Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arbutus andrachne bark (Ab plant 102).jpg

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:Arbutus andrachne bark (Ab plant 102).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mdann52 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Ticket:2015071510022498 - author provided a higher res copy with metadata that checks out, this appears to be a copyvio. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Frankly, when an established user (an admin, no less!) contributes a photo stating it is own work, if there is a claim challenging that, it should not be dealt with as a speedy deletion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really really odd. First, the photo is already at max resolution for the camera named in metadata - and it's the same camera as in other uploads by Butko from 2008 (and of course the same as in all pics in Category:Arbutus andrachne in Laspi Bay). If the other, "higher res" copy indeed exists ... but where is it? Retired electrician (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - it appears that this is at the same resolution (I got the numbers the wrong way round!), but the date on the image (or they claim) is before the upload date - they also say that this is not actually the plant the featured image claims to be, which a quick Google search seems to confirm. In any case, the original description was just "Растение" (plant), which seems a tad unusual if he did actually take it (I would expect a much longer description), so something here smells fishy.... As for the other high-res copy, it was emailed to the OTRS team, but I'm not able to pass this on outside of the OTRS interface per the Non-public data access policy. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my own photo. I used Olympus Camedia C-740 Ultra Zoom. In this video from 0:50 you can see this camera in my hands. 1536 × 2048 is maximal resolution for this camera. I took this picture in Laspi Bay. Here you can see other my photos from this place created with this camera. Original description "Растение" (plant) is result of batch uploading. This is disadvantage of batch uploading that I must use one description for number of files. Can you provide details of OTRS ticket? For example URL of other image, name of photographer who claims authorship. I suggest that he violates my copyright. --Butko (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Butko: I'm unable to provide details of the user who contacted us via OTRS, and the WMF will only do so with a court order. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, that would be the Court of Alice’s Queen of Hearts, with the hon. Mad Hatter presiding? No, really, you’re telling us that any John Doe can call OTRS with some bogus claim, then an OTRS drone will tag the affected files with a speedy del. rq. and — boom!: We lose content and our legitimate uploader gets a frowny face in s/his report card? And that if the scam is discovered by chance in time to avoid content loss and tarring of a contributer, said John Doe gets legal protection? Sounds like a really good system. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not just Mr.X from the street, but a registered user - and he or she gets away with it and is free to continue same sort of things, right? Retired electrician (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In view of Butko’s reply, I suggest that Mdann52 should {{Withdraw}} the DR; OTRS may chose to disregard the complaint, or further the enquire to avoid its own abuse by copyright trolls — but nothing else to be done here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: I'm not going to withdraw this - my personal policy is to let these things run and be closed by an independent admin (as it carries more weight later on then if I close it myself). Additionally, as I am (technically) not the one asking for deletion, I am unable to withdraw (think of this as a proxy request in some ways). --Mdann52talk to me! 16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion it was uploader's image and nomination was withdrawn. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]