Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dd1495

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 Dd1495 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

OTRS ticket sent (Ticket:2014021610003857), but the uploader does not appear to be the author, and has not responsed to my queries about whether he is the author or not.

--Mdann52talk to me! 07:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (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 Dd1495 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Although the pictures seems to be created by the uploaded, (the subjects are dead long ago) without any statement about the copyright status of the original works. Given the uploader's poor track with regard to copyright I don't really think they can be kept

Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

totally unfounded claim that "it's obvious that all of them are derivative works". The files uploaded are my personal drawings, using pencil and paper, no computer tricks, no original image processing etc. Yes, I looked at photographs of people in question, but this - according to the wiki definition - does not qualify as "derivatives"; I am also by no means restricted by the copyright status of photos used as models --Dd1495 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it qualifies as derivates works (see, for instance, this. Unless the original works are in the public domain, the results cannot be used here. Furthermore, original authorship must be asserted (moral rights). --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though some of my drawing are based on photographs and hence they might be considered derivative works, it does not mean they automatically classify for deletion.

Stigmatising a user as allegedly an uploader with “poor record” is not enough reason to get an image deleted, I hope.

Each case should be decided upon its merits, I guess. If someone thinks my drawings are derivates and infringe copyrights, I would expect that he/she should indicate which work served as a basis for derivation and what sort of copyright is allegedly infringed. I think that none, because:

1) Some drawing s are based on old photographs, from 19th century or early 20th century. Copyright to these photos has long expired. The example is here; the photo serving as its model was published in one of the Spanish papers in the 1880s or 1890s. I even do not have links to the corresponding digital archive page any more, since it has never crossed my mind I would have to fight over its copyright laws.

2) Some drawings are not based on any specific photographs but are my own creation, resulting – yes, indeed - from looking at different images (photos, paintings, drawings). The example is here; no photograph, painting or drawing like this has ever existed.

3) Some drawings are based on grossly enlarged cut-offs from photographs presenting larger scenes, not portaits; e.g. here] is based on a photo published here

4) Some drawings are based on hardly legible, massively blown-up cut offs from photos which might – but also might not - be copyrighted. However, as my drawings are very sketchy – example is here, based upon a picture published here, original photo is of very poor quality. Probably the source – actually a collage of photos taken by someone in 1930s and only re-published in a book from 2006 – is copyright free anyway.

To summarise: I think to delete 31 images in one go it takes more than to bundle them together as “obviously derivative works” under one tag, giving as a reason an arbitrarily assigned “poor record” of an uploader and not providing any information what works and why are actually copyright-violated

--Dd1495 (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you acknowledge most of them are derivative works. Therefore, you must provide the information about the original works in order to determine its copyright status. Given that a 80 years pma time is needed in Spain for a work to be in the public domain, early 20th century as creation date (for instance) is far from being safe. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not acknowledge they are derivates. Quite to the contrary, I say that the images in question are my own works.

You claim they are derivates and should be deleted? Fine. But do not expect me to prove your point.

I think it is logical that if you claim they are derivates and should be deleted, it is you who should indicate which work they copyright-violate and why. Stigmatising a user as "poor record uploader" is not enough justificaton for deleting 30-odd images, I think.

--Dd1495 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's written down above: Some drawing s are based on old photographs. We have a precautionary principle. Your point seems to be that images are derivative works but you refuse to provide the necessary information to assert whether they're valid or not. Things do not work that way. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are my own works.

Yes, all are drawn when looking at existing images – there is no other option since I have not met any of the persons portayed in real life. Yet it does not qualify them for deletion.

If you want to get them deleted according to your logic, you should prove one by one that each of these 30-odd images:

  • 1) is a derivative work
  • 2) is a derivative work based on image which is not free

I do not think you can get them deleted by bundling all in one deletion ticket, pointing to “obviously derivate work” status and by quoting “poor uploader record” as justification. I also do not think you can simply get 30-odd images deleted by referring to an ambiguous “precautionary principle”.

==

Let’s discuss the principle you quote, which says that “where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted.”

Now, where is this “significant doubt” in case of images of people who died before 1926, like here, here, here and here?

Also, I invite all users to compare this image and this image and to say whether they have "significant doubt".

Do you have “significant doubt”? Do you have any doubt at all? I think that if there is any, it is probably only very minor.

If you have “significant doubts”, suggest you review 30-odd files one by one as follows:

  • 1) I think the file [name of the file] should be deleted because it is a derivative work derived from [this file] located [at this site], which I think is copyrighted because [the reason why copyrighted]
  • 2) and so on
  • 3) and so on
  • ....
  • 31) and so on

once you do it, we shall be able to discuss the files on the matter-of-fact basis, not on the basis of stigmatising other users and arbitraily assigned, ambiguous alleged "obvious" labelling, all applied to 30-odd images bundled into one ticket.

--Dd1495 (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:DW/COM:PRP. Words and more words from the uploader, none of which address the issue, which is that he uploaded a bunch of drawings based on photos and failed to indicate original authorship/copyright status. The burden of proof of free license is on the uploader, not Commons. All the rambling above looks like an attempt at confusing the issue to try to get around this basic responsibility. INeverCry 07:51, 11 March 2015 (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 Dd1495 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The licensing status of these pictures is asserted by means of the template {{PD-Polish}}. According to such template, the picture is in the public domain because [..] all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland.

Most of the pictures are claimed to have been published in Poland (althouth no specific URL has been provided to support such a claim, I can't see any reason to doubt it). However, there is no way to assert the pictures were taken by Polish photographers (dubious, as no Polish photojournalist is recorded in that time in Spain) or first published in Poland (even more dubious). Therefore, according to COM:PRP I can't see any other option that deleting...

Discasto talk 22:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Y no podrían salvarse mediante {{PD-old}}, como ya ocurre aquí, por ejemplo? Para las pocas fotos que tenemos de esa época, perder estas va a ser un palitrocazo... Manuchansu (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose deletion/borrado. Pedir que se demuestre que estas fotos no fueron publicadas en otro lugar antes de su publicación en Polonia es pedir una prueba diabólica. Es imposible satisfacer tal pretensión. Quien pide el borrado de estas fotos debería demostrar él mismo que fueron publicadas en otro país antes que en Polonia. Entonces se podrá proceder al borrado.--Chamarasca (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Chamarasca: . Nice to see you again :-) However, I do think your argumentation says actually the oppositte to what you claim. It's the uploader the one that claims that the pictures were published first in Poland. S/he's assigned a template stating that the pictures are in the public domain because they were published in Poland. However, s/he hasn't stated how s/he reached such a conclusion (given the uploader background I guess s/he simply trying to provide a valid license information without any reason). It's the uploader's responsibility to provide the rationale to assigning a given license. S/he hasn't done it. Of course, this is only my oppinion. See you again --Discasto talk 12:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estimado Discasto Pido disculpas por explicarme en español, pero mi inglés es muy básico (si alguien quiere, puede traducir mis comentarios, por supuesto). Yo me he enterado de la existencia de esta petición de borrado a través del seguimiento de File:MFC.36.8.1.JPG, ya que he utilizado esa imagen en un artículo. Veo que en el apartado "fuente" se indica: Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe, signature 1-E-6427; photo first published in Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, 1936. Mis conocimientos de polaco son aún inferiores a los de inglés, pero entiendo que dice que se publicó en Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, que entiendo era una publicación polaca; que se publicó en 1936; que el autor es desconocido y que se ha obtenido a través de un archivo nacional digital. Por supuesto, tal información podría ser falsa. En tal caso habrá que demostrar esa falsedad y pedir el borrado, pero no es eso lo que has hecho tú. Lo que tú dices como motivo para el borrado (si entiendo bien el inglés, que puede que no) es que no se puede confirmar que la fotografía fuera publicada por primera vez en Polonia y por un fotógrafo polaco. Y yo me pregunto dos cosas: 1) Si el autor es realmente desconocido, ¿cómo se puede demostrar que es polaco? 2) ¿Cómo se demuestra que no fue publicada en otro país con anterioridad? No veo forma de hacer tal demostración negativa.
Otra cosa es que se argumentase que, conforme a la legislación polaca, la imagen no se encuentra en el dominio público. Pero eso no se ha afirmado en ningún momento, creo.
Por consiguiente, estoy en contra del borrado con la argumentación ofrecida. Porque con similar argumentación se podrían borrar todas las imágenes que yo mismo he subido a Commons.--Chamarasca (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images hosted in Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe come from different sources and archives. See here. They look all pretty Polish to me though.
    • "Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny (1910-1939)."
    • "Wydawnictwo Prasowe Kraków-Warszawa (1939-1945)"
    • "Zbiór fotografii różnego pochodzenia (1840-1998)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Wacława Żdżarskiego (1944-1946)"
    • "Zbiór fotografii dotyczących obchodów kościelnych Tysiąclecia Chrztu Polski (1966)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Władysława Miernickiego (1945-1968)", "Ministerstwo Informacji i Dokumentacji Rządu RP na Emigracji (1939-1945)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Denasiewicza (1940-41)"
    • "Zbiór fotografii dotyczących archiwów państwowych"
    • "Rozgłośnia Polska „Radia Wolna Europa” (1952-1994)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Stefana Bałuka (1939-1945)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Grażyny Rutowskiej (1966-1994)"
    • "Archiwum Fotograficzne Edwarda Hartwiga (1950-1970)".
For Fal Conde's pic, Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe explicitly asserts that "Koncern Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny - Archiwum Ilustracji" is the source (a Polish newspaper, so at least we can say these ones are likely "published", and, also, they were published "in Poland"). Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe —kind of serious institution— stating these pics are free of copyright would be a plus (I saw that in a file description/permission, but I could find it in the webpage). Understanding Polish is not one of my strenghts). Unless someone provides at least an example of one of these photographs being published before, I don't know, in Spain for example?, I suggest to  keep, stop this request and start a "more minimalist approach", because the uploader has started a massive and disruptive "retaliation maneuver" tagging for deletion every pic from Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe/Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny hosted in Commons. Strakhov (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Strakhov,  keep. Now it looks to be the best option. Manuchansu (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi @Strakhov: , I've clarified the rationale of the deletion request in order to enable a proper discussion. As said, nobody is questioning the pictures were published in Poland. However, the {{PD-Poland}} template (and underlying reasoning) request the images to have been taken by Polish photographs or first published in Poland. Neither of such options seems to be realistic. --Discasto talk 22:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There are around 33 pics, If it is not realistic these photographs being first published in Poland... it won't be that difficult finding somewhere a single one of them just "published" (not even before) in another country. They belong to an archive of Polish photographers, Polish publishers and Polish stuff. The National Archive of Poland (not kinda creepy webpage) states they belong to the collection of photographs of a Polish periodical published during 1910-1939 period. Just saying "they could have not been published first in Poland" is not enough for me. We could say that of every supposed "pic in the public domain because of age". Every pic could be first published, I don't know, in Mexico (100 p. m .a).
They all could probably pass under {{Anonymous-EU}} (except in Spain, of course, and his damned 80 p.m.a.). For deleting these photographs (after acknowledging they were at least published in Poland) you are now the one supposing 1) they were published before in another country and 2) that country was precisely Spain. Being honest, I've put many hours of my life researching Spanish periodical press, and I'm not familiar with any of them (the ones with glamourous guys I mean, the others, psst, are 'generic' shots.). Strakhov (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not supposing anything. Just the oppositte. The uploader claims that the pictures were published first in Poland. He hasn't provided any proof of that. The burden of the proof is on the uploader, you know. --Discasto talk 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know. There would never be any proof of something being published first anywhere. You will never find a periodical or a book stating "This is the first time this photo is published, awesome, isn't it?". This batch of files uploaded by this guy were published in Poland by a Polish periodical in the thirties according to the National Archive of some European country named ...Poland. I do not mean Dd1495 has the cleaniest upload history, but that's not the point here. Probably all images are "{{Anonymous-EU}}-able" too, asides this cool Polish template. Well, yes, in the case they were published 'in Spain' before ...maybe they should get deleted. But no one has found a single one of these photographs published in Spain... (nor in Spain nor anywhere ...but Poland?). I rest my case. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No es extraño que al autor de las subidas reaccione así. Se ha cuestionado temerariamente un trabajo que debió llevarle bastante esfuerzo realizar. En vez de agradecérselo, se ha pedido su supresión. Si uno no es bienvenido aquí, es lógico que prefiera irse; y si no se quiere su contribución, pues opta por retirarla.--Chamarasca (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Files s/he has been tagging for deletion are not his/her uploads but everyone else's. Strakhov (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pues también es una reacción muy humana. Si nos ponemos demasiado exigentes con sus contribuciones, él también puede hacer lo mismo con las de otros. Cosechamos lo que sembramos.--Chamarasca (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👽 f*ck humans. Strakhov (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reacción inmadura, pero humana. En eso te doy la razón :-) --Discasto talk 21:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC) PS: si he cuestionado estas fotos es porque, obviamente, ni las tomaron autores polacos ni se publicaron inicialmente en Polonia. Las nominaciones masivas que está haciendo Dd1495 se refieren, en cambio a fotografías de temas polacos publicadas en Polonia, lo cual hace muy plausibles, y muy obviamente, las pretensiones de validez de la plantilla de dominio público polaco. No todo el mundo es capaz de funcionar en un entorno colaborativo.[reply]

Hmm. We have two sets of images here, with the same problem.

First, those published before 1936. For those, even if they were first published in Spain, they are PD now, provided they meet the two tests below.

Second, those published after 1935. If they are Spanish images, as many of these are, then they are under copyright for 80 years after publication if they were first published in Spain. Someone needs to show beyond a significant doubt that first publication was not in Spain. Note that if there were images of Polish people and events, we would not be asking this question -- but they fact that they are images of Spanish people and events coming from a Polish archive raises a significant doubt.

In both cases someone must show that they were actually both "published" and "published anonymously". Merely being in the archives of a newspaper does not satisfy the rule -- newspapers have many images in their archives that they never published. Also remember that the fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not satisfy the rule -- it must be affirmatively shown that the publication concealed the name of the photographer.

I don't think that either of the requirements has been satisfied for any of these, so my opinion is  Delete. Note also that several of them have descriptions that are so inadequate as to make them useless, so if these are to be kept, the descriptions and categories must also be filled out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Several users have expressed doubts about deleting images. By those who had doubts, there have been given reasonable arguments to discuss. But in practice, there was no debate. I find quite arguably how commons has proceed in this question. Probably, many images may have benn saved with another license or with some changes. But there was no interest: just the easy way, I guess. Manuchansu (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Dd1495&oldid=208178218"