Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corset 16inch.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:Corset 16inch.jpg

[edit]

Source for this derivative image has not been given. There is no evidence that the original was public domain or unrestricted by copyright. Fæ (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Clearly, for the reason given. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Is there evidence that this is not an original work from Beachnut4? Google Image Search didn't returned any results prior to the date of uploading (2007 and transferred in 2008) rather than Wikipedia and its mirrors (and Pinterest was created in 2010, so please don't mention it). But the photo lack of Exif. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no evidence either way. We can see this was a derived image, and it seems far more likely that it was lifted from somewhere else. COM:PRP has to apply. In terms of usage, there are far better authentic photographs to illustrate corsets, so this weird creation appearing to be more of a kinky fan-pic, is no great loss. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's derived? --ghouston (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As said, there's no evidence either way. It does not really matter if this was a photograph taken by the uploader, if challenged we should be able to verify the release and assess the credibility of the source. The only "source" we have here was the upload of an image to Wikipedia in 2007 that was transferred by bot to Commons in 2008. The account holder stopped using their account in 2012 and only ever used it to make 5 edits to Commons (one upload remains undeleted) and 90 edits to the English Wikipedia over several years. Considering the nature of edits to Wikipedia and the images on Commons under their name they could be considered a single purpose account. Taking a deeper look at their images that exist on Commons, we find the following gallery:
Category:Photographs by Beachnut4 now created
Exoticball There is a date anomoly here. The small amount of EXIF data left by Photoshop includes a file timestamp of 19:27, 27 June 2007, however the file on Wikipedia was originally uploaded on 18 June 2007, 9 days earlier than its timestamp. This makes the data around it seem unreliable and leaves us to doubt all EXIF data for other uploads, as they may have been amended.
Corset There are two upload entries on en.wp for this file. The first upload was a significantly larger file than the current version on Commons, leaving me to suspect this may have had EXIF data that was removed, leaving absolutely no EXIF or XMP data that can be detected by non-Commons tools.
Bellydancer This file was uploaded by @Nv8200pa: , who has been active since 2003 and is a en.wp admin. The file was uploaded directly to Commons and never to en.wp. It is unclear why Nv8200pa made the self release statement on behalf of Beachnut4. The EXIF and XMP is minimal but there seems nothing contradictory about the data. The uploader is recently active on Commons, so may be able to fill in the detail of events.
Body painting This is the only direct upload to Commons by Beachnut4. The EXIF gives a timestamp of the day before upload, 3 June 2011, and as they were active editing in this area, the date seems reasonable.
Looking more generally at en.wp uploads, there have been 11 distinct deletions there, mostly related to transfers to Commons, but a few like en:File:Sunbathing_in_Miami.jpg and en:File:Sunbathing_on_nude_beach.jpg were deleted because of unresolved source and licensing problems.
Returning to Commons, the deletion log only shows Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model shoot playboy.jpg, however the discussion there is of concern as the file was ultimately deleted because it had been 'faked' in some way (as I am not an admin I can't see the files under discussion) though the apparent false statements about the name of the photographer are also of serious concern as they were never addressed.
Based on all this, I'd say there is enough doubt about the Beachnut4's images to delete on the precautionary principle if there is no further verification of the release available. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I'm not seeing anything about this image that really screams "photoshop". I see no reason why it couldn't be exactly what the uploader claims it is: an original image. --Carnildo (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A specific answer is that 3 of the 5 images with Beachnut4 as the attributed photographer have "Adobe Photoshop" declared in the EXIF software field. The remaining 2 are the corset image where the EXIF appears deliberately blanked, and a crop of the same file with no EXIF fields. It would seem odd if this image was the only one never touched by Photoshop, but we can't prove a negative. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Fæ: Reasons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model shoot playboy.jpg are fake and copyright violation. The user uploaded two versions of a photo. The two versions showed image editing and varying authorship claims. Genereally the user has a very strange interpretation of copyright ownership [1], therefore  Delete here, the base photos are very likely not own work. --Martin H. (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I am the owner of this work, and took the original photo. It is one of the few photos that show the modern practice of tightlacing, and is used in many articles. It is an authentic photo, one of many taken of this individual. To delete this would seem arbitrary and led by circumstantial arguments. --beachnut4 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to video of the young lady that I took. i do not have permission to show her face, so it is only from the back- http://i.imgur.com/jpyQPUV.gifv --beachnut4 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beachnut4: I would be a lot happier with the photograph if you could upload the original with EXIF data, or a copy of the uncropped version with EXIF data to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The copyright issues and other concerns for your previous uploads mean that greater effort should be put into verification of the release to reduce any remaining doubt. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beachnut4: : "[T]he Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual." This image appears to have been taken at a Renaissance Faire, which is a public place/ place open to the public where those in attendance do so without expectation of privacy. By this reading, you are certainly allowed to show her face. KDS4444 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, I have checked with my Ren. Faire connects, and although no one appears to know this woman personally, the costume and associated breasts are not considered a thing that hasn't been done (the breast likely being augmented, but not photoshopped). Corset wearers are a dedicated bunch, it seems. KDS4444 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is a very good reason there is no EXIF data or a face shown - the lady in question would like to remain anonymous. She gave permission to show this photo in this form, IF there is no way to trace the photo to a certain RenFaire, or to identify her by appearance. This is for the safety of the subject. Surely you can understand that.--beachnut4 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Corset_16inch.jpg&oldid=194920635"