Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ShustovVal

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 ShustovVal (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The gifs have imgflip.com watermarks, unlikely own work in the circumstances. Other photos are also unlikely to be own work.

russavia (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is the principle of presumption of innocence applicable in the Commons? Why don't you ask me first before shooting with your "Notification about possible deletion"? Anyway, in all thirteen (13) of your accusations you are dead wrong, namely: 1)The files
  • File:Getting BIG.jpg
  • File:Bodybuilding workout in a gym.jpeg

are neither gifs nor have any imgflip.com watermarks on them. 2)The files

do have imgflip.com watermarks but only as a result of my using their software called Animated GIF Generator for transforming my original videos into the format acceptable in the Commons. Due to the foregoing, I request your immediate apology for misrepresenting my generous uploads to the Commons as unlikely to be (my) own work.ShustovVal (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The watermark only means that the gifs were generated by the free media conversion service at imgflip.com. Unless it can be proven that these are not the work of ShustovVal, I think it's fair to assume they are derived from his videos, just as he says. @ShustovVal: Additional information about where the videos were captured might help to dispel any lingering suspicions about their origins. Lambtron (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The terms of service at imgflip.com include the following:
"If you are using our Services on behalf of a business, that business accepts these terms. It will hold harmless and indemnify Imgflip and its affiliates, officers, agents, and employees from any claim, suit or action arising from or related to the use of the Services or violation of these terms, including any liability or expense arising from claims, losses, damages, suits, judgments, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees."
Commons cannot accept those terms as they amount to a non-free license and impose significant possible costs upon Commons or anyone who uses the images.
As far as the DR goes, there is no presumption of innocence on Commons or WP. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the images are free. The presence of a third party watermark certainly raises doubts. If any apologies are to be made here, it seems to me that ShustovVal might apologize to the community for his aggressive response above to a legitimate concern. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: You may be right, but would you please explain your reasoning? In particular, why does the watermark raise doubts about whether the uploader originated the images? Also, why do you think their terms of service result in a non-free license? Lambtron (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:A says that the image is "own work", but it has a watermark from somewhere else. Almost every time, that is a case where the user has simply taken the images from a Web site without permission. Please remember that we get more than 10,000 new images every day. We delete more than 1,600 of them, mostly for copyvio. 25 Admins do 90% of that work and we work very fast to stay ahead. When we see a watermark from a third party, it immediately raises suspicions.
The TOS problem is fairly simple. If it turns out that ShustovVal does not, in fact, own the copyright here and the actual copyright holder sues, he will sue Shustoval, Commons, imgflip, and any off-WMF user of the image. He will pick all four because Shustoval may not have much money and the other two or three are better targets. The imgflip TOS requires that Commons indemnify and hold harmless imgflip -- at the very least pay their legal bills in such a suit. That's a potential risk, albeit small, that we don't need to accept. We accept only free images -- "free" in every sense, including free from hidden legal risks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Why is there an "imgflip.com" watermark on my GIFs?!?
The Imgflip watermark helps other people see where the GIF was created. We really don't want your GIFs to look bad though, so we made it as small as possible while still being readable, and it will not even show up on tiny GIFs. You can disable the watermark completely with a Pro account, if you really need to have watermark-free images."
Isn't this a proof beyond a significant doubt that all my images are free? ShustovVal (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It shows that the imgflip watermark does not itself indicate a copyright problem. Broadly experienced as we may be, you can't possibly expect that Russavia or I can know anything about imgflip.com. We didn't know that until you told us here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: What are you going to do now then?ShustovVal (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The DR has been open for a week, so I could simply close it now and delete them all. I am inclined, however, to see if any of my experienced Commons colleagues have a different opinion on the imgflip requirement quoted above, so I think I will wait and see. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ShustovVal: This doesn't actually prove that the images are free -- we know nothing about the sources except that you say you recorded them. One thing you could do to show they are free is to convert the videos to gifs with no watermarks (e.g., via ffmpeg); this would prove that you have the source videos. Also, it would be helpful if the gif comments included the locations where you captured the videos and information about the subjects; this would be compelling evidence that you did, in fact, capture the videos yourself. I realize this entails some work on your part, but your contributions are useful and it would be a shame for them to be deleted because of doubts about their status. Lambtron (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lambtron: Today, I received the following response from Imgflip:

"Re: Imgflip Feedback Dylan Wenzlau <dylanwenzlau@imgflip.com> Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:12 PM To: valentin.shustov@my.csun.edu

Hey Valentin, You can use the gifs for anything you want. Imgflip will never claim ownership of images you create. If you need to get rid of the watermark though, you can always use Imgflip Pro. -- Dylan Wenzlau Founder, Imgflip.com"

Therefore, it's my choice to preserve Imgflip.com watermarks on my gifs downloaded to Commons. FYI: all videos preceding the animations were captured in the Hollywood location of LA Fitness. Apropos, what is the reason for your disbelief about my authorship of the gifs? ShustovVal (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ShustovVal: Please read my comments more carefully. You have misconstrued my advice -- which is aimed at helping you preserve your Commons contributions -- as voicing disbelief about your authorship. Others here are inclined to delete your gifs, whereas I am offering ideas for preventing or mitigating that. Heed my ideas or not, as you choose. Lambtron (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lambtron: I wonder, what in my rather low level GIF animations is so extraordinary that nobody can believe in my authorship?! Anyway, I fully appreciate your positive approach to this situation and, therefore, will respond to your comment of 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) once more.
In general, you requested there to prove that the images are free. In particular, you advised
1) To convert the videos to gifs with no watermarks which, as you believe, would prove that I have the source videos.
2) To include the locations where I captured the videos and information about the subjects; this would be compelling evidence that I did, in fact, capture the videos myself.
My answer - Do you have any problems with these files:
File:High intensity training.gif
File:Bodybuilding workout in a gym.jpeg
(I have not modified them)?

Thanks, ShustovVal (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two files seem fine to me. The images have no watermarks and the descriptions suggest you have firsthand knowledge about locations and subjectshave imgflip.com watermarks,. Furthermore, it looks like you had previously posted one of them (the animated gif) to youtube. Lambtron (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one has no watermarks at all, while the rest do have imgflip.com watermarks on them, but, according to the previous discussion, those watermarks cannot compromise my right of downloading them to Commons. Besides, locations and subjects are also specified there. Shall we rehabilitate those files too? ShustovVal (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ShustovVal: All images of the senior appear to be the same subject and, since it seems clear you originated at least one image of this subject, I see no reason why any of these images should be considered suspect. However, I can't evaluate File:Getting BIG.jpg in the same way because it is a different subject and also because the EXIF fields don't shed light on the source. As for the watermarks, IMO they shouldn't be an issue, but I must defer any meaningful legal analysis to legal experts. Lambtron (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambtron: Did you pay attention to the hasty deletion of File:A senior jumping up on a pile of steps.gif on 13:56, 20 January 2015 without any discussion, by any chance? A similar file File:Jumps by a senior.gif, as well as others from the group, are still alive, thank God. ShustovVal (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that. IMO it should not have been deleted. Lambtron (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: No watermarks left! It's true. No watermarks left on the above mentioned files. What shall we do now? ShustovVal (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: @Russavia: @Lambtron: The DRs have been open for almost three weeks now. Taking into account that the only reason for discussion has gone (see above), will you close it at last and delete them all? Thanks! ShustovVal (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. What do you think, Jameslwoodward and russavia? Lambtron (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Removing the watermarks does not remove the reason for my objection -- that the use of imgflip imposes unreasonable and unacceptable legal burdens on all users of the images, including Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ShustovVal, apparently Jameslwoodward is concerned that the watermarked images still exist as earlier versions of the unwatermarked substitutes you recently uploaded. If that's the case then the solution is simple: upload your unwatermarked images again as new uploads, under new filenames. Then, the watermarked ones listed in this DR can be deleted, thereby relieving any concerns--whether warranted or not--about the watermarks. Jameslwoodward, will that solve the problem? Lambtron (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The issue here is these images were converted for uploading using a service which has absolutely unacceptable terms. The fact that ShustovVal has removed the watermarks does not change imgflip's rights. If it were as simple as removing the old versions, any Commons Admin (including me) could do that. If ShustovVal uploads these images again, they will be deleted on sight and he may well be blocked from editing -- uploading images a second time during or after a DR is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have allready explained my vision of the situation on the Jameslwoodward discussion page in the topic "No reason - no problem?" but it has been immediately deleted by the User. Never mind, I will try once more. The matter is the term "to remove watermark" does not mean just literal removal of some mark from an old image. In my case, the new and old images are absolutely different though they are made from the same origional video. If you open my DR stained file File:Pull-ups by a senior.gif, you may see there: the new animation has 6.44 MB while the old one has only 1.87 MB. Conclusion: deletion of DR in my case violates no Commons rules. ShustovVal (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your comments on my talk page because there is no point in wasting my time and yours having the same discussion in two places and this is the only correct place for the discussion.
You are skirting around the fundamental question here -- is imgflip.com involved in any way with the new versions of the images? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: When ShustovVal says the watermarks have been "removed", he means that he has converted his videos to animated gifs by a method that does not produce watermarks -- perhaps not the best choice of words to explain his actions, but nevertheless a valid solution to the perceived imgflip problem. Why should it matter which conversion software or service he used to accomplish that? I see no reason to dwell on the imgflip issue any longer as it has been satisfactorily resolved. Unless there is some other problem here, this DR should be closed posthaste and ShustovVal should be permitted to upload his revised files. Lambtron (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lambtron, your comments are not helpful here. I do not see ShustovVal saying any of that above -- he simply said that the watermarks were removed. As I said, removal does not solve the problem, so we need to know how ShustovVal created the new files. I would be happy to close this as a keep as soon as ShustovVal, not you, explains that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but it should be obvious to any objective analyst that watermarks cannot actually be "removed"; they can only be eliminated by recreating the gifs from the source videos. Do you have any other explanation for how the watermarks were "removed"? If not, then why are you insisting that ShustovVal explain the method he used to convert his videos to animated gifs? And why is it "unhelpful" to focus on this core issue? Either (1) there is some other concern here that has not yet seen the light of day, or (2) it is time to close this DR and allow ShustovVal to upload the revised files. Lambtron (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lambtron, actually, there are semi-automatic tools that can remove watermarks and it is entirely possible to remove one almost perfectly invisibly by hand. On these small gifs, that might take 10 or 15 minutes per frame, so it was entirely possible that ShustovVal had literally removed them. See Help:Removing watermarks for more details. Hence my request that ShustovVal himself tell us how the new files were created..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your time but it were, probably, my words "to remove watermarks" which might create some uncertainty in understanding. Actually, I kept in mind just creating new revised files instead of the previous ones. My answer to the question "how" is simple: 1)Making a short movie for a certain topic. 2)Transferring it from MOV to GIF animation format which is good for Commons. 3)Editing it. 4)Uploading the final product to Commons. That's it. ShustovVal (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: On 11:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC), after you visited https://imgflip.com/gifgenerator, you said:[reply]

"It shows that the imgflip watermark does not itself indicate a copyright problem. Broadly experienced as we may be, you can't possibly expect that Russavia or I can know anything about imgflip.com. We didn't know that until you told us here."

Then, on 20:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC), you added:

"The DR has been open for a week, so I could simply close it now and delete them all. I am inclined, however, to see if any of my experienced Commons colleagues have a different opinion on the imgflip requirement quoted above, so I think I will wait and see."

Now, your experienced Commons colleague Lambtron clearly expressed his support of your intention to delete all DRs. Besides, I have explained the procedure of creating my GIF files (see above). As a result, I wonder now, is there any good to waste our precious time any more? ShustovVal (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this DR as it is clear that it was improperly closed. ShustovVal is the subject of all of these images and therefore his claim of "own work" is clearly incorrect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ShustovVal (talk · contribs)

Reupload of deleted content; a portion of File:A senior jumping up on a pile of steps.gif whose deletion was confirmed twice (!) at COM:UD [1] [2]. This image suffers certain of the same infirmities, not the least of which is that the uploader is the subject, not the author (who can be seen in the deleted file above). Copyright, and thus the ability to license, is held by the latter.

Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete I agree that these and others by this uploader are not properly licensed. When closing the last DR, I did not know that the uploader is the subject of the images and cannot, therefore, be the photographer. (see http://www.ecs.csun.edu/~shustov/LeisureWork.htm) The claim of "own work" is certainly not correct.

I also see no reason why this DR should not be closed immediately. These images have been through two UnDRs and were uploaded in violation of Commons rules. Re-uploads of deleted material are {{Speedy}} deletions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep *The reason for above sanctions by Jameslwoodward is: "... the uploader is the subject of the images and cannot, therefore, be the photographer. The claim of "own work" is certainly not correct..."
FYI: There is a device invented about a century ago. Its name is "self-timer". According to Wikipedia, "A self-timer is a device on a camera that gives a delay between pressing the shutter release and the shutter's firing. It is most commonly used to let photographers to take a photo of themselves".
Due to foregoing, will you remove your DRs, please? Thanks. ShustovVal (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I simply don't believe you. You have worn out your credibility with me. It is possible that some of the shots were made with a self timer, but for most of them it's very unlikely. In File:Jumping on step platforms.gif the photographer is visible in the mirror -- if it were actually a self timer shot the camera would be visible on a tripod. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
  • @Jameslwoodward: Your statements "I simply don't believe you. You have worn out your credibility with me." are a personal attack on me! You should avoid it.
Now, let's do one thing at a time, namely:
1) Starting from your statement "It is possible that some of the shots were made with a self timer", please specify such shorts and remove the corresponding files from your list for DR.
2) Another statement "In File:Jumping on step platforms.gif the photographer is visible in the mirror -- if it were actually a self timer shot the camera would be visible on a tripod." is not universally true: I may provide a lot of samples when neither tripod nor photographer are seen in the mirror. Anyway, in this particular case, I asked one of those present in the gym to simply press the button of the camera thus acting as a live tripod but on two legs. Therefore, you may remove this file from your list for DR too. Thank you. ShustovVal (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the second point first, it is well established that being the owner of the camera does not make you the owner of the copyright. Copyright belongs to the actual photographer because it is the photographer who provides the creative input required for copyright, not the camera owner.
As for the first point, it is Commons policy to Assume Good Faith, to assume that the uploader is not trying to deceive us. However, once we have seen that the uploader does not make accurate statements -- whether by deliberately lying or simply by making mistakes -- then we no longer use AGF. By claiming "own work" on a file that was clearly the work of another, you have forfeited your right to AGF. Note that I am not calling you a liar -- I am simply saying that your statements are not always accurate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. Yann (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_ShustovVal&oldid=356401651"