Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma

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.

Several files with Wikipedia-only OTRS permissions uploaded by Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs)

[edit]

According to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Bridge at Nimreh, Syria. Pic 01.jpg (permanent link), the permissions for these files are explicitly limited to Wikipedia, which is not compatible with Commons:Licensing or the stated licensing terms. Additionally, for several of the files, there was no verification that the permission actually came from the copyright holder. Ticket 2010020410003065 ("only for Wikipedia"; no proof that the Panoramio user is the one that sent in the permission):

Ticket 2009121210021979 ("Permission (only for Wikipedia)"):

Ticket 2009121210021853 ("only for Wikipedia"; may have verification problems regarding the stated source and the person e-mailing in):

Ticket 2010020410002851 ("Permission (only for Wikipedia)"; may have verification problems regarding the stated source and the person e-mailing in):

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joke. Keep them all. The files are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you it's no joke, I'm afraid. A Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license that is limited to Wikipedia is not actually a valid Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I request stoping the deletion process, a pending. The permissions are not limited to Wikipedia, this is a false interpretation of the license from your part. All my permissions have this line on top, I have used the same document in all these instances. It reads "Permission (only for Wikipedia)", not "Permission only for Wikipedia". This means the document itself is only for Wikipedia, not the license. It is only for Wikipedia editors, not for everybody to see. All copyright holder were fully aware that releasing pics for WP means releasing them to everybody.
I can provide a written statement from each of the copyright holders, but I need some time for that. Deleting would be a destructive process, as re-uploading takes 20 min each for one file, not to mention integrating them into the articles again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions run for at least seven days under normal circumstances (and typically longer than that in cases like this), so you have plenty of time to contact the copyright holders for clarification. I haven't seen the permission statements myself. I was only told that there may be a problem with the permissions when I asked a question about one of them on the OTRS Noticeboard. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My issues with all the tickets deals with the heading on the document. I find it hard to see a discernible difference between the stated "Permission (only for Wikipedia)", and "Permission only for Wikipedia". I will say that there is a stock release statement on the second page of the documents stating "I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs." Did they read it or just sign after seeing the main heading? Putting aside the heading issue, I only have concerns about the last set (the last four images), where there are three different Word documents provided with plain text statements of the names (not PDFs showing actual signatures), all sent in from someone with no relation to any of the authors. – Adrignola talk 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, the difference is subtle, but trust me this is an unfortunate mistake. Things like these can happen. I later changed the heading when I realized its double meaning. The meaning of this heading is as I have told you: it refers to the Word document as such, not the license. All users did not only read the paper, I also briefed them detailed and in quite explict terms in my email correspondence about what releasing images to WP means (= basically copyleft).
The last set, Eleutherna Bridge, is from geocaching, as the tag says. I contacted these persons individually. You have to understand that contacting people is time-consuming and not everybody who is happily willing to share his pics has the time and patience to run through all the processes required. That is why I need some time to to contact these peoples again. We cannot expect them to reply in just 7 days just because some bracket is ambiguous, they all have lifes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

[edit]

Is this a watertight permission? One which I can be certain about that it won't be questioned now or in some years?

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work above [insert optional link].

I agree to publish that work under the free license „License Creative Commons Attribution ShareA like v3.0”.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Date, name of the copyright holder

Date, name of the copyright holder are obviously type-written (nobody right in his mind can be asked to provide a highly sensitive actual signature, like in a PDF, to an anonymous admin and volunteer with no more than a screen name as identification in the volatile environment of the world's largest internet site) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Signatures would seem to dispute the claim that a signature is highly sensitive. However, the access policies for OTRS e-mail queues are defined by WMF office staff in accordance with the intent of the access to nonpublic data policy. Furthermore, I am not anonymous; I am identified to the Foundation as a CheckUser on the English-language Wikibooks project. If you're still concerned, what we would otherwise need is the above sent to us by the individuals from separate email addresses that can be matched to user profiles displaying an email address on geocaching.com; if the profiles don't show that, the users would want to post the license for the particular images in some description or comment below the images on geocaching.com using their user accounts. Either would confirm that the actual people operating the accounts on geocaching.com are approving the release of the images under certain terms. – Adrignola talk 19:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the wording above is ok? I want to make certain that I don't have to contact people every two or three years because of some change in the volunteer personnel and/or in Wikimedia practice. This takes a whole evening off me, you know. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wording is good. Pretty sure you took it from COM:ET, which is our standard form we link to anyway. – Adrignola talk 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All copyright holders have been notified. I noticed Geocaching does not really lend itself to the type of evidence you request: The user use nicknames, not their real names, there do not seem to be geocaching email accounts and you have to register anyway at the site to view the pictures. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleutherna Bridge

[edit]
I've done an immediate license review for the two files you linked out to logs for (01 and 03) and merged the email from Petr Novak regarding 01 and 02 (so with log evidence for 01 that allows us to know that 02 is also good). So those three are good. Thanks. – Adrignola talk 14:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm striking those from the deletion request. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also strike File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 02.jpg. I am offline for a couple of days, but I remain strongly committed to keep as many files as possible as I know all were given by full consent true to the license by the various copyright holders. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman bridges

[edit]
Mr Rochow's renewed permission also included his photographs of the Category:Bridge near Limyra (pic 01-17) and the Category:Bridge near Kemer (pic 01-22). Could you check if these files have a defunct permission too and replace them, if necessary, with the new one? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Won't have to. I merged the latest email with the old ticket (that's why the number above starts with 2009) so that we don't have to edit any files. – Adrignola talk 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: a few files with unresolved issues Jcb (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gun_Powder_Ma&oldid=60951177"