Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Sky Brown" "UPROXX"
Files found with Special:Search/"Sky Brown" "UPROXX"
[edit]Clearly a mix of footage not belonging to the uploader, not sure why User:Leoboudv approved these.
BevinKacon (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Gruban is a good uploader and the image appears to be from the series of film clips. If the film does Not belong to the uploader, then feel free to delete them. Uproxx has many videos of youtube. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- We have a nontrivial Wikipedia article about Uproxx: it's a notable website, with a professional editorial staff, and millions in funding. As the article says, and as Leoboudv writes, their specialty is making videos about news content. Just like this. It's not at all "clearly" to me that this doesn't belong to the website, and I'd like an explanation of why it is so clear to the nominator. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, one more thing. Note this video text: LOVED HER AND FOLLOWED HER AS SHE SHREDDED VENICE. Not "I got this clip from somewhere else and stuck it into my compilation video". There are a few bits from TV shows, but the screenshots that I used are Uproxx original. --GRuban (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Where to begin...
- The quality of each clip varies considerably, and are all low quality, this alone would warrant further checks
- The videos includes a footage pointed at a TV screen broadcast, which is actually not their footage, again should have raised suspicion
- the entire video is watermarked with AWSMKIDS, a quick web search leads to subjects YouTube channel, none of which are freely licensed. Why would a company watermark it with another persons watermark!?
- Looking at other uploads from UPROXX, the have other CC licensed videos mixed with promotional footage which they obviously don't own such as movies[1] and Getty Images[2]
- File:Sky Brown flip trick.jpg clearly a copy of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6lzRIujI7M 37 mark, not freely licensed
- The subjects source YouTube channel itself is filled with footage they don't own[3][4][5][6]
- The source video includes footage from an unfree TV show, where they've intentionally cropped out the watermark [7][8]
- User:Leoboudv has admitted not reviewing the file, but instead trusting the uploader.
If two license reviewers cannot see such an obvious problem, then I wonder how many other files have been incorrectly reviewed?--BevinKacon (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear BevinKacon,
I may like the uploader but I always check the Youtube license and it is free here. I am not negligent in my work. I always do my best to check/review the copyright of uploads This image was posted by the US Consulate in Germany by Mutter Erde but I notice that the copyright owner was not the US Consulate of Franfurt unlike this image and I filed a DR. The uploader is a patroller and file mover and I also like him or her but that is not the point. Like President Reagan said many times: "Trust but Verify" the license or copyright (to paraphrase him). As for UPROXX, you cite some cases where copyright washing may occur...so feel free to ask an Admin to add it to add it to a Blacklist if necessary. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Good find about the video for File:Sky Brown flip trick.jpg. I concede the point. I still don't agree with most of your list about Uproxx in general, but you have demonstrated that this does look like a compilation video, and it is not clear which, if any, parts are original. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The videos do have a small watermark so I think there is doubt if the video should be licensed freely in the first place. --MGA73 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)