Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SanchezWithCoulter-w.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SanchezWithCoulter-w.jpg

Summary states Chris Kulawik, photographer. Copyright owned by Matthew Sanchez Considering the history of User:Bluemarine claiming copyright to images he does not own nor photos he took, this statement per himself makes this image unacceptable on Commons without proof. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each image is different. This deletion is being requested based on suspicion alone, when it is possible to contact the uploader, and/or the named photographer, to seek clarification. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is not being requested based on suspicion. The deletion is being requested based on the summary statement in conjunction with a previous discussion that has proven another image does not belong to the user. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You suspect that this image is not free because another image that the user uploaded is not free.

You have chosen to ignore Durova's request on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg to discuss the matter of this image with the user (which is OK; I understand that you don't want to talk with this user, or dont see the utility in doing so), but you have also not collated any background information about this image that would cast serious doubt on the image, nor have you tracked down the photographer and asked him for his input. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Sanchez's own statement in the summary that someone else took the photo?? ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo has been nominated for deletion because of Allstar's delusional state that he/she/it is always correct and his obvious disregard for me. The photo belongs to me, I have permission to use it. How do we proceed to register that permission? [Personal attack removed.] Bluemarine 08:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yeah, you could just explain why you have the copyright on it rather than making lame personal attacks like that, okay? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the details about this image, such as who is Chris Kulawik, in an email to permissions@wikimedia.org, or to me personally. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment removed by Allstarecho. Edit conflict.]

Hey, mellow out. And please stop with the personal attacks. →Rocket °°° 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with all due respect, this appears to be nothing more than a furtherance of the dispute between Allstar and Bluemarine. And, as I said elsewhere, this needs to stop. Live and let live, people, both of you. As for this image, I see no reason for deletion. Patstuart (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. The dispute is irrelevant. The image itself needs to be evaluated. It falls short. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COPYRIGHT 2008, RADAR MAGAZINE claimed.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, that would be March 30, 2007 when that was published - according to the date at the bottom of the article. Where are you seeing 2008? Regardless, someone should contact Radar Magazine and find out the copyright status of the photo. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Sanchez gave his camera to his buddy, later he took a pic of Mr. Kulawik with Mrs. Coulter. So, where is the problem? Mutter Erde 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Sanchez claiming ownership and copyright to a photo that was published in a magazine a month before Sanchez uploaded it here? ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the picture, I look at the description, there is no reason to doubt. This pic was made by a guy, who was not familiar with the camera. Mutter Erde 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Magazine

I have emailed several people at Radar Magazine to get their take on the photograph, since it did appear in their interview with Sanchez on March 30, 2007 at the link noted above. When I hear back, I'll follow-up. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - delete it until such time as copyright is established. Note that we have a defacto policy that once a few images clearly come out as delete based on copyright concerns, and if we also see that a pattern of copyright abuse is established, we delete all the user's contributions, and block the user. I'm seeing that pattern as being likely but am not ready to make the call yet. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lar, I am quite sure that many of these deletions are due to good faith errors on the part of Bluemarine. For example, Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg had nothing to do with the freeness of the photo - it was simply that it contained non-free elements. These images are being put under a very high level of scrutiny coupled with unusually high levels of bad faith.[2][3]. Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg has now also been nominated for deletion on en.wp citing Commons policy, so there are good faith errors on all sides as we attempt to stabilise the situation post the en.wp arbcom outcome. See WP:IFD(Wall of shame.jpg). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to be a hard case but the good faith I have for Matt Sanchez is zero. The project does not actually need these images, as far as I can see, and if Matt cannot avoid responding without being insulting or worse, we can't work with him, and we shouldn't have to try. No particular person is guaranteed an inexhaustible reservoir of good faith. That said if all of the issues are corrected by Matt to the absolute best of his ability, with no further outbursts, including his admitting where he erred, I'm not averse to starting over with a clean slate. My expectations of that happening are very low but non zero. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to "a pattern of copyright abuse", and pointing out that I consider Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg and other recently deleted images as complex cases rather than part of a pattern of abuse. I was not referring to user conduct, which I agree has not been good, and I would not assume any good faith there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per publication in magazine. Aleta 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete, I found this discussion by following Sanchez's own comments on wikipedia (just to snip meatpuppet accusations in the bud). Per Bluemarine (Sanchez)'s comment here "John Avarsis: This is a publicity shot I pulled from his website". At least Sanchez is being more forthcoming with where some of these photos came from. Benjiboi 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment on User:Bluemarine is in regards to Image:Aravosis-John.jpg, which has been deleted. I pointed this out at en:Talk:Matt Sanchez/Archive 15. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per 17 USC § 204 (a), transfer of copyright is only effective in writing. Given the level of acrimony here, it would be best if Bluemarine could get Chris Kulawik to sign such a statement (see w:WP:COPYREQ#Declaration of consent for all enquiries), scan it and send it to OTRS. Sorry to make you jump through hoops, but the more eyeballs that are on this, the more important it is that we do things by the book. I'll be happy to restore it once that happens. howcheng {chat} 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]