Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FishyPhotos

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 FishyPhotos (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyvios. Images grabbed from internet. Low quality, no EXIF, etc.

INeverCry 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More possible copyvios.

INeverCry 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this, where there are 50 or so images, most or all with no EXIF, low-res, etc, I don't have the time to go thru and search for each image's possible source. Mass DRs don't usually give a supposed source for each and every photo. My positon is that they all look very suspicious. If you don't think these are copyvios, state why. INeverCry 02:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because no tangible evidence is being forwarded to show that the images are copyvios. Until it can be proven they are, I don't think we can assume this to be the case because they look suspicious. So I'm saying keep for now. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the burden here on Commons isn't on proving files aren't copyvio, it's proving they are free. Do you feel the same about this, or this, or how about closed ones like this or this? INeverCry 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. What methods are there for proving an image is free? I've come across WP:OTRS once before with one of my own images, would that be relevant here? If so, could the uploading user be notified as such? Mattythewhite (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In order to prove an image is free, OTRS can be given, or the source for an image should show that it's been released under a free license, as is often the case with Flickr images. The easiest way is for a user to upload original images with proper EXIF and resolution, etc. The problem in the case above, though, is that the uploader of these images has been inactive since January of this year, so asking for permission to be given isn't really an option. At the moment I'm sorting through the more than 200,000 images in Category:Media needing categories, where there are literally 10,000 or more copyvio and out of scope images, and most of the uploaders only uploaded a certain number of images, never to be heard from again. When I see images like the ones above, the idea of going thru all 40 one by one is impractical to say the least. INeverCry 04:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A simple check on Wikipedia is enough to show that he has been active on there far more recently than January. A lot of editors on there don't always check on here unless they have pictures to upload which can be very infrequent or their attention has been drawn here (such as myself). I'd have thought the two minutes needed to check that would have been worth it to ensure the pictures aren't needlessly deleted and thus removed from articles when the majority of the time they are the only one and are of use. I've taken the initiative and done that for you. I think it's only fair to explore all avenues before deletion. Narom (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As a fellow Grimsby Town supporter like "Fishy Photos", I was informed by Matty that these images are up for deletion, I must confirm that the photo's are from the user in question and are photo's taken at various games for the unofficial Grimsby Town website "The Fishy", Probably hence the user name "Fishy Photos" he goes by. I know this guy is one of the guys who helps set it up, and most of these pics are or have been on that site. It's hardly copyright by adding his own work surely. I am affraid I don't have a direct line of contact with this user so any messages to him may not be recieved for a while or until he chooses to login, which by the looks of it isn't very often. I don't think they do any harm, but I am not clued up with the commons side of Wikipedia, as you can tell as I don't have a commons account. Hope its resolved, there are a lot of good snaps that he's taken which really brings out the best in numerous articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.92.224 (talk • contribs)

Could you possibly contact him through the town web site? howcheng {chat} 16:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the webmaster of the site in an effort to get an answer or response from who ever uploaded them. Narom (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a fan has a camera and likes taking photos at low level english football grounds. Del♉sion23 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his talk page has a comment stating he took pictures himself for the website. If it's his own work (like he says they are) they have been correctly tagged as such and surely the reason for deletion is wrong. There is nothing to suggest otherwise bar a hunch that they have been grabbed from the internet, yes some are low res but so alot of pictures on here. Lack of EXIF data isn't exactly a major problem either since photo manipulation software can remove it if not set up explicitly to keep it. Narom (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree with nomination. Very small images, no EXIF, most probably copyvios. Yann (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. No indication that the images are the uploader's new work. If the uploader took the images himself, then they would contain EXIF data (and no, photo editing sofware doesn't remove EXIF data by default...) Kosm1fent (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly I cannot explain the lack of EXIF data but..... these are not great, press style images, I can find none of them via a search using Google images not do any of the turn up using www.tineye.com. As above this is just a fan with a camera and if someone cries copyright violation they might at least show a violation of what by quoting filenames/websites etc.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these don't look like copyvios to me. They look like own work, as specified in the license. I don't think the omission of Exif data should carry any weight. U+003F? 13:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info As I could verify, some (or all?) of these uploads were previous published at http://thefishy.co.uk (© 2012 TheFishy.co.uk). Examples:
This explains the origin of these (mostly) thumb-images but in fact not reveals info about the real copyright owners. Were these images taken by fans and posted to the - for example - thefishy.co.uk-forum and the uploader used this "pool of images" for his uploads? The question is: Copyvio or permission needed...? Gunnex (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed close: Deleted
Per nom, delete votes, and Gunnex. No valid reasons given for keep. ~~~~
✓ Done Closed per proposal.

Deleted: I suggest that those who argue for keep above look through two or three daily DR logs. They will find that small size and lack of EXIF is a regular reason for deletion. While we do assume good faith in routine cases, when we see a series of images that are significantly smaller than camera size and that have no EXIF, we assume that they are unfree. That is required by our precautionary principle which is that when there is significant doubt, we must delete. Also, as Gunnex has pointed out, at least eleven of these have been previously published with an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_FishyPhotos&oldid=99587624"