Commons:Deletion requests/Non-free recordings uploaded by User:Ravpapa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Non-free recordings uploaded by User:Ravpapa|year=2025|month=January|day=04}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Non-free recordings uploaded by User:Ravpapa|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Non-free recordings uploaded by User:Ravpapa}} 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.

Non-free recordings uploaded by User:Ravpapa

[edit]

These files state youtube videos as their source, but at youtube there is no indication of a free license. Since these files are mostly fragments, they could qualify for fair use if uploaded to Wikipedia locally. Maybe it would be reasonable to give the uploader such option (i.e. not delete them immediately but let him transfer the files first). --YurB (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These recordings are of two string quartets performed by amateur ensembles. At the time I wrote the article, I contacted the performers, and asked them to change the license on Youtube to CC 3.0, which they did. Now I go back to the recordings, following your post here, and find that the licenses have all mysteriously reverted to Standard YouTube license. I can only imagine that this has happened as a result of some software glitch at YouTube, as I am certain that neither the Seraphina quartet nor the Yorkside quartet would have made this change - both are extremely happy that their recordings are used to illustrate the Wikipedia articles.
I have not been in touch with these performers for several years, and I hope I can get in touch with them again. I will try, but cannot promise success. Please give me a couple of weeks to try to track them down and reset the licenses.
Would email exchanges with these performers agreeing to change the licenses be sufficient documentation? I have those and can easily forward them to you. Thanks, --Ravpapa 13:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I suspected that this is what might have happened. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, so I can't answer your question but I think that a more reliable thing to do would be to let them edit the description of the video and put a proper license indication there, and then let a user with review priviledges confirm that. That would protect it from any future license withdrawal at youtube. --YurB (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ravpapa asserting that the recordings were licensed as CC 3.0 at the time and offering emails from the performers is not sufficient? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that email addresses need to be verified somehow (i.e. appear on a website where the file is taken from). But people don't usually make their email addresses public on youtube. --YurB (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The licenses for the Yorkside quartet recordings of Death and the Maiden have now been corrected. I hope that the violinist of the Seraphina quartet will follow suit in the next couple of days.

How do I proceed to get this deletion request cancelled? And how do I ensure that this doesn't happen again? Tnx. --Ravpapa 06:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that it would be most convenient to follow the procedure defined in Commons:YouTube files, namely tagging them for {{License review}}. Let me tag the files for you (after I finish my job today). --YurB (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) It says in Template:LicenseReview/doc: "The template is intended to be used by the following user groups: Administrators". True? Is there an alternative for non-administrators to request a license review? b) Isn't it necessary for a deletion request that all involved files are tagged as such? I see only 3 files have been tagged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yurb. --Ravpapa 15:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the template documentation is ambiguous. I thought it is supposed be used as a "Review Wanted" notifier too, and it looks like it was updated to allow such usage (see its talk page). This is also what the Commons:YouTube files page suggests ("Uploaded videos should be tagged with {{LicenseReview}} to request a license review to permanently document that the video really was available under that license.") --YurB (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To be honest, I simply didn't have time to tag every file by hand with the template for deletion discussion and decided to only list them here. Now I have to tag them for license review but that's a different thing. --YurB (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YurB: The licenses on the Seraphina quartet recordings have now also been reset to Creative Commons Sharealike. So all the licenses are again in order. Thanks for your help. --Ravpapa 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ravpapa. I've tagged all the files requesting a license review. Hopefully a priviledged user will soon make all the files so that no external license change will influence the copies hosted here. Glad that we managed to fix this issue. I've also removed the deletion request tags from the files. --YurB (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Issue resolved. INeverCry 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Non-free_recordings_uploaded_by_User:Ravpapa&oldid=113321211"