Commons:Deletion requests/File:2238516206 6f4b275075 o.jpg

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.

File:2238516206_6f4b275075_o.jpg

[edit]

Likely a Flickr-washed photo. Flickr user was deleted, unable to confirm what other types of photos were in photostream. Unused except on user pages. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 10:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Flickr washing. Yann (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terrible sorry, but what made you conclude this is Flickr washing? The Flickr-user was a professional photographer who had a lot of gay and non-gay artwork on his Flickr page before he personally closed his Flickr-account. Other images by the same Flickr-user are still available on Commons. All of his pictures - including this one - are checked by our Flickr-bot (and by me, for what it's worth).
Personally, I don't think "Flickr-user was deleted, ergo it might be Flickr-washed" is one of the strongest arguments available for deletion. Especially not if the photo is made by someone who is photographer for a living. Please restore the image or provide some valid arguments for deletion. Thank you so much, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reopened this deletion request. The deletion seems rather hasty and premature. Multichill (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I prodded this, it was because the photo looked like one that was very un-typical for a Flickr account. The image is somewhat yellowed, looked professionally posed, and therefore more like a scan of a photograph rather than an original work. Without the account still being on Flickr, I couldn't see any of the user's other images to see if they were typical "web photos" (i.e., copyvios) that were Flickrwashed, or if it was part of a collection from a professional photographer. Additionally, the image was only used on two user pages (nothing wrong with that), do it seemed that deleting a possible copyvio before it became heavily used made sense. As to Flickrbot... all it does is confirm that the Flickr user set the image to a certain CC license. If someone said that an image of Mickey Mouse was CC-BY licensed, then Flickrbot would agree. That doesn't make it true. If more of that Flickr user's images are here at Commons making it is easy to judge that the images are legit, then that's great, and I am happy to be wrong. But it looked more like a Flickrwash to me than a legitimate one. The deleted account was mentioned, not as a reason for suspicion (though a lot of accounts are closed by Flickr for copyvio), but to point out that I tried to compare the photo with others in the user's photostream. Hope that clarifies why I prodded this image. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Just because a user no longer exists on Flickr is no reason to delete images that have been reviewed by Flickr-bot and a human at the time of upload. Flickr users close their accounts all the time. Without proof that there is a copyvio, "Likely a Flickr-washed photo" is not an acceptable reason to delete an image. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, no reason to suspect Flickr washing without solid proof. As stated, users close their accounts all the time, and I trust Mark W's description in this situation. –blurpeace (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think it was closed too fast, but besides that, I would have made the same decision as Yann if it wasn't for Mark W's comment above (which is why we need to keep these open awhile, even though sometimes it feels pointless due to the lack of input normally). I would say 95% of the time, when images show up looking like this one, they are copyvios. There was no question what the Flickr license was (bots don't lie), but the validity of it takes human-review. That's why we call it Flickr-washing. So I don't think Yann or Willscrlt came to the wrong conclusions. They just didn't have the info we do now. (I felt like closing this but then saw the date and thought that would be hypocritical ;). Rocket000 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I'm sorry, but what info do we now have that wasn't available to me when I originally brought this up? Nobody has identified the photographer, dated the photo, identified the country, or done anything else to prove that this image is not copyrighted. There is no user on Flickr that we can go back to and ask about it or compare the body of his/her work against this one (again, that's why I mentioned the deleted account, not because it presumes guilt). All we have is a photo that a) looks professionally posed without the photographer's authorization to reuse his/her work, b) a photo that is significantly non-standard in appearance (yellowed, fuzzy like from a scan, etc.) that it does not appear to be an original image or even an artifacted JPEG that has been resaved too many times, and c) a bunch of people who feel that if there isn't clear evidence of CopyVio, then it's fine to keep likely violations around until someone does complain. That's an argument I often made in the beginning, and have come to agree with the people who whacked me upside and down about how Commons is supposed to be a place with as little ambiguity and uncertainty as possible in its works. We know nothing about its history before being copied from Flickr, can't learn any more about it with the given resources, and have several indicators that make it seem suspicious. It's only being used on one user's page, yet is has been readily accessible for about 2 years. If it's such a good photo, why hasn't it been used on multiple pages? If it's not an outstanding photo, and it has murky licensing issues, then why the heck don't we just delete the thing and leave Commons a better place for taking a stand against questionable licensing? Of course, even if it was a Featured photo, I would still think it should be deleted given the issues it has. Mark W is the only person who (presumably) saw the other photos in "jwzoomy"'s photostream. If s/he appeared to be a professional photographer specializing in yellowed photos (and not just someone who scanned old photos s/he finds in magazines, etc.), and if that person seemed legitimate, and seemed like s/he did have copyrights to the works, and licensed the photos thusly (as you and flickrbot can both attest to), then fine. Otherwise, why not just delete it and find a better image to upload in its place--one without questions about its pedigree and licensing. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, unlickely washing, renamed to File:Young man taking off shirt.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2238516206_6f4b275075_o.jpg&oldid=34748528"