Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg: Difference between revisions

OTRS permission on file is from w:Matt Sanchez himself. However, he does not own the image, to give permission for its use. The image is owned by the Columbia Daily Spectator and originally appeared here. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per permission statement on file with OTRS. Unless Columbia Daily Spectator submits an affirmative statement claiming copyright to the photograph, the likely scenario is that they reproduced the image with the owner's permission. Durova 12:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The burden of proof isn't on Columbia Daily Spectator (CDS). It's on User:Elonka, the uploader, and Matt Sanchez, the permission giver. The CDS article, with photo, was published January 25, 2006. The photo was uploaded here April 23, 2007 - a year and right at 3 months difference. The photo is credited to John Davisson, who is/was a reporter for the student paper. Several articles from CDS either attribute photos and artwork to Davisson or actual articles to him. The fact that the image was published, and attributed to Davisson, but the OTRS permission is not from Davisson, makes this image unacceptable on Wikipedia. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 13:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written to the paper requesting their input. In the meantime my vote stands, since it seems unlikely that the subject of a photograph would submit a formal OTRS statement without actually owning the image. Durova 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering who the subject is, yes, it's very likely. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's extremely likely Sanchez is lying. Durova, thank you for contacting CDS. We await their response. --Eleemosynary 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment For context, this deletion request comes about as a result of w:Talk:Matt Sanchez#infobox photo. The photo on columbiaspectator.com is credited to "John Davisson", yet our image page records "Photography by Francis Bartus." Some wires might have been crossed somewhere here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. I have double-checked my logs, and Sanchez was very clear that he was the owner of the picture. Specifically, I asked, "This pic of yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SanchezColumbia.jpg Do you own that one?" His reply: "Yes." He also told me the name of the photographer (Francis Bartus), the date and location, and sent me an email confirming the permission, which is now at OTRS. I have no idea why CDS might be listing a different photographer, but I see no reason to doubt Sanchez's statement that he owns the photo. --Elonka 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you wouldn't. Regardless, ownership/copyright has to be proven by Sanchez or CDS, although the burden of proof isn't on CDS as they published it long before it ended up on Wikipedia and has it attributed to one of their own reporters. If it's not proven, it's unacceptable media. I'll take the word of the reporter long before I would Sanchez's word. His words have been proven lies in the past. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Sorry, no. Sanchez -- now banned for one year -- has proven himself an unreliable source on and off Wikipedia, and there's absolutely no reason to assume good faith that he's telling the truth that he "owns" the picture. Elonka, please provide a link to the email that "confirms" that Sanchez owns the photo. An email from CDS would be acceptable, but one from Sanchez saying "I own the picture" would be worthless. --Eleemosynary 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanchez may have been guilty of trying to edit his own bio, and to minimize some unpleasant elements from his past, but I never saw any indication that he would be the kind of person who would lie about something like the ownership of a photo. Also, I am very uncomfortable that some of the editors participating here, are the same SPAs who were causing problems on Sanchez's article at EN and the related ArbCom case. To whoever closes this discussion, I would check to see who the longterm editors are, and weigh opinions accordingly. --Elonka 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I'd appreciate it if that person would also look into a certain involved admin's abominable behavior regarding Sanchez and the article in question, including requesting a list of editors from Sanchez that he wished "blocked" from editing the article, and then running unauthorized IP checks on those users. ; ) --Eleemosynary 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have posted a request for uninvolved Wikimedians' input here. I hope the phrasing is suitably neutral. Durova 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Additionally, this image Image:Matt Sanchez.jpg is now currently being used in the w:Matt Sanchez article until confirmation of copyright or deletion of this image settles it. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reasonable interim measure. Durova 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's an interesting factor. Can someone get a precise date on Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg? That photo includes a flyer reproduction of the same portrait and its image caption dates from January 2006 - the same month as the Spectator article. Can we get the metadata on that photograph? If it predates the Spectator article then that would be evidence for Sanchez's ownership and a credit misprint. And incidentally, the "wall of shame" photo ought to be deleted because the United States has no freedom of panorama clause in its copyright law. Even if Sanchez owns his own portrait, two other images are also duplicated in the shot. Durova 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Sanchez will be posting shortly (in violation of his block) stating the following: "I took the photo before the Spectator article was printed because I own the photo and that is all the proof you need." This ain't gonna work, either. --Eleemosynary 02:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wall_of_shame.jpg does not need to be deleted. It does not feature the architectural piece. Even if the amount of the architectural is considered "too much", it can be cropped out! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the image I mentioned above, the one we used to replace this one on the article, has now also been deleted because "Photo is not freely licensed, it belongs to the State of New York", contrary to Matt Sanchez and Elonka saying he owned it. So this is now 2 photos claimed owned by Sanchez and Elonka, one now deleted and this one we're discussing. However, Sanchez went trolling to have the second image removed.

Further, I note that Sanchez has since changed the permission of the image being discussed here.

I would also suggest that Sanchez's contribs be reviewed. One of the new images in which he has uploaded is questionable as to whether or not it is his. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, per Sanchez's own admission below, use this image after it ran in the Spectator, it is clear he does not own this image but that it is owned by the Spectator and should be speedily deleted. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. His actions appear to be an attempt to still influence his article on Wikipedia, and thus violate his one-year ban. --Eleemosynary 04:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - per Durova. I really could care less about the feud uglying its way over here. It appears to be his, he claims its his now, and if the Columbia Daily Spectator said, "it's yours to use", that's good enough to follow the licensing. It would be great if someone (*cough* Durova *cough*) could email Columbia Daily Spectator, if it hasn't already been done. Patstuart (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do own this image and allowed it to be used. The photographer allowed me to use this image after it ran in the Spectator. It's a great photo as testified by the fact that so many of the people on here want to get rid of it.  :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsanchez (talk • contribs)

The photographer's allowing you to use the photo is not the same as your owning the photo. Aleta 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you backed that up by getting that in writing from either the photographer or from Spec. The issue is that prior publication there with a different photo credit casts doubt on your ownership of the portrait. I've e-mailed Spec but they haven't replied yet, and with a student newspaper the staff may have turned over so much in two years that it could be difficult to reach the right person through the Web. You could probably get farther in half an hour at their offices than I could get in a week. Durova 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Matt's word has lost its value. If he has permission to use it then the Spectator should be happy to provide documentation.

Sanchez has been blocked for one year from Wikipedia, for much of the same nonsense that he's repeating above. Does his block extend to posting on Commons? --Eleemosynary 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors banned from one project aren't necessarily banned from the others. I know an editor who's banned from en:Wikipedia who's been making useful contributions over here, and another one who's banned from that site who's an administrator on a different WMF project. As long as Sanchez abides by site policies here he's fine, although if problems arise they'd likely be addressed quickly. Durova 04:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Durova. However, Sanchez's contributions today appear to be anything but useful, and just another way to delete and add photos to an article he's banned from editing. Time will tell. -- Eleemosynary 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the copyright ownership, which is the real issue under discussion in a deletion request. User conduct issues - if any arise - can be dealt with separately. Durova 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]