Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photos-Akshay-Kumar-shoots-for-his-first-ever-music-video-Filhaal-with-Nupur-Sanon-and-Ammy-Virk-5-480x360.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:Photos-Akshay-Kumar-shoots-for-his-first-ever-music-video-Filhaal-with-Nupur-Sanon-and-Ammy-Virk-5-480x360.jpg

[edit]

This BH photo seems to be cropped from this twitter, [1] non-free photo. DW of copyrighted work are copyvios. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, not a valid reason to delete, higher resolution versions may not have a free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, per Verbcatcher. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, just because we have low quality images available, why not License Review and the pass the image. Is it will be a easy task with no mistake, that's what you're mentioning me ZI Jony. It's was music video shoot, and maybe every media and PR team was present to click shots and interact with actors. Why every news agency has max quality images and BH has low quality files. In Twitter the images were published at 1306 IST. And after that they copied and upload cropped version. And on that same day the image was been flashed on every new channels, published in article, for example 1400 news bulletin of E24 channel of india. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C1K98V: , You have nominated the file to delete, so you no need to vote as delete. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am guessing what the nominator meant, @Verbcatcher: and @ZI Jony: , was there is a non-free photo out there. BH took that photo, cropped it, and uploaded it on their site, making it a DW of a copyrighted work. That is a copyvio. Acagastya (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image is using the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} template, and is indeed sourced and credited to Bollywood Hungama. That the image also happens to appear on another site--especially the mere and unhelpful pasting of a raw link--does nothing to impeach the Bollywood Hungama claim. It's worth noting, also, that twitter.com appears routinely to use random internet images to illustrate its articles (e.g. this article--currently the first appearing on its main page--uses, without credit, an image credited in numerous places to "Ashwini Sawant, DNA"). There is no reason to believe that taran adarsh or twitter.com is the author of the image or has anything to say about it; at the very least, there's no reason to believe it more credible than Bollywood Hungama. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony: I have a question please contact a reviewer and license review the file. So that an admin can take a decision and close the DR. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing DR and license review are not your tasks, let it be with the responsible person. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I am sorry I misunderstood the reason for the nomination. The existence of the photo elsewhere, even with larger crops, is not conclusive, and you had not indicated that the Twitter version was earlier. This does not mean that BH has pirated the image, but there is a reason to doubt that it was taken by a BH photographer. If so, then {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} is not applicable. It is unfortunate that BH do not clearly indicate which images were taken by their photographers. If you think there is a general problem with images from BH then please raise this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Verbcatcher: , the issue has always been discussed, regarding BH site. Anybody can misunderstand what you're trying to convey that why it's a challenging job for patroller and license review, to nominate and review. But nonetheless I will be more cautious from now onwards, whenever I nominate any file. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @ZI Jony: Let's take a step back. If entity BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA claims they are copyright holders of an image, and releases it under a free license; and if there is another entity ANON, who has uploaded another photo somewhere else: however ANON's photo is from the same angle, the photo looks the same, but ANON's photo has a bigger crop, that hints BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA has cropped the image from a common source from where ANON got the file. (Otherwise, how did anybody get a bigger crop?) In that case, it is upon BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA to prove they actually own the copyright, and they need to show it was indeed commissioned work. Until they show that, there is no reason to assume BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA actually owns the copyright.
    Acagastya (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Acagastya: , our OTRS permission agents have accepted the claims by Bollywood Hungama. Bollywood Hungama claims they are copyright holders of those images, but in your opinion, we have to get back to Bollywood Hungama for their claims clarification. I think that we should have a discussion on VP or OTRS noticeboard to justify the original OTRS ticket. In my personal experience, all photographers from the media are taking photos from the same angle as that's located for them. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to "Otherwise, how did anybody get a bigger crop?", the assertion is that BH's business model is to publish low-resolution watermarked and/or cropped images on their website, and assign a free licence to these versions for promotional purposes. They then sell high-resolution, uncropped and unwatermarked versions of the same images with non-free licenses, which may appear on other websites. (Previously asserted here, other than the cropping.) Verbcatcher (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their commissioned photographer needs to corroborate on that. Othwewise, anyone can claim: "No, I make lower quality free and the HQ, uncropped version as non-free". Does BH attach files with EXIF to OTRS to even beieve their claims?
Acagastya (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: exists in higher res in other sources and we have a reasonable doubt that BH owns copyright. --rubin16 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Photos-Akshay-Kumar-shoots-for-his-first-ever-music-video-Filhaal-with-Nupur-Sanon-and-Ammy-Virk-5-480x360.jpg&oldid=574044176"