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.
Bollywood Hungama, the source of these files, is a website dedicated to Bollywood in general and other Indian film related activities. They have released some images under free licenses; refer Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. But the subject two three images are of American actors shot at the Academy Awards function. It is possible for the website people to fly to LA and click these pics or they can upload it from any other source that has given these pics under the same license. But i am still suspicious about that. Should we trust this website in this case?
Comment:These pictures belong to site Bollywood Hungama, Under the Ticket (ticket #2008030310010794). There are many images like her in this category. And we see that there is no need to delete. That deleted these images should be delete all the images in this category. Because they are all from the same Web site. We also see the same images approved by the Administrator. I see no reason to delete these pictures. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 13:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out to another such image. Have enlisted it as well. The site hosting these images in "parties and events" category doesn't actually confirm that they own these images. The OTRS email releases copyrights on images which have been created by their photographers. The site also has film posters, screenshots of films and other promotional photos, the copyrights of which are not owned by the site and hence cannot be released by them. Also, i have come across many times with examples where party and event photographs have actually been uploaded in movie-still category by the website. So blindly following this-category-is-safe is wrong. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have just read why same images uploaded earlier are deleted. I strongly object. If u doubt integrity of bollywood hungama then why not doubt copyright status of every image in events section of bollywood hungama? Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan were invited at Oscars 2011 and bollywood hungama being leading website about bollywood news, its photographer travelled with them and took these shots. U have problem if bollywood hungama take pics of hollywood stars while present in hollywood? Neo. (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any website can pick up images from bollywood hungama and claim copyrights. If my websites based in African countries copy images from bollywood hungama and claim copyrights, will you start nominating images for deletion? If not, why?
Bollywood hungama reporter Devansh Patel had travelled to cover Oscars 2011. His report is here. His twitter id is this. These are https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40Pateldevansh+oscar&s=typd&x=17&y=15 some of his tweets to confirm that he covers hollywood also. If admins delete images on basis of guesswork and suspicion then it means there is simply no rule of law on Commons. Neo. (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have failed to notice that the examples i have give are uncropped images whereas BH's images are cropped versions. The one who has uploaded full images is likely to be the owner/copyright holder. And yes... we have no rule of law. We strive to protect the rightful copyright holder and also the likely possible copyright holder. We are not a court of law. In case BH thinks they own the images, they may sue the false copyright claimants. Also, its not absolutely necessary to be at a certain place to write about it. And the Indian copyrights laws are not at all strict. Copyvios by topmost publishing houses is not uncommon in India. So if some Patel is actually copying images of others and posting on his name, i wouldn't be shocked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The EXIF of other bollywoodhungama photos from the 83rd Annual Academy Awards 2011 [1] confirms that this photos are from A.M.P.A.S.. The pictures all have no bollywoodhungama watermark. So the license not applies, simple case. This also applies to the other 83rd Academy Awards photos:
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.
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.
None of these Bollywood Hungama images were taken at Bollywood events or parties. We have TV shows, fashion week, jewelry week, book launches, and images of celebrities just out and about. In order to qualify for the OTRS release the image has to have been taken at a Bollywood party or event. These do not qualify.
Comment This comes up every now and then. The permission is for all pictures by Hungama photographers, not only for events organised by Hungama. We have interpreted that in a broad sense: all images from Hungama quality, unless there is evidence to the contrary (events outside India, film stills, specific copyright claim, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we", Yann. Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary that whatever agreement these "we" had was never disseminated to the masses and if it exists it has been routinely ignored. Was this OTRS agents? Was this Commons users? Was it admins? Not only does the template, {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}, explicitly say otherwise, but so does precedent. I just had other Bollywood Hungama images deleted under this same rationale last week. So have many other image reviewers. You really need to link to this discussion and perhaps ensure that more people know about it. As for "events outside India" that covers some of these images but not all. --Majora (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We means the Commons community. I know the template is ambiguous, but so is the permission. You are free to propose an improvement. My comment is only general regarding your rationale for deleting these files. I didn't look at the files themselves. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to dig up the discussion, Yann? It seems highly unorthodox for the community at large to decide something based on a ticket most of them cannot see. I just want to make sure what actually was said before I go about redoing the template. Yes, the ticket is ambiguous, but wouldn't that be cause for airing on the side of more caution (more strict interpretation)? I'll change what I'm doing to whatever the community wants me to do but I need to know what exactly that is. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Obviously I've already looked at the template and its talk page. It clearly says it must be a "Bollywood party or event". The template talk page says nothing whatsoever about "all" images from Bollywood Hungama are acceptable. In fact, it says quite the opposite. So that was incredibly unhelpful to tell me to go read that. I'm also aware of the numerous DRs. Many of which use this same exact reasoning and were deleted. Again, wholly unhelpful as is linking to the main OTRS noticeboard. The only actual thread that you linked to does not change a darn thing. It was withdrawn with another link to the OTRS noticeboard from 2012 that explains, once again, nothing. So all in all, you never actually answered my question but instead gave me a bunch of useless links that change nothing. I can't, and won't, change the way I review images and how I interpret the license and the OTRS ticket unless you can actually give me a link that says I should be doing otherwise. Which you have not. I still believe that these images do not fall under the OTRS release that was given to us and will remain there until you can actually give me a link that tells me otherwise and not conflicting DRs and useless RfCs. --Majora (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add more, but my connection went off, and I am also busy IRL. The template says Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Emphasis is mine. And you have to understand who they are, and how they work. Hungama is a paparazzi company which hire photographers to make photographs of Bollywood people, and sell high resolution copies. Giving away small copies with a watermark is a benefit, not a service for them. It is free advertising. So Hungama grants a free license for these small copies made by their photographers, who only work in India. They can only license images of which they own the copyright, that's why screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites, and pictures from outside India are excluded. Everything else is included. As I said, we already have had this discussion several times. I hope it is clear enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In yet, you continue to miss actually linking me to this discussion that you claim you have had several times. I will not put my own ideas into the permission and I certainly won't make it more permissible than what the template clearly says without an actual link that proves otherwise. It being free advertising is completely and totally irrelevant. Especially considering most of the watermarks are cropped out of the photos by uploaders making your entire point moot. Why do you continue to fail to prove your point? All I'm asking for is a link, which if there has been several discussions, should be relatively easy to find. It is on you to prove your point. I'm not going to go hunting for it and I'm not going to change the way I interpret the license when there have been numerous DRs that have resulted in deletion with the same rationale. So obviously it has been acceptable before. I've also read the ticket and the ambiguity should result in a more strict interpretation. Not a "well it is ambiguous so everything is acceptable!" That isn't how Commons, as I know it, works. Ambiguity always falls on the side of caution. We have an entire policy that revolves around that for a reason. This DR is a reflection of that and a reflection of both the template and how the OTRS ticket is actually written. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided all the explanations everybody else has. I can't do anything if you fail to understand the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed these pictures, which were made by Hungama photographers in India, so the permission is valid. Again Hungama doesn't organise events. It sends its photographers to events organised by others, where Bollywood people are present. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. These pictures were made by Hungama photographers in India, so the permission is valid. --Yann (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have some doubt about these files: no watermark, link only to BH main page, different naming convention, and these are not Bollywood actresses, but fashion models. May be OK, but I would like a second opinion.
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.
@CptViraj: I'm not doubting your decision. But are you sure. I think one or more image don't qualify for deletion. And BH files template display it accepts files from on the set. So I upload few files on the set of Nikamma. Does BH not allow files on the set. Thanks C1K98V(💬✒️📂)05:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C1K98V: They are allowed but it also says "taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer". These files were published by production house and/or cast on their social media. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:These pictures belong to site Bollywood Hungama, Under the Ticket (ticket #2008030310010794). There are many images like her in this category. And we see that there is no need to delete. That deleted these images should be delete all the images in this category. Because they are all from the same Web site. We also see the same images approved by the Administrator. I see no reason to delete these pictures. Regards. MyCanon (✉) 13:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
