Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScoutsYorkminster.jpg

possible copyvio - I noticed this file w:File:Cotton1943 cropped.jpg on en.wiki, credited to the same "Windfield Photographic Collection", but with "C. Ray" as author and c1943 as date, and uploaded by a different user than WayneRay - both images say "granted pd" in the permission field - do we have evidence that this collection is PD? - we have another file File:Truck at Quarry 809th.JPG, which states "George Sharp with permission" as author, and "obtained PD" in the permission field - this source seems dubious - WayneRay uploaded more images with this source - he claims himself as author in some and other authors in other images, but there seems to be no proof of permission for any of them, which casts doubt on WayneRay's authorship claims as well - this and other "Windfield Photographic Collection" images may need to be deleted per COM:PRP INeverCry 17:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This image would probably not have been an issue without the controversy over Wayne Ray. It looks innocent enough, but inevitably some people are going to draw their own conclusions. I can't see obvious copyright problems with the canoe image, and it isn't ideal to draw conclusions from the copyright status of other images.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ianmacm: Have a look at File:Truck at Quarry 809th.JPG. Do you see any proof of permission from George Sharp? If WayneRay can make an unproven claim of permission, his claim of authorship in regard to other Windfield Photographic Collection images like this scout image is also suspect. See COM:PRP. I didn't file this DR just because of the child porn conviction issue; I've worked extensively with copyright here on Commons for several years and still hold the #2 spot in admin experience with over 300,000 log actions performed between 2012 and 2015. INeverCry 18:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that this probably would not be noticed without the controversy, but I think the issue has merit. There is no record of the Windfield collection other than from Mr Ray. "granted pd" seems woefully inadequate, in light of there being other photos where the same was incorrectly claimed. Even if the photo is by ray, a photo of children taken by a convicted child pornographer seems problematic. recommend  deletion to be safe on both counts. A photo of boyscouts in canoe can be easily replaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the image may well have dubious copyright status, a lot of images on Commons do. I checked on tineye.com and Google reverse image search, and Wikimedia Commons and various language Wikipedia articles are pretty much the only place that this image is found. I don't think it is outside the realms of possibility that Ray took this photo himself, as it is nothing special and does not look like the work of a professional photographer. If anyone wants to delete it per COM:PRP, I'm not going to argue.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given the problems described by INeverCry, I suggest  deleting. Mr. Ray seems overall to have had a poor or idiosyncratic understanding of appropriate attribution, permission and content. The Master (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per The Master, and I think this could be extended to many of his other photos, especially those of copyrighted book covers. That said, I'm not entirely clear that the 'Windfield Photographic Collection' isn't just his fancy name for himself, since he seems to have quite the history of creating organisations that may or may not be just him and an email address. Blythwood (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed... I've had a look through his other uploads and they are rife with unlicensed derivatives, images with dubious permission, images lacking sources, etc. Some really needs to at least go through the lot and delete the blatantly problematic images or barring that just wipe all of them. Even ignoring very questionable, surreptitiously taken images like this [1], we have blatant unlicensed derivatives (copyvios) like these [2], [3]. The Master (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having looked at this again, I agree that the "Windfield Photographic Collection, POB 340 Stn. B London Ontario Canada N6A 4W1" situation isn't ideal as it may be just a pseudonym for Wayne Ray. I doubt whether he took all of the Windfield photographs or had permission to upload them with PD tagging, but still think that he may have taken the canoe photo himself. So my vote is  Delete per COM:PRP.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete. Having looked this over, I agree with the analysis by INeverCry (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - agree, but lets also add File:MudBall01.jpg / File:MudBall05.jpg / File:MudBall07.jpg / File:T.B. topless nude negative.jpg / File:JeanWPC.jpg to this DR, especially the last 2 as her age may be in question..we will deal with the rest of his uploads once WMF takes action on him...--Stemoc 14:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To address something repeatedly mentioned here, User:WayneRay/Windfield Horticultural Photographic Collection describes the collection as "Photos by Wayne Ray, Karl Wimmi, John Riley, John Narroway who have donated slide transparencies to the collection over the years since 1980." Based on other searching (including tidbits that ended up on speedy deletion wikia), it appears to have been originally related to E. P. Taylor's Windfields Farm, and a donation of seeds to the Royal Botanical Garden sometime around 1980. While Wayne Ray was in Canada around that time, and appears to have had at least some slight degree of involvement (it was asserted that he did some of the seed collecting in the 70's) I can't find any information about such a photographic collection outside of what he has said on Commons... particularly, nothing that gives those images a clear copyright status (the ones I glanced at would seem to be deletable as 'no evidence that the given author agreed to the stated license'). Revent^talk 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He also uploaded a number of images from the 40s/50s, with the Windfield Collection label, attributed to "George Sharp with permission", and to "Capt. Claxton Ray", whom WayneRay states he's the heir of (perhaps an uncle...or an invention). See m:User_talk:Jalexander-WMF#Possible_sock_of_WayneRay. INeverCry 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like a case of assuming that conveyance of a copy passes along the copyright, without any evidence that the copyright was actually transferred, with the result of creating an unresolvable mess (especially if he's in prison, as I doubt he'll be editing Commons while incarcerated). Revent^talk 00:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ray is not incarcerated - that's why all the attention, he was editing on here until last week. Regarding the photos apparently taken by relatives...I have to say I can't quite be bothered to delete them, they don't seem any more problematic than many other pictures on here. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Wayne Ray has created a grand amount of mess on Commons by attributing PD to photographs in a way which is unlikely to be correct. Although the initial concern here was some people making a hoo-ha on Wikipediocracy over the child porn angle, a far wider problem has now occurred because it is hard to tell if any of Ray's images have proper permissions. At this rate, any image uploaded by Ray with the "Windfield Collection" permission has to be seen as a potential candidate for deletion per COM:PRP.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly the case, it seems clear that Mr. Ray owns these photos (or perhaps has donated them to a collection he has close ties to), and we have no evidence to disprove that he inherited the rights to them. There is no evidence that any of them have been published elsewhere, the Korean War photos for example. So apart from this particular one (which has particular issues given his record), I don't see any reason to delete them unless a contested claim turns up or evidence that they weren't taken when and where Mr. Ray says they were. The book covers are perhaps another matter. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: When a person uploads images that they did not personally create, we need evidence that they either own the actual copyright (per a legal conveyance) or that the work is actually PD. The issue with the "Winfield Collection" images is an unproven (and potentially mistaken) claim that a third party (the original photographer) gave such permission. COM:PRP (and COM:EVID) dictate that we delete such works unless evidence is provided. It's far too common for uploaders to incorrectly assert that ownership of a physical copy of a work gives them the right to license it... it does not. Revent^talk 04:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Wayne Ray may have taken some of the Windfield photos himself, but others he clearly did not. The sloppy use of public domain tagging has called all of these images into question.--Ianmacm (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and do the same with similar images uploaded by the same person. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]