Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sydneyhail.jpg
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.
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete
Keep no valid reason for deletion. Literally nothing in policy or in licensing says this. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Sometimes (non-copyrighted) Facebook images show similar Transmission location code like this. They are deleted based on COM:PRP, and Facebook images are copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Users on Facebook can choose to share their images freely, like this (with CC-BY 4.0), and this (with OTRS permission), but they can also choose not to share them freely. In some cases, the user reposts some images or videos that are taken by others. and they are not the copyright holder. There are also COM:LL concerns as well. The uploader just grabbed the image from the Facebook, likely without the permission from the Facebook user. This statement doesn't mean that people can use the images and videos on Facebook freely without asking permission. IMO, Magog is the one who misinterprets the Facebook terms of sevice. For US Government's works on Facebook, the {{PD-USGov}} license suppressed the Facebook Terms of Service per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump tweets. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- A1 is intentionally misrepresenting the TOS, which unambiguously states the opposite. Read it for yourself: You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. And PCP is for files which are from highly visible public accounts which the uploader is likely to rip off, not for personal images. Even the US government posts their own images with Facebook metadata. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - no evidence it comes from a Facebook page and reverse image search shows no other sources coming up prior to it being uploaded to Commons. Will be very difficult to get another photo of this. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata). Image with transmission location code in Metadata means that they are first published on Facebook before being uploaded to Commons. They are likely to be grabbed from a random post, thus they are not own work. If there is no permission, based on COM:PRP, this image is likely to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Likely", "likely", "likely" - it's all supposition, completely unsupported by a shred of evidence. I've already showed you several reasons why it is likely to be his own work - he has written those words in text under the picture, the picture doesn't appear on a reverse image search which would likely show up a copyright violation, the user has uploaded photos of the Sydney area where there are no issues at all, and there's no Wikimedia policy that images from Facebook are automatically deemed to be copyvios. You are simply clutching at straws to justify deleting a picture that shouldn't. I don't understand how making arguments like this is a constructive contribution to Wikimedia? Bookscale (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - It's worth noting that the user has uploaded pictures of and around Sydney before which have no copyright issues at all. All the images A1Cafel has nominated are taken in the Sydney geographic area, suggesting that they are the uploader's own work as the summary infobox says. Bookscale (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
