Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by User:Spinerod

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Uploads by User:Spinerod|year=2025|month=January|day=05}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Uploads by User:Spinerod|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by User:Spinerod}} at the end of today's log.

Uploads by User:Spinerod

[edit]

User Spinerod has uploaded various Philadelphia Union-related photographs taken from elsewhere and marked as self-created, here and on the English Wikipedia. I've already marked the following for deletion, as they were from Getty Images and obvious copyvios:

--Ytoyoda (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) --Ytoyoda (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Edited to add links to Facebook photos for images that were relatively easy to find. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that WP:AGF applies here as well as on Wikipedia. It does indeed seem that user:Spinerod has taken a lot of good photos of the Philadelphia Union, and uploaded them, claiming that he took the photos. That, of course, is not enough to justify deletion. You say that these photos are from Getty Images. I couldn't find them there. Can you provide links or reference numbers? Smallbones (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what I wrote. The redlinked images were obviously Getty Images photos and falsely claimed as self-made. The listed images are photographs of unknown origins. I'm all for AGF as much as the next person, but:
  1. All of these user's images are poorly sourced.
  2. AGF or not, it's up to the uploader to provide enough information to either verify, or at least reasonably conclude, that the license is correct. Spinerod hasn't bothered to do that, and given the history of copyvios, you'd like to see some indication that the photo is self created, right?
  3. We can assume good faith if we know nothing about the user, but we already know the user has lied about copyright information (or we can still assume good faith and conclude that the user is clueless about copyright).
And to add just one more, this image was also a copyright violation from here.--Ytoyoda (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence of copyright violation yet. "This image" File:Sheanon Williams.jpg was deleted in March, and all the others from Wikipedia are redlinks, without documentation as to their copyright status. And all the commons photos have no information on copyright status. So, as far as I can see it, Spinerod and you are tied as far as lack of documentation. AGF seems to say I should trust Spinerod until I have reason to believe otherwise. You can document if you have the proof, so in case of a tie, it seems we should go with Spinerod. Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not look at the deletion logs on the deleted images? They were all very obvious copyvios. And not having information on copyright status is good enough reason for speedy deletion. It would've been well within policy to simply tag the images with {{Nsd}}, but I thought a deletion discussion would at least give the user a chance to explain themselves. But if Spinerod is unable or unwilling to provide better source information on those uploads, they should be deleted, regardless of the user's history.
Also, keep in mind that AGF is about trusting that a user didn't intend to go against policy - it's not about assuming competence. --Ytoyoda (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I’m responsible of moving a few of the stadium photos (File:Sons of Ben Tifo.jpg, File:Sons of Ben PPL Park Opener.jpg, File:PPL Park1.jpg and two others that were already deleted) from en.Wikipedia to Commons. In light of the information provided by Ytoyoda, I did a little digging and found out that the particular photos have also been published by the Philadelphia Union in this gallery (see 1, 2 and 3) at the club’s official Facebook page. I’m guessing Facebook might be the source for the other photos as well. –Kooma (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks are missing a lot here. There IS information given on copyright status. Spinerod has said that he took the pictures and has given up his copyright to the public domain. If you have information on any of the files that you propose for deletion, please present that. Otherwise, please remove the proposed deletions. It's up to you to show that the files are copyright violations. I wouldn't want anybody going around deleting my files simply because the only information I've given on copyright is a declaration that I took the photos and give the copyright to the public domain. You clearly have to go well beyond that. Until I see some evidence on the particular files to be deleted, it looks like you are getting carried away, so, until then these are all:
  • KEEP Smallbones (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you seem to be conflating "assume good faith" with "take them at their word". Most photographs, including professional photographs, are non-free, so it's always up to the uploader to provide information that allows us to either verify or reasonably conclude that the license information is correct. Spinerod has failed to do that in pretty much every image. Now, images often stay on Commons without fully verifiable source information because there's no reason to suspect copyright violation. But in this case, we have several red flags, like low-resolution, high-quality photos, photos that have been previously published by the Philadelphia Union, and of course, an uploader with a known history of copyright violations. Again, it's not up to me to show that these are copyright violations - almost all intellectual property in the world are copyrighted. It's up to the uploader to show that the work is theirs and the licenses are valid. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Assume good faith" is not the same as "take them at their word" sounds pretty bizarre to me - at best you are making a very fine distinction. Please tell me how your deleting Spinerod's stuff is any different than the arguements you might use to delete my stuff. And yes, I do believe that you have an obligation to show where the copyright violation is. Otherwise, it would seem to come down to "I can delete anything I want to." Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bizarre at all. "Assume good faith" just means "I believe you are acting with the best of intent and you don't mean to willfully disrupt the project", not "I assume everything you say is correct." Now, why are Spinerod's uploads up for deletion and not yours? As far as I can tell,
  1. You don't have a documented history of uploading copyrighted photos and claiming them as yours
  2. You're not uploading very professional looking photographs at a low, web-ready resolution - editors are asked to upload images at the highest resolution possible
  3. And you're uploading your photos at high resolution and with the EXIF data intact - most images found on the web are at low resolution without the EXIF data.
  4. Your photographs don't appear on the home page or Facebook profile of a professional organization at the same exact resolution.
And you might believe I have the obligation to show where the copyright violation is, but that's not what Commons policies say. When an uploader raises as many red flags as Spinerod has, we have the responsibility to ask why so many of his pictures show up on other websites and if he isn't able or willing to respond, we can reasonably conclude that his claims of ownership have little credibility. --Ytoyoda (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We assume good faith until shown otherwise. It's not "I can delete anything I want to"; it's "when a serial copyright violator uploads files that look like copyright violations--again, small, no EXIF data, and not possible to casually take as a fan--we do the obvious and assume they're copyright violations."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What Commons Policy says" frankly I don't see Ytoyoda's claim that he doesn't need to show where the copyright violation is. I've looked in detail through Commons:Licensing and Commons:Deletion and just don't see it. Please quote me chapter and verse. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, look here: Commons:Licensing#License information:
All description pages on Commons must indicate clearly under which license the materials were published, and must contain the information required by the license (author, etc.) and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws. (emphasis mine)
and
  • The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided.
Spinerod's uploads fail these very basic requirements, even if we ignore the user's documented history of copyright violations and the fact that every single one of his uploads have been previously published by the Philadelphia Union. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PRP says "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I've been suspicious of many of these files since their upload but did not know where to start. Unless the uploader can provide credentials proving that he works for the team and actually took these pictures, their copyright status is in doubt and must thus be deleted. An assertion of a release into the public domain by the uploader means nothing if the uploader has no claim or right to release them as such. His silence and non-response to this thread (he has been notified on Commons and the English Wikipedia, where he has been active since his notification) reinforce in my mind the fact that he is not actually the copyright holder. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Uploads_by_User:Spinerod&oldid=63099804"