Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.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:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Cirt as no permission (No permission since)

  • Comments I initially brought this image to the attention of administrators here. Since I took a look at the metadata, I've had serious concerns regarding copyright and origination over this photo. The uploader claims to have taken the photos, however, the metadata differs completely from a photo he truly did take, here. It seems that if the photo was taken with his camera (as the other was) the camera metadata would be intact and show up when uploaded to Commons. Cirt agreed, and notified the uploader. Supposedly, he has since sent information on the photo to COM:OTRS. I have no idea how long it takes for that process. Is there some kind of notification added to the image file that will indicate the findings at OTRS? All that in mind, if OTRS had not come into play, I would have supported delete as the photo seems suspect as a likely copyright vio minus the proper metadata. Winkelvi (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Agree with significant concerns raised by Winkelvi, above, about the likelihood that the claim by uploader of "own work" is not borne out by facts and actual copyright holder is not determined. Per precautionary principle if the actual copyright holder cannot be confirmed via COM:OTRS, then this file should be deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now the fourthsixth discussion that has been opened on these same images and same editor. Can we please try and centralise it here (and not open any more discussions), or we'll never get anywhere.
Images:
Other discussions
Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I see no evidence to not believe that these three images are all the work of one GF editor, licensed and licensable according to the descriptions they have been uploaded with.
  • Winkelvi is claiming that the image metadata differs, thus they are copyvios from some other source. This is no evidence whatsoever. Are you aware that the whole purpose of metadata is to differ from image to image, depending on the history of that image? I'm seeing three images that have all been edited within the same version of Adobe Photoshop Elements. They are all marked as low dpi resolution and are the sort of small oddly-shaped images that I would expect from a camera phone. One of these images is larger and has camera metadata intact. The other two have lost the camera metadata, just as if someone had edited them heavily in Photoshop, exactly as we presume from the image size. These are not great images, they are not newspaper quality - they're absolutely typical of what you get when someone has a phone with them and they grab a snapshot of the noteworthy from as close as they can get, which isn't all that close. I see nothing suspicious about the images or the metadata, and Winkelvi has given us nothing.
Cirt has claimed that because these images are (paraphrasing) "a bit small" [NOTE: This is a wrong use of quotation marks. Cirt never said the phrase "a bit small". This is a false statement by the editor that used the quotation marks in their comment.] they are copyvios from elsewhere on the web. Yes, they are small - that's because they're grabbed cellphone pictures, heavily cropped, by someone who didn't have a press pass to get any closer. Cirt has not stated where these images were taken from. Searching for the subject or reverse image searching shows nothing. Cirt has implicitly stated that MaverickLittle has been lying in their claims in the upload descriptions, which in this particular saloon is akin to claiming a fellow has five aces hidden up their sleeve. You do not make accusation like that without some evidence to back it up. They have shown none. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a lot of assumptions, Andy. You state the small photo is possible because of overcropping and taken from far away. Interesting, but not probable since MaverickLittle stated he took the photo close-up of Cruz with two of his friends posing with her. That's not a far-away photo situation. Your scenarios are speculation and have no proven basis in truth. Winkelvi (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am making only one assumption. What are my other "assumptions" and why are they incorrect?
I am making the single assumption that is required of me here, and that is AGF. I do not know if these images were from a camera phone, or if they are clever fakes intended to resemble a camera phone. However I do also know that they have no obvious way in which they are not from a camera phone, and so per AGF, I believe the uploading editor. I am required to do this, per AGF. We do not demand OTRS from editors as a matter of course.
I speculate that this is a camera phone grab at a public meeting. I'm allowed to speculate on that, it is not any requirement that an editor describes how they obtained a photo. As this is a plausible scenario though, it means that I do not raise any further suspicions that make me question the uploader.
If and when MaverickLittle uploads a photo of Cruz as a selfie with Elvis, on the Moon, then I will be suspicious. For as anyone knows, Elvis was a Democrat. In the meantime, this looks like a plausible photo with nothing suspicious to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis was a Democrat, but he did vote for Tricky Dick.--MaverickLittle (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then please wait for your email to be processed. OTRS requests usually take weeks, and rarely months. Also, while your email is being processed, you may be asked further questions. ★ Poké95 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Edit conflict × 2)  Comment I really don't understand what is the problem with sending the permission to the OTRS. It should be beneficial not only to the one who doubts, but to the real copyright holder because they can prove that they hold the copyright. Just saying that "the metadata has been lost because I edited it with Photoshop" is not enough. Then if the metadata has been lost due to editing, then why not upload a file that has the metadata? Is proving bad? --★ Poké95 11:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I never said that there is a problem with sending the permission to the OTRS. As I have stated over and over again I sent in the information two days ago (on March 29 at 10:06 p.m. Central time). As "the real copyright holder" I am glad that I have provided my permission for a second time, but those FACTS have nothing to do with admin Cirt claiming that he knows what the future will hold and that he knows that "the likelihood that the claim by the uploader" (which is me) will not be borne out by facts. That is magical talk. How does he know this? Is he a genie? Where is his neutrality? Doesn't he see that his comment reeks of conflict of interest? Why is admin Cirt wanting to spoil the fairness of the COM:OTRS process? Why is he making premature judgements? Upon what evidence does he base his premature judgement? What evidence does he have to make such a bold statement? Since he claims (incorrectly) that I did not take the pictures with my own camera (which of course I did) and I somehow lifted the pictures from a website then what website is he referring to? What website is Winkelvi referring to? Neither of these two editors have provided any evidence of this mythical website. What is the website from which I supposedly stole the pictures? Please tell me. What is it? Please provide evidence to support your conclusory statements. If admin Cirt or Winkelvi have a website which shows these pictures then what is that website? What is it? The Houston Chronicle? The HometownNews? The Dallas Morning News? All of these reporters were at the fundraiser and you can access their coverage via Google and you will not find MY pictures on their websites. What is the website from which I have been accused of taking pictures that do not belong to me? Where? These two editors, one of whom is an admin, are accusing me taking something that does not belong to me but they have no website to support their allegation. That's all they have a serious allegation and they have NO support to back it up. Neither admin Cirt or Winkelvi have provided the name of the website they suspect I took them from and why because they don't know of one. @Poké: What other questions do you have for me?--MaverickLittle (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I thank the uploader for participating in the COM:OTRS process. I'll respectfully defer to the judgment of the respondent from the OTRS confirmation process. -- Cirt (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ML doesn't seem to understand that Commons is not en.Wikipedia and the same kind of mission, management, and process doesn't necessarily apply. The mission if Commons is the be a repository for visual images. Those images must meet certain criteria to remain. Even the slightest hint of a copyvio is reason to have it removed with little notice. There are serious liability issues to be considered, and best practices must be exercised at all times. Further, this not some kind of witch hunt, and it's not personal. Such comments that suggest a collusion or vendetta of some sort and are laden with a hostile tone are inappropriate and should cease. Our concerns are for the integrity of content uploaded, nothing more. Winkelvi (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is what Winkelvi does. I never used the words "witch hunt" he did. Don't put words in my mouth, Winkelvi. I never said that. BUT admin Cirt, who as an admin should know better, stated that he knows that "the likelihood that the claim by the uploader" (which is me) will not be borne out by facts, but the OTRS process has not been completed. That comment smells of conflict of interest. Also, both you, WV, and admin Cirt have accused me of taking something that is not mine (which is untrue) and neither of you have provided the name of the website from which website I took these pictures. Winkelvi, what is the website you claim I took the picture from?? What is it, Winkelvi? What is it? You and the admin should give the name of that website right now since you both have made that accusation. What is it? Don't talk about witch hunts. You provide the name. Put up or shut up. Admin Cirt is seriously conflicted in this situation. Is his comment like how it works? I don't think so. Is there another admin who can assist? What is the process here when we have an admin problem?--MaverickLittle (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no conflict of interest. Regardless of that, as I already stated above, I will respectfully defer to the rest of the OTRS process and take no further action here myself. Good luck, -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before you check out, can you give me the name of the website where you think I took the pictures? If there was one, which there isn't, you should be able to easily find it through various simple resources. Since you have not been able to provide that website then you don't have one, which indicates that there isn't one. The Google search should take 30 minutes, right? Where is it? How do you know that my OTRS process is not going to work out before they reach their decision? How do you know, please tell me. As an admin, you know your behavior has been less than kosher. Shouldn't you get another admin to take your place?--MaverickLittle (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never taken admin action in this case. All my actions have been to get additional input. Both including tagging to start the OTRS process, commenting here and not actually closing this case, and stating explicitly and politely that I will respectfully defer to the OTRS process. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (for Pokefan's benefit). OTRS will mean nothing in this case.
OTRS is not some medieval witchhunt. It has no magical powers to determine if something is a copyvio or not. What were you expecting? That OTRS clerks would duck MaverickLittle and see if he floats? If he sinks and drowns, then the image can stay. If he floats, then he must be made of wood, like a witch, and we should burn him! (This would not be the first time an admin has suggesting burning an editor)
OTRS conveys no more descriptive information than an image description at upload. It may convey a little more information about the identity of the person contacting OTRS - which would be irrelevant here. OTRS has some use when an image is taken from a commercial website and it can then confirm that an identity associated with that source agrees to the upload and licensing. That is as far as OTRS goes.
If MaverickLittle should turn out to be some belly-crawling ace-sleeving varmint of a copyviolator (not that I have reason to believe that), then that would mean that they have lied during the visible upload process. Then just maybe, such a low-down weasel would have no qualms about also lying to OTRS? OTRS can judge nothing additional about the truth of any claim made, merely that someone with a suggestion of a source email address, has also made the same claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all please avoid threats of violence and comparing people to witches and drownings. -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no mention of witch hunts! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly confused beyond belief how a simple request to have two uploaded photographs checked for possible copyright violations has turned into such ugliness and sharp, needless accusations. I've seen people upset in Commons, but I've never seen this kind of outrageous uproar before. Typically, Commons is a fairly quiet and polite place. That's not what's happening here and I would love to see what's happening in the way of personal attacks and out of control sarcasm to stop. Winkelvi (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't make them Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. Why are you making this more of a battlefield and flame-fest than ML already has? Make your case, but do it reasonably and without the ugly tone and personal attacks, please. Winkelvi (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have missed the bit where MaverickLittle started these fatuous deletion requests. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing ugly about anything that has been said, Winkelvi. Not a thing, except maybe that I have been accused of stealing two pictures from websites and there has not been a lick of evidence provided to support the allegation, not even the name of the website that was supposedly pilfered. Now, where is that website that you said I stole the picture from? What is it? I keep asking the question, looking for an answer from you, but all we get is dancing around by you, talking about "witch hunts" and "flame-fest(s)" and other such red herrings. Why don't you just answer the question? Why don't you just admit that you don't have a website, do you? That's not hard or difficult. Just produce the website. Also, why don't you explain to all of the other editors reviewing this how you attempted to get the whole Heidi Cruz article deleted from Wikipedia? Please explain. You can review Winkelvi's spectacular failure to have Heidi Cruz completely removed from Wikipedia here: Winkelvi's attempt to get Heidi Cruz removed from Wikipedia even though she is a former Bush Adminstration official, an Harvard Busines School grad, an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and, of course, the wife the current U.S. Senator and leading Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. It should be pointed that Winkelvi's motion was crushed by a 19-2 margin, it was a landslide defeat, calling to mind Alf Landon's landslide lost to FDR in the 1936 Presidential election. Please read through it, you will get a notion of Winkelvi's history of being involved in "flame-fest(s)".--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! Priceless! Undeclared POV issues much, Winkelvi? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is priceless, isn't it? Winkelvi tried to get the whole article removed from Wikipedia and when he failed in a landslide to get that done he started trying to take the article apart one piece at a time--starting with getting two the pictures removed. POV issues are definitely here that's why he keeps telling me stop talking. And now he is asking for an admin to come to this discussion to stop the "personal attacks" even though there has not been any personal attacks. I'm ok with that because since there has not been any personal attacks there is no issues there. And having another set of eyeballs on this empty complaint would be a good thing.--MaverickLittle (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete in order to err on the side of caution. Commons is about accountability and integrity in the face of possible copyright violations. Nothing in the uploader's argument against deletion has convinced me the image is his own. That said, if, after deletion, the image is determined by OTRS to not be a copyvio, then it can be uploaded again. Winkelvi (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


STOP
Could you guys please immediately stop with all your ad-personam arguments and replies here! This is discussion about a deletion-request for 1 image and nothing else.
For the image: I am largely following Andy Dingley's reasoning. The technical quality of the nominated image is clearly not pro photographer material. (Here are some news-photographer results from the same event: [1],[2].)
Overall, it is not unlikely that the uploader has shot this image using a cameraphone at the event, as claimed. Can we be absolutely sure about that? Of course not. We hardly can be in any other case. MaverickLittle may be so kind to upload the raw, unedited version of the shot, if it is available, to convince the doubtful. But I wouldn't put that as a condition.

@MaverickLittle, just as an explanation: each day several thousand files are uploaded to Commons and at least 10 percent of them are unfree (aka copyvios). Those of us (admin or not) who do the ugly and unthankful work of patrolling recent-uploads and try to find all these bad bugs, have too little time for too much work. We can't do a full criminal investigation, but we have to use the superficial impression and circumstantial evidence and rely on our experience. Every now and then we err in our judgement and tag an image as copyvio-suspect because it seems to fit in the typical pattern. At least, I do. This doesn't happen out of bad faith. It just results from our limitations, personal and work-(over)load. It's simply not worth a big discussion.
--Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated over on the Admin complaints board, I am willing to sit quietly and wait for OTRS to read the information that I provided and I included my personal contact info (both home and work) to verify that what I uploaded was the camera shots that I took at the fundraiser. I would like my personal information to remain private. If I had known that I was going to be accused of stealing other people's work product then I would have done a better job of documenting the picture creation process. It was the furthest thing from my mind at that early morning meeting. I was just focused on getting Ms. Cruz's attention instead of making a record of the creation process. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just guy that has been attending various Cruz events. I appreciate the size of the workload you guys have and how difficult it can be. I was just frustrated that I know that I took the pictures and I felt like I was being accused of stealing the intellectual property of other people, which I would not do. I repeat I'm willing to put down the weapons if everyone else will also and just wait for the process to run its course.--MaverickLittle (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm willing to put down the weapons if everyone else will" No one other than you and Andy have any weapons. The rest of us only have shields and are trying to ward off your unwarranted attacks. As was stated early on, the concerns raised in regard to the photographs are simply in the best interest of Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia and policy regarding possible copyvios. That's it. You took it to a completely unnecessary and irrelevant level, only escalating from there because you saw the whole thing as a personal attack on your integrity. It was pointed out to you more than once that wasn't the case, but you persisted nonetheless. You only have yourself to blame for it getting to this point. Can we please stop focusing on editors/contributors and start focusing on contributions and the real point of this deletion discussion? Pretty please? Unless asked a question that warrants/truly needs a reply from me, this is my last comment on the issue. Winkelvi (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:HeidiCruzTheWoodlandsTXMeet&Greet27Feb2016-2.jpg and File:Heidi Cruz MontTXFundraiser Feb 27 2016--two3.jpg are the two other images mentioned by Andy. These were taken about eleven months later. They seem to have been edited using some image editing software which removes large parts of the EXIF, apparently the same software and software version as with the other picture (according to the EXIF). The pictures were taken at an event which was held at a location close to the location of the other event, so it is not unlikely that the same photographer was able to attend both events. The image quality suggests that the three images all were taken using similar cameras and by photographers with similar photographic skills, so it is not unlikely that all pictures were taken by the same person or using the same camera. This is consistent with the uploader's claim that he is the photographer.
People mentioned OTRS. I'm not sure what the uploader is supposed to submit to OTRS. Evidence that the uploader attended the two events? The events were some time ago, and I don't know if the uploader has kept any evidence of his attendance other than photos from the events. The uploader could maybe upload unmodified copies of the three pictures with EXIF present - this would increase the probability that the {{Own}} claim is correct. But is this really needed? Not in my opinion; I find it unlikely that these pictures are copyright violations. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to break my promise of not commenting further as it's obvious more needs to be said. Because we are talking about possibly unfree files/a copyright violation that could be a potential problem for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons somewhere down the road, I do think it is really needed. Plus, since the uploader claims he took the photo, and has given no explanation as to why he didn't upload the original photo (elsewhere he stated the photos were scanned first and then modified - which seems weird if the photos were taken on a cell phone) or at least a modified version of it as the ones uploaded here are, I see no reasonable explanation (at this time) why he can't upload them and provide the originals to OTRS. He's saying doing so will be a violation of his privacy, therefore, the privacy issue would be solved by using OTRS as middle man between him and Wikimedia Commons. Although, I'm not sure what privacy issues would be an issue by uploading an original photo, but, I digress. Yes, I think it's imperative the originals be uploaded so we can have the evidence needed to see that he actually owns the photos he claims to. Frankly, I've seen photos rightly deleted on less evidence here in Commons, so I'm not sure what the objection to getting more information truly is based on. Winkelvi (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that you would not stop trying to get the files permanently deleted and I knew you would not stop making comments. You only want me to stop making comments, not you. You have not provided that website yet where you think I stole the pictures. So I ask again: What is the website from which you believe the picture were stolen? We are still waiting for your answer. Now, as to the pictures you are attempting to put words in my mouth again. I know you will complain endlessly about how I should just respond to your comments, but when you attempt to put words in my mouth I will respond. Above your incorrectly state that I have not provided the original photos for privacy reasons. I never, ever said that (also if you decide to repeat that claim then you will need to show me where I said that because I didn't). I said I wanted my privacy protected and I still want my privacy protected. That comment has nothing to do with the photos. Once again, you made comments that have nothing to do with photos and I have to respond to them. Don't complain about how I talked about privacy because you brought up the topic and you brought it up out of context and you attempted conflate my expression of privacy with the fact that I did upload the original photos. So don't waste our time repeating that incorrect claim. There is nothing "weird" about any of this. This is just you attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I took the pictures with my camera phone on February 27, 2016. I cleared my cell phone of all photos to make room for more on March 6, 2016. I downloaded all of them to my laptop. I threw out most of the stuff that I no longer wanted. Both photos were edited with Microsoft Picture software on my laptop and I discarded the originals. I then moved all of the ones that decided to keep to my desk computer, where I edited them again with Adobe Photoshop to trim the edges. I had no plans to post them to Wikipedia. Then another two weeks or so went by and I decided to upload to Wikipedia because of the discussion about the previous picture of Cruz in article. I edited them again, specifically to remove the other people in the selfie with her, friends of mine. I had no idea that I would be going through a Spanish Inquisition over these photos. This explanation is just not that complex because the situation is just not as complex as you want it to be. Also, why do you complain about other people making comments but you don't seem to have any problem with you making long, long responses. I want to ask once again, since you believe that I took the pictures from a website what is that website and why haven't you found the pictures on the Internet yet? Why? What is it? The answer is simple: they are not located on the Internet at all. They are on my desk computer and now Wikipedia. I own the copyright and I have given permission to Wikipedia to use the pictures and I am working with OTRS to given written permission again.--MaverickLittle (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the above, very long monologue, I'm going to point out some things in it that differ greatly from what ML said originally about why these photos are missing metadata (pinging Cirt and Túrelio).

This is what ML said on 3/30/16: "I scanned the photo into a scanner and the original metadata for the cell phone camera was not there. I also edited the scan with photoshop. It is as simple as that." (diff here)

This is what he is saying today (4/1/16): "I took the pictures with my camera phone on February 27, 2016. I cleared my cell phone of all photos to make room for more on March 6, 2016. I downloaded all of them to my laptop. I threw out most of the stuff that I no longer wanted. Both photos were edited with Microsoft Picture software on my laptop and I discarded the originals. I then moved all of the ones that decided to keep to my desk computer, where I edited them again with Adobe Photoshop to trim the edges. I had no plans to post them to Wikipedia. Then another two weeks or so went by and I decided to upload to Wikipedia because of the discussion about the previous picture of Cruz in article. I edited them again, specifically to remove the other people in the selfie with her..."

I have my personal opinion about the huge discrepancy, but will just leave this for others to make their own conclusions based on the evidence. I will, however, say this: I stand by my err-on-the-side of caution DELETE !vote now more than ever.. As far as I'm concerned his contradictory statements make him, in this matter, simply not credible. Winkelvi (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got me Winkelvi. You have broken open the crime of the century. I'm serious you have found the ultimate conspiracy theory. I'm still waiting on you to provide the name of the website from which I supposedly stole the pictures. What is it?--MaverickLittle (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: After reams of discussion, I did a thorough Google and TinEye search and found no hits. Uploader has filed OTRS a few days ago and while I might ordinarily leave this open to wait for the OTRS, in this case due to the excessive dialog associated with the situation, I'm closing it. If OTRS finds me wrong, I'll be happy to apologize all around, but I think we do also need to look at (a) no google or tineye hits (b) strong statements of creation/own work (c) COM:AGF. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Approved: Ticket#2016033010002674 - Riley Huntley (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Heidi_Cruz_MontTXFundraiser_Feb_27_2016--two3.jpg&oldid=192162843"