File talk:Edward Snowden.jpg

Deletion request 24 June 2013

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward Snowden.jpg, the decision was Deleted, 10:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC) (Info linked here by --Trofobi (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Edit-war

Following discussion copied here from User talk:Trofobi:

Hi, I was the one that contacted Laura and had her email OTRS. She gave us permission for the full screen shot and the higher resolution crop from another frame.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but please stop edit-warring immediately! The other image has to be saved to another file name - as has already been done: File:Edward Snowden.jpg. The only reason for replacing the original, first upload would be a higher resolution of the same image (same ankle, same crop, same lighting, etc). ALL derivative works or even slightly differing images have to be saved to another file name. --Trofobi (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The higher resolution file is in use by many projects though. That is the version that was licensed after I sent Laura a link to the deleted version. She couldn't see it here as it had been deleted. She only approved the higher resolution cropped version under that file name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

End of copied text. --Trofobi (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacing an image by a different image is a major breach of the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. Please read this guideline and save the file to another name - as has already been done. It is not possible to grant anyone a filename that has been previously in use for another image! I'm shure Laura will understand. --Trofobi (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

She couldn't view the deleted file. I sent her a link to the high resolution cropped version to view. Her request was: "I wish to undelete and license File:Edward Snowden.jpg" which is this file name and approval of the cropped higher resolution image that she viewed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked the OTRS Team to check that file. Afterwards we can decide whether it is ouverwirite violation or not.--Sanandros (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the timing of the versions and the OTRS approval it is the high resolution cropped version that was approved. It was approved on July 6 with the version from July 2.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Overwrite doesn't apply here. Overwrite is intended to prevent images that we want on commons from being overwritten. The underlying file in this case is unwanted because it is a copyright violation, there has already been a deletion request closed as delete. The upload of the OTRS approved image is not intended to overwrite the original file, that's impossible because all versions of the file except the OTRS approved version will need to be deleted. There will be nothing to revert to. Attempts to upload over the OTRS approved version, or revert to a different version, are copyright violations. Rezonansowy and Trofobi need to stop uploading copyright violations to commons, and stop reverting to a copyright violation. The filename hasn't been salted, and is the logical destination for the freely licensed (by OTRS) version. Using the filename of a deleted file is acceptable for new files. Penyulap ☏ 22:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, the resolution of an image can effect it's copyright status. If the copyright owner gives us permission to use only a 300 by 400 pixel version of the file on a free licence, that doesn't give anyone the right to upload a similar image of larger resolution, they have to ask the copyright holder for a new license. This is often the case, where the free image is lower resolution than the image available for sale. We can however make derivatives of the file that we are given, which usually means thumbnailing it. Penyulap ☏ 22:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Pen. We do have two versions approved and licensed by Laura. File:Edward Snowden.jpg and File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg. I don't know why we need a third with File:Edward Snowden.jpg which may not even be a crop but a zoom due to the higher resolution. File:Edward Snowden.jpg seems to be the most popular with the projects and is a logical choice to use. If we keep reverting this image to a copy of the uncropped one then all of those projects would need to change files.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Current versions of snowden

[[:File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg|thumb|160px|Edward Snowden mirror 00:25, 7 July 2013 [OK]OTRS ]]

Edward Snowden (cropped) 18:38, 8 July 2013‎ OTRS

Edward Snowden [OK]OTRS the original was deleted, 10:00, 1 July 2013

half-finished anim

Edward Snowden (retouched version)

Ok, here is where it gets weird, you and Trofobi should swap your positions to get what you want. Trofobi quotes overwrite, which, because the file was deleted, should be the new (current) file. Canoe1967 wants to use logical filenaming, however, that would suggest there would be two images, Edward Snowden and Edward Snowden (cropped). The mirror version would be called Edward Snowden, and Edward Snowden (cropped) would be the close-up. Penyulap ☏ 01:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good points Pen. If you look close at the light gap to our right of his neck, you will see that they are different screen shots. The higher resolution one may actually be a zoom as opposed to a crop.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure whether File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg is covered by OTRS. When Laura was giving her permission, File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg was the old version of File:Edward Snowden.jpg and I uploaded it to another filename. So, if the photo was shown in an email and that photo was the one without the mirror, the permission does not apply to the photo with the mirror on background. /á^(!) 12:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now deleted File:Edward Snowden mirror.jpg, because its not sure whether the permission applies to it. /á^(!) 11:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to bother her with more emails in case PRISM is tracking mine now. We actually only need the one image of him for articles and derivatives. Should we just delete the mirror versions then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean why you right now discuss this issue Pen said it's fine so then it's fine I think he can evaluate on his own when who checked what.--Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)