Commons:Deletion requests/File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg

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.

File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg

Converted to DR by me from a speedy, by User:Edoderoo for "OTRS 2011080810015971, artist made mistake to share this under cc-by-sa and regrets. This was his only edit, please undo". --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Comment: while it might be granted, the problem I see is, that this image was uploaded in December 2009! What will happen to the external re-users? (I've no idea if there are many or few). --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have explained to the artist, that deletion will mean that the visibility of the artwork will be less, not that the artwork will be "unfreed", as this is not possible in a legal point of view. If the artwork is used elsewhere, or will be re-uploaded by someone else, there is nothing we can do. Edoderoo (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's seen from the viewpoint of the uploader. How about the viewpoint of good-faith re-users, who didn't make a hard copy of our image page at the time when the image was still freely licensed? If he sues them, they will have a problem. As to my knowledge we (Commons) have no easy-to-use record/database/whatever for such cases (which might even include images that were found to be real copyvios only months or year after upload). --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to make clear in the "edit summary" of the deletion (in case it will be deleted), that the image will still be free, with a remark to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971. In case the uploader will sue them for copyright violation, they can ask any OTRS-member to get the proof that the image is free, and still is, in a legal point of view, as well as that the uploader does know this information. My point is not to defend the uploaders right, just to be clear, but I do want to give him a chance to maybe spread the image less. Edoderoo (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep - no reason to delete, licenses are not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Delete - I usually don't trust people who make only 1 or 2 uploads, especially when they create a user name portraying to be a prominent artist who's paintings are on display in a major museum in Canada. This image does not even look like the famous one-eyed Sikh w:Ranjit Singh from India. He looks more like a European. I always say that the burden should be on the uploader to provide complete information so that we don't have to investigate.--Officer (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept: The license is valid, and the image is already all over the web. If the deletion request had come shortly after the upload, it would have made some sense, but it's pointless to delete the image now almost two years later. Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:RanjitSingh by ManuSaluja.jpg

The previous kept is ridiculous, so what if the image is unlawfully used in many places? This image is beyond doubt a copyright violation because it's clearly protected by the copyright law of Canada. They show a scene in the movie w:Breakaway (2011 film) where this same painting is displayed at a museum in Canada. If we're going to keep this then we must also keep the Paintings by Tapand. Officer (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any proof for your claim of sockpuppeteering and the uploader not being the author? --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on now. I cover South Asia and I know all the sockmasters involved. The painting is covered under Canada's copyright law since it was published there first at a museum.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So there is no proof. --Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as i understood the prev. discussion OTRS got an email by the artist himself claiming that he uploaded the file hinself but changed his mind some years later. Maybe an OTRS-member should recheck this ticket. --JuTa 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any OTRS in the history, if there is one it is likely prepared by someone who is not the painter and someone who the painter did not give permission to. This painting is at a museum in Canada.--Officer (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that an image is protected by copyright, in Canada or elsewhere, does not make a valid free license (like CC or GFDL) from the author/copyright holder impossible. AFAIK, that's exactly the case here. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The painting was published in Canada and it is protected under Canadian copyright law. Manu Saluja is the painter and she wanted to delete the file from here.--Officer (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you do not understand quite a number of things. If the author of an image puts that image under a free license, that does not mean that this image is not protected by copyright anymore. It only means that the author has granted usage rights for that image to everybody. The OTRS message referred to in this discussion was the reason for the first deletion request, see the post from Túrelio dated 13 August 2011, above. It seems that in that message to the OTRS, the author declared to indeed have uploaded that image himself, but two years later he now claimed to have done so by mistake and asked for deletion. I still haven't seen any proof for your "stolen image", "sock accounts" etc. claims. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked you what kind of proof do you want to see but you ignored me. According to the history of this file, the uploader did not provide OTRS info. The official website where this image is hosted says "Site content © Manu Saluja, 2009. All Rights Reserved". That means the uploader in 2009 copied the image from there.--Officer (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I overlooked your post from 14:45. So it seems you say that you suspect the sockpuppeteering etc. because of certain similarities etc. between those users you name. That would be called "circumstantial evidence" I guess, and it could be perhaps be used as basis for a precautionary deletion, but still it isn't anything that could really be called proof (like a Checkuser). Especially since we do seem to have that OTRS message saying that the author himself uploaded this image here under a free license. And that message is NOT in the file's version history, but mentioned in the first deletion request for this image. Here, if you prefer a link. --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the uploader is avoiding the discussions is additional evidence that he/she is a copyright infringer.--Officer (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the way it could have been. Or not. I do not see any real convincing evidence that all those users and the IP user you mention are in fact the same person. Could someone with access to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971 evaluate whether that ticket is actually from the author or not? And please do not accuse me of "trying to have a stolen image stored in Commons", that is far from constructive when the whole point is whether this image was uploaded by the author or someone else in breach of copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please add the OTRS tag. --  Docu  at 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Which tag? --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If my summary reading is correct, there is an OTRS ticket showing that the Commons uploader is the author. --  Docu  at 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the problem was that the author wanted to delete the image but the request was denied. I don't know what's the best solution.--Officer (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)