Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Emil Rensing on Flickr

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

Images from Emil Rensing on Flickr

edit

This user has been listed on COM:QFI since October 2007 as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kimi Raikkonen 2007.jpg.

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 4#Polarlys deletionist abuse also deals with images from this user, inflammatory heading and incorrect forum aside.

Among the photos transferred alone, we find photos taken from no less than ten different cameras. We are supposed to believe that the same photographer who's been let in close enough to the pits to take a professional photo of Schumacher can't get an in-focus shot of a stationary car, only to take another professional shot of a cornering F1 car at speed a few months later. Add a few copyrighted logos and desktop backgrounds taken from Alfa Romeo's website (Flash required; click "Extra" and then "Goodies") and contrast with over- and underexposed shots and cut-off heads and things blocking the lens. It should then be fairly obvious that the license claims made by this uploader are worthless.

Transferred photos with metadata, in chronological order

Transferred images without metadata, in alphabetic order

—LX (talk, contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my transfered image - Image:Ferrari F2008.jpg have free license on flickr [1], what problem?--sk (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
understand, possible copyvio? --sk (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid free license. It seems unlikely that the Flickr uploader is the legitimate copyright holder of that photo and several of his other uploads. That particular image appears here, credited as being part of the Ferrari F2008 Official High-Res Press Launch Photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Clear as mud. Having a little trouble assuming good faith here. Some of the images are almost certainly not taken by the same person - but it's hard to be clear which are which. I've got to say - if in doubt - delete. Megapixie (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt don't delete. Ask he person themselves and hope that they will be truthful. Some of them I can see there is copyvio but some maybe not. Ask Emil Rensing! Don't jump to conclusions! Chubbennaitor (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, if in doubt, delete. If the uploader has been shown to be unreliable and make untrue licensing statements, we err on the side of caution unless we get a credible clarification along with a retraction of any untrue statements. A few images are not worth the risk of legally compromising the project or its contributors. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some of these pictures are deleted you are going to cause havoc at WPF1. Some of these images keep articles at good status. Chubbennaitor (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that causing havoc is a valid defence to copyright violations ;) AlexJ (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have sent Mr Rensing a message using Flickrmail, so I would request that no action is taken until I get a response. I have uploaded several F1 images from his photostream, and after some further research it is my gut instinct that these F1 images are genuine and should be kept:
Of course if the correct copyright cannot be ascertained then all of the images should be deleted, but I hope Mr Rensing can shed some light on the situation to prevent this from happening!--Diniz (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete the pictures that are obvious copyvios, and  Keep the rest. (as Chubbennaitor said: "If in doubt don't delete.", and if we don't do so, by the time we will have 65 pictures less). If theres's a prove that one of the remaining pictures from Emil Rensing is a copyvio we can still delete it. As far as I see it, the pictures of his white Porsche 997 GT3 seem to come really from himself or a friend of him which indicates for me that he is the legal copyright holder.
For example: I think that there is no doubt that the pictures Image:Ferrari P45 00.jpg, Image:Ferrari p45 01.jpg, Image:Ferrari P45 02.jpg, Image:Ferrari P45 03.jpg, Image:Ferrari p45 door.jpg, Image:Frrari P45 rear.jpg and Image:Frrari P45 04.jpg are excellent examples for obvious copyvios, so I see no reason why we should keep them, but by every picture by that is a possibility that it is not, we shouldn’t delete it until we’re sure that it’s a copyright violation.
On this picture of his GT3 you can see the name “Emil Rensing” right above the doorhandle, so I’m sure that the Porsche really is his own, and so the pictures are most likely taken by him or a friend and he is the copyright holder, or has the right to upload it on flickr under a Creative Commons license given by the author of the picture. That he seems to have used many, very different kinds of cameras is improbable but not impossible (and for me no indisputable indication for a copright violation). And after taking a look at what aunt Google says about Emil R., including a visit of his private Homepage and his myspace profile I do not believe that he is so poor that he couldn’t afford many, very different kinds of cameras.
P.S: in case of doubt we still have the opportunity to ask Emil Rensing hisself.FP (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - I'm trying to assume good faith, but I fail to see why someone would buy several different cameras from the same manufacturer - some obviously better than others! It wouldn't make sense to buy cameras from many different manufacturers because it would cost a lot for the cameras and for a set of lenses for each. Not only that, the quality varies wildly. With regard to the "If in doubt don't delete" comment - if in doubt then an image should be deleted. Only if we are absolutely certain that an image is OK should it be allowed to stay. Readro (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete On Commons, reasonable doubt leads to deletion. Samulili (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has Mr.Rensing shedded some light on the situation? The Ferrari picks are obvious copyvios but some f them are obviously his. He needs to tell us which ones are which so we don't lose correctly copyrighted pictures. Chubbennaitor (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't replied to my Flickrmail yet. If he doesn't reply soon, then the images should be deleted as we can't take chances on copyright issues, and I don't mind re-uploading the half-dozen-or-so F1 images that probably genuinely belong to him if he replies after they have been deleted.--Diniz (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then all Flickr images should be removed if we can't assume good faith. Wikimedia projects can't work otherwise. It's not our job to correct Flickr images' copyright statuses. It's Flickr's (Yahoo! Inc.) duty. By the way, you don't have own all those cameras if you have friends at the F1 tracks, as he says he often visits the races as a spectator. You also get green-white vest that has the text "photographer" in the back as well. --88.113.12.154 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an alternative method of determining whether photos from flickr are OK - common sense. If they seem to check out as reasonable, then it's likely they are OK. The suspicious number of cameras, combined with the mixture of known copyvios make this case seem dodgy. I'm also pretty sure "but so-and-so said it's OK to copy the pictures" wouldn't hold up, but IANAL. In the cases where there is clear proof the pictures are from elsewhere, they should be deleted straight away. AlexJ (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete In this case there a many hints that this Flickr-User could be copyright violater by using several sources from other photographers. It's a shame because it's a lack of the FlickR idea and some of the image are really good but it's obvious that no-one'd use a Nikon D2X at the GP of Bahrein and a simple Sony Cybershot at a another race. --Herrick (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep

  • SORT IMAGES and KEEP MANY. It is ludicrous to state that everything is a copyvio when only some may be.
      • The images from the Chinese GP 2006 noted by Diniz above ARE from Emil Rensing, who notes on his personal website that he went to the race and took the photos. Source URL: http://rensing.com/files/f5d229019a15c6b461aeda640c26cbb2-24.php
      • The images from Japanese GP also appear to be on par in quality and I believe are made by the uploader.
      • The images of Porsches and the Panamerica Carerra were made by the author, who was a participant in the event.
      • Rensing himself is an owner of Fast Lane Daily.com, a cars website that is hip to Creative Commons. Fast Lane Daily (URL: http://www.fastlanedaily.com ) is CC-BY-NC 3.0 . Maybe this is a straw-man argument?
      • As Emil Rensing is an internet guy, bringing him a link to here so he can comment and clarify better what is his own creation seems like a fair thing to do. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (w:User:Guroadrunner on Wikipedia.)[reply]
      • In short, Rensing does have a lot of cash and might be privy to events and other stuff you guys don't think he is capable of. Just Google his name to learn all the stuff he owns. In short, I believe some if not many of the work in his FlickR account is original, and to dump ALL of it without sorting is unfair. Guroadrunner (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an aside, there is a way in FlickR to have all new uploads be licensed as something. It is possible, although not probable, he may have everything he uploads to be licensed into CC-BY-SA, and some of the uploads are incorrectly licensed. Seems like some are quick to judge that this guy is a "don't care" copyright violator. Guroadrunner (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Half the images on http://www.fastlanedaily.com/ are watermarked as being copyright to other sites. Whose to say he didn't just rip off these images from somewhere that doesn't watermark. Megapixie (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Prime example where COM:PRP comes into play. We cannot and should not accept the validity of any licence from this source. Sorry about the "havoc", but as indicated above that is no defence to copyright infrigement. Even if one or two may be OK we have absolutely no way of knowing which they may be, if any. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_Emil_Rensing_on_Flickr&oldid=17811137"