Commons:Deletion requests/File:Partial squats with 585-lbs barbel.gif
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.
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov: Same reason, subject cannot be photographer, this is one more of same series deleted previously. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Negative. There is a device invented about a century ago. Its name is "self-timer". According to Wikipedia, "A self-timer is a device on a camera that gives a delay between pressing the shutter release and the shutter's firing. It is most commonly used to let photographers to take a photo of themselves".
Due to foregoing, will you remove your DR, please? Thanks. Shustov (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Shustov, please stop being so argumentative. Ellin Beltz simply made an assumption, which, according to you, is incorrect. The DR will not be removed, but Ellin could decide to vote against deletion or withdraw the comment. If you are impolite, that's not likely. It was enough to say that you used a camera with a self-timer or other setup to photograph yourself. Just the fact. And then the old deletions may be addressed, properly. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete Shustov is either misremembering or lying. The camera is clearly moving/panning, indicting it is being held by a human - see also Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_ShustovVal and my comment with more, unambiguous examples. Эlcobbola talk 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, the camera is not motionless. I am in communication with Shustov and I will ask him directly about this. At our age, sometimes we don't remember, and he's older than I am. It may have been his camera, and he may then have thought of it as his "own work," but his argument above would be incorrect. This would be, for someone not informed on copyright law, counter-intuitive. A tripod can hold a camera but not a bystander, even if the task is almost identical and the bystander has done nothing but hold the camera as instructed. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment One needs only to examine frame 1 and frame 161 to see that the camera has moved significantly between the two images. This image, as many others seems to be done from a promotional or personal photographic album focus instead of any educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- The file is in use on five WMF wikis. The wikis will decide appropriateness of usage, not Commons. The proper issue here is license. --Abd (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Commons policy or copyright guidelines appear to define the person who takes a photo (presses the button, holds the camera) as the copyright owner. My sense of common law was different in the unusual case of a selfie. This has been considered by an apparent expert on copyright law, see [1]. Conclusion: the "creator" of the work is the person who set it up and controlled it, as to what was "creative" about it, not necessarily the person who holds the camera. We may need to reconsider the guideline for "selfies." --Abd (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have raised this issue on the Village pump. That question is not about this photo, but about the issue of an unknown bystander who held a camera for a minute on request. I found much more diverse legal opinion than I first reported above. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The claims that all the uploads by Shustov were indeed taken by him were already quite doubtful in previous cases, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ShustovVal. Hence, this claim does not appear to be sufficiently trustworthy. Deleted per COM:PRP. AFBorchert (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
