Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


Article Images

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.

I eventually don't want to upload high resolution picture Samuel Blanc (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Why? It's a featured picture! Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Multichill (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete? The problem is that Samuel Blanc is a professional photographer, who earns part of his salary thanks to pictures like this. Actually, he didn't see (yet) an interest on putting high-res pictures here, that's why most of his pictures have a 800px-large resolution. I sent an e-mail to some people here (and, off course, didn't get any reply, you'll understand why he wasn't ever very eager to upload his photos), asking them to talk with Samuel and attempting to say him that he could “safely” upload high-res pictures, because they are licensed, he have law with him, and professionals are still able to ask him the use of proprietary licenses; but certain artists live with the worry of not to earn money, that's normal. But anyway. I honestly forgot about this part of Creative Commons licenses. But if I remember well, the artist has still the right to request deletion for his picture (unfortunately, it won't be featured any more, and won't be displayed on the main page this 20th August 2008); it's just that he... can't oppose people to reupload it. Diti (talk to the penguin) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep whatever version the photographer uploaded under a free license. I fully support the photographer's right to license larger resolution versions of their own work under a different license if they wish, but as I understand licensing, what ever version the copyright holder has already released under a free license remains so released. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No OTRS permission. We really don't know what the author agreed to. Even the person who corresponded with the author admits neither one really understood the license. A legal agreement lacking meeting of the minds is void, hence in this case the license is revokable. -Nard 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So all someone needs to do to withdraw a license, is to claim they didn't understand it? I feel troubled by that idea, though it's an issue I've worried about before. The conclusion I came to is this: While we have a duty to make sure that people understand what they are consenting to, this does not mean that there is absolutely no duty on the part of the uploader to understand the same. And in this case, we have notices EVERYWHERE saying that we only accept free content and that by uploading they are irrevocably releasing certain rights to their image. We've done what we can. The rest is the users' problem. Let's not set a precedent of anyone being able to revoke their license grant by simply saying "I didn't understand it". Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Hi, I am the author of this picture and as the international laws on copyright said, I stay the owner of this one ! There is no reason to keep a picture with 3000 x... resolution on internet, moreover when you can find it on google. So please delete this picture and I will upload it again in 800 pixels, there is no more discussion to have ! Thank you. Samuel Samuel Blanc (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there's every reason to have the largest version possible: We like having high-res versions in case we need to use things in print some time (and in case anyone else does). You may well be the "owner" (which is to say, copyright holder), but you have voluntarily surrendered certain rights to this photo. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Blanc, this license doesn't affect your ability to make whatever separate arrangements you want with this photo, ie sell it through Getty or whatever. Most big publishers don't use free licenses, and they would prefer to obtain your image under contract from Getty or whatever rather than download it from Commons. It is true this photo allows people to commercially use your photo for free, but only under sharealike terms and only by crediting you as author. If someone were to use this photo against your moral rights or not attribute it to you, or if they violated the sharealike terms you still retain the right to enforce those. -Nard 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I didn't trust user on internet (for music, pictures and movies), how can they promise to write the name with the picture when they use it ? How can I be sure of that ? One month ago I saw one of my picture sell in a shop as print, without my autorisation ! I put picture on wikipédia to share my passion, and my knowledge and not to allow people to print it or to do business, or I don't know what with ! So I did a mistake with this great picture, and I want to let this one on wikipedia but with a lower resolution. Please do that modification ! I am thinking about stopping all my participations on wiki (links and about 20 pictures), in the opposite case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.53.197 (talk • contribs)
Vote struck, as this IP appears to be the uploader, who has already voted above --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons isn't responsible for enforcing your rights. The law and the tools are there, but it is up to you to hire a lawyer and sue the pants off common thieves like this. -Nard 14:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This seems to be a clear case of the author/uploader wanting to change his mind after having granted a non-revocable licence. I don't buy the idea that a professional photographer misunderstood the licence terms, and in fact that has not even been alleged by the uploader, only by someone else. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable and very strange, that the author has no rights here. Very far away that the idea I had about Wikipédia... Opened a reclamation on Legifer !
    • You have licensed your work under a free license. You voluntarily decided to permanently and irrevocably surrender certain rights. As such, you don't have any right to complain about not having them, since you gave them up with your choice of license. By the way, try not being so combative; we might have been more willing to listen to you if you were being reasonable about this (and again, given the license which you put these files under, we don't have to do a thing you say). As it is, I find your tone very distasteful. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - As noted above, CC licences are non-revocable. There is nothing to prevent you licencing the pictures as you wish elsewhere, but we don't delete images unless there is a good reason to - namely out of scope, no source, permission, licence, or one of those is somehow invalid. However, since seals don't have personality rights, there is no issue here. You, the uploader, released a 3000px photo under a CC licence. Since you are also the photographer, there are no permission or source issues to contend with. The image is clearly within scope as it's considered a featured picture. There is no legitimate reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I fully agree with MichaelMaggs here. Professional photographers are supposed to read the image licence before trying to use it. While I fully understand that M. Blanc want and can upload new "medium quality" images, I need to be convinced by the actual impact on his photo business that would have the action of removing or not removing the few HQ images he uploaded. Esby (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am nulling my support here, as it will go nowhere. Either the uploader will go away and will never upload any more photos, (meaning Commons will lose a contributor and maybe some others due to the collateral damages...) either we allow the photos to be deleted or we can convince him there is no real harm in his few photos being kept.Esby (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure to had sign any contrat or something like that with wikipédia... Where is the paper ? Where is my signature ? My tone very distasteful, but I didn't wait to those problems when i took the decision to participate to wiki, sorry for that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehquionest (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote the upload page you used when uploading these photos,
      • When you upload your work to commons you are donating it to the world by using a free content license which allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This donation is non-revocable. Although you retain the copyright to your work, all works submitted to commons must have at least these freedoms. To learn more about the charitable mission of the Wikimedia Foundation visit the foundation website.
      • Lorsque vous publiez votre travail sur Commons, vous l'offrez au monde en le mettant sous une licence libre qui permet à chacun d'utiliser, de modifier et de redistribuer votre travail, pour tout usage. Ce don est irrévocable. Vous restez titulaire des droits d'auteurs de votre travail, mais toutes les œuvres publiées sur Commons doivent offrir au minimum ces droits aux utilisateurs. Pour plus de détails sur les buts de la Wikimedia Foundation, visitez le site web de la Foundation.
    • By uploading your photograph, you agreed with these terms. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Désolé, je n'ai pas vu ces informations, et en tout cas au sens légal je n'ai jamais rien signé quoi que se soit approuvant une quelconque règle. Donc vos conditions ne sont pas valables et restent virtuelles. Aucun document ne portent ma signature approuvant quoi que se soit, aucun contrat = droit d'auteur bafoué. Au vu de ceci ma contribution pour wikipédia s'arrête là, et je demande la fermeture de mon compte, ce qui fait que les images n'appartiendront à personne.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehquionest (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (translation: Sorry, I did not see this information, and in any case in the legal sense I never signed anything on that approving any rule. So your conditions are not valid and remain virtual. No document will bear my signature approving whatever was no contract = copyright infringed. In view of this my contribution to Wikipedia stops there, and I demand the closure of my account, so that images don't belong to anyone .....)
        • I'm afraid that in this day and age very few contracts see pen and paper - the conditions are valid and I'm afraid you should ALWAYS read the legal information. There has been no copyright infringement as you freely uploaded the image under a non-revocable licence. Also, this is NOT Wikipedia, it is the Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to end your association with Wikimedia projects such as the Commons and Wikipedia, you are free to do so, but be aware that under the terms of the GNU Free Document Licence (GFDL), which you agree to whenever you edit a page here (it's just below the edit box), all your contributions must be properly attributed, and thus we do not delete accounts. In short, if you can't be bothered to read the terms and conditions, don't come crying when that bites you. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the HQ version. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Okki (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little tidbit of thought. Even if one is "in the right", there is no need to react freshly. In fact, it sometimes makes sense to yield some ground even if one is in the right, because it fosters goodwill. Think about the issue: this pro photographer will most probably never upload anything anymore if he gets too angry, and he will tell all his colleagues not to have anything to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia.

I realize that my tidbit of advice will be brushed off as capitulation or something like that. :-) David.Monniaux (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete David.Monniaux (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (since I'm seconded)[reply]
  •  Delete Per David Monniaux. People make mistakes at times; this is a person from whom we will greatly benefit if he were to upload future low-res images of items we do not have, as opposed to being firm about the few high-res ones that he, perhaps mistakenly, uploaded. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Per David Monniaux support, because the actual solution will not benefit to any of the implicated people. Esby (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I understand that we have the power to twist the author's arm, but I question that we wish to do so. First because, on principle, we should act nicely to people who do not antagonise us; and second because we should not create unnecessary ennemies. As David said, the chap is a professional journalist and his treatment will reflect on our image among his lot. Being right does not exclude being courteous. Rama (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete We should delete the higher resolution version: Mistakes happen and the photographer has been kind enough to not ask for the removal of the smaller version which still meets our needs. The smaller image was uploaded a mere 23 hours after the original upload. Keeping the smaller image is a reasonable compromise between our rights, our needs, and the photographer's situation. Of course, the image would be defeatured on account of resolution. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the high-res version. While I've commented above refuting specific arguments of the photographer (he does not have the right to have anything deleted from here; what we do is from decency, not the law). The upload appeared to be a mistake. He uploaded a low-resolution version a day after uploading the high-resolution version. We're not such dicks as to hold people to their mistakes forever. This means we lose one FP, but that's not the end of the world; more will come along.
    I would still suggest to the uploader that he not direct thinly-veiled legal threats at us, and try to lose the belligerent tone. That doesn't work with us, on either count, and is more than likely turning people against you on this count. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - this whole fiasco is stupid. Delete it so the idiocy of people who don't read licences before agreeing to them stops giving me a headache. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the high resolution version. It's very important that we do not become vulnerable to every petty demand a contributor makes, but at the same time we should be respectful to our contributors. We would be nothing without them. In this case it is clear an honest mistake was made, and that mistake may be harming the photographer. As is the case for all contributors, we appreciate his work and do not wish to harm him. The photographer made a request that we switch to the lower resolution version, one which still meets our educational mission. Since we can balance our position with his we should and the trend in the deletion debate here is clearly to do so, so I'm closing this now to avoid further ill will. As a result of this discussion myself and several other Commons admins are going to take another look at making the upload screens more clear to hopefully reduce the chances of these problems in the future. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]