Commons:Administrators/Requests/Cybularny

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Symbol support vote.svg Support = 26; Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose = 1; Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral = 0 - 96% Result. Successful. --.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cybularny

Related requests:

Vote

Cybularny (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cybularny. I live in Poland and my home wiki is Polish Wikipedia in which I have served as an adminintrator since 2019. I have edited Wikimedia projects since 2014 and I have been more widely active on Commons since 2017. The most important maintenance activity I'm involved in is tracking copyright violations which are a huge problem for Wikimedia Commons and far to less people looks for them and I will use my admin rights mostly in that field. I often use copyvio, no-permission or so source tags as well as nominate problematic files to DR. I'm aware that a previously published file without a reliable free licence at source, proof of beeing PD or VRT permission should be treated with one of those procedures. FBMD in EXIF data suggests that a file is copied from Facebook. If a file is of low resolution and lacks EXIF data the propability of being a copyvio in much higher and often, especially if it looks professional, is unlikely to be taken by amatour or the uploader has a history of uploading unfree photos, it can be nominated for deletion on grounds of COM:PRP. To track copyvios I mostly use Google Image search but since I know that Google won't reach everywhere i sometimes look for the previous publishing manually, mostly on Facebook, where I might find a file quite deep. If I suspect that a file may be previously published I can spend a while to patiently find a proof. Of course I'm familiar with Commons policies for instance licensing, TOO, DW and FOP, the minimis or project scope. ~Cybularny Speak? 19:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like the answers. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question If you came across a file with FBMD in the metadata, under what circumstances would you: 1) tag as {{Copyvio}}; 2) tag as {{No permission since}} or similar; 3) open a DR; 4) take no action? You do not have to use each of the four options, if you do not believe there is a set of circumstances under which that option is appropriate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I couldn't locate the source I would not use copyvio as it should be used for the most obvious cases. Using no permission tag would not be a mistake because that tag means generally that I have doubts about the validity of the licence (or either that I'm sure about the problem but can see a slight chance that the user will clarify the copyright status via VRT during the following week) but it doesn't give a comfortable chance to clarify the point of tagging. So the best option is a DR where I can explain in words what is the problem so the reason of nominating for deletion would be clear for both uploader and other users participating in the discussion (and closing it at the end). If I found a source file on Facebook without a free licence I would choose between copyvio and no permission. There is no strict border between them in such case for me, just copyvio is stronger while no permission gives chance for the uploader to resolve the copyright issue via VRT without immediate deletion. If I can point an unfree source where the photo had been previously published the file can be always speedydeleted as copyvio. However the uploader sometimes may have an informal permission from the author (or even be an author themself) which of course in not sufficient on Commons and needs to be corfirmed via VRT. So the choise between copyvio and no permission tag would depend on the whole context. If the uploader had a long history of uploading unfree files I would rather use copyvio tag whereas for example if the uploader published a profile photo of a person they are describing on Wikipedia I would be likely to choose no permission as they may be in contact with that person and the copyright status of the photo might be clarified (still using copyvio tag in such case would not violate Commons policies, if VRT team would get an acceptable permission after deletion the file will be restored, just delaying the deletion for a week is a kind of courtesy and assuming good faith). ~Cybularny Speak? 22:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are there any circumstances in which you would take no action? What if the uploader had many contributions and no violations? Brianjd (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question You are patrolling Category:Copyright violations and come across a black-and-white film photo which appears to be from Poland. The tagger has provided evidence that it has appeared on an external website without a free license prior to its upload to Commons. What do you do? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, old photo does not mean PD photo. We have {{PD-Poland}} but an original source is necessary to determine if the file complies all guidelines of such PD. To use {{PD-old}} we need to know the author and their year of death. Therefore such file qualifies for deletion just us other files not beeing own work and without a proof of beeing free. The only other thing I could do would be contacting the uploader in order they could provide any reason for that file to be PD (other source on via VRT). If an uploader holds a copyright of their ancestor they may use a tag from Category:License tags for transferred copyright (but if the photo is previously published on the web VRT permission is still needed). That's true that historical photos are often difficult to upload on Commons. If an old photo lies in your album and you don't know who had taken it, it's practically impossilble to upload it on Commons. Due to COM:L and COM:PRP a copyright status of a file must be clear to keep it on Commons. ~Cybularny Speak? 22:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the detailed breakdown! Since we're talking about the speedy queue here, let me get to the point: would you delete it immediately, or what other action would you take? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing copyvio tag to no permission for example seems to be a good option. It would give the uploader some time do determine free copyright status of the file while guaranteeing deletion if they fail to do so. However I'm not sure if my response corresponds with practise – since now I have been just a nominator and I don't have any admin experience on Commons. As an nominator I would rather use no permission tag in such case. Of course if I was sure that the file is copyrighted and uploaded illegaly (in context) I would just delete it (as an admin). ~Cybularny Speak? 23:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've got the right general idea, though converting it to a DR might be even better (if it doesn't appear to be a family heirloom). For non-obvious cases where the licensing is suspect, a good rule of thumb is: use DR if the most plausible route to saving the image is through public means (e.g. finding evidence it is PD or successfully arguing it is below TOO), and use "no permission" if the most plausible route to saving the image is through private means (e.g. emailing VRT). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Your country's neighbor to the west is Germany. While your country has a generous freedom of panorama (but only outdoors), Germany has an outdoor freedom of panorama very particular on photographer's location as well as photographer's manner of photography (if he/she used some special tools or not). Courts there defined the extent of German FOP. Suppose you come across a photo showing Europaturm of Frankfurt-am-Main as taken from a drone, what would be your approach to it? Hint: the debate at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's 1.30 a.m. in Poland, so I will look at this case later. ~Cybularny Speak? 00:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's OK @Cybularny: . I'm from UTC+8 time zone-country (Manila time is 8:41 a.m. now as of this writing). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    German FOP is quite tricky. At first we can see that Germany is green of the FOP map similarly to multiple other countries. However, while in most countries FOP is determined by location of the object regardless where the photographer stands, in Germany the position of the photographer is essential to decide whether FOP applies. Therefore photographer needs to take a photo from public place and moreover the object must be visible form that point so drone photography, using a ladder, moving the tree branches etc. does not fulfill German FOF requirements, even using long focus lens is said to be possibly problematic. Howewer more liberal court decisions exist, they are mentioned on COM:FOP Germany or several undeletion requests. Practice on Commons seem to vary in that case even among very experienced users. On the one hand these four files were undeleted basing on that court verdict, while on the other hand undeletion reguest mentioned in the question was eventually declined even though two users argued for undeletion. During that discussion it was stated, as long as I understand correctly, that it's not obvious that all courts would agree with the interpretation from that verdict and Commons should not rely solely on one verdict. Due to significant doubts whether FOP actually applied the photo was not undeleted per PRP. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Suppose you come across a file that lacks EXIF data. The file might be low resolution, or it might be a high resolution professional photo. There is no uploader history of copyvios or other evidence of copyvio. What action (if any) would you take? Brianjd (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would your response be the same as the ‘FBMD’ question above? Brianjd (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe my actions would depend on individual context. We have COM:PRP but we need to assume good faith (note that uploading an inproperly licensed file with good faith is possible and probable especially among new users). Each time I see such picture I would seek for evidence that it was previously published. If I don't have such direct evidence the key would be to estimate the probability that the file is not own work. It is always higher when a photo looks professional, seems to be a official, profile photo (e.g. of a music band), is a direct shot of a celebrity or in any other ways doesn't look as created as amatour person. If that probability is high enough to call it significant doubt (mentioned in PRP) I would nominate such file for DR. I have seen many DR where something like small photo without EXIF, unlikely to be own work was enough to delete a file and I agree with them. Obviously we cannon prove all cases where someone uploaded as own work a photo taken by different person so basing on probability we are able to reduce the number of them. If the uploader is indeed an author they can for example show the original photo (with EXIF) to VRT team or when the probability of copyvio seems lower a additional declaration of authorships may be enough. If a file is high resolution and professional showing the original with EXIF to VRT should not be a problem as long as it is really your photo. ~Cybularny Speak? 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This seems like a reasonable answer. We should also remember Commons talk:Deletion requests#Lack of EXIF as a deletion reason. Brianjd (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Hi, since you want to tackle copyright issues. In the case you see there are tagged some files for deletion but do have a license. Would you delete them anyway or would you warn the one who tagged the files for deletion or for no license?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Then second question if I may:) If you see there are files tagged for no license but they seem to be in the public domain or having freedom of panorama. Would you delete them, add a license or add a license and advise the uploader how to add one properly as well?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Paradise Chronicle Since this discussion is going to be closed soon, I am going to pre-empt the candidate to clarify something. When an image depicts another work, we need to deal with the image itself and the depicted work separately. Freedom of panorama might mean that the depicted work doesn’t need to be free, but the image itself still needs to be free (free license or public domain). Brianjd (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great answer. Thank you. This issue with deleting files had me worried a bit, but now I feel much more confident. And seeing the many support votes I also believe this is a good candidate but about what you write up there (such as FBMD/exif/com:PRP) I really don't understand much..., so I leave electing sysops to the ones who know better. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators/Requests/Cybularny&oldid=729359347"