Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madelgarius

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 Madelgarius (1) (talk · contribs)

[edit]
first discussion (closed)
This is a collection of obviously old photographs. I have selected only those that appear to be from the 20th century -- too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. All of them are tagged either PD-OLD or "Own Work". I doubt that any are actually "Own Work" and, while a few may actually be PD-OLD, that will have to be proven.
Files
* File:Youra Livchitz (avant 1943).jpg

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ces images ont été publiées pour la première fois il y a plus de septante ans et sont d'un auteur inconnu.
These images were published for the first time there are more than seventy years ago and the author is unknown or anonymous.
--H2O(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unknown" and "Anonymous" are two very different things. If the photographer is merely unknown to us, then in most countries the image is an Orphan Work and is not PD until a long time has passed, maybe never. Only in the UK, as far as I know, can you do a diligent search for information about the creator and, after not finding his name, use the image as if it were PD. In order to use the provisions in most copyright laws for "Anonymous Works", you must show beyond a significant doubt that the creator actually intended to remain anonymous. That is rarely the case and is always very hard to prove.
Also note that many of these images are younger than 70 years and after looking at many (but not all) of them, I can say that none of them have any proof of publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You say "I have selected only those that appear to be from the 20th century ". Well, File:François Laurent (1810-1887).jpg looks very young for somebody dead more than 10 years before. I would have a question : what kind of proof would you accept to ensure that photographers are anonymous, and not unknown ? (stating that it is impossible to show any certificate signed by their hands, as they are just...anonymous). Cheers. --La femme de menage (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I strongly suggest to add the media of the day, File:San Francisco Earthquake footage.ogv : it is from 1906, and the author is stated to be unknown, and not anonymous. Yours, --La femme de menage (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for my bad english) The author of File:François Laurent (1810-1887).jpg seems to be known : it's Charles d'Hoy, who died in 1895 (see here, under "Afbeeldingen"). The problem is that the file desciption in commons is wrong, or at least not precise enough. It comes from Gent University, and the author is well known. But he died more than 70 years ago.--Rehtse (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two files noted above. On the other hand,La femme de menage, File:San Francisco Earthquake footage.ogv is a USA work and comes under the USA rules -- anything published before 1923 is PD even if the creator is still living.

In PMA 70 countries, a person born in 1866 could easily have taken a photo in 1886 and not died before 1946, age 80. Thus I generally use 130 years ago as the cutoff for assuming that the photographer has probably been dead for 70 years. Note that in both France and Belgium the law is that an anonymous work becomes PD 70 years after publication -- not creation. As I noted above, there is no proof of publication that I have seen on any of these files. If their appearance here is their first publication, it will be 2086 before they become PD.

If you can find proof of publication for any of them, the next step is to prove that "anonymous" applies. Proof that a work was published anonymously is very difficult, largely because works are rarely anonymous -- the creator wants both payment and credit in almost every case. In order to achieve anonymity within the meaning of the law, the creator would have to engage a lawyer or other third party to submit the work for publication or would have to submit the work anonymously himself, eliminating any possibility of payment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment FYI, there is a discussion on the French VP about this. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, the majority of works from that period are anonymous. Most of the time the photographer received a one-time payment, he is not credited, and he was not supposed to use his work again. It was assumed in fact that it was a work for hire. A proof of publication and that the work was not credited should be the norm on Commons, but we shouldn't very strict for old works. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for the anonymous part in France -- for me (and in the US), for a creator to be "Anonymous", he must be unknown to the publisher, so there can be no payment except through a lawyer or other intermediary.
We're still left with the fact that none of these image files have any evidence of prior publication. I would be happy to have someone who wants these kept to go through the files one by one and add the necessary information. We can certainly hold off on closing this until that is done.
Finally, fair warning -- many of the remaining files uploaded by User:Madelgarius have similar problems. Once this closed, I will go through all of them again, looking for more problems. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global deletion request

Je ne vais pas tout commenter mais relayer ici juste assez d'éléments pour expliquer qu'un traitement global de mes contributions n'est absolument pas justifié (j'ignorais d'abord que cela puisse se faire). Voici donc quelques commentaires:
more information about me on Commons (in french but translations are welcome)

already kept (since the procedure began)

list
* [kept] - File:L'assassinat d'Henriette Evenepoel (1847).jpg - Comme le mentionne la page commons, la première publication était in Drames judiciaires. Scènes correctionnelles. Causes célèbres de tous les peuples. Première série, rédigée par Ch. Dupressoir - 1849. L'auteur de la gravure n'est pas identifié -> domaine public.

Some more files to be kept (I am not exhaustive)

Bon, j'arrête là, en voici assez pour démontrer que le traitement "par lot" de mes contributions sur Commons n'est pas justifié et s'apparente fort à une chasse aux sorcières que je qualifie volontiers - c'est mon ressenti - de harcèlement et d'une volonté de vouloir faire passer son point de vue "en force" sans laisser la possibilité de s'expliquer (je suis actuellement bloqué pour trois jours). Bref tout ceci est disproportionné, déloyal et pour tout dire, navrant. Sur base de ceci, je vous prie instamment de clore sans suite cette requête et d'appliquer les règles de commons avec un peu plus de sérénité et moins d'envies de vouloir faire la leçon aux contributeurs dont l'unique crime est de vouloir illustrer Wikipedia. J'espère encore que des administrateurs disposant de davantage de recul pourront valablement intervenir ici pour apaiser les esprits. Je suis conscient que mon troisième upload du fichier Youra Livchitz ait pu être perçu comme vexatoire par certains. Dans l'analyse du fait, il ne faut pas perdre cependant de vue qu'en toute hypothèse - et de l'aveu même de celui qui a demandé mon blocage - cette photographie est probablement dans le domaine public. Le côté heurtant de mon enième upload doit donc être tempéré par un positionnement rigide, heurtant également, en vis à vis. Pourriez-vous m'indiquer enfin le lien vers la procédure de Commons qui permet de traiter en une seule requête l'ensemble des contributions d'un utilisateur? Bien à vous, --Madelgarius (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Madelgarius: Les photographies font le tour du monde sans copyright ni vélléité de le faire valoir-> domaine public Désolé, mais ça ne fonctionne pas comme ça. Il faut au moins une justification plausible que la photo ait été publiée sans mention de l'auteur. Idéalement une faut une preuve. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I would be very happy to keep all of these, but in order for that to happen, Madelgarius or someone else must change all of the file descriptions with the information he has provided above. We can wait a reasonable time for that, but that would be a few days, perhaps another week or so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Hi Jim, I red your post on the Commons:Bistro#Us et coutumes sur Commons and this one. I know now that's not obvious to deal with 10000 pictures/day. I'm not angry with this anymore (only disappointed;-)). I never drop a picture on Commons if I'm convinced that doing so is "cheating" (in good ugly english). Often (and for the WWII that's regularly the case) Images are "on the border". And I decide to drop them. I will took as an example the serie of pictures @Yann: is speaking about just above, the one concerning Masha Bruskina. The pictures were taken by a lithuanian working for the Nazis. Those pictures were widely distributed by the nazis in the late 1941, beginning 1942. They wanted to terrorize the populations. Afterwards, in 1968, the picture were published once again in a russian journal for identification of the protagonists (I explain that with sources in the french article - an english source can be found here second § after the picture). So we have pictures from Nazis, published in 1941. From my point of view they are in the public domain. Unfortunately I can't find anymore the source saying that this lithuanian died during the war (but i'm still searching) anyway, I think - but I can be wrong - that all the propaganda support materials of the nazis are in the public domain and no one can ask for royalties for those publications.
You fairly propose to take time for this deletion request. That's kind of you. I have another proposition to submit, we stopped this procedure, and you propose once at a time one (not more than a hundred at a time;-)) of my picture you think not to be PD. We could disccuss about it and I promise if I do not have any argument for keeping to agree for deletion. On the other hand, if you think that's a probable pd picture but with the wrong licence or description or whatever... You 'll help me to correct this. A bit more collaborative way of doing things ;-) What do you think about that? Sincerely, --Madelgarius (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As they stand right now, all of the images above should be deleted because the file descriptions do not have the necessary information to allow us to keep them. Many of them can probably be kept, but doing so will require someone, probably you, to go through them all one by one and change the file descriptions. We can certainly allow some time for that, but I have no interest in closing this Dr and then opening 200+ new individual DRs for the same files.

I have commented on some of your comments above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, global deletion request are justified if all (almost) all the contributions are to be deleted. It's not the case. Wrong procedure. --Madelgarius (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said above, as they stand right now, all -- not almost all -- of the files above should, according to Commons rules, be deleted because they do not have any evidence that they are PD. Merely saying that an old-looking file is PD without including the date of the author's death or the date of publication is not enough unless the file is a photograph of a known person taken before 1886. Since drawings and paintings can be done after the subject's death, they must always have date of publication or author's death. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you recognize to work too fast and to proposed some of my uploads too quickly for deletion (25 already kept + 7 advise for conservation) but the procedure is still running. You were upset by my third upload and decide to drag all my files to give me a lesson. I correctly understand now that all reupload must be discussed. Anyway this procedure is unfair. Three days blocked was sufficient, was'nt it? You can apply this treatment to anybody working around the WWII and the result would be the same. I made the test with three random contributors of that kind. With such an amount of picture proposed at once and the fact that you seem to argue that by default pictures will be deleted and finally the fact that you drop them without discernement, I ask you, for the last time to renounce to this procedure. If you still want to achieve it. I will definitively stop my contributions here because I can't admit that contributions made in five years receive such a bad treatment at once, this is not respectfull and if a project like this one accept that, I will no more contribute. (But maybe this is what you are looking for). Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point of procedure

If the procedure is maintained, it's obvious that we will discuss picture by picture and certainly not according to one felt global on my contributions.
Si la procédure est maintenue, il est évident que nous discuterons image par image et non en fonction d'un ressenti global à l'égard de mes contributions.
I reserve the right to speak in French every time the sharpness of the language would be lacking to me in English.
Je me réserve le droit de parler en français à chaque fois que la finesse de la langue me ferait défaut en anglais
--Madelgarius (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Procedural keep now, as there are no recent comments and this is going to be incomprehensible. Please renominate in smaller batches if applicable. --Krd 17:39, 29 January 2016 (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 Madelgarius (2) (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These are all PD or otherwise licensed images present on Commons that have been enhanced using the Remini. AI app. The uploader claims copyright in the enhanced image and has licensed them CC-BY-SA. However, since there is no human creative input in the enhancement process, no new copyright has been created. These can be kept if the community believes that such enhancements are useful and the licenses are all changed to the same license as the originals.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couldn't this be handled by a single question at Village Pump, rather than starting the deletion process? I think they should be kept but the warning on the page enhanced. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that this deletion procedure is the best one either.
This issue has already been discussed on the Village Pump" on the Bistro commons and on the fr:WP bistro. The result was that retouched files should appear in separate files with a link in a warning banner and a link to the original image. all these files are included in a maintenance category (Category:Remini.ai retouched pictures). On French Wikipedia, it was decided that a message below the edited image would inform that it has been edited by an AI and link to the original image. In addition, the template used categorises pages with an AI-edited image in a maintenance category. all these things have been achieved.
I don't mind if an adapted license is put on these files or if the same license as the original is also included or whatever other formula would be agreed upon.
and by the same token, commons procedures are not meant to be used to retaliate against your opponents either. It is one thing to disagree, but it is quite another to initiate proceedings to "lecture". This is the second time you have done this to me. This practice is disloyal, questionable and should be sanctioned.Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DR has its merit.
  1. The processed images should be retagged as retouched images (e.g. using our standard template {{Retouched picture}}).
  2. It must be clearly said who is the original author and who is the author of modifications - in some cases like File:Charlotte of Belgium-(Remini enhanced - handcolor).jpg, modifications are non-trivial, and Madelgarius has a right to claim themselves as a co-author. Most other cases do appear as if Madelgarius has hijacked the image, replacing the original author with themselves (e.g. File:Alain Souchon 2012 (Remini enhanced).jpg and many others). Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It does not appear to me that deletion is appropriate. It seems to me that most of the images were PD and have been manipulated or edited; it's within the uploader's right to upload them under that licence. If images have been retouched in a way that breaches the licence (maybe a FAL image relicensed as CC-BY-SA which is incompatible) then this can be nominated individually. --Stifle (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Madelgarius&oldid=901660486"