Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Tasnim News Agency

< 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.

Files of Tasnim News Agency

edit

There is a big misunderstanding: The text on all pages of http://www.tasnimnews.com says "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". But this does not mean that all content on the WEBSITE is CC. This applies only for "Content by Tasnim News Agency" itself. I didn't find a single image which says it is from Tasnim News Agency (despite the fact that this is claimed on the Commons file pages), they all have a different author note, if any at all. Probably some of them really are "by Tasnim News" but this is not indicated.

One example for a file definitely not under CC is the image of the Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov at http://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/02/15/1001987/kremlin-calls-for-creation-of-united-anti-terrorist-front. The same image is at http://www.vg.no/sport/russland/putins-talsmann-gifter-seg-med-ol-mester/a/23498392/ clearly saying "Foto: Alexander Zemlianichenko, Ap" (meaning Associated Press). It is also in general highly implausible that this rather small Tasnim News Agency should have own photographers at any event in the world or would be able or willing to buy all rights from huge news agencies like Associated Press to be able to put the images under a free license.

So, the fact is: it does not say "All Content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons..." but "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons...". This is a huge difference. And since on the Tasnim pages not a single image is tagged as "by Tasnim News" all have to be deleted. --146.60.149.254 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Info
= (example) most likely NOT work by Tasnim News Agency is e.g. File:Mohammad Panjali.jpg, taken from a news story by tasnimnews.com via http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/(...) = http://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1393/04/24/139304241005468973208434.jpg (no exif/no watermarks/no credits), considering previously published via (example) mehrnews.com (© 2015 Mehr News Agency (www.mehrnews.com). All rights reserved) = http://media.mehrnews.com/old/Original/1393/04/23/IMG11455105.jpg (exif available).
On the other hand: most likely a work by Tasnim News Agency is (example) File:Velayat 94 Military exercise 17 by Mbazri.jpg, taken from a Tasnim News Agency's gallery via http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media(...) = http://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1394/11/08/139411081016419526984184.jpg (watermarked by Tasnim News Agency, credit given [but no exif]).
So, it may be that all files taken from urls like http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news(...) (used as embedded header photos in an article/in a news story) are most likely NOT works by Tasnim News Agency. Files which are sourced with links to galleries typo http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/media/(...) and which are watermarked by Tasnim News Agency und where a credit to the photographer is given may be works by Tasnim News Agency...
Considering all this, I would say that (as another examples)
are NOT works by Tasnim News Agency, considering the source.
But:
  • File:Vahid Hashemian.jpg: although sourced with an article/newsstory ("news") link via [1] it has Tasnim News Agency's waterrmark and a credit to the photographer.
So: the "last standing" rationale to differ between works by Tasnim News Agency and third party content may depend of an existing watermark AND the credit to the photographer. An email to Tasnim News Agency may clarify the license stuff...
Gunnex (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want explain about the misundrestanding for one time: There are two kinds of images in the website: 1-loaned images from international news agencies with obvious watermark (example 1 or example 2) or none watermark (example).

2-own work images of the news agency by official photographers of the news agency around the world (often in the middle east (example)) or in Iran. We just upload images with watermarks included photographers names of the news agency. You can investigate about this.Saman-1984 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed many of these images at Category:License review needed and am happy to see you are addressing the issue as I was unsure how to approach these uploads. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created a template to use for this queue: {{Tasnim}}. You can use {{subst:Tasnim/subst}}, which includes the {{LicenseReview}} template so a reviewer can verify its status. (There's also {{subst:Tasnim/subst+rev|http://}} for reviewers, where "https://" should be the image's location.) The existing category for the queue is Category:Tasnimnews review needed. czar 21:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An idea would be to create a category for each Tasnim News photographer. For example, Category:Tasnim News Photographer/Mohammad Hassanzadeh. The category home page could be used to document details that establish that this person works for Tasnim News.

  • If there's no watermark then it's not a Tasnim image - delete.
  • Add the photo to the category for that photographer and see if we have documented that he/she works for Tasnim News.

Unfortunately, it seems some of the people uploading are removing or blanking out the watermark which is creating extra work. For example File:Fallaq Tank by Tasnimnews.jpg has a blank watermark. The original file is watermarked "photo: Mohammad Hassanzadeh". Mr. Hassanzadeh appears to work for Tasnim News.[2] and [3]

Another unfortunate aspect is that Tasnim News itself never seems to mention their photographers on the English language pages meaning we'd be relying on less reliable sources. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons we deal in evidence not the balance of probabilities (see COM:EVID). How about images like [4] in the MEDIA folder ?. Privacy violating - no subject consent, tampered EXIFs, no watermark. Uploader issues. Unfitlouie (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:watermarks encourages removal of visible watermarks, which is all that was done. If that is your only objection to the uploader, I encourage you to remove it as a personal attack. We're discussing content not contributor here, unless I'm mistaken. --GRuban (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:watermarks is a proposal which is not yet accepted by the community. If the watermark is removed, the unwatermarked version should also be uploaded and displayed alongside the image under the same or better licence. Furthermore, the WMF and some courts have made it very clear that removal of watermarks containing copyright information is a serious legal issue [5],[6]. An additional ground for my objection was privacy violation of subjects. My comment about the uploader is that he /she has an evident conflict of interest, and the permissions /clarifications from the concerned news agency would be better sent officially through OTRS instead of via such discussion pages. Unfitlouie (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the uploader's evident conflict of interest again? Are you saying he works for the agency? What makes you think that? The privacy violation allegation seems reaching and guesswork and a bit derogatory - after all, this is a professional photographer from a professional news agency, we have no reason to believe he did not follow all proper requirements, and saying that we should assume he didn't impugns his professionalism. We've got a whole category Category:People voting, with loads of similar photos, including from such highly respected sources as the Brazil senate, Al Jazeera, the US Navy - what have all those photos got that this one hasn't? The OTRS seems similarly hypothetical and, in addition, unrealistic: assuming we could even get the attention of the agency, what could an email to OTRS even say, other than the release that has already been written on every single Tasnim News Agency page? --GRuban (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
eg. the usage of "We" above. It is very clear that these uploads are mostly against COM policy. It is better to delete all of them under COM:PRP. Unfitlouie (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to delete all. We cant trust a source that tags all material as CC licence when then don’t own the rights to the images. /Hangsna (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't "tag all material as CC licence", they just say that all material that they produce is. This is exactly the situation of Voice of America, and all other US government web sites - all material they produce is public domain, but they also use material that they don't produce. --GRuban (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what is written above, it seems that the website contains a mixture of licensed and unlicensed images, and files which have made it past the licence reviewing process may have had incorrect reviews. It seems that there are 1494 images with {{Tasnim}} and 1247 images which are awaiting a review. Proposed remedies:
  1. Request a review of all of the 1494 images, regardless of whether a review previously has been done. If many reviews are incorrect, then it's safer to re-review the files.
  2. Add a review template to {{Tasnim}} which works in the same way as the review templates in {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka}} and {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}. This will ensure that all users uploading files from this website will request a review of the licence.
  3. Make it more clear from the template that there are lots of images on the website which are not covered by {{Tasnim}}.
  4. Close this deletion request and nominate non-free images for deletion separately, once the licence has been reviewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that. One question about who is to do the reviews, though - should license reviewers that have reviewed any of these before be forbidden from reviewing any others, or encouraged to review the others? --GRuban (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: I reviewed a small number of these a month or so ago. I also reviewed about 50 of them today, following the guidelines layed out in this discussion (before you asked this question). Now that we have a template on these that gives a summary of how to review them and a link to this discussion, I don't see any reason why reviewers should have difficulty reviewing them properly. As for forbidding a reviewer to do reviews, the only way of doing that that I know of is taking away the reviewer right. That's usually only done if a reviewer is consistently making mistakes, or, far more rarely, if a reviewer is doing something dishonest. I don't see any problem giving reviewers a 2nd chance at these now that the reviewing process for the uploads has been clarified. INeverCry 23:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per consensus above - Jcb (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Tasnim_News_Agency&oldid=750864005"