Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RodRabelo7

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 RodRabelo7 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Tagged as copyvio by Chronus with the rationale: "The license CC BY 3.0 is no longer valid for content that was produced by Empresa Brasil de Comunicação after 23 de fevereiro de 2017 (see here and here)." Converting to DR as this is a complex situation unsuitable for speedy deletion.

King of ♥ 04:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly happened here? I’m a little bit confused. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{EBC}} says that it is not a valid license for content produced by Empresa Brasil de Comunicação after 23 February 2017, so Chronus tagged these as a copyright violation. Of course, it doesn't matter since the Youtube videos from the official channel have a valid CC license. I will try to fix the EBC template so nobody is confused by it in the future. -- King of ♥ 05:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts@RodRabelo7 I hadn't seen that the videos had been uploaded with the correct license. I think we can cancel this deletion order. Chronus (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Oh, now I got it. By the way, I think it should also be discussed (if not already done) if we can rely on the “amp trick” to upload TV Brasil photos on Commons. For example, take this link and put ?amp after it. Now, at the end of the page, we can clearly read that the photos are licensed under CC-BY: “Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes.” Could and should we use this to upload their files? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @King of Hearts, Chronus: I think you guys might be conflating a couple of concepts here – though, let me preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer, I'm speaking only from my understanding.
Even if the YouTube video is published under Creative Commons, that doesn't mean every frame in it is CC-BY. Only original content created by the uploader – for example, in this case, footage of the reporter speaking from the newsroom – would be CC-BY. Footage from any third-parties would still be copyrighted and owned by the third-parties.
Say you pull out your phone and record a couple of scenes from Finding Nemo that's on TV. If you post that to YouTube and release it under CC-BY (assuming it doesn't get taken down immediately), that doesn't make Finding Nemo (or any frames thereof) also CC-BY. It's all still copyrighted.
You might then say, "well, but if they can show the footage, why can't Wiki Commons have it as well?". Well, as far as I know (though, again, I'm not a lawyer), Brazilian law is more lenient with regards to copyright infringement by the press, so they can reproduce works that an individual wouldn't necessarily have the rights to, if it's in the name of news reporting. I looked around a bit and couldn't find the exact law that dictates this (it might be a weird angle on some wording in the constitution, see Art.5 XIV and Art.220 §1). So, who knows, perhaps even they are liable.
Therefore, even if the videos were made available under CC-BY (and even that might be disputed, for reasons mentioned above and here), that doesn't necessarily allow Wiki Commons to host their entirety, or even individual frames containing footage recorded by some unknown third-party. :(
Of course, this is only my understanding, and it would be great to have more feedback from others. — Avelludo 04:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have any examples of portions that are not actually owned by the Brazilian government? -- King of ♥ 04:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: File:-AoVivo- Brasil em Dia - 09 de janeiro de 2023.webm has plenty of footage I believe was not recorded by TV Brasil. One very clear example is the recording starting at 2:52 on that file. It's vertical video – that's surely not from a cameraman at the scene, but rather video posted to social media by someone who was participating in the attacks. I don't think most (if any) of the footage of the attack itself was actually recorded by TV Brasil. They're reproductions from social media posts.
This would also apply to Chronus' File:Ataque bolsonarista ao Congresso Nacional do Brasil.png, as well as any other single frames from the video that contain footage produced by third-parties (=copyrighted).
And, trust me, I'm on your side. I'd love for there to be free images of this event. But I don't believe these are it. — Avelludo 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avelludo How can you say that this images, especially this one, are not recorded by TV Brasil? Chronus (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chronus How do you know that they were recorded by TV Brasil? It's intercut with several videos that they do not own, taken from social media. That should raise some suspicion. Plus, there's a lot of (non-free) drone footage from that day from various different sources – who knows if TV Brasil didn't license it instead of recording it themselves? Some examples:
TV Brasil may actually own that footage; I'm not saying that they don't. But in order for it to be free (if TV Brasil really is CC-BY), then we need to be sure that they own it. Because a lot of what's shown there isn't theirs. — Avelludo 04:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The films seems correctly licensed. Imho we can safely assume that Brazil TV is aware of material they use from others, and as a professional organisation will make an agreement with the original copyright holders. --Ellywa (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]