Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files

Some accounts to watch out for

• Sotti: According to User:Kaldari, the account "Sotti" has "hundreds of images in his account that he is releasing under CC-by-sa, but almost none of them are his." [1]
• Guilherme J.: Just take a look here - every album is a different set of copyvios (except some of the paintings). It seems User:Guilherme Burn has been using this account for Picasa-washing, putting links to this account in Permission fields.
• Irish, per File:Lions Irish rugby 63.jpg. Collection of random images, the source is written below the image, so easy to figure out. --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• RayDutton, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blond Ambition Concert.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sarara is a Tokio Hotel fan account. Some images have EXIF data. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• robert48hugo (or Hugo) - an Hugo Chavez fan account with source links, example. --Martin H. (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Nenoned, Rihanna/Nicole Scherzinger/Avril Lavigne fan account. --Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Chinese fashion, various accounts, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hiromichi Nakano - Paris Fashion Week - 2007.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Büşra Çil is a Picasawashing account of Xraykan socks. --Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Steven Swafford --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• tony parera, per File:Roger Federer 2010.jpg. Internet images collector. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Olhares Mágicos, per File:Tsonga 2008.jpg. Internet images collector. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Jorge Teixeira, per File:Battle of the Surfaces.jpg and File:Rafael Nadal Forehand.jpg. Internet images collector. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Lucas Ann Costa, license laundering by Cyndi Lauper addict from pt.wp Lucas Cosa --Martin H. (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Bill Brown, licensed Harry Potter posters and screenshots and album covers under CC-By-SA. -- RE rillke questions? 09:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• fernanda detmer, picasawashing by Fernanda_Detmer (talk · contribs)
• Angel Cortes (google+ delreq)
• luca maccarone, Picasawashing by Category:Sockpuppets of Luca-PC, now obvious because sockpuppet User:Maschera uploading to Picasa and Commons simultanously. --Martin H. (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Incompatible licenses, but the same user

In the past I have copied quite a few images from English Wikipedia over to the Commons. Several of those images have now been tagged for Picasa review, because the original uploader on En sourced the image from Picasa Web Albums. Having never been on PWA before myself, when I saw the tags I did look into one or two of them (example). Turns out the license on PWA is unacceptable on the Commons. BUT, here's the twist: the user name of the Wikipedia uploader is the same as the Picasa user name, and the license selected on upload to Wikipedia is acceptable on the Commons. So, is the commonality of user names sufficient for the Commons community to conclude that we can keep these images, or does the precautionary principle lead us to conclude that it's just too darn easy to duplicate someone else's user name on a different system for our comfort on the Commons? If it's the latter, then I'm happy to go along with deletion — I'm anything but personally wedded to these pictures. (BTW, it would be nice to ask the Wikipedia user in question, but that person has been inactive for nearly 2.5 years, so it doesn't seem feasible.) —Werewombat (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I've seen quite a bit of this myself - could've used a review system a lot sooner. I think the most prudent course with an image in which the original uploader and the Picasa user appear to be the same person is to nominate for deletion, and let the community evaluate risk versus benefits (and notify the original uploader of the discussion on the wiki where they originally uploaded it, in case they're still active). If it's a recent upload, then we generally would ask them either to update the license on Picasa or to add a comment to the image naming their Commons account to confirm their identity. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is an eminently reasonable approach. I've initiated the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Wikipedia/Picasa Web Albums user Poetas. —Werewombat (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons licensing unavailable in Google+

Google Plus is currently being pushed forward by Google as a replacement for Picasa Web Albums. Read more at [2]. However, unlike Picasa Web Albums, this replacement currently does not support releasing content under Creative Commons, as stated in the referred article. Can someone confirm this and does anyone know why this feature has been dropped? And what are the consequences for image uploads to Wikimedia Commons? What is now the prefered way for a picture owner to release his work under Creative Commons so it may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? The old scripts do not work now. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

According to their policies page, this is true. Images hosted on Google+ are no longer licensed as such and actually fall under a Google license which technically does not allow Commons to host the pictures without permission. Hazmat2 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Picasa Web Albums is still perfectly available if you click on a button like "take me back to Picasa", and it still supports Creative Commons licences: e.g. this image was uploaded under cc-by today — NickK (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but:

• they are excluded from search while they used to be browsable;
• having been forced to migrate to Google Plus, I have no option to mark a license nor to keep stuff on Picasa.

Therefore, an unknown amount of Creative Commons images is effectively vanishing. Luckily, inactive users or users without a Google Plus account should still be available: we must archive them, I'll expand http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Picasa shortly. --Nemo 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

irrevocable?

I was under the impression that the grant of a CC license at the time someone was able to do so was irrevocable, in which case any subsequent decision by the host was irrelevant. What do I not understand? DGG (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)