Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr

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.

Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr

[edit]

Images are likely Flickrwashed and are therefor copyvios.

An image of brittsuza mentioned as possible flicker washing at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rearview.jpg.

Account

[edit]

Here is a Google cache of user's profile on Flickr (claimed age "just turned 20", est. DOB anywhere from spring of 1989 to spring of 1990). User has been deactivated. There's only two reasons this user's account could have been deactived: (1) User requested cancellation of Flick Pro account. (2) User violated Yahoo's Terms of Service or Community Guidelines. The latter is more likely.

A user with same username and photographs is current active on Zoig and now claims to be 23 years old (est. DOB May 1987 (age updated automatically, just had birthday)). Considering both accounts were started in 2009, there's at least a two year discrepancy in reported age.

Another profile can be found here at teenplanet.org.

Images

[edit]
Group A
[edit]

Defining characteristics: Peculiar crescent shaped naval with crease in belly fat (where visible). Female is thin and underdeveloped. Images have a yellowish hue. No meta data.

Group B
[edit]

Defining characteristics: Similar to Group A with normal hue. No meta data.

Group C
[edit]

Defining characteristics: Female more mature that Group A or B. Round or air-brushed naval. Normal hue. No meta data.

 Comment: This girl's bellybutton has been been photoshopped. Why? - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Group D
[edit]

Defining characteristics: Images from behind. Darker hair color. Images below may not be of same individual and differ from other groups. Normal hue. Meta data indicates that images were taken from an iPhone.

Apparent Age(s)

[edit]

The appearance being an identifiable minor has been discussed at:

  1. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-06
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless young woman.jpg
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female nudity.jpg
  4. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010Apr#Explicit Images and Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act
  5. User_talk:Multichill#Hi
  6. Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety (removal)
  7. User_talk:Herbythyme/Arc16#About deletions
  8. (add more if found)

I am requesting all images of brittsuza be deleted in a timely manner and reviewed for oversight. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  •  Comment All Commons' oversighters have been notified of this deletion request. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a user does (or does not) at another project is not our concern. Besides, you have no evidence for your claims (Account). And waiting until this request is closed before requesting oversight is common procedure. (I oppose oversighting btw) Kameraad Pjotr 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight of these images is not covered by the policy (IMO). Raymond 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's required by US law. See 18 USC § 2258A (h)(4). - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aah, but you have no evidence. Let me but this very clear: without evidence any oversighting is against policy. You have no evidence, merely allegations. If you cannot prove that this is child porn, normal deletion, if it gets deleted, will have to suffice. The deletion process is not a form for you to cleanse commons from what in your perspective should not be here. Valid concerns will be addressed no doubt, but this kind of baseless allegations are disruptive. Your use of flickrwashing seems like a red herring, as I have found no evidence of any copyright violation. I do not think the precautionary principle has anything to do with this, but is simply a way to get a proposed policy enforced before it becomes policy, if it ever does. Nor you, nor I, nor anybody else, can judge whether 18 USC § 2258A applies, as we are no lawyers. Leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Kameraad Pjotr 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused as an oversighter. I have agreed to not deal with matters that potentially involve child porn. Tiptoety talk 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should withdraw the tools immediately. You either want to see the child porn or you fear that you can't tell the difference. Either way it is just not good enough for a content moderator of an image storage site. Say your piece or leave it all behind you because tools are for craftsmen not philosophers. Pretend you can bite a bullet like everyone else or sit down and shut up. ~ R.T.G 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks. Every user has the right to choose which actions they feel comfortable participating in. I strongly support Tiptoety's right to recuse. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of attacking Tiptoey. I recognise this user and do believe them to be worthy of some respect. However, I reserve the right to pass harsh judgement. I do not believe my judgement to be kind but I do believe the matter of child pornography to be of the highest importance when it comes to actions such as oversight. It was insufficient for Tiptoey to be unreactive to child pornography nevermind being almost off-topic for this discussion. I will put it again. If an oversigter is not prepared to express an opinion on this matter... I personally will not appreciate them expressing anything else. This is the ugly tree not the local art convention, regardless of what site we are rearing it on. Thanks but, I am smiling and happy. ~ R.T.G 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may not know all the backstory. There was previous controversy around Tiptoety's use of the tool and the compromise reached was that T would not use the tool in this area. That is a good compromise. As long as people don't attack him over the matter, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Informing all oversighters before this DR is closed is spam. We do not oversight copyvios. We can oversight child porn or if someone can be identified. Please note that not all images of girls under 18 is porn. --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that these images were pornographic or even sexually explicit. However, SOME of the images involve "lascivious displays of genitalia or pubic area" and DO fit the legal requirements of being "sexually explicit". All of the images should be removed on a precautionary basis and because they are likely copyright violations. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MGA, if you are not going to look at the pictures until you see a porn one you should not comment on what they contain. They are either pornographic or not. the rest is just bull. ~ R.T.G
  •  Comment I don't understand why it would be flickrwashing since it's always the same girl. As for the age, her profile used to claim that she was 20 when she founded her Flickr account in 2009 (therefore 21 now) and there's no reason not to trust that. The argument "she looks underage" is actually nonsense, it's not valid at all. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless this individual had an enormous growth spurt in the span of less than a year same time frame (which highly improbable for a woman in her early 20's) and had an umbilicoplasty there's no alternative but to conclude that these images are of separate individuals an not one girl who likes to "show off" her body as brittsuza@flickr claims on his/her profile. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you think that if a Flickr user uploads images of more than one girl then it is Flickrwashing? Perhaps it would help if you said "I would like these images deleted because [reason (copyvio, underage, scope, i do not like nude girls or whatever the reason might be]" because to me it is still unclear what the problem is. --MGA73 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • User's profile says "I Just turned 20 this year and for some reaseon I just like showing off my body hope you all enjoy." This should indicate that these images are all self-portraits and no indication are made that they are not. If there are different females involved then we have no idea what their ages might be. There is also a difference of age between the two profiles of at least a year. No reason to AGF with this user. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Maybe I'm missing something here, but where is the proof for the allegations that these are copyright violations and/or (which is it?) that the young woman seen in this photo on Zoig.com is "underage"? This DR seems to be based solely on Stillwaterising's set of assumptions. I see that Stillwaterising makes his "mission" here very clear on his user page. I suspect that mission is the motive for this. Proof is needed not presumptions otherwise this is just a waste of community resources. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If consensus is to delete these images, I will investigate further and consider oversight, although we don't normally oversight deleted images merely because they were deleted. I think given that it's not clear cut whether this model is underage or not (I suspect they might be) or whether the images were properly given of free will (hard to say) it's not a clear cut speedy delete much less an oversight. I don't see the harm in being notified, but it's probably premature. I have argued for deletion in the past, on all images where there is reasonable suspicion of age or licensing issues, to be on the safe side, including, if I am not mistaken, some of these. Proof of problems are not required. Proof of NO problem is what is required, if there is reasonable doubt. Which in my view there is. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There must be at least some evidence (or at least more than Stillwaterising's allegations) to delete a image. It is not because the burden of proof lies on the uploader that deleting without any evidence of wrongdoing is the way to go forward. Kameraad Pjotr 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree. If, for images of this sort, there is reasonable doubt of age, or reasonable doubt of permission, absent that proof being supplied, deletion is the correct outcome. We need to err on the side of safety in cases such as this. For pictures of cheese, we don't, we can play a bit less conservatively. But this isn't cheese. ++Lar: t/c 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The disappearance of the profile doesn't mean anything. There are at least 2 reasons that would bring no problem for us : 1) she decided herself to close her profile (no matter what the reason would be) ; 2) she violated terms of service of Yahoo, which that doesn't mean the violated rules apply to Commons ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment On her Flickr profile, she gave her e-mail (brittanysuza [at] yahoo.com). Why don't we ask her proofs ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As pornographic pictures can so often be of a delecate nature they should not be uploaded from other sites, full stop. Do we really need pictures of some fourteen year old girl licking herself? I think not. As for the "21 now" rubbish... if you were thirty years old tomorrow and I had porno pictures of you taken eighteen years ago... how does that go by this time tomorrow? They are pictures of a middle aged person by then, right? It's just so much unnessecary hassle. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT... a social networking site... WIKIMEDIA IS NOT... a pornography site. What's the big deal? What you afraid of a wolf? ~ R.T.G 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nude images is allowed on Commons 2) Images of girls of 14 are also allowed. Copyvios are not. Childporn is not. If subject did not give permission we should also delete. If we asume that the girl likes to show off herself then perhaps she also know other girls that likes to do that. So I still see no proof. So far the best argument for age is that Stillwaterising claims to be an expert in underage girls [arguments] [changed the other wording did not sound right. Sorry. --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)]. In that case the "sexual explicit" (porn) should be nuked but I would like to remind you (again) that not all nude is "evil". Lets hope for a response from the girl. --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evil? Response from the girl? You are kiddng yourself. If you want pictures like this you will find them. Please...? ~ R.T.G 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT... Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles... Kameraad Pjotr 07:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter. Up yours. My activity on Commons or Wikipedia is not designed to fight some battle about teenage porn, but thanks for the vigilance. ~ R.T.G 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make one more personal attack and will be "up yours". Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too many legal concerns with these images. This is the problem with moving things from flickr where there is no proof of ownership, age, etc. Flickr shouldn't be used to get around our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment One way to clear this up would be, is there any way to verifiably contact the person named in all of these photos and determine whether or not she uploaded them or gave consent for their use? TY© (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are plenty of similar images on this website. Where there is doubt about the age of the subject, take the safer path and delete the photographs. The Cleaner (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio or not?

[edit]

I got a notice on my danish usertalk regarding this image here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rearview.jpg from the same account on Flickr. It was uploaded to commons 13:12, 9 May 2009 and according to the message on my talk page it was uploaded to teenplanet 16 Aug 2009 20:53:40 or 3 months later. In that case it is not a copyvio of that page. I find it relevant to this DR too because once images started to get deleted as copyvios then more will often follow. In this case a DR might be closed on a wrong basis. If someone knows how to check the info I think it would be good to know. --MGA73 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request was indeed closed on a wrong basis, and the image has now been restored. Kameraad Pjotr 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that rearview has been undeleted I've added it to the mass DR. None of these files are currently being used on other wikis. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Besides of that, we have (1) no valid license as those pics are NOT Flickr (anymore); (2) mass-spam with no additional value for the project. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not true. If a file is reviewed it is not a problem that it is deleted on Flickr. That is one of the reasons to do a Flickr review. 2) I would not call it spam but if someone can used only time can show. --MGA73 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be used as evidence in United States v. Wikimedia Foundation but not "realistically useful" for an education purpose. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nudity and sexuality are part of knowledge. Illustrating it is educational. Illustrating exhibitionism is an example of usefulness. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that would allow you to show tons of crap? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean with crap. If you think an exhibitionist picture is crap, well yes, we could. If you think about very low quality pictures, no, crap is bad. But again, it also depends on the level of quality you consider as crap. Ah... subjectivity... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the images were free and clear without question as their origins, then the discussion could have been about the merits. It's interesting that one Brittsuza image seemed to be resused by the media here, one that has already been deleted. One parameter that we could consider is replaceability; if needed could the image be reproduced by Commoners without special materials or circumstances with ones with equivalent educational value? These images are replaceable. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Close

[edit]

This deletion request has been open for almost a month and has gathered four deletion votes (including my own), zero keep votes, and many comments. Typically a unanimous DR would be closed in about a week. I understand Tabercil had attempted to contact brittanysuza@yahoo.com 11 days ago but has not received a reply. I personally do not think a a girl named Brittany set up that account. The pictures were likely stolen off a social networking site and the account(s) were set up to entice victims into some kind of paysite. Anyway, it's over. I'm asking for this DR to be closed without any further delay. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the account holder has not responded, I'm willing to concede that these are probably a case of Flickr washing. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would take it a little further. It is poor manners at least to snatch prohibited content from another site before it is noticed. If I were the boss of Flikr I would not appreciate you encouraging people to upload content I was trying to prohibit by adding the Commons to its possible outlets. Anything that Flikr would not give you freely should not be taken. That is stealing by definition, is it not? Or do we loop holes around something else? It's theft where I come from if you remove something from a bin. It's rather daring to convert such content from Flikr but is the daring approach consistent with the value of the free licence? Is it free as in beer - grab now while still here or free as in kind - use best you can find. ~ R.T.G 18:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're ranting about. We host any free content, and it doesn't matter a bit how we obtain it. That is not at issue in this discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't matter how you got it... it doesn't matter where it came from or, ultimately, wether it is free or not... only that you got it and nobody stopped you. You're desperate, greedy and unneccesary. :)! Just like Flikr content which blatantly breaches their policies. It's rude to avail of it and. That. Does. Matter. Hmmm. Don't know if it's possible to write a letter to Flikr but I bet that if they write one to Commons saying not to use content from their site of which they do not approve... whatever suits you like :) ~ R.T.G 02:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. Intellectual property is a non-rival good, and it's not the least bit rude - a free license on Flickr amounts to an expressed intent to allow others to borrow and reuse your work. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I am deleting on grounds of possible flickrwashing, and concerns about legality. While I don't encourage witch hunts for these images, I don't think there's anything here that isn't replaceable. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Brittany_Suza_(brittsuza)_from_Flickr&oldid=41905916"