Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci|year=2024|month=July|day=23}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci}} at the end of today's log.

Files uploaded by Fhpatucci (talk · contribs)

[edit]
Files merged from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fhpatucci on 2019-05-28

Seeing other uploads of this user, with some images that are photos of "The North Face" apparel brand or cropped versions of the same (and for that were deleted), I highly suspect the ones I'm nominating have the same problems, especially seeing different names in the Exif tags: he/she cannot be both Tim Kemple and Pedro Dimitrow. --Alex10 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adamjonnes80. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this issue on the File:Farol do mapituba.jpg. This is why I cut out the person on the picture and only left the "Farol do Mampituba", which is important for the article. Based on it, I'm against deleting the File:Farol do mapituba.jpg, because on its current version it's being useful. Deleting this particular image would harm the article and would serve for nothing. About the other images, if they are fundamental to the article we could try to cut the people and the advertisement out from them. If it's impossible to cut out the people or if the image is not fundamental (if we have another available image depicting the article's object) I'm in favor of deleting the image.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point IMO is not if the image is useful or not: considering the user behaviour in similar cases and the kind of image it's probably a file in copyright violation, although we cannot be 100% sure not finding other versions of the image in the web (differently from other photos with that brand he/she uploaded and that were deleted). Anyway looks a clear Commons:PRP situation to me. --Alex10 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. In this case, you may be right. If it's COPYVIO we should, surely, delete it. The photographer seems to be a professional photographer (I visited his website). I think we can, very well, be a COPYVIO.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I add also this...... [1]. Seems someone was looking for free advertising... --Alex10 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest based off that ad age link we have evidence that it is not a COPYVIO - that it was corporate work done and uploaded. It is troubling - as paid editing - but doesn't strike me as delete because of copyvio. I would be in favor of digitally altering the images to edit over the logo, where removing the humans isn't practical, which would then preserve the image for our encyclopedic uses and be of accord with the license they were uploaded under. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you even modify the image? I think the whole image should be reconstructed. There is no problem with having commercial images on Wikimedia Commons as long as the are under an appropriate license. The only questionable issue I see in the case, is the Wikipedia COI editing. — Fnielsen (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should mention that I also find the miscreditation wrong. — Fnielsen (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as there is no evidence of copyvio, and the files are in scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If the copyvio is now highly questionable according to the new situation, is also true that the "advertising campaign" (no doubt about its nature) is a reason to delete all the images uploaded with that scope, according to Commons:Deletion policy#Self-promotion or vandalism/attack. But I think it's something that should be discussed for all the images in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign, and not just for Fhpatucci's ones. --Alex10 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images there have been uploaded twice, each with two different authors claimed. A pt.Wikipedia checkuser reports that there is socking, too: [2]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Darwin. Just blur or remove the logo. It's small enough that it can be done in a simple manner. ~★ nmaia d 23:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Suspicious uploads based on past record from this user. Probable copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Any deletion should be based on judging if these are copyvio or not. The images are in-scope. Just as Commons does not say how the images should be used (if at all) on other projects, neither should editors from Wikipedia require Commons to alter its archive just because some editors are misbehaving on Wikipedia. Commons is not censored wrt logos. The images must be retained as-they-are and not blurred or cropped per COM:OVERWRITE. For example, the edit made to File:Farol do mapituba.jpg is against policy and was rightly reverted. Should editors actually wish to use an image on Wiki or similar project, and prefer the logo cropped out or blurred, then they can create another file to use. We have lots of photos on Commons that show brands and plenty material that comes from the publicity department of organisations or agents. Nothing wrong with that. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment All these pictures do not have the same issues IMO. I suggest the following:
Delete (they don't bring significant value and are blatant advertising):
File:Serra da Mantiqueira Sao Paulo.jpg
File:Pico do Agudo Santo Antonio do Pinhal.jpg
File:Farol do mapituba.jpg
Crop or note that there's a better version for usage on WMF projects (the model doesn't enhance the picture):
File:Pico-do-Marins-.jpg
Keep (They decided to donate these pictures and stated so publicly, they might be useful and I don't see how this would be a copyvio):
File:Vale do paraiba montanha.jpg
File:Farol do Mampituba.jpg
File:Praia-dos-molhes.jpg
File:Pescaria-no-rio-mampituba.jpg
File:Pesca-rio-mampituba.jpg
Luk (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean at least one of them is a confirmed copyright violation. There's no way to be sure which one, but I'm with you, delete all of them unless someone comes forward and clears up the copyright issues. --Surachit (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(obviously my vote will be the same for all the advertising campaign photos if we'll discuss in this talk also the images uploaded by other accounts)

Deleted: Contrary to statements unsupported by explanation above, there is in fact significant evidence that this uploader's images are copyright violations. Reverse image searches (implied, for example, by "no other traces on the net") are quite imperfect, and fail to index many common image repositories; accordingly, failure of an image to appear in such a search evidences nothing more than that it does not appear therein. Indeed, copyright violations were uploaded to Commons before the availability of reverse image searches, and we are allowed to (and must) consider other evidence. For example:

This uploader is not simultaneously six people (Rodriguez, Patucci, Boyd, Jonnes, Kemple, Dimitrow) and their demonstration of either carelessness or misrepresentation of authorship calls into question the purported attribution and licensing of all of their uploads. This is not helped by the sockpupptry, the apparent and undisclosed connection with North Face, and "traditional" copyvio tells of lower resolution and lacking camera EXIF. All of these factors in the aggregate coalesce to significant doubt (COM:PRP). --Эlcobbola talk 14:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Fhpatucci&oldid=352496286"