Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 31411679@N08

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 found with Special:Search/31411679@N08

[edit]

Flickrwashing - some of these print ads may have fallen out of copyright but most are too recent (as recent as 2010).

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the following, which were part of the original filing, but were removed by Pechristener. Pechristener: Instead of removing files from a DR, strike them through.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep all those pre-1977. Up until 1977 you had to register for a copyright and display a copyright symbol on the ad. --RAN (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I think this is an over-broad statement. Some appear to be cropped or for other reasons cannot be evaluated as to if they had a valid copyright notice in the original publication, and at least a few seem to be from non-US sources. Again, I think they need individual evaluation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion about most of these, but  Delete File:1960_Lloyd_Arabella_(51904007368).jpg. This was created by Deutsche Industrie-Ausstellung in 1959, and is still copyrighted in Germany. These images were distributed as postcards, compare things like this. They cannot be out of copyright because they are too young. Renerpho (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion about the deletion but I do find being accused of Flickrwashing quite disturbing and would hope OP did a better job of looking at individual files prior to making such accusation. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CNMall41: A substantial number of those files obviously were/are copyright violations, so I agree with OP that this was a case of license laundering. This doesn't have to be done on purpose to be a problem, and the license laundering is done by the Flickr user, not by whoever uploads the images to Commons (if those are different people), so I don't think this is an accusation against any particular Commons user.
    That said, I also agree that OP ought to have checked the individual cases, rather than nominate files for deletion that clearly don't need to be. I certainly expect better from an admin (or any experienced user, for that matter). Renerpho (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for clarification. My apologies to OP for accusing them or accusing me. lol --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I'm sure they didn't intend to. However, please be careful when you're uploading images from Flickr in the future. Just because an image there is claimed to have a free license doesn't mean you're "off the hook". You still have the responsibility to apply common sense (compare mr.choppers' comment below). Renerpho (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always do. However, I am not sure how much more I could have done here. The user is a paid user with 2.8K followers. They joined in 2008 and have over 27,000 images uploaded to Flickr. The Flickrwashing I see is normally associated with new accounts who have very few images (usually accounts created simply to wash the copyright). There is nothing there indicating any washing and it defeats the purpose if I have to go down a rabbit hole to make 100% sure an image is free from copyright. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Where does it say that they're a paid user, and paid by whom? This does indeed look like an unusually "big" account to engage in license laundering, if that's what they're doing. I'd rather assume negligence or ignorance, but that'd be harder to believe if they're actually paid by the site. In any case, Flickr doesn't care about copyright violations unless the copyright holder personally files a report, so there's nothing we could do about it if we wanted to. Renerpho (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't use the term "paid" so loosely with Wikimedia projects. By paid, I mean they pay Flickr for a premium subscription (their account is marked as "pro"). I think I would lean towards assuming negligence on the uploader's part than Flickrwashing as I am sure even experienced users make mistakes. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Hi. Sorry about that. "Flickrwashing" was referring to the Flickr account, not to you. As for why I dumped all of their uploads in here - while I did see that some were out of copyright, whenever I see a Flickr account that's claiming copyright ownership over things that aren't theirs (which is functionally what they did by putting the adverts under a CC license), I assume all of their uploads have that problem. Did Alden Jewell take the photos that they put under a CC license? That would normally be a safe assumption, but considering the other things they uploaded, I think it's fair game to question. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an apology. I stuck my foot down my throat by assuming it was a nefarious nomination. I got schooled on Commons today which is always a good thing. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The vast majority of images on that Flickr account are NOT the work of the uploader, and the stated licenses are incorrect. A good number of the Flickr user's images may be out of copyright for one reason or another, but should not be assumed to be just because the Flickr user has them listed under a cc free license. For those not well familiar with Flickr, please understand: 1)Licenses are set by individual users. When setting up an account, one can set a default license. Some Flickr users are particularly responsible in trying to make sure the licenses are correct for all their uploads, but even generally good users do not always bother to individually reset licenses on individual uploads. 2)Unlike Commons, Flickr allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. 3)Flickr may act to remove accounts with many copyright violations if either there are specific complaints or if they violate current pop culture or wire service commercial properties. For things like scanning old magazines, they seldom seem to bother. So in summary: Even if not "Flickrwashing" in the sense that someone is intentionally trying to deceive and circumvent copyright, the licenses here are mostly if not all false if transferred here from Flickr without individual evaluation and corrections. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still amazed at how many commons users blithely upload clear copyvios from Flickr, no matter what the license. Flickr defaults to whatever license you used last, which explains a lot of this type of activity, and many uploaders simply assume that they're doing the right thing by not claiming the works of others as their own. I don't think the intent is nefarious. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no copyright renewals under his name. --RAN (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Squirrel Conspiracy posted a number of my uploads over the years here as proposed deletions. Almost all of my files on his list were properly licensed. I'm pretty careful when I upload stuff from Flickr. I had to spend considerable time and effort working through his (incomplete!) list, which was annoying.
I sent this user a polite note regarding one particularly obviously-wrong of his proposed deletions. He promptly deleted my note: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Squirrel_Conspiracy&diff=870385061&oldid=870370412
I will leave the interpretation of his 'reply' to others. Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my general strategy when someone comes out the gate rude - as you were with your last sentence there - is to remove the post from my page rather than engage and risk an escalation. I didn't see anything that needed a response on my talk page - as you can see the conversation here seems to cover the bases quite nicely - so I removed it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the conversation covers the bases pretty well. What I haven't seen from you is any acknowledgement or explanation for why you proposed so many files for deletion without looking at them to see if they had a valid license? Such as the one I wrote you about. Pete Tillman (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tillman: I believe they've explained the reason in their comment dated 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC), where they also acknowledge that they were fully aware that some of them might be out of copyright. Renerpho (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most, a few Kept. Many in the listing were already deleted. As no further progress on this list seems to have been made recently, I deleted the remaining files which had no specific reason to be free licensed other than the tag claim of the clearly unreliable Flickr user. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: One file as per [1]. Yann (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted some more files under the same rationale, i.e. where there is no reason to doubt that they are the Flickr account owner's pictures (taken during exhibitions, with people, etc.). Yann (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_31411679@N08&oldid=882689431"