good photo, but the person in the photograph may be offended by it. Is it really so important and a good feeling to show this photo to continue if the person feels hurt by it?
Who does it help? Who benefits? ... Thank you for your attention.--Snap-x64 (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a professional photographer then next time you upload photographs of other people on a project like commons you should actually read the license text that is presented to you, and, if in doubt, refrain from publishing the foto on that platform. The license clearly says it all. As a pro it can be expected that you read and understand contracts. You could get into BIG trouble if the people on the photograph are not, as in this case, people of public interest because they may well sue you for the publication. --Isjc99 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Isjc99 If you can read, please read carefully! I'm not claiming to be a professional photographer! I work as a concept developer and copywriter. Photography is a hobby. Ok? And please read carefully what I wrote about rights, rules and ethics. My professionalism and my adulthood are the base of my responsibility and of my respect for other people. This time and every "next time". The big trouble here make some diligent Wp-authors, if they spread false information about individuals. As an interested and intelligent user you can read and understand everything about this story, or not? --Snap-x64 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation: 'I work professionally in advertising.' Ok, so no professional photographer but still somebody from whom it can be expected that he reads the conditions that he is accepting. You uploaded accepting CC-BY-SA, so you even accepted that other people might earn money with this picture if they cite the original author. After accepting these rules, you can write a lot but you gave the picture as a present to the public. This pic may now be used for anything and you have no control over the usage, even if you continue arguing here. And this would still be true even if commons deleted the pic, if somebody has copied it in meantime. For what you want to achieve, it is simply too late. --Isjc99 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@user Isjc99: It is very entertaining to get from you explaining the rights and rules. Sorry, there is nothing to change my conviction. Btw.: If you are so well versed in the rights and rules, you can show me where it is written that my photo may be used to hurt people. The context of my photo is a "falsche Tatsachenbehauptung", published by Wp. You probably know what that means legally.--Snap-x64 (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an explanation to understand how this pic does *hurt* and *offend* somebody (i.e. Ingo York). Does it hurt on Wikimedia Commons only? Or maybe, on fotocommunity.com, too? Or on fabrik-ev.de? Or on flickr (well, that really hurts, scnr). Not to talk about YouTube (one of my '83 favs, btw, & after 28 years it still rocks) --Amga (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really so difficult to understand the relationship between image and text? Everything described above. Read!--Snap-x64 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Do you think a person needs to explain to you (!) why she feels hurt by a wrong text? Who are you to believe that? --Snap-x64 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify(, again): there is no link whatsoever between picture and text here on wikimedia commons. even if the file gets deleted on here, it would be more than just possible that someone else uploads it again here as you released it under a free CC license. --JD {æ} 16:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JD ... If there is no longer text about the person, no one needs the image. Delete the text and the picture - will be peace. We all know that it's about to delete the wrong information.--Snap-x64 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, you're wrong regarding this matter. image and text must be seen autonomous. you did a nice shot with your cam because you (and most probably also others) are interested in this "person der zeitgeschichte". it just won't change when deleting anything here or in wikipedia. as well you didn't do the shot because there was a "longer text" of this person you wanted to illustrate.
any alleged "wrong information" would have been deleted or corrected rightaway if it had been communicated in a comprehensible way. the only problem i know of is the naming issue; i don't want to discuss this once again from the start (it would be at the wrong location anyway). all information on wikipedia is only reproduction of already published information, the different sources are given; there is no original research done by wikipedia editors in this particular article about a person in any way that i know of. --JD {æ} 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@JD: It is not only the name, as far as I know. With "no longer" I did not mean the length of the text. I mean "not a longer time from now."--Snap-x64 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thorsten Murr (Snap-x64) is an author and photographer of the project www.deutsche-mugge.de, a project with volunteers who write like wikipedians without pay for the worldwide community. Wikipedia gets many information from and takes many links to this projekt [3]. www.deutsche-mugge.de is an important source for authors who are writing articles about german popular music. I think, this is enough reason to end the discussion about this ONE image and delete it. --Blueser2805 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Only to make this clear: The Argument above, that "deutsche-mugge.de" is important to German Wikipedia ist not true. --Engeltr (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment That's right, Wikipedia is the only true source of truth. --Snap-x64 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment wikipedia has many problems and many areas who need development. one problem is the bad quality of many photographs. cooperation with more professional or semiprofessional outside-communities - there are same interests and aims to produce information for a free access - is one way to make this better. every community, every single user who supports this idea should be welcome on wikipedia ! --Blueser2805 (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion given Denniss (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pankow_08_by_Thorsten_Murr_web_2011.jpg&oldid=68698410"