Commons:Deletion requests/Images by syriana2011

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=Images by syriana2011|year=2023|month=July|day=18}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Images by syriana2011|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Images by syriana2011}} at the end of today's log.

Images by syriana2011[edit]

It appears very unlikely that a single person took these images, which wary wildly both geographically, chronologically and in content. The uploader is most likely simply a compiler of images from many different sources without actual ownership of their copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most likely. But till you provide a proof of it, ie images beeing copyrighted and used by someone else, it is nothing more than a mere speculation. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using "TinyEye" on the images show them cropped differently and in different resolutions in many other websites.[1][2][3][4][5] They are clear copyvios. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not necessarily taken by a single person, because Syriana is most likely a revolutionary society inside Syria. Many groups of activists now makes groups on Facebook to report the revolution news in Syria, and they may involve dozens of people transporting the news from the whole of Syria, even the small villages and towns, and it is enough to know that the main page of the Syrian revolution on facebook publish news and videos from more than 300 cities and town in the Fridays. So, it seems very possible that a revolutionary news group makes a page on flickr and upload files, especially that most of their images is in a high resolution and not widely seen on internet (the revolution videos have a very low resolution and taking pictures from them is not useful, and there is just a few high quality images for the protests and security forces that is used widely by the media, but none of those exists among the group files) --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The problem is then that we have no idea what the copyright status of each image is, or who the authors are, which is a requirement for inclusion on Commons. It also means they're impossible to verify. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a problem for aggrieved copyright holders, if they exist at all, to take up with the Flickr user. Deleting these images would be assuming that the Flickr user applied the license incorrectly; I don't think it's our job to decide that. -User:Kudzu1 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly our job. Such images are routinely deleted from here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiny Eye is a neat tool, thanks for introducing me to it. Any rate, I'm not sure what links you referred to since yours expired, but I just tried about half of them. The majority turned up no other results, and those that did turned up no results in a higher resolution. Based on this I'm inclined to believe that Ibad Diraniya's interpretation makes a good deal of sense. It probably is a compilation, but it's probably a collaboration. As ID said, most of the images are internally consistent. Most images seem to be clearly taken by one of three different cameras; the remainder seem to have been cropped from larger photos (such as the Assad Brothers and the council). I can find nothing to suggest that any of these images originate elsewhere, let alone the bulk of them. --Quintucket (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, some of Syriana's were cropped versions of images used on other pages, indicating that they originated there. And in any case, the precautionary principle points toward deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you show me some of these examples. Like I said, I tried more than half of them, including the ones that I considered most important to the project. (The ones of the council and individuals associated with it, and the statue head.) I found no such examples. And I strongly disagree about the precautionary principle. I can understand deleting images that come under mild suspicion if they're fairly easily replaceble but these are invaluable. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them if there's clear doubt, but right now I still don't feel you've demonstrated that. Your argument seems to be two parts: 1. These images seem to be taken by multiple individuals, and 2. there's higher-quality versions of a couple of these images elsewhere. Ibad Diraniya provided a very plausible explanation for the first, indeed the fact that the images of rebel leadership would be hard to take and don't appear elsewhere would seem to support the notion that it is an effort by the Council or Army to gain publicity; I still haven't confirmed the second. (Could you tell me exactly which images you've found uncropped or in higher quality elsewhere?) My personal opinion is that if there's one or two images where there's clearly serious doubt, we should delete those, and only delete the rest if there's doubt about a fair number of images that come into doubt. --Quintucket (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot "disagree" with the precautionary principle, it is a Commons policy. Nothing indicates that they are ot copyright vilations, and that's what counts here. There simply is no proof that the various people who took these pictures have released them under the licences used on that Flickr page. As for tinyeye, here are some examples: [6][7][8][9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with your interpretation of it. The project page on the pp states:
"The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted."
I still don't see any reason to have significant doubt over any of these images. I looked over the examples you linked. Not one of them is at as high a resolution as the original; and for every example that is cropped, they're cropped from the original image. The evidence of usage would seem to indicate that they originated on Flickr. Your original argument amounted to "these are taken with multiple cameras and in several places." That argument could apply to my own Flickr account (if any of the images were worth uploading to WC). I'm an American but I've got images from all over Eurasia, taken with a cheap digital camera and my phone. And while I understand that it's much harder to move around in Syria, it's hardly impossible. I'm inclined to believe that it could be a group uploading the images, as Ibad D. said, but what matters is that this site seems to be the first publication of these images, and there is nothing to indicate they were stolen.
To consider, though: your use of Tiny Eye seems to demonstrate that the highest quality versions of these images do come from Flickr. We can thus assume that they originated there. Your argument as I understand it then becomes: At least three cameras seem to have been used (not counting portraits of individuals, which are clearly cropped), we can thus assume at least three photographers. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that. It still remains that the Flickr account it the place where they first appear to have been uploaded to the internet. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that if there are more than one owner, they gave the photos to the uploader to distribute.
As I understand it, the precautionary principle is intended to deal with cases of apparent plagiarism, when the images are found elsewhere on the internet, or appear to be derived from a previously published work. The precautionary principle doesn't dictate that we delete images from any account that might have multiple photographers, unless there's reason to doubt that the photographers gave permission for the distribution of their images. We shouldn't assume serious doubt unless there's reason to believe the uploader could have obtained the image without the photographer's consent. There are plenty of appropriate applications of the precautionary principle. I've seen famous pictures and screenshots of movies on Flickr. This is not one of those cases. --Quintucket (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Tinyeye examples were just an afterthought, the main problem is that the span in time and geography, not to mention subjects, is very implausible for one person. So since "Syriana" is probably not one person, we can have no idea of what the actual copyright status of each image is, since the Flickr page gives absolutely no source information. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Nothing indicates that they are ot copyright violations", The default status when you talk about image regarded as free copyright is that the image is free, not The contrary, so if the image uploader says that it is under creative commons license, you are the one who have to introduce a conclusive evidence that it is a copyright violation. Anyway, i can suggests a solution for the problem, i am native Arabic speaker, so i can talk with the original uploaders of the images to have some clarifications about their copyrights and sources. By the way, my name's exact pronunciation in English is "Abbad Diraneyyah", even Arabs do not pronounce it well! --عباد ديرانية (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Deleted: As noted above, these are almost certainly a compilation of images taken by more than one person. It is very unlikely that the contributors of the images gave any thought to copyright when they were doing so, so the compiler is in the position of one who owns a print of a photograph,and the right to display it to others, but not the right to license it to others. Commons policy is that we pay attention to copyright issues even where the owners of the images have not done so.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Images by syriana2011 (2nd round)[edit]

Same reason as above. The following files were uploaded after the previous deletion of all files from this Flickr account:

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_by_syriana2011&oldid=110554282"