Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Marku1988: Difference between revisions

User gave this reason "I am not the creator. The craetor expect me to remove alle his pictures in the next weeks"

Images was uploaded under a free license up to 2 years ago. Licenses is non revokable. Has been descussed here User_talk:Marku1988#Copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - most of the files are in use on more than one place, this user has uploaded them and placed them under a free license and is now asking for deletion, since a free license cant be revoked I don't think we should delete them, it could be a good thing to show us where the images are taken from, my point of view is now that this is just a user that needs his own images deleted because he wants to. Huib talk 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral - Who is the author of those images? Where they were taken from? Did author contacted Marku1988? It would be nice to see any proofs, because at current policy when licences are not revocable any user who may want to delete his own images can state "it's not my work, it's copyvio" -- Justass (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as Marku1988 didn't provide any evidences of copyvio --Justass (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral We need some kind of proof. Until now we have only assertions and presumptions, from both sides. -- smial (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete the creator give me a Cd and mail some pictures to me, but he don't want the pictures to be publish. That what it is. And it is the only proof I can give. --Marku1988 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Given that this is all the proof you are willing to supply at this point, please can you give us more details. What date was the CD created, and which images are on it? Also, how many emails were there, and on which dates? Finally, what reason did the author have for sending the pictures to you? What did you tell him you were going to do with them? --99of9 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If there is a copyvio, we need a source to proof this, or have the real author claiming his rights. So long ... axp_de^Hello! 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marku1988 has done great work in retouching and improving existing images on Commons. Though what has happened here is without doubt very unpleasant, I don't see reason not to believe his claim as he incriminates himself. To speculate a bit: especially among young people sharing images is rather popular and when asked the photographer may say "ok, you can put them on your website or on Commons without knowing what that is" and later when he realizes what that meant, he doesn't want it. Of course, it was wrong that Marku1988 claimed these image to be his own if they weren't. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The pictures I randomly clicked are with "own work". If they are really copyvio, then all files uploaded from the user with source "own work" should be deleted and the user have to been blocked (so much copyrightviolations and giving his name as credit for other's work) from this project. But therefore it must be secure, that a third has the copyright - he/she isn't named or had said something here. No delete without an evidence. In other case - the user only not want the pictures available here - the pictures have to remain here. And @Túrelio: the user was 18 years when he uploaded the files - your "young people" argument doesn't fit in this dimension. One or two or three files - maybe - but not this list. And if - as you expected - that the photographer now say "okay, at this time not more, becuase now i know what this mean", this is not interesting. He gave the permission or the task to upload here. --Quedel (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Look Axpde. --Jivee Blau (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The uploader should know. The fact that he ought to have behaved otherwise at the time doesn't make any difference. And if you say "we should disbelieve him", then you should delete all his work, not just this. --Simonxag (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Quedel you are right all picture I marked as own must be deleted. The one I retouched or I stick of course not. I you have a way to let me find the own pictures I missed, please let me know. The blocking is ok for me. I can create a new account. --Marku1988 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already voted "delete", not the number of votes but the number of voters "counts"! About "The blocking is ok for me. I can create a new account." ... is that your attitude to this project? Doing havoc and if one account is burnt just create the next one?!? Sincere congratulation ... :( axp_de^Hello! 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And i think, blocking someone isn't for the used nickname, but for the person - or? So, creating a new user name isn't allowed. --Quedel (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Marku1988, how about what I recommended to you on your talkpage? --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I find this hard to believe. According to the EXIF data, File:Witten-Annen Dönerbude.jpg was made just one day before it was uploaded here. File:Kemnader-See-Ruhruni01.jpg was uploaded the same morning. This must be uploader's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a lot of trouble if I must invole the copyrightholder I work for. At the moment only my contact person knows. But he give me the deadline 2009-12-01. Please believe me. --Marku1988 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So uploader admits that this was not true. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep You are also in a lot of trouble if it's true that you misled us at commons. Your only choice is to provide evidence, and if that involves the copyright holder, so be it. If they are cross at you for what you did to their images, that sounds like justice to me. --99of9 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep There are cases where I think uploader should be honoured in a request for deletion of one or more pictures. An immediate - oops wrong picture - is a definite yes, A request for deletion where the uploader had overlooked some conditions, possibly. After a long time, I lied to you, and now I'm about to get into trouble - a definite no. That would open up for anyone with a grudge to come up with a lie and in fact retroactively change the license. This type of deleterequest should have verifiable evidence of copyrightviolation. Haros (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep No convincing arguments for deletion. Sv1xv (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I share Pieter Kuipers argument. Most EXIF is removed, but in some cases it still exists:

File:Witten-Annen Stammhaus Ostermann.jpg & File:Witten-Annen Dönerbude.jpg - taken June 16 2008, uploaded June 17

File:EndofLine.JPG & File:Witten BAB43 Brücke Hammertal.JPG & File:BAB40-52-NO.jpg - taken September 11 2008, uploaded September 13

File:BF Duisburg-Buchholz.jpg - taken October 10 2008, uploaded October 10.

The only inconsistency I found, I of course only checked some samples, was with the uploads on June 22 2008, File:Bochum-Werne Park.jpg and File:Bochum-Eppendorf Kirche.jpg from a different camera (+2 other images from that day not nominated). Per simal, some kind of proof needed that this is not a license revoke for other reasons than copyright violation or some kind of quality or privacy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I've no reason do not believe the nominator. Anybody could find himself in a difficult situation. IMO we could show some understanding here.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are valid reasons to question the statements of the nominator. Pieter Kuiper and Martin H. have shown that some of the pictures got uploaded very shortly after creation (e.g. the same morning); and they were declared "own work" by the uploader/nominator. So a suspicion that Marku1988 simply doesn't want his own images here any longer is at least understandable. However, maybe we should err on the side of caution - it's also possible that everything is as Marku1988 states (i.e. the pictures which were uploaded shortly after they were taken could have been e-mailed to him). As Túrelio already suggested on the talk page of Marku1988 (in German), a good way for clarification would be to have the real creator send a mail to OTRS. If I understand correctly what Marku1988 is saying, however, the "real" photographer and copyright owner doesn't even know yet that his rights are being violated, only a "contact person"... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Please delete my job was to improve this pictures which I got by mail --Marku1988 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]