Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Christopher Vose

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 Christopher Vose (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am the creator of these images and hereby request that they be deleted as they have been used without attribution on Wikipedia multiple times in direction violation of the permissions I listed.

Christopher Vose (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution is Wikicommons. Mr. Vose is under the assumption that we have to include his name in the caption below each image when it is used on Wikipedia. If the English football project is incorrect that it does not need to be present, please comment. I also recognize that Mr. Vose wishes to remove his images from the commons may go beyond how they are being used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gorlitz is one of multiple people who used the above images without attributing them to the creator, Christopher Vise, as indicated in the permissions of each image. He admitted his wrong doing on Wikipedia's football project. To avoid any further misuse, I again request that they be removed entirely. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012
When my understanding was that attribution had to be included on Wikipedia projects, beside the photos, I agreed that they should be present. Now that I have been informed that this is not necessary, I have no issue with using them without placing Mr. Vose's name next to them. Ultimately, the questions are twofold:
  1. Does attribution have to be provided when used on Wikipedia?
  2. Can the person who gave the images to Wikicommons remove them from the commons?
I believe that they may be used on English Wikipedia based on this understanding, at least until they are removed from Wikicommons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Gorlitz, you are using my work against my expressed wishes. Is tht ethical or moral? Furthermore, you are using them against the stated permissions? On what basis are you suggesting that you can do that? The discussion that you previously created has since been removed, or moved to some hidden away place where I am unable to read it, or comment upon it. To anyone reading this who is capable, please do as I have asked and remove my work from this site so that Mr. Gorlitz can no longer misuse my work or harass me. He has created a great deal of stress upon me, insulted me on numerous occassions, and I wish to have no further communication wih him, but he follows me electronically everywhere I go, and deliberately misuses my work. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 12:23 PM PST
I am not using your work against your expressed wishes. Your wishes are contradict the terms under which you released your images.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted, it was unintentional if it happened on my part.
I'm sorry for your stress. I am not following you. You happen to be working on pages that are on my watch list because I watch almost every article related to the Vancouver Whitecaps and some associated with other football clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My work stipulates that it requires attribtion. You removed my attribution. I asked you not to use my work without attribution. You again used my work without attribution. I asked you not to use my work at all without attribution. You again used my work without attribution. This has been going around in circles for days now. I've asked that my work be removed so that you can no longer use it without attribution. You say that you will use it without attribution until it is removed. How is this not going against my expressed wishes?
I have been consistent, while you have a changeable personality. You have said one thing, such as that it would be unethical to use my work against my wishes, and then you use it against my wishes, and now you say that you are not using it against my wishes. You say that you are not following me. You have again posted on my talk page. You're commenting here. Everywhere I go on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you pos after me wthin hours, sometimes minutes. I do not appreciate your tone, actions, and would like no further contact with you, but I am required to defend myself and my work until such time as someone can please, mercifully, remove my work, and let me go in peace. I want nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Mr. Gorlitz has created a highly antagonistic state or me on these sites, and it is causing me considerable stress. I don't like to be bullied, harassed, or to have my work misued.
Mr. Gorlitz, please leave me alone. I say again, Mr. Gorlitz, please leave me alone.
To anyone reading this, please remove my images as soon as possible. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 1:12 PM PST
My understand has changed over time. When I removed your attribution, I felt it was self-serving and unnecessary. Then I changed to your position when I assumed that what you were saying was correct in terms of requiring your name to be presented below every instance of your image. I have since discovered that this interpretation was incorrect and so now believe that the attribution made on the image pages is sufficient. I am not hounding you, simply responding your comments. Your work is being used exactly as you requested. No bullying. No harassing. No misuse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my attribution without reading the permission section. It was only after I pointed it out that you changed your mind for the first fo several times. What makes you currently believe that what you are doing is ethical, moral, and legal? In any event, I cretaed these images, and no longer wish them to be used. That it is my understanding that they are being used inappropriately is secondary to my desire to have my work removed. -- Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 1:52 PM
I did remove your attribution without going to the commons to read your request since I have never seen this in my eight years of editing, and I found it unusual at the very least. What makes you think that your interpretation of how several editors have explained to you is incorrect and your interpretation of events correct? They are being used correctly. Your desire to remove them is based on your misunderstanding of the copyright that you originally released them under. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen one person other than yourself write that it was correct to not give attribution when permission to use an image requires attribution. I am the creator of these images and I would like them removed. I want nothing more to do with you Mr. Gorlitz. I simply want my work to be removed from this sit.
If anyone is capable, please remove my work from this site so that Mr. Gorlitz will have no reason to continue to harass me or misuse them. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 2:40 PM PST
I'm sorry you missed them. PeeJay2K3 made two such statements, and you responded to the first: [1] [2]. Reasons were presented when the editor remove your attribution from the articles. Koncorde did as well [3]. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Christopher Vose am the creator and would like for the images listed above to be removed from this site. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 2:51 PM PST
  •  Keep - The author irrevocably released these images when he uploaded them, and agreed that a hyperlink was sufficient attribution. There are no policy-based grounds for deletion because of sour grapes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I am considering all options at this time, but I will again request that these images be removed. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:30 PM PST
You disagree that there is "no policy-based grounds for deletion"? That's fine, please quote me the policy that allows images to be deleted simply because the author/uploader wants to take his ball and go home. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again ask that it be removed to avoid any further complications. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 3:55 PM PST
"I am considering all my options", "avoid any further complications". What, exactly, are you implying with these comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the Xanderliptak Case, but a cursory search indicated that he was a user banned for some reason. Did Wikipedia and Wikimedia use his work against his wishes too? Doesn't seem like much an advert, please, come, contribute, we'll use your stuff, not credit you, and then ban you for it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 6:11 PM PST
Xanderliptak uploaded a great number of heraldic images, then attempted to retroactively change the licensing on them to something that not compatible with the license he uploaded them under. In the process, he created a great deal of disruption both here and on English Wikipedia, and he was eventually banned on both projects because of it.

Your categorization of the process here is, of course, totally incorrect. "Please come, contribute, share your work with the world under these licenses that you agree to, and attribution will be via a hyperlink to the image's page, which contains your name as author." That you, apparently, didn't bother to read any of the language that told you of this is, frankly, not our problem, it's yours. You should chalk it up as a learning experience and either continue to upload images knowing now exactly what that means, or go your own way. What's not going to happen is that we're going to change how it's done here because of your oversight. You need to get over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During this dispute, I referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayelet_Zurer as precedent, where the image required atrtibution t be used. Attribution was given in the same page as the usage. It was one of several examples I have seen over the years, but saldly the only one I could remember by name. As a result of my use of that as precedent, attribution to Moti Kikayon was removed from the page that his work was used. I did my research. Unfortunately the examples I found were oversights, not precedents, or so it appears. Somehing ofa bait and switch. I find that my work can be displayed with in page attribution. I contribute. Then, suddenly attriution is no longer allowed in page. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 6:50 PM PST.
Attribution on the image mentioned above removed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is our policy at en.wikipedia that attribution by hyperlink is sufficient. This means that having the image link to the page on Commons (here) with your information on it is sufficient. If you don't think so, then I'd suggest you go reread the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported license, as it says we don't have to explicitly state your name if we hyperlink to the source (which does say your name). Gwickwire (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to Commons:Licensing, "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." Mr. Vose does not have the right to reclaim ownership of his works, after he has released them, even if he feels he has not been sufficiently attributed. They cannot be used without proper attribution, and I do not know exactly the policy regarding this (though it has been asserted numerous times that a link to the page containing attribution is enough) but I don't think that is entirely relevant to this discussion, as Mr. Vose will need more justification to have his works deleted no matter what the proper method of attribution is. Rutebega (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly asked that my work be removed from this site. I have given numerous reasons. While several have said to keep, none have given a reason to keep files agains the wishes of the creator. It's six images, that were uploaded days ago, of former Vancouver Whitcaps FC players (Atiba Harris, Dane Richards) or trialists (Jacob Lensky, Sullivan Silva, Anton Peterlin) who are not current members of the club. The sixth (Tigao Ulisses) signed a contract, but never played a single competitive match for the club during his time there. I had planned to contribute images of current members, but obviousy that won't be happening now. Why do you want to create such aninomosity regarding photos that are out of date? - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 7:34 PM PST
On the contrary, everyone who has said that images should be "kept" has done so on the basis of Commons policy, but none of your reasons have been policy-based. What you have said is that you don't want them here anymore, but what you fail to understand is that is not an acceptable reason to delete an image here. The "wishes of the creator" are irrelevant, considering that if we keep them, you're unlikely to upload any others, and if we delete them, you're unlikely to upload any others as well, so why, exactly, do you think you can twist our arms with the promise of more pictures? You had better face the facts, if you want to pursue a relationship with Commons to distribute your images, it's going to be on our terms and not yours. As I said above, if you're not interested, walk away and chalk it up to experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I made any suggestion that more images would be forthcoming. Why would I give you more of my work if you're unwilling to give me the attribution I seek and listed under permissions while adding them to this site? It seems to me that you're quite content with the situation. You have my hard work. You're claiming you don't hav to follow the permissions I outlined while adding them to your site. I'm just looking for a resolution at this point that doesn't involve me any furter aggrivation. Which is why I would like them removed. Once the are off this site, we can go our seperate ways. It's the best solution for all, and the only fair one. If you have another solution where I don't suffer, I would be most pleased to hear it. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2012, 8:01 PM PST.
Actually, what's going to happen is that we're going to keep the files you uploaded under an irrevocable license, and you're going to walk away, a little older and a little wiser. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the photographer could always file a DMCA takedown, and get an office action. why not be polite to the photographer? are these being used in articles? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have been previously published in print and on flickr. Thank you Slowking4, for your advice, and kindness. Text cannot convey how much it means to me that there is someone out there who does not seem to delight in causing me anguish over this situation. - Christopher Vose, 14 January 2013, 8:53 PM PST.
(Edit conflict) The intention is to use them in the articles of the subjects related to the images. However, the photographer claims that we are not following the license and has been edit warring over them. First to keep them in the article with his name in the caption, and more recently, to remove them because he "requested that this image be removed from Wikimedia Commons" and "please cease and decist from the possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical use of my work". The consensus of the football project appears to be to wait for the decision of this request and to either include them again if the decision is keep or leave them out if the decision is delete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no way a DCMA takedown complaint would be valid, as the author irrevocably released the images under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license at the time of uploading. Hence, no copyright, hence no DCMA, hence no office actions. :) Gwickwire (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid Slowking4 is mistaken, DCMA takedowns are for copyrighted images which have been used without the permission of the copyright holder. However in this instance, we have the copyright holder himself uploading the images under a license which is made quite clear on the upload page, so there's no question that their use is valid. There is, in fact, no loophole that the author/uploader can wriggle through in this instance. He has the choice of continuing this childish insistence that he still maintains control of the images, or we can behave like a man and realize that he fucked up, and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xanderliptak filed a DMCA takedown for his own works, and the office had to obey it, even though they knew that it was fraudulent. If the images had been good-quality photos, like these, someone probably would have filed a counterclaim and put X. in court, where the fraud would have been laid bare. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to give the game away, but since you already did... :) I got into a significant argument with certain people here, over that fraud. They apparently decided it wasn't worth bothering with, and deleted the images... along with issuing a permanent ban against Xanderliptak. Xander was trying to use commons as a way of advertising his online business, and when he wasn't allowed to do that, he raised holy hell about it. Likewise, Vose is trying to use wikipedia to get his name visible in articles. The parallels so far between that case and this one are interesting, though I'd be surprised if it's the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, much more likely it's just two people with the same motivation. The world is full of such people, more interested in their own glorification than in providing material for people to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you and me are the same way, as we likewise use our real-life names here. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't say that a DMCA claim wouldn't be problematic, merely that if he wants to have the last word he can go there and get the adult supervision. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're uploaded with free licenses by the uploader, and they don't show anything copyrightable, so there can't be any copyright-related problems with them. They've been used in WMF mainspace project pages, so they pass COM:SCOPE; please read that page's "File in use in another Wikimedia project" section if you've not already. They're good quality, and no evidence is presented that better-quality images of the same subjects exist. I can't imagine any situation in which we would delete our best images of an in-scope topic with no copyright issues; such a situation might exist, but I don't know what it would be, and this definitely isn't it. A DMCA takedown request is what Xanderliptak did, and note that this would be a felony under US federal law if Christopher tried it. Such a request includes a statement under oath that the content isn't legally hosted here, and Christopher knows quite well that its presence on Commons is legal because he put it there himself. It wouldn't be good on practical grounds, either, because (1) you'd probably get blocked for making a legal case of it, since we follow something comparable to en:WP:NLT, and (2) someone could easily file a DMCA counterclaim that would end up putting you in court and having the perjury made clear. Nyttend (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll offer one other possibility. Even though Christopher Vose doesn't have a leg to stand on, I suggest that we could possible delete the images (they're only 6 soccer players, after all) and then permanently ban Vose from ever posting here again under any name. Vose would have to agree that he understood that his ban was personal and permanent, and then he could go his own way, to find out that there's no market whatsoever for his pictures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would look at the long term consequences. Is it better to cut a little slack on six photographs and gain a thousand, or better to be a prig and drive a potential contributor away? Apteva (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apteva, please go away, your advice isn't worth a plugged nickel. Furthermore, your logic is flawed, Christopher Vose is -- quite obviously -- not in agreement with the terms applicable for uploading to Wikimedia Commons, so it's quite unlikely that we'll "gain a thousand" from him, whether or not we give him "slack". If this is an example of your understanding of logic, it's not surprising to me that you're currently in a heap of trouble on en.wiki, with your appeal to ArbCom on the verge of being declined, and discussion on ANI going against you. My suggestion is that you fuck off, and learn a thing or two before you come back --- that will serve this project much better than your current uninmformed bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think his logic is sound. Leave the images as they are, and you have a disgruntled contributor who holds a grudge against Wikimedia. Remove them, and over time the negativity will fade and I may consider re-uploading them and / or different images down the road. I make no promises, but time heals all wounds. As you said, I am a little wiser for this experience and know more about the process, what's involved, and what kind of credit I an expect. The only thing guaranteed is that if they are left permnently, against my wishes, then it will take longer for this incident to be forgotten, if ever. Remove them, and I have no further concern, nothing left to fester. - Christopher Vose, 15 January 2013, 12:25 AM PST.
Christopher Vose, you have clearly shown in every opinion you have expressed here that you have absolutely no concern for the Commons, and just want to get your own own way. You are, quite obviously, one completely selfish person, who has no consideration whatsoever for the greater good, and just wants what he wants. That's why I have two suggestions as to what should be done
  • (1) Keep your photographs in our repository, because you uploaded them with an irrevocable license, and tell you to fuck off, or
  • (2) Delete your photographs, because you're an asshole who's taken up more time than he's worth, and tell you to fuck off.
As you may have perceived, the common ground here is that you should fuck off, because, frankly, you're not worth the time we're spending on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would say the realistic options are these:
  1. The images are kept and used under the license, with no caption attribution, with or without the author's consent
And... I can't think of anything else. Does anybody have a better option? We could ban Mr. Vose from the commons as BMK suggested, but I don't think it would accomplish much. The images can legally be used with only a link to the attribution, and there's no real reason not to use them since they're good. Oh, and we all know where this discussion is headed. Is there a snowball clause on commons? Rutebega (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes what wonderful AGF: if you tell the world to fuck off, the world says the same to you. if you bite all the newbies, who will upload the football players, Shankbone alone? i spend a lot of time counseling expert editors who have been bitten, but i can't keep up with you all. how many pissed off photo uploaders are there? thousands? how many photos not in articles, which means the articles are worse off? more time than he's worth? i salute your omniscience. is it too much to ask to bend the rules to placate a newbie, and dispense with this wall of text drama fest? who is one in this case who has a history of edit warring? Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about Slowking4? You want more photos, well so do I, but that's got nothing to do with this situation. The guy's already said he wants his photos deleted, he's already said he's not going to upload any more. AGF of what? That he's going to change his mind? Maybe we should prostrate ourselves at his feet and lick his toenails while we're at it, maybe them he'll honor us with more photographs of soccer players no one's ever heard of? Screw that, let him walk away and think three or four times the next time he uploads something. Maybe when he's a little more mature, and a little wiser, he might come back - I couldn't care one way or the other, and I can't see into the future any better than you can. What I can see is someone who wants to break his contract with us because he's pissed that we won't do things the way he wants. Start down that road and you put every single image here at risk of being pulled -- you don't want that, and neither do I. That's why we have to stick to the contractual terms. Vose uploaded those images here, and unless someone comes up with some policy-based reason why they should be deleted, they should stay here. I'm not interested in any of his other pictures, but I am interested in the integrity of this repository, which, by giving in to Vose, you would put at risk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what the hell i'm talking about is dropping the f-bomb, because you're irritated by a newbie. great, the slippery slope; policy trumps civility; "Maybe when he's a little more mature," maybe when you're a little more mature, we can have a civil discussion about your toxic attitude's harm upon the project. have you given any thought as to why there is an editor decline? why is it there is a spike of new editors during WLM, only when the screwed up upload process is streamlined, and photo subjects pre-screened. this history demonstrates the opportunity cost of the present toxic culture, as exemplified by your comments. if we want to cultivate new editors it will require civil interaction, til then the plateau (decline) will continue. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "irritated by a newbie", I'm irritated by someone (anyone) attempting to use us to promote themselves and then digging in their heels and vaguely threatening legal action when they're told that they can't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in part with what you say: civility is not an unreasonable expectation.
However the only type of editor (content provider) that we will be losing if we don't enforce the copyright rules is more self-seeking editors. If we draw the line in the sand now, any other photographers who want to make a name for themselves may continue to do so elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia. Based on the number of photographs of footballers or soccer players that are uploaded, I don't think we'll be losing out by refusing contributions from this sort of editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor..." comes right out of the CC licensing statement. WP may want to alter its image use and attribution practices in this regard.204.128.192.34 15:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Gwickwire's comment: the license says we don't have to explicitly state your name if we hyperlink to a source that attributes you properly. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the anon wants it clarified to avoid this sort of discussion in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a little murky. On the face of it, the IP would seem to have a point. I'd like to see some citations that clearly state the facts of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need, see the bottom of the edit window. Our terms of attribution say that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." So therefore, that supercedes their preference, as they've irrevocably agreed that a hyperlink blah blah is sufficient. Gwickwire (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And when does someone who is thinking of uploading an image see the bottom of the edit window? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Do you read the software licensing agreement before you click "I agree", or the one on the box before you open it? No one does, but they are both valid contracts which you are subject to, whether you like it or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that verbiage override this? That's the thingie the OP quoted from. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, it doesn't "override it, it simply specifies the required attribution in this manner:

MrPhotographer wants to get his photos out there, so he uploads them to Flickr. Flickr doesn't impose any licensing requirements, so when he chooses to license it using CC-BY-SA, he can specify exactly what attribution must be used if his photo is to be reproduced.

Now, along comes CameraMan, who wants to upload his photos on Wikimedia Commons. When he does so, he's agreeing to the contractual language spelled out on the upload page, and that requires that the attribution be made in the manner prescribed there: that a hyperlink to the image's page is sufficient. He doesn't have to agree to this, of course, he's got the option of not uploading here if he doesn't, but once he's uploaded it, he's agreed to it. He cannot afterward change that requirement to something more restrictive, because that's not what he agreed to. (I'm sure you remember that from the X case.)

In other words, the SA-BY-CC license says that users of the image have to attribute it the way the author says, and Commons says "If you want to put it here, you have to agree that the way you say is this way." That's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still sounds contradictory. Do you know if it's been "legally tested"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any contradiction at all. CC says to potential users that they have to follow the attribution provided by the author, we say, to the author, if you want to put it here, you're specifying this method of attribution. The twain never meet.

I have no idea if this particular set-up has ever been legally tested, but I believe the concept of box opening licensing has, and this is just a type of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." It doesn't say, "You only have to attribute the work the way commons says to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, two different things. The CC license says to the user "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", while Commons says to the author or licensor "If you wanna put it here, than the manner specified must be X". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not attributing in the manner specified by the author - you're attributing in the manner specified by the restraints commons puts on the author. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a way that's correct, but not exactly so. The upload license forces the author to agree that X method of attribution is what he specifies. His option if he doesn't want to use X method is not to upload it here, it's really that simple - the author should upload it elsewhere, where that attribution is not required. It's a specific license, and the act of uploading is the agreement to the license. It may not seem fair that we force the author to agree to our terms, but - as you've said yourself many times over on en.wiki about "freedom of speech" - this is a private website and no one has the right to upload to Commons. Those who don't want accept the requirements here can upload elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think the mist is clearing a bit. In any case, it's clear from the upload process that you're donating to commons, hence losing nearly all control over it. The uploader's failure to read it are his problem, not ours. Here's the thing: If you upload something and then decide you don't like the picture, or whatever, you can get it deleted on request, provided it's not in use. Unfortunately for the uploader in this case, it was put into articles, which complicated the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was put into articles initially at the insistence of the uploader. I removed it because I didn't like the text attribution in the captions. The uploader restored them. I, and another editor then removed them. After debate on the football project talk page about it, two people explained that the license does not allow for it. One of those editors then restored the images without attribution, which started a second edit war and ultimately this request for deletion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a lot like the Xanderlip case. He's trying to use commons and wikipedia to promote himself, which is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly, I'm dismayed to see User:Beyond My Ken has not been blocked for his disgraceful comments. Regardless of the issues at hand, his contributions here have been beyond the pale, and need to stop immediately for the sake of their intended target, plus anyone else who might be reading and get the wrong impression that this is how we want to treat image contributors at Commons. Second, Christopher, you're just going to have to suck it up I'm afraid as regards these few images. As much as it's sorely needed, Commons still cannot really decide how to handle the conflict between the irrevocable license and uploaders making genuine mistakes (as you've no doubt gathered by now). Just walk away - it's for the best. Anything else, especially vague threats of legal action, will only get you blocked. But whatever anyone has said to you in here, do not be under any misapprehensions - Commons welcomes images from anyone whether they do it purely magnanimously or want something out of it via credit. Commons is only interested in whether your images are yours to give, and are within project scope. So, I hope you stay and contribute more under the terms outlined and ignore any completely inaccurate attempts to portray Commons to you as something it isn't, understanding of course that attribution via the image description page here is the only thing Commons/Wikipedia policy and the CC-BY license demands. I think you might be surprised at just how many people do click through to the image description page to see the source, and therefore will find any information you choose to provide. At a minimum I'd say create your userpage and add details of any website or blog you want them to go to. As someone said before, posting your name in plain text on a Wikipedia caption as a form of attribution isn't going to do you much good in that regard, certainly not compared to what you can achieve via click-through, and certainly no more than using your name in the filename. Ultra7 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are a lot of old school photographers, who expect that attribution will be the same as print attribution in a caption under the photo. why not accomodate them? why edit war to remove their names from the caption? why bite newbies? you of course understand that hoping people stay after this tl;dr drama fest is a waste of breath. it is not reasonable to expect that outsiders will read and understand all the policy. they see "a database of 15,000,000 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." they don't understand the "go away you're bothering me" culture. blocking for incivility, LOL. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that lots of books don't attribute under the photos; it's quite common for books to do all the attribution in an appendix, which is definitely comparable to what we do here. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you click "Upload file", there's a large blurb about "Contributing" to commons. You're giving your picture to commons with almost no strings attached. There's nothing ambiguous or "newbie-biting" about that, unless they don't speak English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do really expect people to read a wall of text? how much different is this from prosecuting people for violating terms of service for downloading too many documents? too close for my comfort. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I expect them to read the big bold letters that tell them they are Donating their materials to commons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect it, but I'm not a professional photographer or even a wannabe pro. I agree that the copy used in displaying the license on existing images is misleading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's only really of concern to people who see Commons as just another website to exploit in promoting themselves. The vast majority of people who upload here are doing it because they want to improve the repository or just for the hell of it, and aren't concerned about the legal niceties. I've had a couple of my images used on websites, and it's fun to see your name when they attribute it, and disappointing when they don't, but it doesn't make a great deal of difference, any more than when I see my prose from en.wiki show up uncredited somewhere. In fact, it rather tickles me - I know I did that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2. Here's a suggestion, can everyone who doesn't really know what they're talking about regarding the ideology of Commons, just stop posting? The damage is likely already done, but whether you like it or not, Commons doesn't care one bit why anyone uploads images here - if you're not looking for credit or to advertise your skills, then good for you, but if you are, then whether you like it or not, the CC license framework and Commons can oblige through attribution, and we will welcome your images regardless. There are a lot of professional contributors here actually - hopefuly none of them ever read pages like this and get the wrong idea. This user made a simple error in what manner of attribution is acceptable, which is quite easy to make. The way he has been treated for that, is entirely unnacceptable. I think he's been insulted, smeared and degraded enough already, so will you lot just let this page close and go do something else. Ultra7 (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, some admin please just close this nomination as "keep," it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of going any other way...but the rampant incivility here is not doing anyone, or the project, any good. It's unfortunate the photographer didn't pay close attention to the terms of use upon uploading, but it's also understandable -- no need to go calling people names. -Pete F (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people have spoken much of it contradictatory, and often ending in swearing, or some other derogatory comment aimed at my person. All I’m asking is that my work be used under the terms I have set out, or not used at all (and preferably removed to avoid misuse). - Christopher Vose, 20 January 2013, 3:38 PM PST.
And what you've been told, repeatedly, by numerous people, is that there is no policy-based reason to allow you to break the contract you agreed to when you uploaded the images. Why isn't that getting through to you? 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Christopher, it seems that some of my colleagues here are more intent on yelling at you than giving you useful information, which is regrettable. The point of contention here lies in the language you agreed to when you uploaded the files: "I,…, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license." That's the language in the upload form. It doesn't specify what "attribution" means, leaving open the possibility of differing interpretations. From the point of view of the Wikimedia community, we have been assured by legal counsel that the "attribution" requirement of the license is covered, if the photo links to the page here on "commons" that lists the file's creator. For instance, this page: File:Sullivan Silva photographed by Christopher Vose.jpg. I understand that your expectation was that your name would be listed on the same page as the photo itself, in the caption. That is a completely reasonable expectation, and matches common practice in numerous other publications. However, it's not how things are done on Wikipedia -- there are very few photos that carry attribution in that manner. The link to the page here on Commons has for many years been widely accepted as the proper means of providing attribution. Though I'm not a lawyer, I am pretty sure that you don't have legal recourse here; the principle of attribution-by-link is something that has been carefully considered by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. That's not to say that our software is good enough; it's unfortunate that you could get this far in the process without ever having been presented with a link that explains what is meant by "attribution" in the Wikimedia sphere. In my view, that should be corrected, to reduce the chances of having another situation like this. -Pete F (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Pete. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not well said at all, and, in fact, a totally misinterpretation of the rules, policies and licenses here -- please go back to Wiki-elementary school, 'cause you just failed your final exam. The more you encourage the misconceptions of Christopher Vose, the worse it is for Wikipedia, so I suggest you take a refresher course to learn what, exactly is going on here, and keep your mouth shut in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange to me that that an undefined term, which cannot be defined by the uploader during the upload, can be retroactively defined by other contributors after said upload. - Christopher Vose, 21 January 2013, 12:38 PM PST
No terms are undefined, please don't be mislead by the comments of the uninformed, everything is quite clear. If the peanut gallery would shut up, the facts are this:

When you uploaded the photos, you released them under a specific license which enabled them to be used with an attribution to you via a hyperlink.

That's it. Period You can't undo the license, and you can't require that the photos be deleted. You're up shit creek without a paddle, and you don't have a single legal right to stand on, which I'm sure some legal eagle has told you already. If people who don't have the slightest fucking idea of what they're talking about would stop commenting here, this Deletion Request could be closed as a matter of course, and you could go about your way - and you would be quit of us and we would be quit of you. You won't get what you want, but the Rolling Stones did warn you about that, didn't they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment3. Christopher, please just ignore beyond My Ken's continued posts. He appears to be under the misapprehension that he speaks for everyone on Commons, but rest assured, he does not. His opinions, along with the nastiness that are seemingly an obligatory accompaniment of them, are entirely his own. I doubt I am alone in thinking that I would rather lose a hundred people like him from Commons, than one uploader like you, assuming you were able to accept that what Pete F has said is the sad truth - Commons may not be clear enough in explaining it, but the licensing situation is as he described. Ultra7 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not like the way BMK is saying it, but factually he's correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, the disgusting way he has expressed himself here is totally unacceptable. If BMK is remotely pleased at the prospect of having treated Christopher this way just because he thinks he's right (which on many points, he's not), such that Christopher just walks way mightily pissed off with the site and never uploads again, then he doesn't have the best interests of Commons or Wikipedia at heart at all. And if you defend BMK for that, then you don't either. As far as I'm concerned now, whether it was his original goal or not, Christopher should now stick around and upload even more images, using the various accepted forms of self-promotion that do exist on Commons, as justifiable payback for the totally unjustified treatment he's received from BMK. While BMK might not like that, there's nothing he can do about it except throw out more abuse, but at least we get more images and Wikipedia biographies will suck a little less. Ultra7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, if you could see me, I don't actually open my mouth when I type, so telling me to keep my mouth shut is a misplaced metaphore. Based on the comments made by others, I'm not the one who should be keeping silent. If you can't accept the fact that there may be a flaw in the license agreement presented during uploading, perhaps you should investigate it further without commenting here. Several editors have agreed that there may be an issue with it and so they may just be right. I'm sorry you can't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The flaw is not really with the license agreement, it's with an uploader who wants to abuse wikipedia for the purpose of advertising his work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a bizarre definition of abuse. Attribution through a credit line is the way its done on vast quantities of web based CC-licensed media re-use. And using images of subjects in biography infoboxes is also completely normal practice on Wikipedia, so you've got no cause to call that abuse either. Wikipedia's method of leaving attribution to the Commons url and thus the description page is certainly not standard, and I believe it's done this way for editorial/technical/aesthetic reasons rather than anything to do with free content ethics. The only purpose of a credit line is to tell people who made/owns the media, which is funnily enough also the whole point of all the attribution methods we do allow here. Christopher made a mistake on the precise method of attribution we do allow, but smearing of him for that as a self-promoter/advertiser is totally out of order. For the sake of repetition, whether anyone here likes it or not, Commons doesn't give a damn why anyone uploads images, as long as they're in scope and the licensing conditions have been followed. Rather than discouraging advertising or self-promotion, Commons allows credits in filenames, as well as facilitating navigation from file pages to user pages and galleries which can contain all sorts of info/links. These are just as (if not more) effective as advertising than a plain text credit line. They are however quite distinct from the forms we don't allow, such as NC licensing. Thus, if Wikipedia/Commons was as remotely interested in preventing people from using the sites to advertise/promote their photography skills, they would do more than just that, and would instead just restrict file descriptions to the minimum legal requirement - plain text author name plus licence, or worse, accept {PD} licensing only. Commons doesn't do that because Commons/CC licensing is about more than just magnanimous donation. The basic fact is, we allow attribution, whatever the potential benefits to uploaders. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know this site and is not acting in its best interests, whether they express these views to new users politely, or in the way BMK has. Ultra7 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant's complaint is without merit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't change the fact that your claims about their motives or about the supposed ethical preferences of Commons, are also without merit. And if we get no more images from Christopher even if he now understands why he's wrong, or if anyone else reading this page gets the wrong idea about Commons and chooses not to upload their images, then it's also a pretty pointless and self-defeating point to make in the grand scheme of things. Ultra7 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs -- (hi, by the way) -- Christopher's edit contribution history suggests that his first edits to Commons were the upload of his own files, and that he used the Upload Wizard. If you go through the account creation process, and then the Upload Wizard's steps, at what point do you see text indicating what is meant by "attribution" on Commons? On the pages displayed -- or even on a link on the pages displayed? I've looked closely just now, and I don't see it.
I've worked on the Upload Wizard, the account creation process, and the terms of use (as WMF staff and, in the last case, as an independent adviser). And I have to say, I'm a bit dismayed to find that this information is not prominently visible in any of these documents/processes. It seems to me that we've maybe overlooked something -- if not from a legal standpoint, at least from a "being fair to new contributors" standpoint.
If we are not clearly indicating the way in which "attribution" means something different here than many contributors would assume, I think Christopher's position is a reasonable one, entitling him to be treated with respect. Actually, even if he did miss something that was there, the level of disrespect he has been subjected to on this page is rather appalling. (That's not directed at you.) -Pete F (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I meant to mention: the one and only place I have seen this text is above the "save" button in the text edit interface. Not the image upload interface, the text edit interface -- which (a) Christopher may or may not have ever used, prior to uploading an image; and (b) refers pretty explicitly to "your contribution," I think best understood as the specific action being taken at that moment.)
(Also, those interested in this topic may be interested in this 2009 survey about attribution models, conducted by WMF. It's also about text contributions, though. foundation:File:Attribution Survey Results.pdf) -Pete F (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been uploads going on for like 10 years. Why is this suddenly an issue? Attribution occurs on the picture's page. It doesn't belong in articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the situation is more complex than your one-line summary suggests. Commons media hosted on CC-BY licenses can be re-used by anyone simply through a credit line - it's only Wikipedia re-use that doesn't allow credit lines (and only because they have the technical ability to re-produce the Commons description page). It's pretty obvious Commons and Wikipedia still don'y really explain this anomaly to new uploaders very well, so that's why it's still an issue after 10 years. Turning a blind eye to BMK type harrassment of the new users who still come up against this as an issue, instead of actually addressing it each time it comes up, of course also doesn't help. Ultra7 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The complainant's questions have been answered, and this should be closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, regardless. The complainant's complaints were without merit. Sorry that he didn't read the terms of use before using Wikimedia Commons, but in them, it clearly states "Attribution: Attribution is an important part of these licenses. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions: i. Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)..." I understand that probably nobody reads the Terms of Use anywhere on the internet, but that's not our problem if the user didn't read them. Regardless of his motive, the images need to stay, because they have possible value at some point in the future, and they are released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (hyperlink attribution sufficient). I highly suggest all users just shut up and stop all of this madness before people get so mad at each other they start fighting in real life. Just drop it. To Christopher Vose, you failed to read the Terms of Use. Sorry. Now you know to read the ToU before using a website in the future. It clearly says that buy uploading your images (which are a part of what is collectively referred to your 'contributions' across all WMF projects), you agree to the CC-BY-SA 3.0, and the added condition that a hyperlink is sufficient. To all others, please try to remain civil, I've just come back to see a bunch of crap on this page that really isn't nice or appropriate. To any passing Commons administrator, please close this as a failed Deletion Request, and do not delete the files. Please also consider blocking Christopher Vose, as he is not going to abide by the Terms of Use of the website. Thanks, Gwickwire (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gwickwire, the section of the terms of use you just quoted clearly states "When you contribute text…"
I've struck my support of a "keep" closure above; based on what I have seen reviewing the text available to the photographer at the time of his uploads, I think the appropriate outcomes are:
  •  Delete the files, since it is unreasonable to assume the photographer would know how attribution would be handled based on the information we presented to him; and
  • Consider improvements to our UI for uploads -- whether that is in the Upload Wizard, the Terms of Use, or somewhere else -- so that future uploaders are given clear information about how their uploads will be used. -Pete F (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(to Gwickwire, but drafted before I saw the above from Pete, so posting anyway) I have a few points if you're going to start invoking the terms of use. Firstly, your statement "which are a part of what is collectively referred to your 'contributions'" isn't in the terms. Second, the section you quoted says "When you contribute text", not images. Thirdly, "d. Non-text media" actually directs people to read the policy page Commons:Licensing for info about "re-use and re-distribution". Fourthly, Commons:Licensing simply endorses CC-BY and says nothing about the "added condition that a hyperlink is sufficient.". So, with all that all in mind, this hypothetical new user who has both read our terms and is familiar with the standard CC-BY attribution of a credit line with their name plus this url, will in fact never find any statement to the effect that Wikipedia does not use credit lines when re-using the images they uploaded to Commons under the terms of the CC-BY license and the WMF's own terms of use. Ultra7 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I believe that this contributor is now well aware of our licensing terms, so would not make any future uploads in ignorance. (Although we should still make those terms clearer for the benefit of all users.) Given the way the contributor has been treated in this discussion (and the related discussion on the English Wikipedia), I'd be surprised if they wanted to contribute further. For us to close the door on the possibility by blocking them would simply be sour grapes on our part. Bovlb (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 4. This discussion has gone on for two long. Our job is to welcome newcomers and to provide a central location for files that can be used in all of Wikimedia. It is common for newbies to have false assumptions. It is unusual to name a file with the photographers name, but is a good way of assuring attribution. It is not unexpected that someone might think that their name needs to be included in a picture caption, and as that is not commonly done on Wikimedia projects, equally unsurprising that was rejected. That the photographer would be surprised and upset is not unexpected. Live and learn. A suggestion was made about the form of attribution that might be acceptable for this photographer. I suggest that the focus be to as amicably as possible close this thread and all of us move on. Most of us click accept on terms of agreement without reading them, simply because there is no alternative to get to the next screen, and a do over is often the best resort. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. TLDR summary: Images are in use and licensed under an irrevocably free license.

  • The images are of medium size, but of good quality. Some of them are the only image we have of the depicted person. Many of them are used in articles. All of them depict notable persons (even though they might not currently be playing for the soccer club they were playing for at the time the photograph was taken). All these facts let the images fall into our project scope, so an out-of-scope deletion is out of the question.
  • The images are licensed under the CC-by-sa 3.0 license. This license has been given out by the sole copyright holder. The license cleary specifies, that attribution must be reasonable to the medium or means (CC-by-sa 3.0, Section 4 (a)). The author has also never specified anywhere during the upload process that he requires attribution in the image caption. Thus, the license grant seems to be valid and Wikimedia projects' use of CC-by-sa licensed images seems to be in accordance with the license text.
  • Since the license grant is valid, the author cannot withdraw the license (CC-by-sa 3.0, Section 7 (b)). The fact that he seems to have had misconceptions about the license interpretation on Wikimedia projects is very unfortunate, but is not on its own a sufficient reason to delete the images.
  • The user uploaded the images using the upload wizard, which is our recommended method of upload. While there might be room for improvement in regards to wording, we must regard the licenses given using the upload wizard as valid. If there should really be a serious wording issue in the upload wizard, which might invalidate licenses given while using the wizard, that should be discussed somewhere else and the outcome of this deletion discussion must be adjusted accordingly.
  • The user seems to strongly dislike the licensing policy of this project. Furthermore, he has been seriously insulted by several contributors on this page. Despite his comments, that he might upload images if this deletion request is granted, I think it unlikely that he will ever upload anything to Wikimedia Commons again. It is thus counter-productive to delete the images, as it is unlikely that we will get more and better replacements from the user in the forseeable future.

Since Christopher Vose's conduct has been mainly unproblematic during this discussion, I see no reason to block him. I do, however, advise that legal threats against users or projects will not be tolerated and are a block reason on Wikimedia projects.

I am overall appalled by the tone of this discussion and even more by the fact, that nobody took any counter-measures. Some users' behaviour might at least have warranted a civility warning on their talk page, if not even a timeout block. I apologize to Christopher Vose that I and my fellow administrators have failed to keep the discussion civil. Please, when you are insulted in a way like this or when you are whitnessing such insults, report the discussion to the administrator's noticeboard.

Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've been in communication with the WMF legal department about the issues raised in this discussion, and it sounds like some steps will be taken to improve the interface. -Pete F (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Christopher_Vose&oldid=90956183"