Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Mdd (2)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files uploaded by User:Mdd (2)|year=2025|month=January|day=11}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files uploaded by User:Mdd (2)|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Mdd (2)}} at the end of today's log.
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 User:Mdd (2)

[edit]

All of these photos are showing the uploader in person, User:Mdd. Mdd claims to be the author, but this appears highly unlikely. There is no evidence these image are indeed photographed by Mdd. Therefore I suspect copyright violations. --Elly (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The files below I am giving the benifit of the doubt and can be maintained unless somebody else judges in another way, Elly (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ellywa (reaction on removed text by Mdd)

[edit]

you are not the owner of the copyright if a photo is made by unknown bystanders. These should be deleted. Permissions to publish photos by close relations should be sent to OTRS and are kept confidential. In any case your name as the author is not correct. Elly (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will make some extra inquiries and contact people for permission. -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. If this process takes too long, the images can always be undeleted. Elly (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added numbers. Which of the numbers do you still question. -- Mdd (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement by Mdd

[edit]

Based on the information that gathered a new listing is made: 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC). First update: 22:59, 30 June 2020.

I. PHOTO'S WITH NO COPYRIGHT QUESTIONED

Self-timer, camera, concept and directions by Marcel Douwe Dekker:

Selfie, camera, concept and directions by Marcel Douwe Dekker:

  • F. File:Mdd.jpg, indeed a selfie and I can show dozens more in the same series, not online at the moment
II. PHOTO'S WITH COPYRIGHT QUESTIONED

Photo outside threshold of originality according to Ellywa ; copyright claimed due to significant digital enhancements by Marcel Douwe Dekker:

Photo outside threshold of originality according to Ellywa ; copyright claimed due to significant digital enhancements by Mdd Photo of the original; concept and further enhancements by Marcel Douwe Dekker:

Copyright claimed due to camera, concept & direction by Marcel Douwe Dekker. Artist or bystander who took the picture are still unknown. Requiring legal advice from the trade union is in progress:

Concept is the registration of the wedding ceremony performance : Camera, concept & direction by Marcel Douwe Dekker. Artist who took the picture is most likely determined. Requiring written permission is in progress:

Picture of chair exhibition : Camera, concept & direction by Marcel Douwe Dekker. Picture most likely taken by Willy Lamain. Establishing contacting and requiring permission is in progress:

Picture of an event at work: Concept & direction by Marcel Douwe Dekker. Picture taken by employee of Theun de Vries fotoservice at Blijdorp, 1986

Picture donated to me by close relation, who didn't wanted to be unmentioned but gave verbal permission. Requiring written permission is in progress.

-- Mdd (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC) / Mdd (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a lot less complicated than you suggest above. All 11 pictures that you numbered 1 to 8 are not made by you, therefore you cannot upload them as your own work nor can you claim copyright on those pictures and label them with a free licence. Only the maker of a picture has the copyright and can put a (any) licence on a picture. Since you don't have the copyright to those eleven pictures they need to be deleted (preferably asap) because of copyright violation.
I will leave the conclusion about the other six photographs (the ones you numbered A to F and that you claim have been taken with a timer and by yourself) to Gebruiker:Ellywa
Your English is oftentimes not very clear, but I wondered if you actually meant the opposite of "who didn't wanted to be unmentioned" (as in: who didn't wanted to be mentioned). Good evening, Ecritures (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Situation and text have been updated. I do think there is more to it, such as threshold, Flickr license, verbal permission, and written permission. -- Mdd (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so; but all the points you mention are not applicable here right at this moment. The only thing that matters is that these pictures are not your own work, you are not the maker of these files therefore you don't own the copyright. The Flickr license you refer to is that the one you have given yourself? As you are not the photographer you don't "own the right" to put any licence on work of others. You can simply not claim the work to be yours. Even when there is written consent somewhere that the maker agrees with you uploading their work to Commons you cannot do so by claiming it is "your own work". (The written consent should be sent to OTRS *before* you upload and not years later when it is noticed there are several problems with what you persistently and erroneously call 'your own work'. Verbal consent should be put in writing and be handled in the same way as described before). The threshold or originality refers for example to scans, digital copies of 2D work: let's take 2D work in the public domain. The person who for example digitises these PD 2D works cannot claim copyright themself since the mere digitising (or faithfully reproducing the 2D image) does not pass the threshold of originality. Ecritures (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The complication here is that Elly piled up 18 pictures with nine different types of copyright circumstances. For this alone your generalization The only thing that matters is that these pictures are not your own work is bogus because some are.
Now your argument "the Flickr license you refer to is that the one you have given yourself?" is also a complicating factor. More than a year ago I explicitly explained on my talk page, that The contributions I make to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are part of my research & development as independent artist. In this particular matter I have licensed my work on Flickr as an artist, and imported work from Flickr here as a Wikipedia associate.
Since my start in 2004 I have been wearing multiple hats and in doing so I have made big and little mistakes. I try to keep improving my performance, but still may missed a spot here and there. Now Elly has mass nominate 18 pictures, and you Ecritures mass nominate also about 20 pictures. In that nomination I noticed one picture I have missed, and fully cooperated.
So your generalization is bogus because it doesn't apply to all pictures. I would very much appreciate if you would take your disagreement with Elly concerning threshold to a more public place and sort it out. -- Mdd (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not add more comments, enough is said imho for the sysops to take a desicion on the listed images. A note in Dutch for clarity and understandibility (I am not native in English) about " threshold of originality". Een simpele pasfoto, bijvoorbeeld gemaakt in een automaat of bij een fotograaf is voor zover ik weet "below threshold". Dus die kan iedereen publiceren. Maar ik kan momenteel niet vinden waar dit staat in het beleid van Commons. Voor een portretfoto waar de persoon goed geportretteerd is geldt dat niet. De lijn daartussen is natuurlijk vaag. Gebruik dus alleen voor standaard pasfoto's. Elly (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last reaction too. First of all, I clearly stated that I was talking about " All 11 pictures that you numbered 1 to 8 are not made by you"; so your claim 'So your generalization is bogus because it doesn't apply to all pictures' is - to just mention one thing - not following the AGF habit we try and uphold when in contact with fellow Wikimedians. Artist or not (whatever that exactly entails) uploading copyrighted images or claiming work of others as your own is not a process anyone should endorse on Wikimedia Commons (and a as result on several language Wikipedia projects). Ecritures (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verzoek tot opsplitsing van deze massa-nominatie

[edit]

Hierbij verzoek ik tot afsluiting van deze massa-nominatie met behoud van iedere afbeelding, en indien daar behoefte aan bestaat individuele hernominatie en wel om de volgende redenen:

  1. De directe aanleiding tot de massanominatie lijkt het volgende commentaar te zijn op Wikipedia, zie hier.
    ...en dat door een persoon die zelf op flagrante wijze auteursrechten schendt door bijv File:Theo Lalleman, Marcel Douwe Dekker en hond, Rotterdam 1993.jpg deze foto als de zijne te claimen. Krijg ik nu een blokverzoek omdat ik dit aan de kaak stel? svp mdd nomineer deze foto en andere op Commons zelf voor verwijdering om je fout te herstellen. Elly (overleg) 28 jun 2020 09:58 (CEST)
  2. Ik heb zelf de indruk, dat daar een grove smadelijke aantijging gemaakt is, en dat er daarna hier op Commons een hopeloos ingewikkelde massa nominatie wordt ingezet waarbij er van alles bij getrokken wordt.
  3. Wat ik nog kwalijker blijf vinden is, dat ik hiervoor juist Ecritures had aangesproken op een vergelijkbaar geval dat ze geïmpliceerd had dat het Museum Rotterdam op grote schaal copyright had geschonden. Nadat ik er haar daar op diverse punten op had aangesproken, volgde er hier op Commons een eerdere massanominatie, waarbij in de verdere discussie nog allerlei GLAM partners het moesten ontgelden.

Ik heb sterk de indruk, dat Wikipedia procedures zijn ingezet om zaken te compliceren en te verbloemen. Het heeft er alle schijn van dat Elly op 28 June 2020 's avonds om 18:30u het bewijs wilde gaan leveren van de uitspraak, die ze die dag om 09:58u deed. Dat kan wat mij betreft echt niet.

Het betrof in eerste instantie de File:Theo Lalleman, Marcel Douwe Dekker en hond, Rotterdam 1993.jpg, waarvan ik nog steeds vind dat ik in het volle recht stond en sta om deze op Flickr en Commons te delen. Met de maker van de foto heb ik hierover duidelijke mondelinge afspraken gemaakt, dat zij niet vermeld wilde worden. Dit wordt volgens mij ook wel fictief makerschap genoemd, en dat zouden we hier volgens mij ook moeten erkennen. Maar dit alleen al kan een hele discussie opleveren.

Bij andere hierboven aangehaalde foto's zijn er weer andere omstandigheden. Iedere afbeelding heeft hier recht op een zorgvuldige behandeling, en dat schiet er hier bij in. Vandaar dit verzoek. -- Mdd (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: *Mixed Close* -> kept those claimed as timer selfies and selfies and removed the ones by other authors. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Mdd_(2)&oldid=684055013"