Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot

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 by Larry Philpot

[edit]

Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot (User:Nightshooter) of using Commons to sue people. If these accusations are true, he is exploiting Commons and hurting our mission and reputation. We should have no tolerance for such bad faith foolishness. See Category:Images by Marco Verch for a similar previous situation. Nosferattus (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Sad to lose these images, but I don't think we should be placed in the position of inadvertently aiding a copyright troll. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep These were already discussed, and it was decided to keep them but with proper attribution (and warning about lawsuits) on the images themselves. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_74#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clindberg: Why? No one in their right mind, including Wikipedia, is going to use these photos. As MetaBrainz wrote, "While we wait for Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons to take action on this, we will not reinstate artist images or include any images that link to Wikimedia Commons." And if anyone does reuse them, we're just aiding and abetting the spread of the images. Maybe the first generation of reusers will correctly attribute them, but will the 2nd generation? What about the 3rd? By keeping these images on our servers, we are helping Larry Philpot exploit us for his own gain. What possible reason could there be for us to keep the images? Nosferattus (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine if nobody uses them; I think that was expected. People from the outside could still be using them; we never know. The reasons for keeping them, modified with the warning, were long discussed four years ago -- that was the "action" that MetaBrainz was waiting for. This is not a new issue, nor a new complaint. Anyone using the image will be made aware of the issue. It's perfectly legal to use the images, provided the credit is correct, and the correct attribution being part of the image itself makes it pretty hard to misuse. If they can provide any benefit to anyone though, they are still here to provide it -- deletion prevents even that, and seems more like trying to hide the issue. Lots of people discussed it long ago, and I don't see any new rationale for deletion which was not brought up then. The Village Pump mention made it seem as though this was a new problem, or one that we had ignored, which was not at all the case. There is another user's uploads which are the new issue, who was not directly named at all despite being the subject of the first link. These in particular have been dealt with, and I do not see a good reason to delete them, given the discussion four years ago. The ones from the new user, perhaps deletion is still the best recourse there. For these though, I see no reason to overturn the decision from four years ago, and wipe out the work they did to add the warning to the images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Protecting our reusers from harm is more important. Sending a message that we will not tolerate copyleft trolls will also protect those who want to reuse photographs and would prevent future abuses by others. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The approach used before, and discussed at length, does protect re-users since the proper attribution is embedded, and those images cannot be used with the tactics. Deletion sends no message at all since they won't be here to send that message. They do need to be protected from further overwriting, but I believe these have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There was consensus to keep these files in 2019. Unless new arguments pop up, there is no need to start old discussions all over again. The articles mentioned in the intro aren't exactly recent news. The current files can't be overwritten and contain a clear message to people wanting to misuse Commons. Keeping them (incl. this warning) is better then removing the images from Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and add warnings. I would hope that if someone published one of these photos and included a link to the Commons page, then a court would find that link would satisfy the CC-BY requirements. If we delete the page, then the link would not be sufficient notice. I would also hope that publishing a photo with EXIF would be sufficient notice if that EXIF metadata included the required information. I take no position on Philpot. CourtListener search. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep just add warnings. No reason to delete. Юрий Д.К 21:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read any of the articles linked from the deletion nomination? Nosferattus (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, yes. And I continue to oppose deletion of files for such reason. Deleting these files is a very bad precedent that may lead to the deletion of valuable files from Commons. I think we will face with copyleft trolls periodically in the future. Protecting our reusers from harm is important, obviously, but this problem easy may be solved by warning notice. Юрий Д.К 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a further point, many of these files are still in use. Some of them still for their original purpose, and others as illustrations when discussing these copyright lawsuit issues. File:Willie Nelson at Farm Aid 2009 - Cropped.jpg is used at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source, File:Tom Petty 2.jpg is in use normally, File:Kenny Chesney 2013.jpg is used on Signpost articles from a few years ago when the Philpot lawsuits were brought to light (and also used for its original purpose on the Turkish Wikipedia), File:Daughtry 2013.jpg is used on a Bulgarian article on copyright trolls, etc. At least 10 of these files are still in use in some fashion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete delete all. This should have been done in 2019, when they were blocked. We shouldn't be doing anything to support users who behave like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Consensus for the current compromise solution (forced attribution and new versions disallowed) was achieved back in 2019 and all arguments supporting deletion were given back then as well, so I see no reason to overturn the previous decision. —holly {chat} 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_Larry_Philpot&oldid=851730176"