Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin

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.

Files from Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin lacking permission

[edit]

This covers the following files uploaded by User:Haljackey and stated to have Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin as photographers. No permission tags have been added twice to most of them and removed by User:Floydian, in defiance of policy. Commons:Project scope#Evidence states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained." Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle states "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." An editor's say-so leaves a lot of doubt and does not answer questions such as whether permission granted just to the uploader, as in an exclusive license? Did they license images just for Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Are they aware that they'd be permitting free use for anyone, even for commercial purposes? Unless evidence of permission has been obtained in a week, these images must be deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Not only have the authors of these photos provided permission, but many of them (all the Adam Colvin photos, at the moment) are currently awaiting processing. None of the policies you've provided state that an OTRS ticket is required to validate and keep a file. Your statement that they "must be deleted" if an OTRS ticket isn't obtained is non-sense and opinion, not consensus (hence the lack of a policy). An editor saying so is assume good faith, the principal that has built our community. - Floydian (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, if no permissions are received. Bear in mind they can be restored if permissions are received at a later date. Assume good faith is a fundamental part of wiki-practice, but that does not negate the need to respect copyright. If the uploader forwards details of the release to OTRS (or provides on-wiki) then we don't accuse them of fabricating the conversation.

The problem here is all we have amounts to a "permission to use on Wikipedia", which is not a free licence by itself. This edit gives me cause for concern. The creator specified the Free Art Licence in a release, not the CC-zero it was tagged with. We need a statement from the creator explicitly stating which licence the work is licensed under. This is why the boilerplate is phrased like it is.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec) For files which have been previously published elsewhere, we typically do require an Commons:OTRS message from the actual copyright holder to confirm the license -- it is too easy to take images off the internet, and even to register a fake username to resemble the photographer (which unfortunately has happened more than once). If these photos have *not* been published elsewhere (or only at lower resolutions), that may be different, as there should be no avenue the uploader got a hold of the photos except by permission. Still, it's best to forward such permissions to OTRS so there is a record of it. Also, sometimes the actual permission is too ambiguous, or is a Wikipedia-only permission -- the license must be for all parties, not just Wikimedia, so the actual wording of the permission is important (particularly if they are specifying one of the common licenses; we cannot use a license unless explicitly specified in the permission). If the authors would like to forward specific permission to OTRS, that would be helpful as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine and dandy for two or three images... But what about several thousand? Why would anyone consider contributing (or at least not giving up half way through the process) if they have to list each and every photo. It's just as easy to pretend to be the copyright holder and obtain permissions on the anonymous internet. - Floydian (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted both authors and they seem fine with submitting an OTRS license. I just don't like the fact that if I upload another image from them I need to get them to fill out another OTRS form. Once a user is trusted by a photographer to upload their works, that should always be the case. What if hundreds of photos are involved like Floydian stated? The full resolution images are only available from these authors as the full resolution images are not available anywhere on the net. Haljackey (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can give a generic bulk release easily enough, for instance for "all photos uploaded to this website", "on that disc I gave to X", "the pics I took of highways in 2009", or even "for user Y to upload anything of mine that he wants", this translates to the specific. We have to respect the copyright holder's rights and make sure we do not go beyond what they actually give. If you ask me for permission to use 1 photo in a set and I say yes, it does not mean you can use the entire set - I've only given you permission for that one image, and I might not want you to use the others. If you get permission to use that set, it doesn't mean you have permission to use any of my other pictures.
OTRS isn't strictly necessary for any of this, but its the simplest way to provide record (it could also be posted to the file talk pages for example).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can give blanket permission for any images uploaded by a particular uploader, or something like that. They don't have to name every single one. Once that is done, then we know that user is fine to upload such photos. If the permission is sent to OTRS, then the same OTRS ticket can be tagged on all images. As Nilfanion says, bulk permission (even for future uploads) can be specified in any number of other ways as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should now have a confirmation email from Mathew Campbell. Not sure why Adam Colvin only mentioned those two photos... he was really confused when I emailed him. I don't want to heckle him any further about this if I don't need to. Haljackey (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket 2011041510011986 is from a Mathew Campbell. As I started the deletion request I've recused myself from handling the ticket. If approved by another OTRS volunteer, it should take care of the status of some of the above files. – Adrignola talk 00:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I really don't want to bother these guys any more about the issue. Is this enough confirmation to show that the authors trust me and acknowledge that their photos are are on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons via my account? As for licensing, I don't think they understand how it works. I suggest using the default/recommended licensing? (Multi licence with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL) for all their work unless they let me know otherwise. Haljackey (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If the authors have given authorization, but no licence, they don't care. Use the default CC-by-sa 3.0. I'm getting back into the mindset that I should just upload all of my images to enwiki and spare authors this bullshit bureaucratic process. Yes, it is frustrating. No, you have no intention of changing it or making it easier. Yes, more and more editors are becoming disgusted by commons. No, we are not making good use of our time by getting our panties in knots over this copyright sensitivity. Good day. - Floydian (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "You can use this image on Wikipedia" and "Anyone can use this image for any purpose" - the second is what we require. It can be frustrating explaining the difference between the two, It is also what is required for en.wikipedia-hosted images, unless fair use is applicable (it wouldn't be in this case), that is why w:Template:Permission is a speedy. A copyright license is effectively a legal contract, and we cannot get a license without explicit consent. "Is it ok if I use that photo on Wikipedia?" "Yes" is not a release. "Is it ok if I license that photo as CC-by-sa, so that I can use it on Wikipedia" "yes" is a release. You cannot choose the license for them, unless they explicitly authorize you do so.
To quote w:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission: "The main legal thing that is important to explain to potential contributors: they would be agreeing that their picture (or text) can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which the contributor is not entitled to royalties or compensation".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a given. Nobody is stupid enough to think that contributing to wikipedia means its only valid on wikipedia. Stop treating our contributors as donkeys. - Floydian (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not necessarily a given and that's the problem unfortunately. If a release does not explicitly say these things, you cannot implicitly assume it says what you want it to mean. "Can I use this on Wikipedia" is asking if you can use it in one place, that's very different to also allowing MegaBucks corp to use it in an advert - a release under a free license allows both and a simple yes to that question doesn't indicate they understand MegaBucks will be allowed to exploit it too.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but Wiki is not MegaBucks. It is well understood by people who use the internet that wikipedia is for free content, and when you say "release your photos", it means allowing their use for whatever purpose. You (as a photographer with a creative license on your work) are effectively giving the uploader the permission to licence your photo as they please. - Floydian (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not well understood. If you were in the OTRS trenches you'd encounter the many emails that state that permission is granted to Wikipedia and not anyone else. Some emails state that images can only be used noncommercially. Many uploaders do state that photos are their own work. They may or may not be telling the truth. But files that are put through the OTRS system are held to a higher standard. It's not simply the uploader saying they're under a specific license; it's trusted volunteers vouching as third parties that files are in the free and clear. If we were to ever adopt your position, the concept of the OTRS system would be entirely undermined and Commons would become a den of copyright violations at most and questionably-licensed files at the least. I've had quite a few commercial users write in to the Commons queue (separate from the permissions queue) inquiring as to whether they can reuse content at Commons. Without the OTRS permission system I would not be able to state to them with confidence that they can. You've stated that we should trust uploaders. Well, there's another saying: "trust, but verify". – Adrignola talk 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to repeat everything fifty times here? Floydian, if you disagree with how Commons handles copyright, you can talk to the general counsel and persuade him that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is allowable for images here. Otherwise, please stop arguing.
I was at first AGFing that you genuinely did not know what the policy was, but now it's beginning to look like you're deliberately trying to ignore policy. What we can and cannot have, copyright-wise, can be determined by the WMF's lawyers, not your say-so. Again, please contact the damn general counsel, and please stop complaining about these images' acceptability. You've been told multiple times why you are wrong and continuing to claim that the vague licensing under which these images are released is acceptable, is unacceptable in itself. ←fetchcomms 01:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just go back to uploading images to en wiki, and let some other editor deal with the copyright problems here. There has still only been piecemeal policy provided, and really if this is the case than the damn general counsel should smarten up and make it more clear, being a lawyer and all. I'm not a lawyer, and neither are the photographers that donate images at my request. I'm not participating in this bullshit, and I'm not continuing to subject generous people to it either. - Floydian (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same rules and procedures apply on en, for the same reasons. {{No permission since}} here is identical to w:Template:Di-no permission, so you can't avoid OTRS by uploading there. The use of that template is governed by en's CSD F11, initial discussion on that is at w:Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 30#Proposal - new Image criterion: no permission. I'm sure there's more in the archives there, and if F11 bothers you, you could start a discussion on Wikipedia: You might prefer to talk about it there, given your current feelings towards Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

[edit]

I will contact the photographers again asking what license they want to use. For OTRS, what is the best license to use to best attribute the authors? Is it the default/recommended Multi licence with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GDFL, copyrighted but may be used for any use including commercially, or something else? I'll also ask Adam Colvin to provide OTRS for his other photos here. I think they're really confused with this process so I appreciate your patience on this issue. Is an email to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org simply indicating the license for the respective author good enough? I want to make sure all the bases are covered this time so we don't need to drag this out any further. My thanks in advance! Haljackey (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Campbell got back to us with licensing terms. I have crossed out the files that are no longer lacking permission from the copyright holder. – Adrignola talk 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: the part still without a valid permission Jcb (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_Mathew_Campbell_and_Adam_Colvin&oldid=53942423"