Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Darthvader2

< Commons:Deletion requests
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 Darthvader2 (talk · contribs)

edit

apparent flickrwash by the commons user.

Roy17 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader of these pictures. As you can see in their respective Flickr links, all these images have been shared for the public domain. Is there a problem then with the copyright information at the time of uploading these images to Commons? I hope you can give me your guidance.--Darthvader2 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darthvader2: the problem with these images is that they may be a case of 'Flickr washing'. This would mean that they were uploaded to Flickr by someone who does not own the copyright, and a false license was applied in Flickr, see Commons:License laundering. Reasons to suspect this here include:
  • Both Flickr accounts were created recently
  • Each Flickr accounts has only has a few images which don't reflect the likely full range of interests of the claimed account holders.
  • File:Yassir Vázquez.png is also suspect because it is low resolution and because a more widely cropped version is here.
Roy17 may have other reasons for this nomination. Do not rely on the name of Flickr accounts, which can be misleading.
I assume that you uploaded these images in good faith, please only uploaded images from websites when there is a good reason to think that the license is valid. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer Verbcatcher. To avoid further inconvenience, I agree with the deletion of these images. In fact, my intention was never to violate the copyright, therefore I will agree with the deletion of this material.--Darthvader2 (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am more sceptical of Darthvader2 than User:Verbcatcher, but I did not want to teach how to better evade copyright checks.
File:Yassir Vázquez.png uploaded on flickr and on Commons on 22 May, the same date.
File:Miguel Valdez Siller, 2019.png uploaded on flickr on 25 May and on Commons on 26 May.
Another straight forward false claim of own work has been deleted: File:Marcelo Mindlin - Premio Fortuna.jpg.
My conclusion was and still is, Darthvader2 knows fully well what he did, so I did not bother answering a deliberate copyright fraud. He's been warned and banned for copyvios long ago, I called for others to help investigate his uploads. Admins, please also consider a longer or indefinite ban this time, for not just copyvios but also intentionally deceiving other users.--Roy17 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, I'm an active user of the Spanish Wikipedia since 2007 and have more than 5000 page creations and thousands of editions. I didn't know there was any problem in uploading an image to Commons that was shared on Flickr recently, I did it because the owner of the images gave me permission to do it in all cases. I insist, the author shared it under the public domain, so I didn't think it would be a problem to upload it here. It's true, I once had a ban, but at that time I didn't understand very well how the copywright thing worked. It seems to me quite exaggerated that you propose a definitive ban for this incident, 'cause my only objective in this encyclopedia is to collaborate. Please delete the troubled files, I don't have a problem with that. But deceiving other users? That seems pretty exaggerated.--Darthvader2 (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the author shared it under the public domain. Not quite. To me it's pretty clear Darthvader2 himself grabbed random photos from the net and used flickr to make false claims of PD. Not once but twice as I pointed out above and once more below, so coincidence can be ruled out. Yet he is acting so hard to play innocent. See the discrepancy in his explanations. At first he talked about how he found these PD images shared on flickr, but the latest reply said the owner of the images gave me permission to do it in all cases.
Darthvader2 uploaded File:Miguel Barbosa Huerta.jpg on 18:14, 3 May, but it was soon deleted at 20:09.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/148278787@N04/47713480242/ was uploaded on 3 May.
Darthvader2 transferred it to File:Miguelbarbosa2019.jpg on 4 May.
@Darthvader2: hehe, try harder.--Roy17 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, I NEVER said I found those images on Flickr casually. I do know the owners of those images, they shared it in PD in Flickr and gave me the permission to use it in their respective Wikipedia articles. Is there something wrong with that? Surely I made a mistake specifying the file's permission class. As I said before, I have no problem with the removal of these images, but the way @Roy17: goes against my integrity and my experience in this encyclopedia really worries me. I wrote him a message on his inbox and he responded in a derogatory way in this discussion. Was that necessary? This is not a trial, it's just a collaborative effort. You are free to investigate all my collaborations, of course, but the way Roy is handling this matter is quite annoying.--Darthvader2 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darthvader2: in case you still have not read the warning templates on your user talk pages throughout last ten years, please do send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ([email protected]). Not only is your name vindicated, but the images could be kept too! Since you could get their response within one day each time, an OTRS permission should not take much time, is it?--Roy17 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs)

edit

Dubious claims of own work. Multiple cameras used. Uploader has a history of copyvios.

Roy17 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added commentaries.--Roy17 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have analysed the second set of images:
Delete - The viewpoints indicate that they were taken by an official photographer accredited to an awards ceremony, and the image quality supports this. The absence of metadata may indicate that they have been downloaded from a website. The second image is almost identical to one on an Ernst&Young website.([1] linking to [2])
Keep - I do not see any problems with this image. The metadata indicates a consumer grade camera. The viewpoint is consistent with a participant in an meeting, and the mediocre technical quality, in particular the poorly-controlled use of flash, suggests a non-professional photographer. However, the technical quality of this image casts doubt on the claim that the higher-quality images are by the same photographer.
Probably delete - The metadata indicates a Canon EOS 5D Mark III, a professional camera, and the image quality suggests that this may have been taken by a professional photographer.
Possibly delete - The low resolution suggests that this is either a crop from a much larger image or has been downloaded from a website.
Delete - This is a crop from an image that appears in a commercial webzine,[3] where it illustrates a story that is dated before the Commons image was uploaded. The Commons image is lower resolution. The viewpoint suggests an official photographer.
Keep - This was taken from among the audience. The metadata indicates a consumer camera and the image quality does not indicate a professional photographer.

All of the image pages indicate 'Source: Own work, Author: Darthvader2'. While this could be accurate, my comments above and this contributor's history of deleted images cast doubt on this. The different cameras shown in the metadata do not indicate a problem. Three camera models are indicated, but one is for an image six years older than the others. Many photographers use multiple cameras.

I am uncomfortable with Roy17 suggesting 'a longer or indefinite ban'. Non-admins should present the evidence and leave it for an admin to assess what sanction is appropriate, if any. Lobbying for sanctions will inflame the situation and make it less likely that the uploader will provide clarification.

Roy17 appears to be suggesting that Darthvader2 set up the two Flickr accounts with the intention of using them to establish fake licenses. I think it is more likely that the Flickr accounts were set up by the people claimed, or by someone acting on their behalf, for the purpose of making these images available. However, we need evidence that the photographers of these images have released them as public domain. The Flickr uploader may think that the subject of a photograph owns the copyright.

@Darthvader2: you say that the owner of the images gave me permission to do it in all cases. You should have asked the 'owner' who the photographer was and whether he or she had given permission. In most cases the copyright owner is the photographer, not the person shown in an image. Also, you should only put 'Author: Darthvader2' if you took the photograph. If you don't know the photographer's name then put 'Unknown', or something like 'Photographer for Ernst&Young'. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Thank you again for your kind answer. I will explain in detail the situation of the Flickr images. I myself created the Wikipedia articles in Spanish related to the subjects of the images. I contacted these people and asked them for some photos from their personal collection to include in their respective Wikipedia articles. They created the Flickr page and shared their images for the public domain, allowing me to use them in their Wikipedia articles. My mistake may have occurred at the time of assigning the respective copyright permissions when uploading them to Commons. A similar case occurs in most of the images that Roy17 has marked for deletion, these are images that I have asked their respective owners, who have given me permission to use them. Now I understand that I made a mistake by tagging them as my own work, but I can guarantee that I never took them from any website. I appreciate your way of looking at the situation and accept that some of these images are deleted because of my tagging mistake.--Darthvader2 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darthvader2: if the tags are incorrect then you can correct them. However, for these photos to be kept we need to establish that they have been correctly licensed by the copyright holder, and we usually assume that the copyright holder is the photographer. Are you the photographer of any of the files that have been nominated here? Have you uploaded any other files that incorrectly show you as the author? Verbcatcher (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: I am the photographer of the following images:

These images, just as I indicated below, were shared by their owners in the public domain in Flickr. I wasn't the photographer:

And these were shared to me by their owners directly. I wasn't the photographer:

What should I do next then to correct this?--Darthvader2 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Vescera Barcelona.jpg (The scenary was really small, that's why it seems very close)
@Darthvader2: hehe, good story. This photo comes from facebook though.
@Verbcatcher: a persistent copyvio user will definitely be banned on this project. There's no lobbying. However this user frames fancy stories is worse than silence. Your suggestions are entirely wrong. They cannot upload images for which they do not own copyright or have permission. No such thing as If you don't know the photographer's name then put 'Unknown', or something like 'Photographer for Ernst&Young'.
And Darthvader2 just followed up on Verbcatcher's suggestion claiming that he took File:Marcelo Mindlin en el museo del holocausto.jpg. If Darthvader2 could dig up a photo from April 2017 when he was writing the article in May 2019, it should be quite easy to share one more photo taken with that camera. Or did you borrow a camera? Then perhaps you should have more photos of the same event? Or if coincidentally all but one survived?--Roy17 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darthvader2: just asking, how did you enjoy Michael Vescera's concert in Barcelona, during which you took File:Michael Vescera Barcelona.jpg? You took the photo at 5 May 2017, 10:18:57, and uploaded it that night at 20:20 UTC. Did you manage to have a good lunch in Barcelona?--Roy17 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm done with this. I have no need to continue seeing improper and derogatory comments from @Roy17: . I wanted to rectify the situation that I myself generated with my error in the description of the permissions, but the attitude of this guy Roy17 makes it impossible to do. I do not upload these images for profit, that is clear, I only wanted to collaborate with the project expanding its contents, so I have no need to bear unfounded accusations of this guy. For my part this matter is closed, if the images must be erased I will understand, but I do not intend to continue seeing Roy's accusations. I'm not a delinquent. @Verbcatcher: , thank you for your help, you are definitely a user with good manners.--Darthvader2 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of Michael Vescera Barcelona.jpg

edit
  1. User:Darthvader2 insists he took this photo. Is that right?
  2. The concert was scheduled at 20:00, 4 May 2017 Spanish time and started at ca. 21:30. (Which are 18:00 and 19:30 UTC.)
  3. Time in Spain was UTC+2.
  4. Time in Colombia was UTC-5.
  5. Darthvader2 was busy editing wikipedia from a computer from 15:05 to 22:36 and from 01:31 to 01:43 (+1day) UTC. (Which are 17:05 to 24:36 and 03:31 to 03:43 Spanish local time.)
  6. File:Michael Vescera Barcelona.jpg was photoshopped at 15:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC+??) and uploaded to Commons at 20:20, 5 May 2017 UTC. A logical deduction is it was photoshopped using a UTC-5 computer.
So, the story would be, Darthvader2 brought his Colombian laptop to the concert in Barcelona. He was busy editing Wikipedia from his laptop, or from a computer at the performance venue, during the concert and into the wee hours after the concert.
Alternative story: Darthvader2 obtained the photo from facebook (which is evident in EXIF).--Roy17 (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: your sarcastic tone is not constructive. Please see Commons:Assume good faith and w:Wikipedia:Etiquette. However, your evidence of Darthvader2's editing activity at the time of the Barcelona concert does appear compelling.
I did not say that giving the author as 'Unknown' or 'Photographer for Ernst&Young' would make these files acceptable. If the files are otherwise correctly licensed it is not always necessary to name the photographer. Some files licensed with {{PD-USGov}} do not name a photographer. If Darthvader2 could establish that Marcelo Mindlin owns the copyright of File:Marcelo Mindlin 2017.jpg then 'Unknown' may be the best we can do to indicate the author.
@Darthvader2: I am sorry that you have decided to disengage from this discussion. To reply to 'What should I do next', you could edit the file pages to remove 'Author: Darthvader2' from the photographs that you did not take, although it is probable that these will now be deleted. You could increase the chance of the other files being kept by uploading a few other photographs that you took at the same event. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: please check my edits. I first ignored his pretense, but your comment was misleading. So I left direct comments pointing out Darthvader2 was committing flickrwashing by himself. Yet Darthvader2 kept pretending innocent and knowing nothing about what he did. I then started being sarcastic. How did he respond to your friendly requests? Continuous fraudulent claims.
Right from the start he looks like a suspicious flickrwashing agent. It's very unlikely for a wiki user (with past copyvio records) to contact subjects he writes to get photos. And this case involves two flickrwashing accounts. Both had photos uploaded on flickr and on Commons on the same day or on the next day. This is very strong evidence of a Commons user manipulating flickr accounts himself. It's different from a case, where someone else admiring a celebrity or the celebrity himself sets up a flickr collection of his own photos, then a clueless Commons user transfers them by mistake. There's no AGF for his not being a flickrwashing agent because evidence is damning. There could be AGF he would admit it, let go and change his behaviour in future, so a ban would not be necessary, but it turned out he chose not to.
Of course photos by other valid PD reasons could omit photogrpahers, but this is ordinary contemporary work, permission of which must be sent through COM:OTRS when the uploader is not the copyright holder.
Thank you for your time.--Roy17 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Darthvader2 (talk · contribs)

edit

Just noticed this one too.

Roy17 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably delete - The relative size and position of the stage lights indicate that the photographer was positioned on the stage and close to the subject, suggesting an official photographer. This casts doubt on claimed authorship. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - two files that could theoretically be own work are from different cameras. Deleting these two files as well per PCP. --Jcb (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Darthvader2&oldid=357190783"