Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by عباد ديرانية

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 uploaded by عباد ديرانية (talk · contribs)[edit]

Looks like Flickrwashing.

Kobac (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I can't see where is the prbolem in the files listed above. Most of those files were uploaded by freedom House group on flickr under a free license, and others I have asked their authors to upload them on flickr with a free license for use on Wikipedia, as we have a big lack for protests images there, and I can confirm the premission from those authors if needed. Anyway, I don't see the point in marking them for deletion, they are licensed with creative commons and published with the original resolution --عباد ديرانية (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
We can't keep the images from doubtful Flickr accounts created by unknown specially for uploading to Commons. Kobac (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, I have a premession from the authors, so if we will follow your way there is no way on earth to get a free pictures for the protests, in addition to the fact that there is no copyrights protect any of the protest pictures in the current chaos, but anyway, I have a premission. Give me two days until I send the premission from the authors to Wikimedia email to confirm it. Also, if the pictures does not exist on any other site with the original resolution, there is no point in the first place in marking them for deletion, because there is no way I can get them in the current conditions if they were not uploaded on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
If you have images of protests why don't you just load them directly onto the wikipedia commons before they're loaded anywhere else on the internet. This will help prove authorship. The images do not need to come through Flikr to have a commons license. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how will I confirm authorship in this case? Those images are not hided in the drawer, they are published everywhere on the internet, because they was created to be published by the protests media, so it is hard to confirm what was their original source. Right now, I don't know what to do to prove the copyrights, because all authors of the images are news networks on Facebook. For example, here is the original source of most Homs city pictures [1], look below and read:

"These pictures were taking by me, using my personal camera. It's my own property. All these pictures are under the Creative Commons license (CC).

Please, Feel free to use, publish, re-produce them.

No prior approval needed, and no financial compensation is require".

But, although, I don't have a way to confirm the fact that this was the original source of them. If you open the pictures, you will find that they were published on 19 February, I bet you can't find any other copy of them with an older date on the internet --عباد ديرانية (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I'm not the one who decides if the images are kept. I'm just saying that if the images are first published on the wikipedia commons with no modification then there won't be a dispute about the ownership of the photos. I agree it's too bad that these images are made freely available to the media but that getting them on wikipedia is difficult that's why I suggest publishing first on the wikipedia commons.--Guest2625 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment There is nothing called "the Creative Commons license". There are many different Creative Commons licences and it is unclear which one the statement refers to. Besides, permission would have to be sent to OTRS. And what about FOP? There is no entry for Syria at COM:FOP, but many countries in the Middle East lack FOP, so it is not unlikely that Syria also might lack FOP which could mean problems with some of the images. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An OTRS email have been sent for Hama photos [2] --Abbad_Dira (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Okay, I have tried using GoogleImages tab with most photos nominated, let us start with Hama shelling photos (Which, as I have previously said, were mostly taken from their original author without being published anywhere before, although, some of them were published on other sites). Here is the search results for the 8 shelling photos: [3] - [4] - [5] - [6] - [7] - [8] - [9] - [10]. As you can see, they weren't published by any other website before, excepting the 4th and the 7th photos, which were published on Hama free website with a much lower resolutions. Here is the rest of Hama photos: [11] - [12] - [13] - [14]. The 2nd and the 4th photos were published on Hama free, but, as before, with a much lower resolutions. If you want to nominate photos for deletion, you will need more than doubt to do that, because it is clear that all Hama photos are taken from their original source. Now I will check the others, but note that the rest of them were uploaded by freedom house, and I don't know so much about their authors --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Oh, I had forgot those two [15] - [16]. But it is the same with both of them, they weren't published anywhere else before --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
And now starting with Homs photos. remember the link I gave before that proves the copyrights of those images, with the original resolution and oldest publication history. But anyway, here we go: [17] - [18] - [19] - [20] - [21] - [22] - [23] - [24] - [25] - [26]. All of them were published else where, but in the cases of the 1st, 2nd and 6th photos, they are with a lower resolution on all other site. The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th are published on one other site with the SAME resolution, and no higher. the 7th and 8th is the only ones published on other sites with a higher resolution --Abbad_Dira (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • The version on Commons is larger than the version on Flickr. So it is not a simple "copy paste" from Flickr. We can't undo what has been done but in the future it would be best to upload to Commons before uploading anywhere else.
As for the question on FOP I think we should concider it de minimis. It is not the building that is the motive. It is the damage made on the building. --MGA73 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: The uploader stated that he could not confirm if the sources he listed were in fact the original sources for the files (which are absolutely required for files uploaded to Commons). MGA73 put it best - "The version on Commons is larger than the version on Flickr. So it is not a simple 'copy paste" from Flickr.' ". Unless we have textual, tangible evidence from the original copyright holder, we cannot host these files on Commons. FASTILYs (TALK) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]