Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign

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.

Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign

[edit]

Per the very same arguments as stated in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci. Notice the inconsistency of uploaders and claimed authorship: File:ParqueDaGuarita TNF.jpg vs. File:Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg (same picture with two uploaders/authors), or File:Pico-do-Marins.jpg vs. File:Pico do Marins.jpg.

Discasto talk 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a known upload campaign. In this context there is little serious doubt that North Face have released the photographs they own the rights to, for publication in Wikipedia articles and for hosting on Commons. This is a controversial act for Wikimedia, but the photographs are in scope, have high educational value and are credibly released unless North Face provides a contradictory statement.
If you have come to this DR concerned about COI editing on Wikipedia, or from links at Wikipedia Signpost, Twitter or Facebook, please keep in mind that Commons' scope includes all types of images with reasonable educational value. This includes images which are adverts and have product promotion images (such as photographs of North Face products). So long as the photographs are not copyright violations and are not a misuse of Wikimedia Commons such as being deliberately misleading images in their own right, they fall within project scope. The images listed in this DR are not part of a campaign spamming Wikimedia Commons itself, nor has any evidence been provided that they have not been correctly released. That they have been misused on the English Wikipedia is an issue for Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons.
There has been significant external attention on these photographs, it would make sense if this DR stayed open and was closed with the perspective that comes after the current fuss dies down. --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Metadata - Taking a deeper dive at the first photograph on the list in the nomination, we find:
  1. The file was uploaded to Commons on 10 April 2019
  2. The file was modified on 9 April 2019
  3. The photograph was taken on 15 March 2019, with credible GPS timestamp and precise location data
  4. Metadata includes consistent IPTC data, Photoshop metadata (CC 2017, which matches other files in these uploads though one is marked as edited with Photoshop CS6), EXIF data generated by a Samsung SM-G955U1 (a mobile phone, others in these uploads are marked as being taken on a Samsung S9 SM-G9600)
Given these facts, it seems highly unlikely that the metadata is fake. The short time of a few weeks between the photograph being taken, modified and then immediately uploaded to Commons, shows these are not randomly harvested and are probably not published anywhere else.
It does seem likely that these are from multiple photographers with different devices, possibly collated after the ad agency put out a call for photographs as speculated below, though there is no specific evidence for that yet.
A deeper dive into the second photograph shows very little, not even dates. The photograph was touched with Photoshop CC 2017 and is in use on a non-Wikimedia & non-North Face related tourist site, but that appears just legitimate reuse from being a nice photograph hosted on Commons.
Given the inconsistent metadata evidence and the lack of any clarification on whether copyright was legally transferred to the ad agency or North Face, I am swapping to  Delete. However I would recommend this DR is open for at least the standard 7 days, to give the ad agency or North Face a reasonable opportunity to make a clarifying statement as to copyright. --Fæ (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep think it's overwhelmingly likely these photos were taken on behalf of the Leo Burnett ad agency, and that Leo Burnett, as owners of the copyrights, consented to release the images under a free license (i.e. the "significant doubt" specified in COM:PRP doesn't exist). This is true even if the identity of the photographers for each photo is uncertain. If anyone thinks the agency just ripped these from the internet, my response would be A) none have failed a reverse image search test B) the video released by the agency includes video footage at the locations where several of the photos were taken, showing the people depicted in the photos (e.g. guy in blue jacket in File:Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg). (I wrote a longer post about this on Elcobbola's talk page following the close of the previous deletion discussion.) Colin M (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as per previous DR: same issue, same conclusion. Yann (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clearer because of comments regarding advertising: we don't care why the files were uploaded as long as they meet other criteria. There is no doubt that these files are in scope, but the copyright may be an issue, seeing various ownership claims and sockpupettry mentioned in the previous DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Colin, with all my will IMHO that's clearly the typical case of images to delete because "not realistically useful for an educational purpose"; the principle that an image uploaded here to promote a brand can be kept to describe that very same marketing action is nonsense for me (and will also probably lead other agencies to do the same).
Maybe a comparison of 2 screenshots of a page affected before and after their action can do the same without side effects ;) --Alex10 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep clearly in scope and no copyvio (see video):

We photographed our brand in several adventurous places

— (0:45)

Then we switched the Wikipedia photos for ours

— (0:48)
Emphasis mine. But please Wikipedians, feel free to remove them from everywhere else than en:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#The North Face. Strakhov (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia, different policies apply. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. One of the reasons for deletion is "Advertising or self-promotion".
This does not override Project scope. These images are high quality, have educational value and illustrate this case of product promotion. Their notability and controversial nature is a rationale to keep, not delete. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Commons has a wonderful collection of advert images. File:Pears Soap 1900.jpg --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Product placement is an encyclopedic topic too. And every topic needs media. Strakhov (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2.) These pictures are imho for sure "fan generated content": Sent in to TNF by fans, "influencers" and the like, following a "share your experience"-call, perhaps with the promise of some competition or so. Remember the text in the video "reaching the top without paying anything"? --SI 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which means there is no copyright issue. You may not be aware, but Wikimedia Commons attracts hardly any external attention. Discussion like this DR are very much behind the scenes, so that this DR exists is not a rationale to speedy delete the photographs. --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which means there certainly is a serious copyright issue, because they made false authorship claims and we don't have a licence agreement by the original photographers. --SI 19:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3.) Breach of https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities --SI 19:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just one of the pictures is (and can be) used for such illustration: File:Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg --Discasto talk 06:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to User:Newslinger I'd like to keep one other photo for use in The Signpost on enwiki. It is File:Pico do Marins.jpg. It should be kept permanently for our archives, even after being published in the next edition. I think most people will see why this particular image is important just at their first look, but there is even more behind the photo. Might as well keep the photo Newslinger is referring to as well. The rest can be deleted, burned, or nuked as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about these files. They are in scope, self-promotion yadda yadda yadda I don't care. They can illustrate product placement, (ab)use of Wikipedia by companies and I can remove TNF logos from all (and make whatever apparel is in them unrecognizable as theirs) if the image is otherwise in scope. I'm not entirely sure about the copyright aspect. None have been proven to be copyvios. I looked up a bunch, even went over http://www.pedrodimitrow.com.br/ and his Instagram which is possibly one of the authors. Not confirmed, could just be someone with the same name, but some photos seem to have a similar style. Found nothing. If any photographer complains their photo was used without permission by TNF, I'd say take it all down. Without any tangible proof of copyvio, I lean to  Keep. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If rudeness is required here, I'll be happy to join in, let me know how far I can go and I'll lay into the opposition with pleasure. Now then, we Wikipedians have indeed probably brought our assumptions about deletion criteria with us. I see however that Commons:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion includes two criteria that appear to apply here, Not educationally useful (as Fae says, perhaps one could be kept for that purpose), and Advertising or self-promotion. The drift of the CoI argument is that we don't want to be used for promotion, which we definitely were here, by North Face's own admission. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually rude, I only use rude language. That's my hallmark, and you don't want to be like me. Several images show locations, and the backpacks/people can be removed with some cropping/blurring/etc. (not in every case) This generally fits our educational criteria, before we even talk about using them as an example of product placement. "Advertising or self-promotion" only applies to images that are not educationally useful and only used for advertising/self-promotion. The policy isn't very clear here. If someone uploads an image that reads "Go to www.getrichquickyoutheman.com to start earning bitcoins!", well, we'd delete that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting distinction, but thanks for the clarification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that argument, Comfr, might apply to ONE of the images as a sample, but the rest of them don't add any more notability or historicity, they're all cut from the same cloth, commercial exploitation. There's a real risk here that they'll help to bring the whole project into disrepute, not only Commons but Wikipedia too. If that isn't a deletion criterion, then maybe it ought to be made so, and quickly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is interesting that none of the photos seem to contain any easy-to-see company logos, and yet they were all intended for advertising. Keep enough of the photos to illustrate that point. Perhaps mention it in the article. Comfr (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further examination of this mess, I agree, one is enough. Comfr (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanmayersweet: You are not on Wikipedia. COM:PAID! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I do understand that Commons has a different scope than Wikipedia. I do, however, question even the educational value of most of these photos. The models/products in many cases obscure the supposed focus of the image (although perhaps someone could hypothetically photoshop them out in a few of the images), and in some cases the vivid display of the product renders the images largely unusable for anything other than advertising the product. There exist better quality, far more educationally useful images of all of the locations in the Commons portfolio already. They may have been taken by professional photographers, but some of them are pretty poor images (including the one that is being suggested as an "example" to be retained). Risker (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictures of the outdoors, with a companion present in the frame, are extremely fashionable at present. Educationally they illustrate visiting and hiking in the outdoors much better than an image just of the outdoors. While Wikipedia may not have many articles on hiking in XYZ location, such topics are highly educational since bookstores are full of hiking/trail books. The cover of such a book could well use one of these images. The publishers of such books would not care one jot whether it the subject had a little Northface logo on their jacket. The bar for "in scope" is having a reasonable chance of educational use, not about whether it could be used for an article on a location on Wikipedia. The more important question for Commons is that we have doubts about the licence (which must correctly name the copyright owner) and whether those who uploaded really do have the authority and ownership that such a licence requires. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Despite all the vandalism from The North Face, the images are not copyvio, are acceptably good, and were submitted according to our licenses. We can reuse them after removing the logos or just croping the persons out of the images. But it is important that we remove or hide their **original** images, so the ads (with the logos) does not shows up in Google Images as they intended. Dermeister (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BUT edit images (which are not copyvio and good quality) to crop all logos or make all products no longer identifiable. However the following conditions must be met: the copyright statement must be clear about the author, and the licence must be clearly open and authorized (which is the case). This allows us to edit all these images and replaced them by edited versions (then admins can hide the former versions from the file's history). This is the first step on Commons. Then on Wikipedia or other wikis that use these images (including Wikidata where I think the abuse was the most serious and the easiest to perform because this can be easily automated), the illustration images must be reevaluated to see which ones are appropriate and best looking for these articles. IMHO, we still lack some good photographs for illustrating many topics and that accept to grant us a licence. And the editors in questions should have obeyed the policy about "paid contributions": they MUST absolutely prominently give this info on their user page of their home wiki so that we can track and evaluate their work (if these users, that uploaded the photos on Commons, or changed Wikidata entries, or edited articles did not follow this rule, then these users should be permanently banned, even if their work is kept because they have some value and are correctly licenced to us so that we can edit them). (NOTE: adverizing placement is a common trick used now in the leisure industry, notably in movies, sports... We have to be aware they exist and our licencing rules should be followed strictly so that we can remove the logos and identifiable brands at any time: we can inspect images, then crop them or blur some parts; this can happen accidentally in any Wikimidian works, because there are brands everywhere in our world and it's difficult to avoid them, but we should keep our right to choose and respect our rules of neutrality and our required licencing terms and user terms are perfect to allow this without causing much troubles and while repecting our common values).
    Note: see what we can do about these images, for example in File:Serra-Fina.jpg with my (quickly) edited version. (I chose to edit that image specifically because it was the one where the logo was the most prominently visible, and we don't need the logo itself even to illustrate the topic of paid contributions: my edit clearly shows that there was a logo there, but the logo will not be identifiable at any scale and cannot be used as a deliberate and evident form of advertizing).
    We can't avoid logos, we live in a world where they are everywhere. But their placement should be reasonnated: if logos are not essential in the composition of the topic we want to illustrate, we should edit images to remove/blur them so we can illustrate the topic and stay in focus with it without the unneeded "noise" caused by the logo. At least our rules in Commons is a rule of neutrality, allowing us to choose with a variety of possible compositions and with the presence of various brands, as they are in our real world that we want to describe.
    Note also that the image File:Acampamento Rio vermelho.jpg (which is in the same categories Category:Camping and Category:Serra Fina as where File:Serra-Fina.jpg was initially placed, before its description page was edited to remove that category) also has similar issue (but from a different uploader): it also shows a corporate logo for a different brand (MSR), which should also be blurred. This is a general problem that can concern lot of photos in Commons where incidental logos may be located in the composition (without the clear intent that this presence was intended as advertizing or incidental and unavoidable). If you look into categories for vehicles or airports, you'll find corporate logos almost everywhere (and their presence was not incidental but part of the description and attached categories): do we want to remove all vehicles from Commons ?
    If you agree to keep my edited version (or another version edited by someone else), then the initial image version should be removed from the history, and the categories can be restored to illustrate the topic, instead of keeping this file orphan.
    And now we also need an OTRS proof of the licencing right grant from the initial uploader, for legal reasons (the wikimedia Foundation is then not liable and any further claims, from an unrelated photograph or from North Face or any legitimate third party, will be redirected against that user, with that evidence kept securely by Wikimedia, and Wikimedia will then be informed of the legal decision about such claims, if it needs to remove these contents). verdy_p (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    verdy_p, would you please revert your edit to 'File:Serra-Fina.jpg. Commons does not censor logos, and there is no justification for, as you request, deleting the initial version that has the logo. By all means create another photo with a different filename, with the logo removed. Though I would caution against editing/uploading these images at present, since their licence or copyright status is in serious doubt. We don't remove logos simply because some agency misbehaved on Wikipedia. COM:OVERWRITE policy does not allow controversial and non-trivial edits in-place. Your quick edit is very low quality (the rectangle of yellow is very obvious) reducing the value of the image to the project. If Wikipedians find a great photo on Commons but wish that a prominent logo was not present, then create another file for the amended image. Remember this isn't Wikipedia where you edit away at the content to improve it: Commons is not a collaborative editing project, but a repository of educational media. Unlike Wikipedia articles, which are owned by the large body of editors, please respect that all freely licensed photos actually do belong to someone. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Visibly this is your opinion, and Commons does not accept corporate logos for licencing reasons ("fair use" is not allowed here in in most WM wikis, unlike English Wikipedia). And I made that because most people above would like to simply suppress the image directly (and there has already been other images speedy-deleted showing the logo, even if they are not listed above, we can't see them anymore and even their description page was deleted).
    I propose something else which allows some use. (Note: yes it's obvious there was a logo in the slightly visible rectangle, because the intent is not to hide the fact that there was one, but only to limit its use as free advertizing using Wikimedia resources and its high visibility offered by Google, somthing that we want to preserve). If we don't act, Google may decide to untrust Wikimedia and will no longer link to us so frequently (and we'll consequently loose many users).
    Note: I have not deleted anything, the old version is still there (and visible in the history). And I have still not restored the categories that other people (that voted above for the suppression) have removed from the file description, even if they were really appropriate ! So what I did was to propose something that allows preserving the image (and as I said in comments, if someone wants to perform a better version it is still possible (no problem then if they overwrite my "quickly edited" version), but restoring the version will just cause the file to be deleted and it will remain nothing to see. verdy_p (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    verdy_p, your overwrite edit prevents anyone on a wikimedia project using the original image, with NF logo. As such, it is disruptive when your issue seems to be with advertising. Many logos, if they form a large part of an image, are disallowed on Commons due to copyright issues with the logo itself. But many other logos are permitted on Commons if the text is deemed simple enough to not warrant copyright. And small logos in a large image are fine de minimis. The important part is that logos, and adverts, are not disallowed on Commons. Commons policy requires that your controversial edit be made to another filename. I'm not going to edit war with you over your overwrite, since the images will likely be all deleted per copyright and licence concerns. But please learn that we don't generally go fiddling with other people's images on Commons. We respect that that's their work and leave it alone, and if you want to create another work that has bits cropped out or removed, then create that other work as a new file where the author information clearly states you have altered the other person's work and it is no longer exactly as they created it. This is basic Commons policy, conforms with licence policy and shows professional respect for artists who create images. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Delete everything that has something inside the nature photo (something = non-nature photo, a.k.a. human, clothes, bags, tents etc). If there is only nature inside the photo, then we can keep it. Chongkian (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. This is about whether the uploaders have honestly represented the copyright status of these images. The contradictions spelt out by the nominator indicate they have not. Where the undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry come in is that these behaviors (regardless of whether they are allowed on Commons) also prove that the uploaders are dishonest and untrustworthy. COM:PRP applies. MER-C 09:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I understand it many of these kinds of images (those uploaded as part of this campaign) are in fact alterations of other images. As such we cannot be sure the images are not copy right violations, and as such we should ere on the side of caution.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except those that are currently in use for illustrating the COI case, at least all that have people standing/sitting prominently in the foreground. Those would never be suitable in illustrating the geographical features in question for a genuine educational purpose, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. If they weren't advertisments, they'd just look like personal souvenir shoots (no matter how high the photographic quality might be otherwise). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Different photos, different reasons. Stop out of one precedent, many conclusions and solutions. It's bad policy.--Dim Grits (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: On the scope issue, the critical question is "is there a realistic educational use for this picture?" I think there's a clear educational use for all these pictures. That they have a (usually tiny) logo visible somewhere doesn't negate that, and for some purposes having a person in frame is actually useful. The copyright situation looks trickier at first, but actually I think it's quite simple: the pictures seem to have been created for this campaign, which means the copyright in them is owned by the advertising agency. Their employees uploaded the images to Commons with authorisation. The fact that they were uploaded under pseudonyms (and sometimes the same image under multiple pseudonyms) doesn't matter: all of the licences are valid. That means, for instance, that the agency has licensed File:ParqueDaGuarita TNF.jpg under CC BY-SA 4.0 with attribution either to "TNF" or to "Gmortaia". This is no different from the way that (to take a rather less spectacular landscape) File:A single tree in a field - geograph.org.uk - 1656865.jpg is available credited to "Nigel Chadwick" or to "N Chadwick". If any individual picture can be shown to be a violation of a third-party copyright, it should be re-nominated with evidence. --bjh21 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No copyvio. Ads are allowed on the Commons. RockingGeo (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep With warning box, that explain this unethical adds. This is of much doumentational and by this also educational value. Habitator terrae 🌍 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I fail to recognize a rationale on which basis we should delete these images. The usual acceptable rationale is upload by someone who controls the copyright, and to an unusually precise and public extent, we know that a global organization made a thoughtful decision to share this media in Wikipedia on Wikipedia's on terms. We have excellent published information in mainstream media that The North Face navigated the Wikimedia platform's procedures to upload these photos according to Wikimedia's terms. In the prior deletion discussion there were claims of sockpuppeting, etc. Regardless of the use of multiple accounts the uploads seem in order. These are correctly uploaded photos and I see no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the sharing process in these cases. Any controversy is a separate issue than what we check, which is whether copyright and permission is in order. The companies are watching and they know how to edit Wikipedia. At this point in the extraordinary circumstance that something is off with the licensing, then they have demonstrated that they know how to speak up. The least surprising next step would be to leave these images here and let North Face speak up if they have anything to say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Island
    Island
  • Mexico
    Mexico
  • Pridnestrowien
    Pridnestrowien
  • Hongkong
    Hongkong
  • Finnland
    Finnland
  • Abu Dhabi
    Abu Dhabi

Soll das jetzt alles gelöscht werden? Soll überall Werbung retuschiert werden? Die Welt da draußen ist voller Werbung und das ist auf Fotos auch erkennbar. (Google translate:) Should this be deleted now? Should advertising be retouched everywhere? The world out there is full of advertising, and that's also apparent in photos. --Ralf Roletschek 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Can those colleagues saying "there is no copyvio" explain why there are pairs of identical images (for example File:Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg & File:ParqueDaGuarita TNF.jpg) with each showing a different author? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also File:Pico do Marins.jpg and File:Pico-do-Marins.jpg each showing a different author. The CC BY-SA licence requires correct attribution. Which is correct? Per analysis at User talk:Elcobbola the owner of the images could be the individual photographers (who have only given the agency/company a licence to use), the advertising agency or the North Face company. The uploader is likely to be merely an employee of that agency and not themselves authorised to licence the agency's (or North Face's or the photographer's) intellectual property. Given the perfidious nature of the uploads and distribution of images on Wikipedia, we have strong reason to doubt the users are acting with due professionalism. Their reckless attitude towards Wikipedia policy does not inspire any confidence that they have done their homework wrt intellectual property law. Therefore it seems very likely all these images are breaches of the CC BY-SA licence and thus a copyright violation of whoever the actual owner is/are. Unlike the comment by Bluerasberry above, it is not sufficient for us to wait till the copyright owner complains. Our policies do not permit that. -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, both are correct. If I create two new accounts, "Jane" and "John" and upload the same photo with both as {{Own}} you can attribute either "Jane" or "John" as you please. There's no copyright violation. There is no requirement to attribute to anyone's real name. The fact that despite the number of images involved nobody has been able to find even a single NETCOPYVIO for me means it's okay to wait for any copyright owner to complain. As we always do. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure with a well known search engine you can investigate yourself. This is two people two accounts one agency one photograph. The image can't be owned separately by two people. Somebody is not telling the truth or doesn't understand IP law. I don't know where you get the idea that "we always do" wait for copyright owner to complain. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there is no proof or reasonable doubt, we wait. The image doesn't have to be owned by different people. We would assume the company has the right to (re-)license the image. What attribution they ask for (if any) is up to them. If I want my work to be attributed to Santa Claus, I am free to ask for that. Do we even have proof the different accounts are operated by different people? In this case, I wouldn't assume that any of the operators of the Wiki accounts (PR department) are photographers. It's a different job. The only question is: did the company aquire the rights to the photos? I believe they did, even if only to prevent the material from being taken down prematurely. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • An image can be owned by one person/organisation or by several people jointly. We have two separate claims of sole ownership of the image. As for the accounts involved, I'm not going to dig for you. Only the copyright owner can licence a photo CC. Merely having rights to use a photo in an advertising campaign is insufficient -- they need to own the photos. The licences are invalid, therefore the uploads to commons are copyright violations. Of course there is reasonable doubt: both accounts are globally locked for this advertising abuse and sockpuppetry on Wikipedias. If you want to argue further, ask User:Elcobbola who is more knowledgeable than me. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • All ownership claims (which is really just the default {{Own}}) are from company accounts, so this seems like a technicality. And you are incorrect, not only the copyright owner can license a photo CC. Anyone who obtained the necessary rights to re-license a work from the copyright owner can license a work as CC. You don't have to be the owner. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I can only repeat that a quick glance at Elcobbola's talk page will confirm you are wrong. Feel free to ask them about things you don't understand. This isn't a "technicality". -- Colin (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that the 'missing permission' template, which I added on 29 May (i.e. nine days ago), has been removed from PEDRA DO BAU TNF.jpg despite no evidence of permission having been evidenced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing): That was done in this edit by @Fæ, because the "Dr superceded" the 'missing permission' template.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment File:ParqueDaGuarita TNF.jpg was deleted by @Racconish as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per the very same arguments as stated in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci by me. These are good images, but we can't trust that they're all by the uploader. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is significant doubt that the purported licenses are legitimate:

  1. It is unclear whether Leo Burnett, the North Face, or the individual photographers are the copyright holders. If this video is proof Leo Burnett is the author, a purport above, why do some images credit "TNF" (The North Face)--to say nothing of yet more, disparate attributions (see below)--whilst none credit Leo Burnett? This concern is exacerbated by the several images that are unambiguous composites (e.g., the model in File:Pico do Marins.jpg and File:Pico-do-Marins.jpg is identical despite appearing in different positions relative to the landscape. Is the model a North Face stock image whilst the background a Leo Burnett work?) The owning entity must be known, as a license can only be granted by the copyright holder.
  2. Even if agents of the (unknown) owning entity uploaded the images, there is no evidence the agents were authorised to license on the entity's behalf. Intangible assets (e.g., intellectual property, copyrights) are no different in germane respect to tangible assets. A construction worker, despite authorisation to use a company bulldozer, could not legitimately license its use (e.g., rent it out); similarly, a hypothetical PR or social media employee, despite authorisation to use a promotional image, could not legitimately license its use.
    a) The "by" in the purported "CC-by-SA" licenses means attribution is required. Failure to comply with the provisions of a CC license, despite its "freeness," has been found to be a copyright infringement (see, for example, Philpot v. Music Times LLC, 1:16-cv-01277 (S.D.N.Y. 2017))
    The Fhpatucci sock/meatpuppet, for example, attributed four authors (Gabriel F A Rodriguez, F H Patucci, Adam Jonnes, Tim Kemple) with metadata claiming an additional two (Clayton Boyd and Pedro Dimitrow)--notably failing to attribute either Leo Burnett or the North Face.
    The instant images are no different and, in some sense, worse; for example: File:Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg and File:ParqueDaGuarita TNF.jpg, duplicates, claim the authors to be "Gmortaia" and "Pedro Dimitrow," respectively ("Gmortaia" also purports to be "Santiago Guimarães"). Further, File:Pico do Marins.jpg and File:Pico-do-Marins.jpg, same background and model merely with the model photoshopped into different positions, claim authors to be "Ligiamendes04" and "Gmortaia," respectively. The purported attributions not only contradict themselves, but fail to attribute either Leo Burnett or the North Face.
    b) The careless attribution above is unacceptable, and gives rise to additional (and significant) doubt. We would generally not entertain such a contradictory melange from even an "average Joe," let alone a corporation understood and expected to be legally sophisticated; it is beyond credulity to believe that a genuinely authorised release of corporate intellectual property would be so negligent and careless with respect to a legally binding conditions of an IP license. Indeed, the notion that the uploaders are disregarding or ignorant of necessary legal formality is only supported by this campaign itself--a breach of the terms of use (to say nothing of principles) related to promotional exploitation of WMF services.
  3. The foregoing is precisely why "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] that any required consent has been obtained" (COM:EVID) and why "I am an employee of the copyright owner" is a condition for which "you must send an email to the OTRS system" (COM:OTRS). If Leo Burnett or the North Face genuinely own and intend to release these images under a free license, it would be a trivial matter for the CLO or other authorised agent to submit evidence of the same using the OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:The_North_Face_Wikipedia_advertising_campaign&oldid=354006845"