Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts01.jpg

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:Breasts01.jpg

A person edited the picture in question using ACD Systems Digital Imaging on 17:13, 7 October 2006 yet the picture was only created 21 November 2007 according to the "license". Further, ACD Systems Digital Imaging's Section 2.7 of its EULA ("Use Restrictions"), forbids the use of the software to use, display or distribute material that is pornographic, racist, vulgar, obscene, defamatory, libelous, abusive, promoting hatred, discriminating or displaying prejudice based on religion, ethnic heritage, race, sexual orientation or age, stating to do so with this software is "strictly prohibited". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the uploader's only other contributions are questionable as to the uploader actually owning the images. See File:Genitaila-142736-52Y9s.jpg (which TinEye has 1 hit for on another web site) and File:59 903.jpg - both orphaned. I believe they should be deleted as well. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete - All 3 images, as nom. Interesting to note how "artful" this image is and how obviously ridiculous the camel toe image is. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support thanks for bringing this over here. TharsHammar (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You support keeping or deleting? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion, I was the one who first raised the issue over at wikipedia. TharsHammar (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but over here, you gotta be specific. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all 3 as copyvios. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I do not think we care about EULAs, but what in the image is going against its terms? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  That there are breasts obviously - that autonatically checks the vulgar, obscene and pornographic boxes. I have to agree, EULA is not AFAIK a copyright restriction and thus irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) The fact that the image was software edited in 2006, uploader claims to have taken the image in 2007, on November 21 and uploaded on November 27. No camera info in the metadata either. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  We don't care about software restrictions here. That's the same as usage restrictions or behavior restrictions. It's not Commons job to police its users for how they acquired the images. It is our job to ensure the images themselves are free from copyright or allow a usable copyright, and as I stated below, I doubt these do.Bastique ^demandez 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete, based on the mismatch between the metadata and the licensing info, and (to a lesser extent) the user's lack of communication since uploading. (Comment: I don't regard the EULA as relevant to commons; it's a matter for ACD Systems Digital Imaging). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarify: delete all 3 images; they all seem equally dubious. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Setting aside the whole interesting and compelling EULA rationale for removing the image, I find the likelihood that the SPA account who uploaded these photographs actually owns the copyright highly dubious. Source unknown, delete images. (BTW, Nice sig Allstar). Bastique ^demandez 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks! ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep For one thing, this image isn't pornographic in any real sense - it is tasteful and artistic. Second, the company is question has apparently faced criticism over their ridiculous EULA, which would probably be overturned if it ever went to court due to Constitutional issues. Third, probably due to this criticism, their later (its an rtf file) EULAs don't contain that language. Fourth, there is no way of telling which EULA the user was operating under when the file was created - and last time I checked innocence is presumed, not guilt. Finally, this is just a bunch of PC silliness. 71.220.226.73 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Aside from the EULA, the copyright issue still stands and as such, the image should be deleted because the metadata proves otherwise in terms of the user's claims that he took this photo. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How does the metadata prove that? Just because the dates are off? Maybe he didn't know when he took it and just clicked the something conveinent - a quick way to tell would be to see when it was uploaded and when he created his account. Hell, I suppose I should start trolling for photos of gay people kissing and try to get them deleted since I don't like looking at them. 71.220.226.73 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Are you insinuating that I nommed the image because I'm gay and as such have some sort of aversion to female anatomy? You didn't get the memo that all gay men like tits, even if we don't want to touch them, apparently. Seriously, grow up. The image was being used inappropriately on a Wikipedia user talk page which brought further attention to the fact that the image is an obvious copyvio. Nothing more, nothing less, no agenda against tits. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Allstar, can you turn this into an omnibus, or at any rate make it clearer that all three uploaded images are copyvios? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, I don't have any proof about the other 2 images. Just going off the obvious that all 3 are the user's only contributions to Commons and as 1 is in no doubt in question, the other 2 are too. The 1 other image with a TinEye hit.. I went to the web page where TinEye says it is, but that page is 404. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. All three images lack camera metadata. Uploader has never responded to requests for more information. The overriding issue is copyright, and these probably violate it. Durova (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete No real value to the project (they are hardly unique) and dubious licensing (the other two images as well). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete, unverifable and dubious copyright status. TimVickers (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete all. Doubtful this indivdiual took all three photos, so the most likely explanation is that he took none of them. –xeno ^talk 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete all three. I think the likelihood of copyright violation is high, and it's not like we can't get other images of the same nature easily as replacements. And I'm glad the EULA rationale was stricken, that was wrong on multiple levels (not our concern, and not obscene -- "breasts obviously - that autonatically checks the vulgar, obscene and pornographic boxes" is just a bizarre statement). DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  That is called sarcasm. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Deleted all. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)