Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco

< Commons:Deletion requests
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 found with Special:Search/insource:huntingtontheatreco

edit

Files from bad Flickr user huntingtontheatreco.

Issues were brought up by User:Patrick Rogel at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Pictures from The Huntington Flickr account. (link to diff) User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao shows how several files from this Flickr user have already been deleted. [1] even blatantly states "© Bryce Vickmark. All rights reserved. Photo credit "Photo by Bryce Vickmark." If used on a website please link photo credit to www.vickmark.com" while having a CC-BY license.

It may be reasonable to give users a chance (time) to review some of these, especially the valued images, to try and figure out if The Huntington actually does hold the copyright for at least some of the photos.

There are 1729 in total but initially they weren't all listed because VisualFileChange choked. VFC has been abused multiple times at Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco -hastemplate:delete eventually resulting in this complete list:

602 1729 files from Flickr user huntingtontheatreco

April 22 update: I missed these. They come from Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:59832923@N02 -hastemplate:delete.

- Alexis Jazz 21:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-list break

edit
What problem with this user?--Anatoliy (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahonc: one sec, I'm adding that now. Didn't put it in VFC because any lengthy explanation would end up on all of these file pages. - Alexis Jazz 21:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not all, but VisualFileChange was choking. If these are deleted another batch can be loaded. There are 602 files here, 1729 exist in total.
Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Pictures from The Huntington Flickr account (link to diff) - Alexis Jazz 21:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added in some of the rest.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Alexis Jazz, could you explain more of what you mean by "bad user"? A deletion of 1700 files, some of which are in use (the very first one in the list is identified as a "valued image") should be done with a clear understanding of the reason. I'm not disagreeing, but without some explanation, I have no way to understand your reasoning. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: added info. - Alexis Jazz 23:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff G., your example above is actually tagged as " Some rights reserved" in a manner which is acceptable for Commons per Commons:Flickr files, despite what it may say in the description. While I personally would go with the tagged license, since it is chosen during upload and the description may be pasted from elsewhere and is more likely to be an oversight, it should perhaps be determined whether the license or the description is inaccurate before 1700 useful files are deleted. The account appears to be the Huntington Theatre itself. I would also note that there are multiple images, like this one (uploaded as File:Bianca Amato -Private Lives (2012).jpg), this one, and this one, which are tagged as " Some rights reserved" and do not have contradictory descriptions.TAnthony (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony: That was the example of @Alexis Jazz.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony: sadly, they blindly put CC-BY on everything. La Tour Eiffel by Raoul Dufy for example. CC-BY. Amazing, because Raoul died in 1953 before the inception of Creative Commons. In 2023 it will enter the public domain in Europe. According to File:La Tour Eiffel, Raoul Dufy.png Raoul Dufy is registered here as User:Vicky1708. ("own work") Great, now we have to deal with zombie Raoul Dufy. - Alexis Jazz 00:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I tweeted at their social account and perhaps they will weight in? I hope that they weigh in. Sadads (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Keep for review -- the institution has acknowledged the need for internal review, but also has been very explicit that for the most part these images should be appropriately licensed: can we keep with a specific timeline that might be reasonable for the institution?Sadads (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep most; namely all the performance photos. This is the account of the Huntington Theatre Company, a very respected Boston theatrical company. As can be seen from the fact we use almost 2000 of them, they've released many valuable photos. A small fraction were incorrectly tagged, but the overwhelming majority were taken by the Company; we'd lose a great deal if we threw out all of them due to a small fraction of incorrect attribution. --GRuban (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: the problem is, as can be seen on the Dufy images, they just don't seem to care about the license. They upload everything with CC BY as a default. So we don't know what (if any) agreement they have with photographers. More examples:
If they can't clean up their mess I don't see how we can trust any of their images. The only viable approach here is imho to contact the individual photographers and ask them to send a mail to OTRS. - Alexis Jazz 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: The social media manager has reached out, and acknowledged that Flickr images are going to need a copyright review (see comment above): this does not require OTRS from the rights holders, but rather a review of the contracts by the Huntington to make sure that the Huntington has the appropriate terms for republishing under these licenses. Since this is something that the institution itself is responsible for, we should not en-mass take-down nor go around a review process on their end (see also the acknowledgement on Twitter .Sadads (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is the Digital Content Manager from the Huntington Theatre Company. We saw the tweet from Sadads and responded. Most of the images listed above we do have the right to share. For the most part they are photos of our programming taken under the appropriate contracts. Having brought this to our attention, we'll be conducting an audit of our Flickr photos and updating rights information and deleting any images that may be in violation. Please refrain from removing the 1700 images until we have the opportunity to review. Thanks! (Please forgive any wikimedia commons syntax errors - new platform for me!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.5.238 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
I had overlooked this message because it wasn't signed and placed above the last message from GRuban. (buried in the discussion without indentation) Very good to hear from you. Please consider registering an account, you don't even need a mail address and we can keep track of your messages better. If you already have a Wikipedia account that will also work here. When picking a username, don't use the name of the company as username policy requires you username to reflect one person. "Huntington Digital Content Manager" for example would be fine. - Alexis Jazz 22:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Quote from Twitter directed at Sadads:
"Hi Alex, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Most images, particularly those in recent years, we have distribution rights to use - they're production photos or other taken under appropriate contracts. We'll look into an audit of our Flickr page. Thx!"
Distribution rights are likely not sufficient. By releasing an image as CC-BY, you allow anyone to use it for virtually any purpose. People can make derivatives like cropping a portrait photo out of a larger image or make memes with them. They could even sell them. Someone could use such a photo for the cover of a book and as long as they credit you, that's fine. For your photos to be on Commons, you must allow this as noncommercial and nonderivative licenses are not allowed here.
You may well be fine with that (the photos are not the "product" you sell so it's all free advertising really) but having distribution rights is likely not enough for you to be able to do this. If you couldn't sell me the rights to do with a picture whatever I want, your distribution rights are not sufficient.
An example to clarify this. You may or may not be familiar with the "dicks, dicks everywhere" meme. If you weren't you are about to, because one of the many entries for that meme is a Huntington photo. Dicks are everywhere and the internet is no exception. CC BY allows beautiful things, but at the same time it also allows ugly, annoying or stupid things. Don't take this the wrong way: putting a more restrictive license on your photos wouldn't stop memes or other things you may not like in any way. But when you license pictures from others they may not be happy when they find out you gave the world permission to create such things. So you really should check your distribution rights contracts and contracts with photographers. - Alexis Jazz 04:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a ... wonderful example. A bit harsh, but certainly gets the point across. I am with Sadads, let's give the Huntington a reasonable amount of time to clear up their issues. Our own OTRS can takes several months to respond to a licensing issue, so we should give them at least the same order of magnitude. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Digital Content Manager from the Huntington Theatre Company (maybe someone poke them on Twitter?): you can actually help us. Give us a list of photographers of which you have checked the contracts. We can start to categorize those and hopefully end up with no more than a few hundred photos that we need to check by hand. We could at that point also give you a list of photos with questionable licenses. For photos that have not (yet) been transferred from Flickr to Commons you will still need to do the checks yourself. - Alexis Jazz 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This one, File:Molière (33310309985).jpg is good to go, however I am a little bit hesitant since I checked it by hand and we've been told that "dicks, dicks everywhere". --Taterian (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Taterian: File:Molière (33310309985).jpg should be deleted, not because copyvio but because it is a duplicate of File:Moliere2.jpg. I now see you made edits to File:Molière (33310309985).jpg, attributing it to a completely different artist..? Flickr2commons should have never allowed it to be uploaded, but I'm not sure if Flick2commons is still being maintained. This bug was reported several times. - Alexis Jazz 22:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that since, as you can see yourself, some 19th century French painters now also can be called "bad authors" ... But listen, I've found two Civil War diamonds:

This one can go down the river right away as a scaled-down duplicate:

Do we have the "duplicate". I could not find it, and the image is used on enwiki. Christian75 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian75: I added nowiki tags to that request because it has already been deleted, it's just a redirect now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't forget. I'll continue on this soon. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete photos missing camera meta data, including ones put through image editing programs, unless it contains Huntington  Keep the rest. Nominator has shown the lack of care from Flickr account, this will take out the the most blatant copyvios or incorrectly licensed images, but will keep the correctly licensed images that are actually produced by the theater. Any remaining images can be reviewed in another DR, if needed. Some examples:
@BevinKacon: I nearly had this figured out. I was stuck on a mere 150 files that required some really tedious work to check, and I wasn't getting any help so I kept putting it off. Right now Jcb is killing this DR as "deleted", but his computer is crashing.
That's what I mean. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused why my other examples were showing as redlinks, yes what a shame. Deletion is not out of process, as COM:PCP applies. If you are confident of your work, submit it COM:UNDEL.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - DR has been silent for 6 weeks (when I started processing it, halfway the process people suddenly started talking again). No evidence that the theatre owns the copyright of even any of these files. Obtaining some usage right via a contract is completely different from being the copyright holder. The latter is needed to release a picture into a CC license. (n.b. Alexis Jazz, my computer is not crashed, deleting so much files takes some time). --Jcb (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco&oldid=316405512"