Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by VoidseekerNZ as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason for removal goes here
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Image was uploaded by VoidseekerNZ under a CC license > 3 weeks ago. CC licenses are considered to be non-revokable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

why is this still up? i have wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. this is ridiculous! first you change the website and then you steal my photos! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. On December 26, 2022, you, User:VoidseekerNZ, uploaded this image under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license [1]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

that was not me and deny this action taking place. if it did happen, it occurred without my knowledge and was obtained without my consent. i formally request a takedown of this image that i own full intellectual rights over. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Log-entry: [2]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

what? i dont understand. please rectify this shortly i will add another speedy deletion request as this directly deals with a copyright violation and this isn't helpful. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The log-entry shows that this image was uploaded from your user-account. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

does the log entry show my fingerprint and DNA too? anyone could have done that. i have never knowingly given my permission for a creative commons attribution to be added to this photo and have stated *multiple times* that this is my own personal copyrighted material. i actively use this work for a commercial purpose. perhaps someone else with access to my network uploaded it by mistake; i do not know. but i do know for a fact that i, as the legal copyright holder for this image, never approved any outside usage of my own hard work (which took literally hundreds of hours of research, travel and exploring to capture, by the way) and that this is outright theft of my intellectual property! please immediately cease and desist from the theft of my copyrighted material! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would someone steal your account just to upload your pictures? Trade (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep pending investigation of the alleged compromise of VNZ's account. If VNZ's intellectual property has been stolen, it's not Wikimedia's fault that VNZ did not secure their account and computer systems from unauthorized access. But since we currently have no proof of identity from VNZ, we'll need to assume that things are as they seem. Elizium23 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  just to be clear, you're asserting that you want wikimedia to assert ownership of my legal intellectual property? are you speaking as a representative of wikipedia right now? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you ask? Are you preparing to issue further legal threats? Elizium23 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  i don't recall threatening anything, you're the one who is attempting to deny my legal ownership of this photo and making block requests against me... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ: The majority of people you encounter on Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) are unpaid volunteers. We operate by following policies and guidelines and resolve problems by discussion. While I can understand that you are feeling strong emotions at the moment, it is important to remember that the people you are dealing with are volunteers. Making comments that other volunteers are trying to steal your copyright or are otherwise acting inappropriately is likely to escalate the emotional tension and make resolution of this harder. In terms of blocking there are 3 scenarios here.

  1. Your account has been compromised and we are currently talking to the hacker/malicious actor - a block and investigation in this situation would protect the original account holder.
  2. Your account has been compromised and we are talking to the true account holder - a block to prevent access by the malicious actor while the situation is investigated and you secure your account will protect both you and Wikimedia.
  3. The file was uploaded by you and the claim that your account has been compromised is untrue. While this is a possibility we must (prior to any investigation) operate on the assumption that your previous statement about using a compromised account is correct. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     i dont really care, block me if you must, but please remove the copyright violation then you can do whatever you like. thanks for the more thoughtful response. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     also, why is hacker/malicious actor the only option? i dont know how it got there. perhaps there was some bug on wikipedias end. we dont know currently. all i know is i certainly didn't knowingly provide said creative commons license and it has been erroneously provided and is clearly a mistake. there is no way i would ever knowingly give this image away for free, and it's ludicrous that i have to even be questioned on that. what happened to the wikipedia stance of assuming what a user says is true? i uploaded the image and i am directly informing you that wikipedia does not have the legal right to use this image. anything else isn't that relevant, wikipedia is currently hosting a copyrighted commercial image that i am directly telling everyone about, once again, is all rights reserved. i cannot be any clearer on these statements. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     For this to have been a bug, Wikipedia must have been accessed on a system where your file was saved. Your account must have been logged in. The bug must have chosen this specific file, added a relevant description, supporting details and licence and then confirmed the upload. Our system does not have that level of AI or automation, so a human must have been involved in the upload. That leaves either the original account holder or a hacker/malicious actor. Assuming all of your statements are true, you are operating a compromised account where you don't know how the compromise took place (we must assume that the malicious actor still has access to your account and any comment made by you could in fact be by the malicious actor). From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     i cant help but feel what should be a quick and simple speedy deletion is being needlessly hindered, i see hundreds of other examples of copyright violations being dealt with expediently with no hassle but every step i take is met with obstacles simply because i am unfamiliar with the website! this is a clear cut simple case of copyright violation and i have been extremely clear in that, it's all the other stuff being pulled into this that is making it exceedingly difficult. why are we discussing blocks when a simple removal of this copyrighted work would have saved us all a lot of typing already? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     The issue of a potentially compromised account is likely to slow down the process more than anything. We first need to decide if we are talking to the original account holder or the malicious actor. If the malicious actor is asking for deletion of the file then rushing to delete will cause harm to the copyright holder. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per everyone but VoidseekerNZ. I have made sure that the WMF's Compromised Account Team is aware of the situation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

someone i believe to be an admin said delete here...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#user:VoidseekerNZ VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info @VoidseekerNZ: Andy Dingley is not an administrator. Usually administrators have a {{User admin}} box on their user page and you can find a list of all current admins on the page "Commons:Administrators". TilmannR (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep as image originally uploaded contains acceptable (and irrevocable) sharing licence (CC-BY-SA). Unfortunately, this attempt to delete the image file comes three weeks after the original upload and only 8 minutes after protesting the new Vector 2022 implementation on en:WP. Loopy30 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

i dont see how the two are related. that is true, and if i will be blocked for that, so be it. but i only noticed the illegal copyright works on here when i was forced to log in to this account to get back to my old skin. the two matters are not related and it feels rather punitive to hold my copyright hostage over it. that doesn't sound like the spirit of wikipedia to me. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind letting me in on what Vector 2022 is? Trade (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Beautiful snail, beautiful image. Free licenses are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep the file and block this user to avoid any further “mistakes”. Protesting the new Vector 2022 implementation on en:WP is an example of a stopped clock being right, and refusal to use capital letters is once more a red flag. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

its kinda shocking how many people here are willing to actively support flagrant copyright. as stated, there was never a free license granted in the first place. it being irrevocable is relevant, as there is nothing to revoke. i am the copyright owner and i have all documentation as the original photographer that this photo is all rights reserved, actively for sale, and has been for years. any licensing you have seen on here is false and is a flagrant violation of my copyright. i have made this perfectly clear so there can be no ambiguity, i took this photo but i never granted a free licence to anybody.

also, the image is mislabelled, so it is of no use to wikipedia anyway! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

this current discussion breaches numerous codes of copyright conduct i can find as a brand new user, such as some of the ones relating to "non-free content";

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2

"The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.

images:

... 10. An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.

... 12. A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: Wikipedia's policies for non-free content are not applicable for two reasons:

1. This are the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia
2. The image seems to be under a free license, not non-free

TilmannR (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

as i have stated multipele times the image IS NOT UNDER A FREE LICENCE. just writing FREE LICENCE on something doesn't give you a free licence! that is theft! even if i accidentally did it (something i wholeheartedly deny having a memory of) i never KNOWINGLY did it, so you never had my consent to create a lincese. ergo, when you say it is a free licence, you are lying and stealing my work! i am trying my best to be civil here but some of you are being extremely disrespectful an difficult over and extremely simple matter of deleting a stupid picture of a stupid snail that no one is *ever* going to look at. what are we even doing here?

this website is an absolute monstrosity, how is it so difficult to do something so basically simple like delete my own photos off my profile! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Mislabelled, heh. I guess we'll require a bona fide entomologist to tell us what manner of snail this depicts now. I think Category:Streisand effect will be applicable here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

good luck finding one, i am one of the only two people in NZ qualified to comment on this extremely rare specimen. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per photographer request (it's over 7 days, but not a month yet), COM:PRP and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#user:VoidseekerNZ Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for sharing this vital piece of info. if there are continuing policy violations how do i escalate this so admins can look at the policy violators? sorry, i dont know how the conduct works here, but i see anyone can raise block requests against me? does it work both ways? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please send an email to copyvio-commonswikimedia.org and explain your situation. This team (read: the email) are dedicated to handle copyright violations and as such would they would by far be the ones most likely to be able to help you.

If that doesn't work and you wish to deal with this through judicial means please see DMCA takedowns as a last resort Trade (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: VoidseekerNZ is now pleading on en:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)