Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from FilmiTadka

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.

Files in Category:Images from FilmiTadka[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Angela Jonsson.jpg all photographs from FilmiTadka have to be considered suspect unless the release can be validated in a more convincing way than the claims of the source website. COM:PRP applies.

Fæ (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion and partial undeletion. In view of the consensus so far and the precedent, I had deleted all the files in this request. Nevertheless, per Dharmadhyaksha's request on my talk page and at Commons:Help desk [1], I have undeleted all files starting with "A" to allow the discussion to continue. Should any editor wish to have another file undeleted in the mean time, please let me know. Thanks, — Racconish 💬 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I think (based on Mysterymanblue's work on the previous DR) that these files should be Symbol delete vote.svg deleted, this DR should be allowed to run for at least the standard duration. The previous DR only targetted one image, so the people who uploaded all the other files in the category were notified only yesterday that those files were at risk. It's possible that some of the files can be saved, since FilmiTadka did claim to have their own photographer, but if there are any we haven't managed to distinguish them from the rest. --bjh21 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, should any one wish more files to be temporarily undeleted while this discussion continues, please let me know. — Racconish 💬 11:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good that examples are available while the DR runs for 7 days, there's no reason to think that more than a fair sample are needed to be kept visible. It's a large DR and if anyone spots counter-examples where the release can be better validated, that's to be welcomed and might lead to further analysis if felt worth the volunteer effort. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All files now undeleted to allow for discusssion. — Racconish 💬 16:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: (1) Having any kind of derogatory comments in EXIF data is not a reason for deletion; and certainly not for mass deletion. We are not censored. Additionally, not all files have this EXIF data. (2) @Mysterymanblue: has pointed in earlier DR that File:Avinash Sachdev FilmiTadka.jpg has been hosted on other site www.nowrunning.com; with their watermark. But we cant be sure of who hosted it first. If we are to trust in FilmiTadka's OTRS email and license, NowRunning can very well copy the image from FilmyTadka and paste a watermark of their own (i.e. remix) and host it. (Similar to how we are hosting it, cropping it, etc.) (3) Just because photographer Viral Bhayani is a commercial photographer, its wrong to presume that every work of his is copyrighted. Additionally, not all photos are by Bhayani. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] is a tangent, though for the record, I disagree as there would be cases such as targeted harassment that would make it an excellent policy-based reason to delete or suppress. [3] is a tangent, as far as I can see. [2] we can agree on, it makes COM:PRP a critical reason to delete these files. --Fæ (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: You're right that I have not proven that every file from FilmiTadka is a copyright violation. The point is that in order to keep files on Commons, we need compelling evidence that they are freely usable. You say it's "wrong to presume that every work of his is copyrighted", but that is the presumption we maintain on Commons. Copyright protection is automatic in India, so every file must be assumed to have all rights reserved unless we have reason to believe otherwise. By showing that FilmiTadka has almost certainly passed off others' work as their own, their word loses credence, and we can no longer assume that the photos they have on their website are what they claim to be. Also, it is not possible for NowRunning to have just gotten their photo from FilmiTadka (or vice versa) because they both have opaque watermarks on the photo in different places. This means that they both got the original, unaltered photo from the same source.  Mysterymanblue  20:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fæ and Mysterymanblue: PRP is relevant when we are doubtful of the source. Here, we clearly have OTRS where parties and events photos have been given as copy-free by FT. Of course every image is taken by some person, who may or maynot be commercial photographer that we know or not know. But since FT has given OTRS and they also had similar declaration on their website, i don't see why we should assume that Bhayani is still holding the copyrights? Also, watermarks can be removed and other watermarks can be added. For example File:Aishwarya rai88.jpg was uploaded with the watermark of Bollywood Hungama. It was later removed by one of our users and re-uploaded. One can now see other websites (example) putting up their own watermarks at various locations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not seem to have supplied any evidence that would remove the "significant doubt" that exists. The statement on their website (that no longer exists) is no longer credible. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What significant doubt? Mysterymanblue's doubt exists only because they think watermarks means copyrights; which is incorrect. I gave an example on how watermarks can be removed and evidently other websites are also using images with their own watermarks on it. As to their statement, the statement on their website was present then and can be seen through archives now also (License archive link). Once the images have been made copy-free, that cant be altered to be made copy-righted again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not addressed the significant doubt raised in the last DR. Example below as another illustration of the problem. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: You mention OTRS/VRT emails from FilmiTadka. Are you able to provide the ticket number? I ask because as far as I can see no files from FilmiTadka currently have a {{PermissionTicket}} template. --bjh21 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be confusing FilmiTadka with BollywoodHungama photographs. --Fæ (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh right! Got confused with BH. Have struck out the OTRS mentions from above statements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting this file through TinEye, a second, larger, version (688 x 1024 pixels) can be found to have been hosted at the site BollyOne. The critical evidence is that the plant in the BollyOne version shows an extra frond which was photoshopped out in the FilmiTadka version, the BollyOne version shows more of the ground so the FilmiTadka is obviously less authentic to the original photograph and the photograph from BollyOne is watermarked with "(c) Viral Bhayani" in an area that appears deliberately cropped out of the FilmiTadka one.
Temporary link to side-by-side shot: https://ibb.co/6P8BLY4
Even this single example throws significant doubt as to how FilmiTadka sourced the photograph, or whether the photographer did ever legally release it as CC-BY.
If you wish to do further research on this photographer alone, there are 177 matches to "VIRALBHAYANI" in Commons metadata listed at User:Faebot/SandboxF.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. @Racconish: I have taken the liberty to close this. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_from_FilmiTadka&oldid=571654002"