Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by John LLoyd

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 in Category:Images by John LLoyd

[edit]

Images are from an ad or are obviously not taken by Flickr uploader

Elisfkc (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment A few of these images may fall under {{PD-1923}}. Others may fall under {{PD-US-1978-89}}, {{PD-1996}}, or {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}, but since the Flickr uploader did not upload the entire publication that the image is from, we cannot be sure that a copyright claim is made elsewhere in the publication. It is also likely that I missed some other files that should be nominated. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Withdraw this DR please. Far too many images above are public domain by age and clearly of educational value as well, for example the 1905 collection. Other images such as this drawing from an 1858 expedition are so clearly public domain and not an advert, nobody could possibly justify Elisfkc's mass DR as being appropriate or non-disruptive. It seems highly likely they did not bother to actually /look/ at the images before raising them for mass deletion on false grounds. --Fæ (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: While I understand your point, it seems silly to withdraw this DR. I did look over nearly all of them, but it is likely I failed to deselect some when there are more than 1300 files nominated. Out of the 1300 or so, there are maybe 50 that are obvious public domain. It would be easier to point out the ones that are public domain (I will happily support keeping these so-called obvious public domain images) and keep this DR so we can delete the rest. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a breathtakingly bad answer. You create a huge DR of 1300+ images, you have not looked through them properly, you admit it includes public domain images that should never be deleted, then you make it anybody else's problem to ensure a proper review. No, you don't get to do that. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: I just released that all of the ones that you uploaded shouldn't have been in here at all. Somehow, they got pulled into the Category:Images by John LLoyd, even though they have nothing to do with said Flickr uploader. I will withdraw those ones (if not right now, sometime later today). --Elisfkc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the DR please, then do the spadework properly, and consider creating a new one at that time. --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever of these files may be public domain should be listed with such a license rather than the one applied by John Lloyd at Flickr. If not, delete them. And better delete them quick, before they start seeing use in articles. To me the problem seems to be nearly all of the images thoughtlessly uploaded by Artix Kreiger 2. S/he should truly be made to understand that uploading files from Flickr requires a modicum of judgment and intelligence.
A number of files are also incorrectly included in this list, as they are clearly JL's own work (anything with Washington state license plates is probably fine). Here are a few that should be immediately removed from the discussion:
Thank you. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: , I'm right here and I am a he. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As a whole; it's simply way too large to handle and contains obviously public domain works. And the majority of them are probably public domain, as US works that either lacked copyright (particularly ads) or renewal. The Alquist catalog, for instance, is PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep While I agree in sorting this all out and that the status of advertisement images is tricky to work with, this collective DR request is too big, potentially allowing for mistakes. I also feel that the three PD templates cover a large majority of these image files. On a side note, most all of these images are Flickr images that were uploaded to the Commons by various users. In that process, images have to be properly licensed (non-commercial use, etc.) or they will be blocked from upload in the first place; in other words, if it was licensing on the Flickr end, these files would not have collected to this point. --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Artix Kreiger just popped up here (thanks!) - I feel that the responsibility to sort this mess out is his - there may be some problematic files uploaded by others but it looks as if the lion's share were uploaded by his bot only very recently. All the best to all involved, it feels that we are all working towards the same goal, we should remember that. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a bot. Its mass uploads through an automated tool. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the decision on this mass upload is, I'm ready, willing, and able to remove them from the "Unidentified automobiles" category, because the identities of these vehicles are so obvious. Is anyone else willing to do so? ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: , raises hand. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Community consensus. ~riley (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 in Category:Images by John LLoyd

[edit]

Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA).

Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why.

If the manner in which these images have been nominated (i.e. bulk nomination) is objected to, please explain why- and how it would be preferable to solve this problem instead- and close the nomination. (Reference to a generalised discussion or reference page where such issues have been already thrashed out and a community consensus arrived at would be useful if it already exists).

I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately.

Edit; I wasn't aware of this, but I now notice that there has been a previous nomination for uploads by this user.

Ubcule (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those in use deserve to be examined more fully than deleting on sus.
Checking up, there only seem to be 3 of these anyway:
File Usage
File:1950 Gutbrod Superior Kleinwagen (5466224677).jpg 1
File:1952 Lloyd (31792496790).jpg 1
File:1958-59 Lloyd LT600 extended station wagon (21455621071).jpg 1
--Fæ (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Flicrkwashing concern appears valid. The files that are in use are used trivially (in galleries), but I reviewed them per Fae's request. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 in Category:Images by John LLoyd

[edit]

Continuation of my previous nomination(*) of images that are under dispute because they appear to be scans of magazines and brochures (i.e. not Lloyd's own work as claimed). Same rationale applies:-

"Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA)."
"Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why."
"I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately."

This nomination includes a few images "traced" by the author (i.e. derivative), but vast bulk are still brochures/magazine scans.

Some images below were included in an earlier deletion request from Elisfkc (talk · contribs) in 2018 and not deleted then. My understanding is they were retained then due to that nomination (not mine) being too broad and closed early, not because they had necessarily been deemed legitimate. (If ~riley (talk · contribs) (who closed that request) wants to confirm this, that would be great).

(*) Note: I'd intentionally not added all images under dispute then as I'd wanted to be sure that bulk request was acceptable in that case.

Ubcule (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these, File:Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg (1937), may be old enough to keep as PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}
These mass DRs suppress a lot of good content. Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: - I already made clear why I felt a bulk nomination was justified. It's completely unreasonable to expect an asymmetric effort on our side in response to a quick-and-dirty bulk upload because the orignal uploader (who the onus was on) didn't bother to correctly check and indicate the license in the first place.
You're an experienced editor, and I assume I don't need to explain why Commons operates on the basis of "required to explain why free in the first place" rather than "assumed free and kept until proven otherwise".
You complain about this bulk nomination, but I see no evidence that you (or anyone else) made the effort to do any of this beforehand. Which is essentially my point.
As I said, "it is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them to indicate why."
"Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list."
You are welcome to do so if you're willing to put the effort in to confirm that and to label them correctly as such. Thank you,
Ubcule (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The example file has been hosted since 2018. It is public domain. It should not be deleted.
There are high risk copyvios, zero risk and very low risk. Nobody is going to lose an eye by failing to delete everything on this zero to very low risk list before a volunteer gets around to looking at them. A proportionate approach does not invalidate precautionary principle it just makes it pragmatic. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: "Nobody is going to lose an eye". That argument could apply to pretty much everything here, so... your point is?
This has the ring of the "oh, the copyright owner probably won't care about it" attitude. Towards which our response is essentially, "yes, but we do".
You're probably more experienced with knowing what is and isn't PD than I am. But since neither you nor anyone else bothered to indicate that reasoning on those images in the first place, this wasn't clear. As I said, you're welcome to put the effort into fixing this if you wish, but we're not operating on the basis of "assumed free until proven otherwise".
I'll also draw your attention to the fact that the images were nominated for deletion (i.e. prior discussion) rather than marked as copyvios for instant deletion. Again, this gives you the opportunity to fix things up if you feel strongly about it.
Ubcule (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a different process than DR for situations like this? Something, with a noticeboard, where such batches can be listed for review, rather than for immediate deletion? I'm reminded of some railway batch uploads also from Artix Krieger where we had to do something similar, and fortunately avoided a pointless DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: The problem with bulk uploads is that if they're done sloppily (i.e. with the uploader not doing their due diligence in the first place) they have the potential to require a hugely asymmetric effort from others to fix.
I intentionally didn't nominate all the images last time because I wasn't 100% sure that a DR was the ideal solution. Since everyone seemed to consider that broadly acceptable, and no-one else suggested a better way, I finished it off properly this time round.
But ultimately, if we're going to allow bulk uploads, there probably *should* be ways more suited to dealing with them without an asymmetry of effort on our part.
It's just that I wasn't aware of such a solution at present; if there is, no-one's suggested it so far. Ubcule (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 "Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. / {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}" Came across here because of the Simca-Fulgur pics. Compare this story. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for American ads. Pretty much all of these American ads have no notice, making it PD. It seems these Commons "copyright police" do a lot more harm than good, nitpicking files and mixing in PD photos, wasting others' time and such. This keeps going on and on and hasn't been slowing down at all. Enough already. CutlassCiera 18:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: - If you're asserting that they're public domain for X, Y or Z reason, then label them as such rather than not bothering, then complaining here. That's how Commons is supposed to work. End of story. We're not required to "know" why an incorrectly-labelled image is likely public domain if the uploader, yourself or others (who want to keep them) haven't even bothered to explain why.
I waited a year after the previous nomination, which must would have drawn this user's uploads to peoples' attention. A year in which no-one (yourself included) did anything to fix the remaining images... and yet you're calling people like me the "copyright police"?
(See also my reply to Fæ below.) Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as default. Another sloppy DR has wasted volunteer time. If the nominator is struggling to create a DR that can restrict itself to copyright violations but is creating unnecessary long lists which randomly include public domain content, they need to stop. No more of this time sink please, it's not hard to filter for blatant copyvios, it's actually pretty easy for anyone prepared to use standard search and VFC. Blanket huge DRs are damaging and easily avoided. Note this is the fourth time some of these same files have been put up for deletion in a massive DR. The files below need extra careful attention as they are in use.
# File Usage Non-core
1 1950 at LeMans (1).jpg 3
2 1950s Thomas Built Buses model line illustration.jpg 2
3 1957 Chevrolet school bus model line.jpg 1
4 1969 Barracuda Junior (29737043853).jpg 1
5 Brazilian Chevrolet 1985 Double Cabin (4183147558).jpg 1
6 Datsun (8170412687).jpg 1
7 Dodge by Volkswagen (7611901084).jpg 1
8 Ford Pampa (4200743891).jpg 2
9 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4284981927).jpg 1
10 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4285725474).jpg 1
11 JEEP Dispatcher assembly line (5453869248).jpg 1
12 Leukoplastbomber (23623345841).jpg 1
13 Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg 2
14 Opel Junior.jpg 7
15 Postwar Holden Built Cars (3152885718).jpg 2
16 Simca Fulgur 1958 (3593990695).jpg 2 1
17 Spatz Victoria in USA (13968097278).jpg 1
18 Suzulight 1959 (5143706221).jpg 1
19 Voisin Biscooter (5533425711).jpg 1
20 Zündapp Janus (2306282524).jpg 2

--Fæ (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: - The only "sloppy" thing here was the uploader's bulk importation of images without due care in the first place and the general "oh, it'll do" attitude.
Commons' policy is not "upload anything of dubious copyright status then expect someone else to sort out the mess later".
I intentionally nominated the images collectively as it was clear the entire upload was questionable. Nominating individually would have created a huge number of requests. (And I suspect would not have been appreciated by others, least of all yourself.)
There has to be a line drawn where a sloppy bulk upload done with little effort- which would otherwise require a hugely asymmetric amount of work to fix- has to be treated in a similar manner.
There's no onus on anybody to carry out that work, regardless... at least, not unless that other person is the one fighting to have them kept, as you are.
If you disagreed and wanted to keep the remainder of this user's images, you had the opportunity to correctly label them after each of the previous two nominations. You're claiming they're public domain? Good. Why haven't you put in the (not unreasonable) effort it would have taken to label them as such?
You've criticised me despite the fact I waited a whole year before my second nomination of the remainder of the images. A year in which nothing happened.
It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it, or maybe you just don't care about "sloppily" labelled uploads?
Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Delete all. To check all images by hand loads too much work on our limited resources. I consider the damage done by unlawfully uploaded images, inlcuding the risk of fines or penalties for outside use of the material larger then the damage that some articles are devoid of an image. In addition, we have a policy for this: COM:PRP. Images may be deleted where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file. Because of the behavior of the uploader, this doubt is present. Elly (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most of them per nomination, except for one that had been previously kept as PD-no notice and a few that seemed to be actually scans of the Flickr user's own old photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_by_John_LLoyd&oldid=606029945"