Commons:Deletion requests/File:First National Bank Field 2.jpg

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.

File:First National Bank Field 2.jpg

[edit]

[Transferred from enwiki] Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD01000aa8030000921f0000a7450000e34900000b4e0000c17400004fb700007bbf00005ac8000077d100005e6e0100 grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gunnex, do you know what that Facebook EXIF means? Is it possible to somehow identify the file information page on Facebook from that information? If the EXIF means that the file comes from Facebook, then it looks strange. Maybe the rest of the uploader's files also should be checked. For example, File:FNB Field 1.jpg has similar data in the EXIF. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not seeing good enough reasons to not AGF.--Elvey (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elvey, are you talking about the file being discussed on this page (File:First National Bank Field 2.jpg), or, considering that your comment was placed above the header line, about whatever file happens to be listed above this one on the daily log page? In the latter case, consider moving your comment to that discussion page as your comment otherwise might be overlooked if this discussion page is archived before the other discussion page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan2, I am (talking about the file being discussed on this page, File:First National Bank Field 2.jpg). Moved our comments. Don't know why the weird placement occurred. --Elvey (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see COM:VPC#Facebook images (exif/metadata) for more details about "FBMD" (which is probadly the abbreviation "Facebook Metadata"). Some quick examples which are (alone per title) easier to identifiable at Facebook (but only if published as "public"):
From the above 11 examples, we have 9x obvious copyvios and 2x files, which only per interpretation of the similar used user names on Commons and Facebook may be "own works" but which would need (considering previously published on Facebook) a COM:OTRS-confirmation.
Counting all done queries on VP, we are talking about 33.348 living files configured with "FBMD", which appears to be introduced by Facebook in 11.2014.
Gunnex (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What makes which 9 "obvious copyvios"? You say 11 are marked ©. I looked at 1 and I see no reason to see it as a copyvio. --Elvey (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gunnex?--Elvey (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gunnex, OP? Have the uploaders all been notified? I guess you mean all but the Staab and Fayaq uploads are "obvious copyvios"? What makes them "obvious copyvios"? Hello??? --Elvey (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that everything that comes from facebook needs to be deleted? I see no argument for that. --Elvey (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because Facebook's license is incompatible with our licensing policy. OTRS permission is needed. ★ Poké95 01:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a picture has been used outside Commons before it was used on Commons, then the uploader needs to prove that he is the copyright holder. The EXIF proves that the image previously has been used on Facebook, although the exact Facebook page is unknown. If the uploader truly is the copyright holder, then he should be able to contact OTRS and show which Facebook page it comes from and that the Facebook account belongs to him. If he is not able to prove that the Facebook account belongs to him, then it's a standard no permission case. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The uploader doesn't need to prove that 'he' <sic> is the copyright holder. That's a gross oversimplification/misrepresentation of OTRS.--Elvey (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a file was used outside Commons before it was uploaded to Commons, then the uploader needs to show that he is the copyright holder or that he has permission from the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying isn't true, Poke! Facebook terms say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." (https://www.facebook.com/terms.php) I understand that this does not limit use to noncommercial use or require attribution." That's a free license.--Elvey (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: Facebook's license is also revocable, see this: This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Commons don't accept revocable licenses. ★ Poké95 23:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
share | SHe(ə)r | verb [ with obj. ] Definition 2 in Wiktionary: To have or use in common.
All the files in question have been shared. Here. We have not deleted them (yet). The license only ends if the content is deleted or the account closed before the content is shared, at which point it's already been sub-licensed. According to an attorney who specializes in Media/IP law, "although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation!" And that's my last comment in this thread. Since you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make one drink. I hope Poke, Stefan and Gunnex actually reply regarding facts and evidence, but I'm done holding my breath. --Elvey (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But does it say anything about commercial use? Derivative works? None right? And just because there is "use" there, it means commercial use and derivative works are allowed. No. It is unclear. What "use"? So this file should be deleted under COM:PRP. ★ Poké95 00:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you aren't arguing re. revocability. Since you ask new questions, I reply:Actually, yes it does. Wrong, again. Look at the bolding above performed with this edit. What part of : "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." do you not understand? --Elvey (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so derivative works are there, but where is commercial use? ★ Poké95 03:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully. It says that you may create derivative works, but you may not do anything with the derivative works apart from creating them. For example, you may not distribute the derivative works. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking at the same page I'm looking at? It has the word 'distribute' on it 4 times... quote, 'I understand that this does not limit use to noncommercial use or require attribution.' in it ... do you see that?--Elvey (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute, distribute, distribute, distribute... Where the hell is the commercial use there? How can distribute=commercial use? Come on, just accept that these files cannot be kept without a free license from the copyright holder. ★ Poké95 10:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, above.
What the heck are you talking about? -- Where have I disputed that these files cannot be kept without a free license from the copyright holder? What's in dispute is whether such a license has been granted.--Elvey (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this does not limit use to noncommercial use or require attribution. Yes, I saw that, but it is just your understanding, not a fact. How did you know that it doesn't limit use to noncommercial uses? Their use of "use" is unclear. Maybe the "use" they are saying is political use. But that's just an assumption, not a fact. We need to ask Facebook if their license allows commercial use. Another question for you: Did you read already the DR Stefan2 linked (the deletion request for the Facebook license template)? Do you understand why the template was deleted? ★ Poké95 05:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see that you participated in a template for discussion at enwiki regarding the Free-OnPublicFacebook template on 2014. You're the only one that strong opposed it. Why are you still saying that Facebook's license is free despite consensus from Commons and English Wikipedia? If you want to override that consensus, do it at COM:VP, not here. We just don't like a RFC inside a deletion discussion (and that's what you did at that enwiki template for discussion, which was hillarious). Just drop the stick please. Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be closed keep; the uploaders haven't even been notified, as is required by COM:D policy for all but obvious violations. I'm curious to see if that policy will be ignored. I just noticed the intentional use of {{Noping}} by Gunnex in order to avoid alerting the uploaders. What the frack? --Elvey (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying uploaders is not mandatory. At the section "Regular deletion": the uploader should be informed of the impending deletion. Should is different to must. But you can request a change at the policy's talk page if you want. ★ Poké95 03:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons uploader (FastilyClone) was notified in Special:Diff/195792231. Note that the uploader has redirected his talk page, thereby asking users to send notifications to another talk page. If a user follows that redirect when sending a notification, it should be assumed that the uploader has been notified. Also, the Wikipedia uploader was notified in w:Special:Diff/719460383, so both uploaders have been notified. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eight of the above files have already been deleted while this DR is open. The uploaders haven't even been notified, as is required by COM:D policy for all but obvious violations - which Poke isn't quoting and is misrepresenting. Way to breed contempt for policy! Go Team! </sarcasm>--Elvey (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elvey, you misunderstood what is the meaning of "should". "Should" doesn't mean mandatory. It is "must", not "should". "Should" means suggestion, so you can choose whether to follow it or not. "Must" means command, where you have no choice but to follow it. As I said, you may ask for a change at the policy's talk page. Why are you so desperate in keeping this file? ★ Poké95 02:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. I'm quite familiar with RFC 2119. I'm not; a whole bunch of files are being deleted, or are you too ... blinkered to have noticed? Why are you commenting without hearing what I'm saying? In other words: There's no 'should' in the policy I'm looking at and referring you to. In other words, you are not quoting and are misrepresenting policy. Why do you persist in doing that? For crying out loud! What part of there's no SHOULD where the COM:D policy says "notify the uploaders that you have tagged the file as well" do you not comprehend?--Elvey (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: The part "notify the uploaders that you have tagged the file as well" is only for tagging files as "no permission", "no source", "no license", and "derivative work, missing original source", not regular deletion/deletion request, which is this one. At the section Regular deletion, it says the uploader should be informed of the impending deletion. "Should" is only a recommendation, not a requirement. And marking your whole paragraph/reply with bold means you're shouting that no one wants to hear you. We hear you. ★ Poké95 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The uploaders (both of them) were notified by the nominator, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Also, the file hasn't been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. I said files, not file. Come on. You honestly can't see that ~12 files are listed on this page? What part of "Eight of the above files have already been deleted while this DR is open." is beyond your comprehension? What part of I just noticed the intentional use of {{noping}} by Gunnex in order to avoid alerting the uploaders. What the frack? is beyond your comprehension? Clearly you don't hear me. (I don't recall bolding that paragraph, but it's amazing how resistant you are to understanding what I say. What is wrong chez vous, I wonder. It's not like I didn't say I just noticed the intentional use of {{Noping}} by Gunnex in order to avoid alerting the uploaders. What the frack?. It's not like the the ~20 uses of {{Noping}} in the source of this page are hard to find. )--Elvey (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only one file has been nominated for deletion on this page, and the uploaders of that file have been notified. Additionally, a user linked to some other files which have not been nominated for deletion on this page. Some of them have been nominated for deletion elsewhere, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Poke, I had a good laugh when I noticed, after reading your uttering each of these things:

  •   Should is different to must.
  • "Should" is only a recommendation, not a requirement.
  • "Should" doesn't mean mandatory.
  • "Should" means suggestion, so you can choose whether to follow it or not.

I found the following at the top of COM:D:

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. (Because it includes {{Policy}}).

It's particularly amusing given the incredible inconsistency with which editors are held to COM:D. It's also amusing and sad that, after having said OTRS permission is needed. you act as if you fail to grok that for these files, the section of policy is not being followed that states:

  • If there is some licensing information missing, then the file gets tagged as missing information and the uploader is informed and given 7 days time to correct the problem.

To claim that these files have been deleted in accord with the the regular DR (deletion request) process is farcical. --Elvey (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment First the DR seems correct, and the uploader to Commons has been notified. Second there is no doubt the image passed via Facebook, "FBMD" in the metadata. Third, the content of facebook is copyrighted, the "term of use" talk about the license the facebook user give to Facebook when uploading content but not about the license given by Facebook when the image is on their website. When you upload an image on facebook, you give them " a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license ...", but never facebook nor the uploader have not currently given any rights to us. The terms of use is a contract between the user and facebook, in no way it's written we can freely use the content. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and per my comment above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:First_National_Bank_Field_2.jpg&oldid=197487799"