Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg

File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg

Copyrighted derivated is still visible in history - meanwhile, the blurred part to circumvent copyrights takes away the entire [political] message of the banner. This is useless crap this way. Labrang (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Keep this image BUT the initial version from "03:42, 12 September 2024" shall be deleted. --Msb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, with the blurred object the entire political message has been damaged. There is no value for it, not even "educational value", unless you want to keep it for Georgian language training. I mean really, just delete the photo why keep (political activism) photos that miss the point? Nobody is going to use this photo this way anyways, especially since third parties can just use the unedited and undamaged file directly from Flickr, so why would you want to keep it? It's not even valuable for archiving and history purposes just in case I delete the Flickr original. You guys are really funny. Just delete it. Tons of images are deleted every day, what would be so special to keep this? Why would you want to hang on to it? There are plenty of protest photos by now in this category.Labrang (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I maintain that even if the small detail of that poster (it is actually not a banner) has been removed, it is suitable for illustrating the protests there satisfyingly. After all, the protest poster was photographed in such a way that it is shown in the overall setting of the protest: surrounding buildings, protest poster and, above all, other protesters.

It should also be noted that deleting the original version does not mean that the image material is lost forever on Commons. It can be easily restored in the future once the copyright has expired.

BTW: It's not a good idea to verbally attack someone if they disagree with you. -- Msb (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, nobody is going to use this photo this way (I can predict that and I think you actually are aware of that as well), so why would one maintain the desire to keep it here if an element in the original would violate the rules and cannot simply be cropped out. Rules that are odd in the first place, as anyone in the world can and will use the original from Flickr with the so-called copyrighted element. Of course I won't start a discussion about the rules, that's out of place here, but just to highlight how silly odd it is to rather blur parts to maintain the photo here for rules sake. Nobody will use it. Why cling on to it? What's the big deal?

The sole reason this photo was uploaded to Commons in the first place was because the uploader applied this very same rule to another photo a few minutes prior and then hastily mass-uploaded photos from the same Flickr album without looking properly, ignoring the rules "they" just applied to a photo they nominated for deletion. I, as owner creator of the photo, would not have uploaded this one, and had to point out the rules "they" applied to another photo of the same series minutes earlier. Only after that "they" backtracked and edited hours later the photo, just so they can cling on to a photo. While I am happy enough to see photos deleted if they don't qualify, I see here people who hang on to it like it is something they own and never want to let go, and rather dismember the "artwork" of the protester.

This really is becoming comedic and totally silly. That is not verbally attacking anyone personally here. It's this way of dealing with requests of the owners creators of the original photo that I wonder whether I should contribute to Commons my photos that you (plural, not insult) value so much apparently. I mean, it's just a matter of notching the license slightly just so that it can be used everywhere in the world freely except here.Labrang (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Delete as OP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)