Commons:Deletion requests/File:WTC Attack (9-11).jpeg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:WTC Attack (9-11).jpeg[edit]

The source flickr account should be banned from Wikicommons for probable flickrwashing unfortunately. This image is from a Fuji camera and this is from an Olympus camera. This set has watermarks on the images. And all the flickr images are 'High Quality'? There are at least 2-3 other images from this flickr account on Wikicommons like this. How many authors copyright's is Commons potentially violating? Leoboudv (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of copyright violating do you mean? The license is the same as the one in Flickr. What's the matter? --CherryX (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: From the flickr account owner's profile, it appears that he collects 9/11 images. The question is not the flickr license. That's accceptable. The question is whether he is the author of all these images--did he really take all of these? Was he really in a helicopter over the WTC towers on September 11, 2001? Somehow I doubt it. This flickr account is just a random collection of 9/11 images...and nothing more. If he had taken many many personal images and then taken a few 9/11 images with 1 camera, then yes, it would likely be 'own work'. But in this case, it looks like flickrwashing where someone "borrows" several 9/11 images and then posts them on a flickr account that he recently created. In this case, he would not be the real copyright owner of these pictures, then unfortunately. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete. The same as with other image sources: one thing is a proper license, another thing is to think about whether claimed authorship by the alleged licensee is credible, which in this case is clearly not. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per nom and blacklist the flickr account. I've nominated the other two for deletion too: WTC attack and Liberty Island.jpeg, WTC Attack, aerial view.jpeg. --El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm afraid the source flickr account has to be added to a blacklist since the author licenses the images freely. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Flickr washing. King of ♠ 06:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]