Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel

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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 1

What says the 2013 OTRS permission, please?

Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Each person its job, please: you should tell us, you are the uploader after all. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Jeff G.-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2019 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 2

Any evidence that they are photos by an employee of the Office of the Speaker as part of that person’s official duties. Besides uploader states Nancy Pelosi as creator but she ios obviously not.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, this is an "an official Twitter (social media) account of the Speaker". No matter it is a selfie or not, the image is still in PD. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info false author info: the images does not seem to be selfies. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Pending further information. You cannot simply take a photo from an official twitter account, or even from a .gov website or an official government report unless you can demonstrate that the photo was the work of a US federal employee and taking that photo was part of their official duties. At the very least, this normally requires some form of clear attribution. GMGtalk 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ridiculous. If it is the case, then all images from Twitter/Facebook/Instagram of the US Government have to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't know who took the picture, then we don't know whether they are public domain. This image was posted the same day on the Facebook page for Gavin Newsome. Was it taken by a staffer for Pelosi, a staffer for Newsome, an employee of the Democratic party (not a government employee at all) or any other person present at the governor's association conference taking place at the time? If the photographer was actually associated with either Pelosi or Newsome, were they a paid employee or were they an unpaid intern? Unpaid interns are not employees and their works are not public domain. Unless we know who took the picture we have no way of knowing whether the image is public domain.
Pelosi (or more likely some intern or low-level staffer) has apparently posted hundreds (thousands?) of images on her twitter account, and there is no guarantee that she understands copyright law, or has thoroughly inspected the nature of the image with regard to it's copyright status. Government websites and social media accounts regularly post content either under fair use, or (like 90% of people on the internet) without regard to copyright whatsoever. Because of that merely appearing in one of these outlets is not sufficient to determine the copyright status of the work. GMGtalk 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unpaid interns working for Congress should fall under PD-USGov. It's still a work for hire, paid or not, I'm pretty sure -- it is part of duties ordered by the employer. I think my best look at that question is here, where agency law still applies to volunteers. (I think Congress is about to make sure that interns get paid going forward, anyways.) All of these photos are of people visiting Washington, where the Congressional staffers are most likely to be present. People operating official Twitter accounts for senators or representatives should have a reasonably clear idea of copyright. It would make sense that such a photo would be supplied to the visiting California governor (and would be PD-CAGov if taken by his staffers anyways). Yes, it's always theoretically possible that someone else took such a photo, but those do not seem to be reasonable doubts, and the usual assumption by publishing on official government sites is that such works are treated as PD-USGov even if it was not technically that way prior. I would certainly treat elements being published on official Twitter accounts the same thing as being published on their governmental website. If there is a strong indication that a particular photo was taken by someone else, please nominate that one individually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to volunteers, Community for Creative Non-Violence specifically examining copyright, stated that among the reasons Reid was not considered an employee (and retained the copyright to his work) was because the organization did not pay his payroll taxes, provide any benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance, and in fact, the court simply presumed method of payment as one of the essential determining factors in defining employment (not whether he was paid, but how he was paid).
Regardless, the onus is not on me to provide a strong indication that it was taken by someone else; the onus is on the uploader to demonstrate the content is in the public domain. Whether it was published on this Twitter account simply has no bearing on US copyright law any more than the person depicted does. The only thing US copyright law cares about it who created the work. If someone wants to demonstrate that this image is public domain, then they should email Pelosi's office and ask who the creator was. Otherwise, the only way we keep it is by simply throwing COM:PCP out the window. GMGtalk 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That specific court case says that agency law determines "employee", and Reid was determined to be an independent contractor instead of employee by that definition. Agency law however says that:
(a) an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work, and
(b) the fact that work is performed gratuitously does not relieve a principal of liability.
So it is not the lack of payment that determines employee, but other conditions. The court case primarily said, Reid engages in a skilled occupation; supplied his own tools; worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from Washington; was retained for a relatively short period of time; had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work in order to meet his deadline; and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants. In other words, it depends on how much control the employer has over them; it is a distinction between "employee" and "independent contractor". Congressional interns are not independent contractors, as the employer has as much control over their activities as paid employees. Reid was paid, but in the manner of a contractor, not employee.
COM:PCP is for *signficant* doubts, not just theoretical possibilities. These do not qualify, in my opinion. We allow claims of "own work" all the time, even though those are similarly not proven. For a DR, someone needs to supply a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The significant doubt is that we do not know who the author is and we regularly delete modern works where the author is unknown. Posting on the twitter account merely tells us who the author might be and who might be able to tell us. GMGtalk 16:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just completely disagree. Stuff posted to congressional websites is presumed to be PD-USGov all the time. We do not need to identify the photographer's name in every case. For works where we don't even know the source of initial publication, absolutely unknown authors create significant doubts. Not the case here. Where we do know the place of initial publication, and no author is named, that is then "anonymous" and different laws can apply which we then use. For PD-USGov, the distinction is irrelevant. If it's overwhelmingly likely to be done by a staffer (paid or otherwise), that is generally enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." GMGtalk 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That part of PCP is for a completely different situation than this. Again, that policy is for significant doubts as to copyright status. We don't require the actual employee name on every PD-USGov upload we have -- by your logic we should delete them if we don't. We don't require that "own work" uploads identify who they are -- user accounts are just as anonymous, and the "own work" claim is assumed there. If further information comes up -- such as the existence of an "own work" photo elsewhere on the net (and especially with a differently-named author), or (in this case) the appearance of the photo elsewhere which would indicate it was not PD-USGov, then we nominate then. But we have to make some assumptions on nearly every upload. Stuff like this is far more likely to be OK than an "own work" upload, and at that point it's not worth forcing uploader to come up with unreasonable detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of course, yes, content tagged as PD-USGov needs to have sufficient information about authorship to determine that it was the work of a US government employee. Ideally, that is done like this (U.S. Navy photo by Erik Hildebrandt/Released) or this (Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA) or this (Air Force Staff Sgt. Jordan Castelan). If you don't have this information then you do not know the copyright status of the work and merely taking it from a government website is not a guarantee of authorship. GMGtalk 18:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for me. The official Twitter accounts are generally done by staff, i.e. employees of the government. The photos in question above look to be of the type made by staffers. A claim of "Nancy Pelosi" of author is really just claiming it came from her staff, realistically. While it's theoretically possible for these to be photos taken from outside sources, I don't think that rises to a reasonable doubt per COM:PRP at least for the ones above. We would not have any issue if they were published to a .gov website, and I don't see why official Flickr accounts would have a different assumption. If some aspect of the photo makes it more likely it came from a non-USGov source, that could be reason to question the license, but all of the above look to be situations where her staffers would be present. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Carl and caution A1Cafel to stop alleging false author info.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second Carl Lindberg's points. These five photos were taken with phones by someone that is most probably the staff. A challenge is possible only if for example it is shown to be (almost) identical to a non-staff person's photo. Or for example https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1159919184127692800 is obviously not a work of Pelosi's staff.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cluttered up this DR enough already, but if someone reuses this in their book or website, I have serious doubts that "probably staff" is going to give them much comfort if they get threatened with a lawsuit. GMGtalk 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for any "own work" upload, which is far more likely to be a problem than this. As Commons:General disclaimer basically says, nothing here is guaranteed so re-users should look at the evidence provided and determine their own comfort level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 3

Missing EXIF informations + photographer's watermarks on files.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2019 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 4

https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/gandhi-downing-street?family=editorial&phrase=Gandhi%20Downing%20Street&sort=mostpopular#license

Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: May you explain what {{PD-India}} has to do with British pictures? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were a bunch of photographers standing around making photos of that scene. So each different photo can have its own copyright status, depending on where it was first published (probably which company the photographer worked for) and the like. Some of those may have been first published in India (or some other country who had correspondents there taking pictures), and some may have been simultaneously published in many countries. So, we need to track down sources, and unfortunately some of these are all over the net. Many are probably PD today, but some are probably not.
The first one above can be found here, with a credit of "J Gaiger" of the Topical Press Agency, whose archives were bought by Getty. That looks like a raw source version. So, probably first published in the UK, and with a named author it's not PD-UK-unknown meaning we would need to know the death date. That was discussed a decade ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg and was deleted due to lack of information. Maybe we could find more info now, but it would seem as though Getty would indeed hold the copyright if it still exists, and it's not just a PD picture that Getty is claiming ownership of (which does happen).
The second one, yes it's on Getty here. They claim a source of "Daily Herald Archive/SSPL". There is another copy here with a claimed copyright owner of "Camera Press". It's been on covers of books too. There is an SSPL source here, where they say the source is a gelatin print. So they are likely claiming copyright ownership because they own a print that was distributed in 1931. If anything, they can only claim copyrights on that particular scan, and probably valid in the UK at most (if even there). But, not sure who the source of the original print was. If it was anonymous UK, then it's PD-UK-unknown today. If it was also simultaneously published in the U.S., it would avoid the URAA as well (if not, it would be Not-PD-US-URAA until 2027). Sure feels like most of the world is treating it as PD, but not sure we know the true source either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: based on the analysis by Carl. In the second case the PCP applies due to the uncertainty. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:22, 14 January 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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 5

Commons:Derivative works from posters.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:56, 23 March 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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 6

Commons:Derivative works from posters.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per User:A1Cafel comment above. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 18 March 2021 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 7

where does it say that the twitter account is also covered by OGL?

RZuo (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep UK government Twitter channels become archived at the end of the year at nationalarchives.gov.uk, when they become explicitly OGL3. See webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk for this one. You could argue that the link to to the number10.gov.uk website on the Twitter author page, which website also explicitly has the OGL 3.0 license, is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. users should specify that the video became ogl by way of being included in the archives like https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/twitter/10DowningStreet/post/bd72bc8e-963d-11ec-b845-62848c3126f2/video , though. i dont agree that the licence on another website can be interpreted as covering twitter, unless someone can find ogl websites in which twitter posts are somehow embedded. RZuo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly not, though you know the contents will definitely become OGL at the end of the year, so it's arguing over technicalities and timing. If the same content is on the website then it's definitely fine, but unsure if it was on the website when uploaded. It would be helpful if they mentioned a licensing statement on the Twitter author page, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Are we sure the music in the background is freely licensed? I agree that it would appear to be under the OGL, but I don't think the U.K. government can extinguish the copyright of a music recording just by placing an excerpt in a video that they then post to social media. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you're right. it seems to be the first 40s of "Music Of Filmmaker - My Lord - Song by Yarin Primak" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQOI_2Anfs . i didnt watch the video beyond a few seconds initially.
difficult to isolate and remove the music. muting it renders the video useless.  Delete.
the footage of bojo speaking is from house of commons, though. so it's actually possible to find those raw footage. RZuo (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2023 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 8

No FOP in South Africa.

Edelseider (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I hate giving an answer to this because I am against deleting South African images on Commons for FOP reasons as the law in South Africa is in the process of changing to include a FOP copyright exception. If I had to give an answer it would be... maybe, bridges might (but if so then perhaps not always) also exceed COM:TOO. I have a vague recollection of photographs of South African bridges on Commons having being deleted in the past. That's why copyright exceptions tend to use the term "public works" dropping the term "art" or some other word that might imply creativity so as to be as broad as possible. Also because the law recognizes that it is not a good judge of what is "art" or not but instead tries to use tests for novelty in patents and creativity (or "sweat of the brow" intellectual work that does not plagiarize) for copyright. However, it must be noted that many bridges, it can be convincingly argued, are effectively simple objects consisting of geometric shapes. In this interpretation bridges that do not have a decorative facade would not be copyrightable but ones with such a facade would be. The same would be true of buildings. I can get a legal opinion on this later this week as I am no IP law scholar. Then I can give a better answer. Either way I can see this falling into a gray area.--Discott (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:27, 25 November 2023 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 9

Duplicates.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Always the same problem with A1Cafel using Flickr2Commons without due diligence. He has been told so many times to avoid creating duplicates, which is in fact very easy: stay away from Flickr2Commons, use the Upload Wizard instead. @Jmabel: this raises again the question of the usefulness of F2C (see [1]). --Edelseider (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: If they are duplicates, why a DR instead of {{Duplicate}} to speedy-delete them? - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment matter was discussed at Commons talk:Flickr2Commons#Duplicates 2 but it seems no one takes this thing seriously. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it very seriously and have raised it multiple times in the past. There is only so much you can do when the designer of this tool doesn't fix it. F2C is responsible for millions of duplicates that have appeared and been deleted here over the years. It's also very helpful when it is used properly. Edelseider (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Looks like they were already converted to redirects. —holly {chat} 21:08, 16 November 2023 (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 uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Duplicates.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already redirected. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_A1Cafel&oldid=864475455"