The center for all Wikitravel images!

Difference between revisions of "Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
Votes for deletion

Default Banner.jpg

Line 149: Line 149:
* '''Keep'''. The Korean law that Jpatokal cited seems to say that it's ok &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 04:01, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''. The Korean law that Jpatokal cited seems to say that it's ok &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 04:01, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''. In agreement with Cacahuate. -- [[User:OldPine|OldPine]] 08:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
=== [[:Image:KabulAfghanistan.jpg ]] ===
=== [[:Image:KabulAfghanistan.jpg ]] ===

Revision as of 12:53, 10 October 2007

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. If the article or image meets the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.
  3. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  4. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.


All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page and copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the appropriate archive.

August 2007

Nanow jesús madrid's upload

  • Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The contributor, admin of es:, wrote copy rights appears on the image. and replaced {{dont know}} on 2 image pages with {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but it is found at the bottom of images that Todos los derechos reservados..
  • Delete all. -- Tatata 04:08, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I just wanted it to appear on Wikitravel during a couple of weeks till people realise that Wikitravel had appeared on the news. Althoug (I guess) it's possibly a violation of the copyrights, I wrote on the bottom of the image the name of the newspaper and the date of publication, which I though might be enough in order to not commit a copyrights violation. Anyway, do whatever you want. Nanow jesús madrid 13:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I just want to know whether it is innocent or not. Do you have any evidence that contents of the site are licensed under CC-BY-SA-1.0? -- Tatata 22:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree with the deletion. Just, say the day of the deletion a couple of days before. Nanow jesús madrid 08:18, 18 August 2007 (EDT)'s upload


Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted and all rights reserved.[2]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:40, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Allow plenty of time for uploader to respond. These uploads seem legitimate (and the photos are quite nice), but some evidence is needed, given that they are presented as under copyright elsewhere. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Trieste science centre.jpg

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. Immaginario Scientifico[3] is written as a souce, but the site copyrighted and all rights reserved.[4]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:49, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I asked the Immaginario Scientifico to send me an image of museum that we can use free for Wikitravel. Do you need a writing confirm or something other? p.s. sorry for my english Airin 12:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for bothering you. I think it is better to add something to the image page on the evidence of IS's permission.p.s. never mind, your English is perfect for me and I'm a nonnative too.-- Tatata 04:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I added the note that you requested. Please check if it's ok. --Airin 06:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, but I don't know whether the comment The Immaginario Scientifico gave us this image and authorized us to use it for Wikitravel. can be said a evidence of permission or not. BTW, does IS really understand that giving us permission under CC lisence means anybody all over the world can use the image under the same license? Though I'm not a lawyer, I'm afraid you will have leagal risk if they don't understand this. -- Tatata 21:33, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, delet it. --Airin 06:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)


No creator = never a correct licence 02:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Leave note first. Possibly just an uploading mistake. Then delete if the issue is not fixed within the voting term. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Tatata 23:30, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

September 2007


I'm guessing that the same applies to this as with en:Wikitravel:Votes for deletion#Image:Golden-Triangle-Map.jpg - i.e. that if whoever made the actual map (i.e. whoever created the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it, then it's a copyvio? ~ 10:42, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

The picture depicts only a small portion of the entire sign -- in particular, the code key that links the numbers to building names is omitted, making it useless as a map by itself -- so I'd argue that it's not a strict reproduction, but a "form of material expression" akin to taking a picture of a statue. Jpatokal 10:20, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
A photo of a statue isn't a direct copy, it's a derivative work created with a camera. Complex_Map.JPG is a direct copy - it's been reproduced with a camera. A person who reproduces someone else's work is not the author of that work. The fact that the copy is cropped doesn't make it an original work, and doesn't change the facts that it's a direct copy, and that the person who made the copy isn't the author. The only way this can be kept is if the "Original Author" (the individual or entity who created the work) licences it. Even if you were to argue that the photo is somehow a derivatave work (for example, if the original was three-dimensional) you'd still need the permission of the (original) copyright holder. ~ 13:59, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not a reproduction, it's a derivative work because it's a different medium. The barrier for this is very low: for example, photos of paintings in museum catalogs, which are designed to reproduce paintings as faithfully as possible, have been held by courts to be derivative works and thus separately copyrighted by the photographer.
The second question, then, is whether the painter retains the right to restrict creation of derivative works. In most countries, including the US, works permanently displayed in public are free for all, and according to my non-lawyerly reading of Article 32 of the South Korean Copyright Law this applies to South Korea as well:
(1) The owner of the original of a work of art, etc. or a person who has obtained the owner's authorization, may exhibit the works in its original form. If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso of Paragraph (1) may be reproduced by any means,, except those falling under any of the following cases:
1. Where a building is reproduced in another building;
2. Where a sculpture or a painting is reproduced in another sculpture or a painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.
The painting creator has obviously consented to displaying it outside (1), and my reproduction of it (2) is not, IMHO, banned by any of the exceptions. Jpatokal 02:06, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Individual pictures (including photographs) of two-dimensional works of art (including paintings) are reproductions [5]. "Reproduction" shall mean the reproduction of works in tangible media of expression by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording or other means [6]. Derivative work: A creation produced by means of translation, arrangement, alteration, dramatization, cinematization, etc. of an original work [7]

I still disagree with you -- it's not a reproduction if it's not effectively identical -- but this doesn't actually matter, because section 32 specifically allows "reproduction by any means", derivative or otherwise. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT) says: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not whether I have a copyright to the picture, it's whether the original work may be legally reproduced.
But for the record, even in the US (which is the wrong country here), the issue is hotly contested: here's one opinion that found in your favor for "substantially exact reproductions", but cites half a dozen other cases that state, among other things, "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work" ... "there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work." Does taking the picture at an angle and cropping the result suffice? Or how about I slap a Wikitravel logo on top, in which case it's unquestionably materially altered? Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Change of medium (photographs of two-dimensional works being a notable exception) is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work. Photographs of two-dimensional works are likely to amount to copies (i.e. reproductions, not derivative works). ~ 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

On the second question, (2)-3. applies: "Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);" / "...permanently exhibited in [any] place open to the public" (any publicly accessible Internet website). ~ 07:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

That "any" is your own gloss, and it's inappropriate: the original text says "an open place". I don't think Wikitravel qualifies, as this is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use. Also, for that exception to apply, you'd have to claim that I took the picture "in order to" exhibit it publicly, that is, on commission from somebody, which obviously wasn't the case. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
The full original text is "If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained." - in other words, A or B, or C, or other place open to the public... which is clearly "any" place open to the public - because it covers all places open to the public, and no place that's open to the public is excluded.
The fact that Wikitravel is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use is irrelevant . All that matters is that it's publicly accessible.
It doesn't say "to order", it says "in order". Nor does it say "with the intention". ~ 03:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
First, the full original text (1) you're quoting above is regarding the original work of art, not the reproduction. That is, the temple needed the painter's permission to put the original painting on public display, which was obviously granted, and we're now discussing section (2) which states that reproductions are allowed with no prior permission from the copyright holder in certain situations.
Section (2)-3. refers back to section (1), and would appear not to be a list of things the copyright holder isn't allowed to do.
Second, these sentences are quite different:
Where the reproduction is exhibited permanently at an open place (what you claim it says)
Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place... (what the law says)
So you tell me, what does that mean then?
I didn't make any such claim.
I'm sure it doesn't mean that you can say "I'm never going to upload this picture to any publicly accessible websites", press the shutter button, then five seconds later say "I've changed my mind", consider yourself the sole author, stick any copyright notice you want on it, and legitimately upload it to publicly accessible websites on that basis.
Instead of all this pseudolawyering — we're arguing about a translation here anyway, not the original binding Korean — maybe it would be easiest to just fire off a mail to Cheontae and get their permission though =P Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
The translation issue had crossed my mind too. ~ 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The Korean law that Jpatokal cited seems to say that it's ok – cacahuate talk 04:01, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. In agreement with Cacahuate. -- OldPine 08:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)


This image from USAID is extremely bad in terms of quality and size. It also cannot be verified. There are many many nice photos available of the same area (view of Kabul), I think we should delete this one because it is not used in any article.

Speedy delete--Creative 18:27, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. It isn't really necessary for the article. However I don't see it as a copyright violation... User:Jake73 is a great contributor, and was well aware of our image policy... I think in the midst of uploading so many images around that time he simply forgot to select a license for this one... he was bulk uploading PD images, and this one should also I think have been PD-US gov. – cacahuate talk 04:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I don't think we need to delete images just because they are not presently being used in our guides. First, shared is in my view something of a CC-by-SA compatible travel image directory, which has value independent of our guides. Second, who knows, maybe someone will find a use for this image on Wikitravel one day. In any rate, I don't think the lack of a compelling reason to keep an image should be cause to delete it; we should spend our efforts on more productive activities. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. It's a fine (if small) image and the PD-US gov license checks out. Jpatokal 01:16, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Comment. Maybe you can explain more to us about what you find in this image that makes you think it is a fine image? I think someone is expressing their POV by indicating that Kabul, Afghanistan, is what you see in the image, and I find this as a direct insult towards my country because I'm from Afghanistan and that is not how Kabul appears. It is an image of an abandoned mud hut at the outskirts of the city, it is not an image of Kabul. Keep in mind that there are some people who use images to express their hate towards others, by showing only the worst places of certain countries, probably for political or hate reasons. Lets not act stupid or blind here, we know that this image is not representing Kabul, it should never have been named "KabulAfghanistan" but rather named more specifically to where it was shot at or the exact objects being shown (the old abandoned mud hut).--Creative 03:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
It's a picture, documenting an actual scene, it can't have a "POV". Was the picture taken in Kabul? (Sure looks like it to me; if not, what's the city in the background?) If yes, then it's OK. And to me it looks like the brick (not mud) hut you're objecting to is under construction -- no bullet holes or shrapnel damage! -- and is thus a fitting statement of the city's rise from the ashes.
But maybe you'd like these pictures from Flickr more, all cc-by-sa licensed and in the top 10 hits when you search: [8] [9] [10] [11] Jpatokal 09:55, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
"KabulAfghanistan" is a 2002 image from "USAID", documenting a small tiny area from the very outskirts of Kabul City for their development purposes, now remember that USAID has nothing to do with tourism or trying to document anything relating to attract tourists or visitors to Kabul, etc. USAID's job is to look for damaged or destroyed places ONLY, so they can help rebuild them. Wikitravel and USAID do not go well with one another. It is common sense to know all this and I don't see why you're still arguing over it?
About the Flickr pictures, now why would I like those pictures you're showing me when they are not showing the City of Kabul in them? You need to learn that there are 2 Kabuls, one is Kabul "City" and the other is Kabul "Province". The Kabul we are talking about is the "City" and we need pictures of how the city looks, here is how it looks......1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (cc-by-sa 1.0). We need to see images like these on Wikitravel, because it shows what Kabul "City" looks like before hand. Of course, just like in every other city of the world, there are always ghettos and areas where poor people live, but that is not the reason why foreigners go visit other cities, unless to buy drugs or look for prostitutes. Average travellers want to go spend time inside the city, eat at restaurants, see popular attractions, and take pictures. This is what Wikitravel deals with, not USAID or other charity stuff.--Creative 17:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Our site is not for anyone's idea of an "average traveler," it is explicitly for all travelers, and it is our hope that USAID workers find our guides as useful as anyone else. In any rate, if you don't think this picture belongs in the Kabul article, make your case at en:Talk:Kabul, not here; and please do feel free to upload more quality pictures of the city! But please keep in mind that we purposefully do not have an "NPOV" policy at Wikitravel. And not liking a picture is just not sufficient reason to delete it. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
First of all, this is not your site, it is a public site for all online users in the world. Secondly, my use of the words "average travellers" in my previous statement clearly refers to "all the travellers". You all are beginning to sound like you are more focusing on me rather then the image in question. The image is not showing Kabul City, and if it is, why can't I see Kabul City in it? I don't have any problems with my eye vision. My argument is that the image should be deleted because there is no such use to it, and if somebody wants to upload the same image in the future for whatever purpose, it will always be available on USAID Afghanistan site. Why are you telling me to make a case else where when this is the place to vote for image deletion?--Creative 10:51, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
"First of all" this is my site, as well as it is your site. In the English language this makes it our site. Please see en:Wikitravel:First person pronouns and en:Wikitravel:About for more details. --Peter Talk 22:58, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


This 2007 version file is a duplication of Image:Sx-flag.png (2002).

  • Delete. I replaced 2002 version with 2007 version by using "Upload a new version of this file" link. -- Tatata 02:31, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Departure lounge of Kabul Airport in 2006.jpg

  • Delete. Might as well do all 3 privacy violations on the Kabul article at once. Shows recognizable people, in violation of our privacy policy. – cacahuate talk 19:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. There are too many people in the photo, which makes it difficult to verify somone in particular due to the fact that they are all from different parts of the country trying to fly out of the country. The airport serves people from all the country not just Kabul. I see one person staring at the camera which I don't like. However, I do have other images of the same place which is showing no people but the ceilings being repaired. If you really insist on deleting this one then I will upload different image, and the only reason I uploaded this one was to show that it is not the dirtiest airport in the world anymore as what someone has wrote in the Kabul article.--Creative 21:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Privacy policy is clearcut on this. Jpatokal 10:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. This image would require at least 7 signatures to a model release in order to satisfy our image policy, and my strong hunch is no such document exists ;) --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment. Under the Image policy#People in photos, it states that "Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes....fair use includes a condition in which a person cannot assume a degree of privacy because they are in a public space, which means that he can be photographed (and cannot stop the process)." The people photographed in the airport are part of a crowd scenes.--Creative 11:12, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for mentioning that, this is a "fair use" argument that has no place in our policy, given that fair use arguments apply specifically to the type of use. Since CC-by-SA requires that our images are available for any use, we cannot allow content under arguments that consider our use to be fair. I have also commented at Talk:Image policy and have removed this sentence. It does not match our common practice on Wikitravel anyway and my hunch is that this addition sort of sneaked into our policy on unnoticed on :shared during a time when shared was not seeing much attention. --Peter Talk 22:02, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid you're both wrong, please see Talk:Image policy. "Fair use" is a copyright term, which is irrelevant for privacy issues. The question is whether the people in the photo have a reasonable expectation of privacy: while it's difficult to give a definitive answer (is the lounge public or private property? what do Afghan laws say?), the people in the picture are so large and identifiable, with no other subject as such, that we have to err on the side of caution. Jpatokal 22:38, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Street shop selling beer in Kabul.jpg

  • Delete. Might as well do all 3 privacy violations on the Kabul article at once. Shows recognizable people, in violation of our privacy policy. – cacahuate talk 19:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I am very picky when I upload images. I made sure that the people in the image cannot be recognized anywhere. Also, that they won't feel uncomfortable about we showing their image online. It's 100% impossible for anyone to recognize the guy who has his back towards the camera. The name of his business or location is also not shown. The other person in the image has a big hat on, which conceals about 50% of his identity. He is looking somewhere, which only shows part of the side of his face, not enough to recognize him, or in anyway for him to feel uncomfortable about his image being shown online somewhere. Besides, the person who took the image (Koldo from Spain) gave rights to us in using his images here, and most likely the guy with the hat on in the image is his pal, knowing full well that his image may be used in places online. If anything, we can easily contact this person and ask if it's ok for us to use an image that shows him standing in Kabul buying something from a snack shop. Knowing all this, what's the chances of him saying no? Answer: about 1% :)--Creative 21:57, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Privacy policy is clearcut on this: no model release, no picture. Of course, you're welcome to contact Koldo from Spain and try to get it, but it's not that great a picture... Jpatokal 10:01, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
Comment. What do you mean by privacy policy being clearcut? Also, what do you mean by "no model release" and "no picture"? I believe this image is wonderful, I don't see anything wrong with it. All of a sudden User:Cacahuate decided to delete this and my other images after they were here for quite some time and then you come along agreeing with Cacahuate, I smell something fishy, hahaha.--Creative 17:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
There's nothing fishy going on, we're simply deleting all 3 of the images on the Kabul article that are in violation of the privacy policy. And as you might have noticed, the first one is an image that I took and uploaded, so this clearly isn't personal against you. – cacahuate talk 02:10, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
I have hard time believing that you took the picture because most people who upload their own pictures are usually large sized. The one you claim to have taken appears to me as being found somewhere online, and I will try to see if I can find it elsewhere :}--Creative 11:18, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
Good luck :) – cacahuate talk 03:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Delete. Jani means that Image policy#People in photos clearly states that no images can be uploaded that include recognizable people who have not signed a legal release of their image (their face) to be used in this picture under the terms of CC-by-SA 1.0. Moreover, we generally deprecate the use of photos that feature travelers. And don't worry, nothing's fishy. I would have vfd'd your privacy vios anyway; anytime Cacahuate or anyone points out a image policy violation, they are simply helping Wikitravel. --Peter Talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Alf Birnecker's uploads

  • Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. Including a url of cruise company's copyrighted site and looks like ad; .
  • Delete all. I can't see why the images created by the contributor includes a url of other copyrighted site. -- Tatata 02:59, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Wait. I think the author is the owner of the external site. I tried to contact him. -- 10:57, 10 September 2007 (EDT)


Copyright violations. This should not be tagged {{PD-creator}} [12].

  • Delete, if the license tag is not replaced on uploader's own responsibility with an appropriate one to satisfy a creator's demands. -- Tatata 01:17, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Wieza wodna p.jpg, Image:Zamek_p.jpg

Copyright violation like above, from [13]


Copyright violations. This image was taken from Free Range Stock; All Rights Reserved. And their licensing T's & C's[14] does not seem to meet our copyleft since they don't allow redistribution.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:46, 19 September 2007 (EDT)


This is a useless template. It was called from Template:Attribution and I copied its contents into Template:Attribution.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 21:29, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Canshun's upload

Airin's upload


  • Delete. Almost certainly a copyright violation and no licensing info given. --Peter Talk 20:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. I couldn't confirm that contents of the site/parent site are released into public domain or meet our copyleft. -- Tatata 22:32, 27 September 2007 (EDT)


Extracted from pdf [53] [54], reproduction prohibited [55] [56].

October 2007

Images by User:Mhagopian

Delete both. --Peter Talk 02:38, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Speedy delete. -- Tatata 00:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


Copyright violation. This image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.[58]

  • Speedy delete. -- Tatata 23:36, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. This could not be confirmed its CC-BY-SA-2.5 licensing tag, because Flickr shows me the message This photo is private.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 01:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I am usually careful about those things, so I can say that to the best of my knowledge, the creator had indeed licensed it under cc-by-sa 2.5. Creative commons licenses aren't revocable, so his making the image private has no bearing on the terms of the license. If I get sued, I'll just subpoena Flickr records :) — Ravikiran r 01:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I'd love to see Flickr records since I've never seen. Please do so and prove innocence with evidence, of course, within 14 days counting from the date of the deletion nomination, or this image should be deleted. :-) -- Tatata 12:42, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The way Wikipedia deals with Flickr images, given that the photographer has the right to change the displayed license after having selected an irrevocable CC license, is by having all Flickr images reviewed and tagged by a "trusted user" who verifies the licensing. Ravikiran is certainly a trusted Wikitravel user, so I say we take his word for it. In the unlikely event that someone does sue Ravikiran over the photo, there is an about 0% chance that the complainant would win. It's also a nice image of a remote area ;) --Peter Talk 22:01, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure what you said. What is the relation between the way of Wikipedia and the fact that Ravikiran is a trusted Wikitravel user? Do you mean there is the same image on Wikimedia Commons? If the image was reviewed and tagged on there, I think it will be a good evidence to prove innocence as a double check. -- Tatata 01:17, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
No the image is not on commons, I was just saying that Wikipedia's method for confirming the licensing of Flickr photos is to have an admin/trusted user (or now, a bot) verify the licensing. When this is done, they add Template:Flickrreview to the image file description. Such a practice is necessary for Flickr images, because Flickr allows users to change the displayed license.
I upload CC attribution 2.0 and CC-by-SA 2.0 images from Flickr very often. If, say, photographer John Picken were to make this nice image that I uploaded private, I don't think it would be appropriate to then delete it for lack of evidence—the fact that I myself will vouch for the fact that it was listed under an appropriate license is sufficient evidence. Flickr does not make its records public, but would have to in the event of a lawsuit, until then I think that Ravikiran's word is evidence enough. --Peter Talk 01:52, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
I know very well that Flickr allows their users to change license, and this is a problem from the CC license view. I think the bot or double check by other admin/trusted user is valid way for images from Flickr, but now we don't have neither the bot nor double check process. I think we all, including trusted users, make mistakes, sorry but, it seems to me that you are saying trusted users never make mistakes.
I still think that we need to confirm and correct license of the image in question, because if we assume that Ravikiran is a superman who never make a mistake, Flickr downgraded the version of their CC license tag from 2.5 to 2.0 in the past. Is it ture? I'm unable to be convinced of the downgrade at once.
Thus, generally speaking, it is unclear what uploader saw on the image page of Flickr after it was removed or made private, and uploader's words will not be evidence at all. I think we have vfd process to avoid legal matters. If a lawsuit is needed to prove innocence, the image should be deleted since the image policy says that When in doubt, leave it out. -- Tatata 03:46, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
See, the thing is, we trust users all the time. When a user uploads an image and says that the he owns a photo and he is licensing it under cc-by-sa, we trust him. It is possible that it was in fact his wife who took the photo on her camera and he just copied it on to his laptop and uploaded it to Wikitravel. It is possible that this awful truth comes out during the divorce case. Will Wikitravel be in trouble? I don't think so, because it is simply unreasonable to expect Wikitravel or downstream users do this level of due diligence. Similarly, in this case, I am saying that I am reasonably certain that the image was licensed under cc-by-sa 2.5. Wikitravel has no reason to believe that I am mistaken or lying. Wikitravel has taken reasonable care to ensure that copyright violations are removed from teh site. That should really absolve Wikitravel. — Ravikiran r 10:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
It is a matter of course that we trust users all the time. And it is also a matter of course that we confirm a license of image when there is a doubt. Please don't dodge the main point of the argument; the point is whether a license of the image is correct or not. I want to know how the photographer showed a license of the image. Is it same as ohter CC licensed images on Flickr? I think that you, as a uploader of the image in question, have a responsibility to explain until I am convinced. -- Tatata 23:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
First, where it says "when in doubt, leave it out," the policy is giving advice to those uploading files, not reviewing them. And Ravikiran was, by all accounts, not in doubt when he uploaded the file. Second, the reason why I brought up the Commons example in the first place was that they do not bother to review Flickr files uploaded by admins/trusted users. In my opinion, Ravikiran has explained that the image was properly licensed, and we trust Ravikiran, ergo keep the image.
Yes everyone makes mistakes, but it would be a rare mistake for an experienced user to upload an image from Flickr under a non-compatible license. I would say that I am 99.9% sure that I have never made such a mistake, as all images I have obtained through Flickr were through searches restrictive to allowed licenses, and I double checked myself! In any rate, the main point is that it is extremely unlikely that a lawsuit would ever be brought to bear in this case. Even if the author did want the image pulled from our site, we could just do that per request. If the extremely unlikely scenario of a lawsuit did occur, it would not be against Wikitravel, it would (as I understand it) be against Ravikiran, in which case he would simply get the records from Flickr and resolve the suit. I think we've already done all that could be asked of us in determining the license of the image.
I think it would be an undesirable practice to delete images from shared simply because the licensing cannot be confirmed when an experienced, trusted Wikitravel user will vouch for them. If we are to use such extreme standards for file review, we must also delete, for example, every map I have contributed to Wikitravel, since it is not possible to erase all possible doubt that I may have used non-PD satellite imagery. --Peter 02:32, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Peter, please calm down a bit. I would not like to talk about individuals and I think we should talk about the image in question. Let's wait an answer to my question about the photographer's way of licensing. You should go Flickr and observe the facts there during we are waiting for the answer, and you will see the reason why I have a doubt about the licensing tag. -- Tatata 11:43, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to butt in, but in my opinion, it would be a desirable practice to delete any image without a confirmed license, regardless who and when uploaded them. The license should be available to be confirmed any time and anyone should have right to put it in question when in doubt. Or we accept senior users to be excused from rules obliging freshmen? LukeWestwalker 11:57, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't see where we are letting senior users get away with rules that we force on newbies. If a newbie uploads a photo and says that he took it, we trust him. We do not ask for a signed affidavit from him. All I am asking for is the same level of trust that we are giving to newbies. Only when we have independent evidence that the user lied that we start deleting. In any case, when we are talking of trust here, we are not talking of outright lies. Rather, the question is whether my memory can be trusted, and whether I can be trusted to have understood the licensing requirement when I uploaded. Surely, this is a case where there is justification for placing more trust in a senior user? — Ravikiran r 01:47, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I've actually looked at and seen this image on flickr before... I remember coming across it a while back and going to look at the user's other photos, and the license did check out, at least at that time. I know it's a bit tedious, but what about also uploading a screengrab of the license with the pic visible when we take them from flickr? – cacahuate talk 01:54, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep - This photo has been here for almost 2 years and no objection has been raised before, neither by the owner or by a wikitraveler. There is no reason to believe that this is a deliberate copyright violation since the image source is being quoted with a link back to where the original used to be available. The discussion above around senior and newbie users seems a bit pointless to me; it all comes down to whether the uploader has a history of license abuse or not. Ravikiran r's history on wikitravel clearly shows no such abuse, but rather the opposite; strong enforcement of copyright. Even if a mistake was made, no prosecutor will take this to court, and if there is a silly fool out there that would like to attempt it, the case will be against Ravikiran r, not wikitravel. Should Yahoo decide to terminate the Flickr service and shut those servers down tomorrow, are we obliged to remove from wikitravel each and every CC-by-SA flickr photo ever imported from Flickr? --NJR ZA 03:58, 10 October 2007 (EDT)


Broken file.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 04:54, 3 October 2007 (EDT)