Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuki Tsunoda Scuderia AlphaTauri.jpg
It has been asserted that the youtube video from which this was taken was under a CC BY license. However, following the link to the video shows no evidence that this is the case on the video this image was taken from. SSSB (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Это скрин с экрана монитора, который я сам сделал, где здесь что нарушено? Чем данный скрин отличается от тысяч других подобных, вырезанных из видеофайла ютуба и хранящихся на викискладе? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niilart (talk • contribs) 10:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because there is no evidence, that I have seen, showing that AlphaTauri (the videos producers) have given the contents of this video a free use license. Unless it has a free-use license, we can't use it.SSSB (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Что за глупость? Это скриншот экрана монитора, сделанный с помощью Print Screen, сохранённый через Paint и кадрированный через Photoshop. Кого я должен спрашивать, чтоб свой экран сохранять? Это даже не кадр, вырезанный в каком-то редакторе, а скрин экрана монитора. И в описании файла чётко сказано, часть от скриншота экрана. Таких файлов на викискладе тысячи, нечего высасывать и пальца того чего нет. Niilart (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to suggest that this screenshot is not a copyright violation.SSSB (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- DELETE: copyright infringement. Minerva97 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Niilart:
- The copyright of the video belongs to the producers of the video.
- Any and all material derived from this video, also belongs to the producers of the video. Even if you have made a screenshoot of your screen. You were not the one who shot it. You didn't edit the video. That is why, even if you have made a screenshoot on your computer screen, the copyright is not yours.
- "there are many other screenshots on commons": yes, there are several screenshots here. But it is only accepted if the creators of the video have released it under a CC BY license. This license allows the material to be used in commons. For example, Romain Grosjean has his own YouTube channel. Press the "show more" button and you will see that this video was published under a CC BY license. You can take a screenshot of it and post it, because Grosjean owns the copyright and released it under a license that allows the material to be reused.
Good luck in future editions . Minerva97 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Minerva97, SSSB Ладно, фиг с вами, спорить до посинения, нет не какого желания, файл перезалил! Новый скрин с источника с лицензией Creative Commons. Надеюсь больше претензий нет? Первую версию файла можете удалить. Niilart (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Niilart: This new image remains a copyright infringement. The video description says: "The media used in this program belong to their respective authors." However, YouTube's copyright policy says that: "the video content must be 100% original". The video editor himself has to own the images, but he doesn't and the description of the video itself confirms.
- In other words: this video violates YouTube's copyright policy, consequently it also violates the commons copyright policy.
- Minerva97 (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- А вот тут уже извините, не ко мне вопросы. Я, лично я, всё правильно сделал, да! Какие могут быть претензии? Я взял источник со свободно лицензией так, так. А на сколько автор прав или не прав, в материале который я взял за образец уже вопрос десятый. Если к нему нет претензий не у кого, значит всё по правилам. Если нет, youtube с ходу бы удалил данный материал, если бы какие то авторские права затрагивались и были нарушены. Niilart (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Niilart: The problem is that the "source" has infringed someone else's copyright and the video's description confirms that: "Les médias utilisés dans cette émission appartiennent à leurs auteurs respectifs. (The media used in this program belong to their respective authors.)" I reaffirm that my vote is to delete! Minerva97 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Minerva97 А с чего вы в принципе взяли, что тот блогер что то нарушил? Большинство блогеров которые освещают ту или иную деятельность довольно не плохие связи имеют по теме. Он сам говорит, что взял источник из вне, но своё видео в итоге размещает с лицензией CC. Странно, не имея разрешения, заведомо удалённая видео. Но нет, к нему претензий нет, не думали об этом. Niilart (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Niilart: The problem is that the "source" has infringed someone else's copyright and the video's description confirms that: "Les médias utilisés dans cette émission appartiennent à leurs auteurs respectifs. (The media used in this program belong to their respective authors.)" I reaffirm that my vote is to delete! Minerva97 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- А вот тут уже извините, не ко мне вопросы. Я, лично я, всё правильно сделал, да! Какие могут быть претензии? Я взял источник со свободно лицензией так, так. А на сколько автор прав или не прав, в материале который я взял за образец уже вопрос десятый. Если к нему нет претензий не у кого, значит всё по правилам. Если нет, youtube с ходу бы удалил данный материал, если бы какие то авторские права затрагивались и были нарушены. Niilart (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Niilart: This new image remains a copyright infringement. The video description says: "The media used in this program belong to their respective authors." However, YouTube's copyright policy says that: "the video content must be 100% original". The video editor himself has to own the images, but he doesn't and the description of the video itself confirms.
- Minerva97, SSSB Ладно, фиг с вами, спорить до посинения, нет не какого желания, файл перезалил! Новый скрин с источника с лицензией Creative Commons. Надеюсь больше претензий нет? Первую версию файла можете удалить. Niilart (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept, вот эту вторую версию можно сохранить в Викискладе. Но первую я должен удалить. Первая версия была взята из видео, которое имело в Ютубе несвободную лицензию, а второе имело свободную лицензию. First version is deleted due to failed license review, the second is kept due to successed license review. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The youtube source of the file is indeed listed as being "creative commons" but none of the images used in the video, including this one, appear to be of free use. Instead, most of the images have been taken from non-free use promotional shots and this file could very likely be of the same origin Cement4802 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Вопрос закрыли, первый вариант файла был удалён, второй оставлен, обсуждение закрыто, решение принято. Niilart (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete obvious COM:LL. The YT video is full of all kinds of F1 images of many eras, impossible to be own works by YT channel but rather used under fair-use provision. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I agree with P199, the film is licenced CC-BY-SA, but it consists of all kinds of material taken from elsewhere. So much doubt about the copyright situation of this image. It has therefore to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)