Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files from Bob Bobster on Flickr

The Flickr user Bob Bobster (bobster855) is listed as an unreliable source at Commons:Questionable Flickr images because their profile page did at one point state that they upload photos taken by other people. It's clear that a lot of files sourced from this account have incorrect information on the authorship and licensing/copyright status, so a review is in order. Most of these should never have passed Flickr review in their current state. Several of the file descriptions also contain lengthy excerpts taken from Wikipedia articles without proper acknowledgment.

These need to be corrected or deleted:

These may be legit:

The following appear to be OK:

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep almost everything in this list. Maybe best to close the DR, and concentrate on the very few real problems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment better to simply keep the request open and solve all problems. --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Martin. "Bob Bobster" is falsely listed as the author of most of these works. Most of these works are falsely listed as being protected by copyright and licensed under {{CC-by}} with the requirement to attribute "Bob Bobster." Many of them lack verifiable source information. Those are real problems. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these files are from the LoC. It does not need a DR to change a licence to PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. Some of these images are 100+ years old. One of them I noticed is 200 years old. Don't know about other countries but what's the copyright issue on a 100 year old photo that is from the LoC? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not pd-old without knowing that the author died 70 years ago! The file you list here, File:Isadora's dancers.jpg, fails your pd-old for 10 years already, be more carefull and accurate please. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete the rest, including the one I uploaded from the stream and the others that were crossed out by the IP (I de-crossed, the flickr account is corrupt and the notices were removed). Note to the IP: removing deletion notices on file pages should not happen until the discussion is over. Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My account isn't corrupt. I thought I was signed in but wasn't. The consensus seemed to be on the side of with closing the deletion discussion and dealing with each image individually. As I pointed out in my notations by the images above, there is nothing wrong with those particular images. They are personal images taken by the Flickr user and the evidence is on the user's side. Partiality to same brand and model of camera, times correlating with places and dates user claims to have taken the pictures. They should not be deleted nor included in this discussion. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You again removed the deletion notices before the discussion is over - the template says "Do not remove this tag until the deletion request is closed." That the camera is a Canon PowerShot proves nothing and is not a reason to remove notices. This flickr account has uploaded pictures by other people before, where's the evidence that these are genuine? Considering previous copyright violations the evidence should be a little stronger than nothing. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to follow the discussion in this unwieldy DR. Please close, and list the remaining problems, if any. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why is ok for others to remove images from this list before the DR has closed but not ok for me to do it???? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's obvious the images I striked are legit and now even moreso since the Flickr user has himself explained the issue down below. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without regard to the merits of keeping or deleting the other images it seems to me that the situation for File:Affiche du cuirassé potemkine.jpg is complicated, and it should be stripped out from this discussion. The old Soviet Union was not a signatory to international copyright agreements for a long time. Both Robert Heinlein and Farley Mowat had their books officially pirated by the Soviets. As window-dressing the Soviets paid foreign authors a modest royalty -- but in Rubles -- Rubles that could only be spent in the Soviet Union. Both Heinlein and Mowat wrote books about traveling to the Soviet Union in order to spend those Rubles. If the poster was prepared and first published in the Soviet Union what copyrights apply? Maybe the nominator is an expert in Soviet and Russian copyright, or can direct us to a discussion of this issue? But they didn't do so. And, without regard to the other images, I want to see that discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobster855 here....I'm not attempting to pass off anybody else's work as my own. I assume that anything dating from before 1923 is in the public domain. Also, many post-1923 images are in the public domain. I've attempted to list the original source wherever available. Do I need to change the way I designate these images as to licensing? I'll be happy to do so. Obviously, the photos mentioning Canon PowerShot were taken by me. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobster1985 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2010

I agree, honest mistakes, that could have been corrected without a deletion request. Unfortunately, it is quite common that uploaders have there own name in the author field. Even admins do this. But the 1923 limit is not universal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain how to classify my postings. I was under the belief that I was doing it correctly, but apparently not. Is there a way to simply classify everything as public domain? This is all very confusing. Bobster855

The {{PD}} template was declared obsolete. Unfortunately, finding a correct license tag may require some arcane knowledge. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to simply be careful and not mark everything as free if you don't have the evidence that it is free. My advice: make images you didn't take yourself to "All Rights deserved", then other people can figure out if they are free and use them if they are, but non-free images are not declared free. The rules are not arcane, they are laid out at Commons:Licensing. Hekerui (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob: Most pd images are already cleared and corrected. Regarding your flickr: You can do there whatever you want but you may know, that flickr is created only for uploading self-created works, nothing else. See their flickr terms of use - "Don’t upload anything that isn't yours". Same with the CC license, that licenses are constructed that the copyright holder can select them, nobody else. In this case both, the upload on flickr where only self-created works are allowed to upload and the selection of a license requiring attribution, creates something copyfraud like. So dont select free licenses for content you not created yourself, better select all rights reserved. Regretably flickr not allows for marking something as public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This DR should be closed. Flickr user Bobster has explained the images, many of them have been corrected and some don't need correcting and are legit and should have the deletion tag removed from them. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_Bob_Bobster_on_Flickr&oldid=36074879"