Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Seedfeeder

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files of User:Seedfeeder|year=2024|month=December|day=26}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files of User:Seedfeeder|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Seedfeeder}} at the end of today's log.

Files of User:Seedfeeder

[edit]

These look like nothing but very obvious trace jobs. This user is just using Photoshop to trace over and recolor photographs or stills from films. He's even drawn nearly sequential frames from the same film or photo-shoot with near-identical camera placement. He claims that these are "Own work. All original, non-derivative" but that's a patent lie. Anyone who's ever used Photoshop for 10 minutes can tell. I tried to pull this in an art class once and got marked down on the assignment because it was so obvious when I couldn't produce "my" original photographs that I was just plagiarizing someone else's photography. These pictures don't meet the threshold of originality and are violating the copyright of the original works, whatever they are. He might think he's protected by the sheer volume of pornography out there, an amount that makes it next to impossible to find the exact images he stole, but it's obvious enough that these are trace jobs, given their aesthetic qualities. The photographic level of quality in their use of shape and proportion and anatomy coupled with the hopelessly inept paint-by-numbers line and coloring and shading gives the lie to what he's doing. I could walk everyone through step by step how he produced these images from photographs. Well-known Photoshop processes like these carried out on pornographic images stolen from anywhere on the Internet would produce indistinguishable results: http://www.melissaevans.com/tutorials/turn-photos-of-people-into-line-art http://www.melissaevans.com/tutorials/vector-art-with-photoshop http://www.ndesign-studio.com/tutorials/tracing-photo http://www.howtodothings.com/how-to-trace-a-photograph http://vector.tutsplus.com/tutorials/illustration/tracing-a-vector-face-from-a-reference-photo/ http://www.instructables.com/id/Turn-Yourself-Into-a-Cartoon/ It's absolutely undeniable that these are traces of photographic images, and the fact that he'd lie and say that they're not only confirms suspicion as to the non-free copyright status of the photographs he stole. These images should be deleted as copyright violations in accordance with policies. Photoshop User (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - What you have essentially said is that because a drawing could be extracted from a photograph, that it must have been. You have given no evidence that the images are copyright violations. I further note that yours appears to be a single purpose account, created solely to nominate these images for deletion (see global contribs). This is somewhat suspicious for a new user, as I'm sure you can understand, given your own suspicions of Seedfeeder. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate as to your "suspicions" about new users. I just saw some pictures that are obviously trace jobs, and I thought copyright violations were supposed to be taken seriously on this website, so I started an account and asked for them to be deleted. If anyone ever just traced from an erotic photograph I shot and then uploaded the images here or anywhere else, I'd pursue legal action in a heartbeat. And in cases where my work has been ripped off, I have. So, if you insist on prejudicially excluding me as an "ug ug bad outsider", at least bother to know your "turf's" own policies. I access this site maybe once a month, and I know the polices here better than you do. Based on your demonstrated ignorance of the following policy, I "suspect" that you're not qualified to be involved in this discussion, regardless of how long you've had an account here. Please allow me to enlighten you:
    • "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified, along with the original source where the file is a derivative work. Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and; that any required consent has been obtained." (Commons:Project scope/Evidence)
    • "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." (Commons:Precautionary principle) Photoshop User (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Keep as there is (currently) no evidence for a copyvio. As you can see in seedfeeder's upload log no single image which he uploaded was ever deleted. So accusing him of copyvios without any facts pointing to it is not a fine thing. You have posted a bunch of links to PS how-tos - well, maybe he has done the images that way. Why don't you just ask him if he used photos as basis for his drawings and if he took these photos on his own? Please do so. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "well, maybe he has done the images that way". You yourself just admitted that there is indeed the possibility that these images violate copyright. Policies here clearly state that if there's a possibility that these images violate copyright, then they must be immediately deleted, no evidence needed. "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: The file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and, that any required consent has been obtained." (Commons:Project scope#Evidence). I don’t have to prove anything. You do.
    • Also, the results of previous deletion discussions for this user couldn’t possibly be less relevant to THIS discussion unless they resulted in evidence that Seedfeeder isn’t just a tracer. No such results exist. And I did mention it on his talk page and got no immediate response. Based on his pithy dismissal of other users who have voiced this same concern to him (Wikipedia:User talk:Seedfeeder/Archive4#Copyright), I didn’t feel like wasting time by waiting for a response from him, since the issue, to quote, “doesn’t concern” him. Photoshop User (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep we still have presumption of innocence -- and even if it was traced from a photo it could have been a self-made shot. No proof of copyvio - no deletion. Kf8 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No hard and factual proofs, except opinions suspicious and hearsay. Tm (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't comment on this discussion again until you've actually read the relevant policies. I don’t need to provide any proof to get these files deleted. You need to provide the proof needed to keep them. As far as I’m concerned, the images themselves are evidence enough that they were traced.Photoshop User (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment I´ll comment on this discussio as many times as i feel necessary! About my "need" to read the relevant policies before commenting in here, i´ve already read them several times before, and they state (and deletion pratices in commons) that to get some files deleted as copyright violations there needs to be REAL and STRONG evidences that they are indeed copyright violations witch until now you have failed to show, only using your word and expecting anyone to believe in your word only (if any lawyer tried that in any lawfull court, it would fail miserably, as your "guilty until proven innocent) and the claim that your an expert in image manipulation, but until now you failed to demonstrate your expertise in this field. I finalize (mis)quoting you: "That’s not evidence. The images themselves are." Tm (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'll continue explode your willful ignorance with concrete references to policy as many times as I feel necessary: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified, along with the original source where the file is a derivative work. Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and; that any required consent has been obtained." (Commons:Project scope/Evidence) Photoshop User (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep speedily, that's just a baseless accusation. Seedfeeder already multiple times explained his process of picture creation, and I don't see a reason why don't believe him:

Not much to it, I use a Wacom tablet, trackball, and Adobe Photoshop (I have tried Illustrator and other vector programs, but can't get the hang of it). In some cases I have made a sketch on paper, scanned it in, then cleaned it up and finished in Photoshop. To replicate the look simple cell shaded work, I make each color a separate layer. That's about it. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[1]

I'm glad you noticed that some of the women in my illustrations appear to be Asian, that was by design. As far as what I based the images off of, they are figments of my imagination, and not based off of any living person. Of course due to the billions of people on this planet, some unintended resemblances are unavoidable.--SeedFeeder (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[2]

The images I create are from scratch. If an image I have created bears a resemblance to any living person, it is purely a coincidence. Thanks. --SeedFeeder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [3]

  • Trycatch (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s not evidence. The images themselves are. I trust my own two eyes over anything some anonymous poster says. He’s lying. Also, way avoid linking to this nice little exchange in your collection there (Wikipedia:User talk:Seedfeeder/Archive4#Copyright):
      • "It's very clear that your images are created from pornography. That is a copyright violation (see Shepard Fairey and the Obama illustration). Do you understand that you cannot just trace a copyrighted image and make it yours? I cannot prove this without a massive search but I want you to comment on this now because eventually someone will find proof that you're ripping off porn. It'd be great to get that on the record now." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.185.166 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "Your legal reasoning seems sound enough. Thankfully, it's not an issue that concerns me. I am flattered". --SeedFeeder (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC
    • I'm not the only person who has pointed this out that these are derivative works that fail to meet the threshold of originality. You can tell these are trace jobs from the inherent compositional qualities within the images. This guy couldn't draw an actual human form from memory to save his life and so he just traced these from photos or video stills. That's the only time you see this combination of realistic perfection in the anatomical-proportional aspect and hackneyed cartoonish stylization in everything else such as the poor line execution and garish colorization. It's beyond obvious if you know anything about drawing at all. The jarring artistic contrasts in figures traced by someone who doesn’t know how to draw could never be better exemplified than by Seedfeeder’s images. Photoshop User (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, to summarize, here's what Wikimedia policy states:
  • THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IN THIS DISPUTE IS ON THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KEEP THE MATERIAL (Commons:Project scope#Evidence).
  • WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION BY DELETING THE MATERIAL (Commons:Precautionary principle).
  • Let me break that down for anyone who thinks we should keep these images. It's YOUR job to PROVE that these aren't POSSIBLY copyright violations. Note the "possibly" in that last sentence. According to the policy, your side doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. Mine does. These images get deleted unless it's established by evidence that they're not copyright violations. This part of the policy is deliberate. It's not a mistake. Wikimedia plays it safe that way, according to the Precautionary Principle, which we must abide by here. To establish that it's impossible that these are copyright violations, you need to provide evidence that they're not. Unless you do, they get deleted. Repeat: They get deleted. I don't have to prove jack to get these deleted. You do if you want them kept. That's what the policy states. Several of the above users have already agreed with my analysis above and openly admitted on the record that it's possible that these are copyright violations, and other users have voiced the same concerns as me. Unless evidence is provided that these images cannot possibly be copyright violations, they should be deleted immediately. Photoshop User (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS if I messed up in the formatting of the above discussion, please feel free to fix it. I'm experienced in image creation and copyright law, but not the mechanics of this site. Sorry. Photoshop User (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument could be applied to any similar drawing, or in fact any drawing whatsoever - it could have come from a photo which the drawer didn't take himself, therefore it should be deleted as a possible copyright violation. We can't operate this way. We do have the precautionary principle, but we also like to assume good faith. Let's look at a hypothetical. I upload a photo of, say, a train, as I often do. Now, I honestly can't prove that I was the one who took the photo: the image may have metadata, I may claim to have a camera of that type, but I can't really _prove_ it in this medium. Someone else could have taken it, and I could have just downloaded all their photos to my pc and then uploaded, which would be a copyright violation. It would be impossible for me to prove that I took it myself. Are you to say therefore that if someone today were to create an account and nominate all my images for deletion as copyright violations that they should all be deleted because it's impossible to prove I was the photographer? It would be insane. There is a precautionary principle, but there is also reputation. Seedfeeder has been active on these projects for years and has a total of four deleted contributions, none of which he uploaded. Your account was created yesterday, seemingly for the sole purpose of getting Seedfeeder's images deleted. You present no evidence that his images are copyright violations, merely that they could be, but by your own logic so could any drawing. I am going to assume good faith and say that a user who has been around here a long time and says he drew the images himself drew the images himself. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The nature of these drawings makes them questionable for anyone, as you have already admitted, not the fact that they are drawings. Given my knowledge of image production, they're beyond questionable to me (I've already explained why very specific technical aspects of their contents lead to the conclusion that they're trace jobs and I'm not alone in making this observation. No one here has addressed those specific points, which NO, do not apply to all drawings, let alone any photographs, just to these images, and they apply damn heavily). The fact that these images are not just questionable but more questionable than typical drawings for the reasons I outline above means that Commons:Project scope/Evidence must be applied in this case and evidence beyond that which is demanded for usual images must be provided to save these images from deletion. Also, these images are the only contribution Seedfeeder has ever made to this website. And on this page alone I've written more about them than he ever has. So as far as I can tell I'm about as involved in this project now as he is. And once again, ACCORDING TO EXPLICIT POLICY IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THESE IMAGES VIOLATE COPYRIGHT. THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE IS ON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO NOT VIOLATE COPYRIGHT. And no, reputation most definitely does not count as evidence. Either get the policy changed or abide by it. Photoshop User (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See now this contributor did they right thing: For , they identify that the image is indeed a trace from a photograph , and provide a link to the Creative Commons licensed photo they used for the creation of the derivative work. Wouldn't replacing Seedfeeder's images with either untraced drawings or traced drawings that include such necessary information be a lot less doubtful? It would at least make me and the other users who have voiced concern about a possible copyright violation feel much more at ease. Photoshop User (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Here's an idea: I'm willing to draw some untraced drawings myself. They won't have the let's say "photorealistic" aspects of Seedfeeder's drawings, but at least we'd know for sure that they're not just trace jobs. I'm willing to provide documentation of the creation process, too. Does that sound like a compromise we might be interested in? Photoshop User (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Just because they are good does not mean it is any violation. We don't assume photographers who take featured images must be lying about their work. There is no actual evidence that these are not his original work so their is nothing for him to prove.Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, the question isn't whether there's any evidence that these are copyright violations, it's whether there's any evidence that they aren't. Policy is clear on that. And if by "good" you mean "adhereing perfectly to style expected from the technique of tracing a line drawing from a photograph" then I fully agree with your evaluation. Photoshop User (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep without evidence of sources for alleged derivation.

    Seedfeeder (talk · contribs) has uploaded these images effectively saying, "I created these and I release them into the public domain." Photoshop User (talk · contribs) says these look like tracings of other images, supposing that these hypothetical original images are copyrighted. Photoshop User cannot prove that these are not wholly original works of Seedfeeder, nor has he provided evidence of any copyrighted material from which these may have been derived. Photoshop User alleges that these images can only be produced by tracing other photographs/images, yet we have no standards here by which to measure this user's certainty.

    I would like to refer Photoshop User to the English Wikipedia's Graphic Lab, where longtime contributors who're experienced in image creation and manipulation can provide their input, should they so desire. If they can back up Photoshop User's singular vision regarding the only way to create these images, I would (a) be surprised, and (b) listen. — Fourthords | =/\= | 09:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I always wondered what would happen if you shoved a handful of sand up an ostrich's bum and then made a scary face at it. Not that this discussion is anything like that. Just a funny idea for an experiment I had. Photoshop User (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No evidence. Just vague hypothetic accusations. It's not very precautionary to abuse of the precautionary principle ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Just a question : would such a Photoshop work actually be a copyvio ? I'm not sure... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, yes it would be. But I won't point you to the relevant policy. Why? Because I know you won't read it. What is it about the a) total ignorance of policy and b) the total disregard for policy once explicitly reproduced, that users of this website seem to revel in? It's like you all have nothing but contempt for the rules this website supposedly operates under. Photoshop User (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who are you to treat me like that ? How can you make such a gratuitous accusation ? I would read it when I have enough spare time for that (there's no hurry for the moment and I have a real life with priorities, but I would read it). So instead of behaving like a poor isolated martyr, just bring proofs and informations. Facts, only facts. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like I pissed in the face of your sacred cow and exploded a gaping crater in the heart of your empire of shit with a bomb made of of pure truth. I accomplished what I set out to do. I forced you all to look in the mirror and you had to turn away in disgust. haha nah I'm just kidding XD. Photoshop User (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as Kept, there is no evidence to the allegations other then what the deletion requester thinks and feels. The uploader has no history of copyright violations, for all we know they may have used a program other then PhotoShop and are good at drawing graphics. The tracing over images in PhotoShop is an just allegation made by one user (SPA) who can't even back the allegations with so called photographs they used to trace. Bidgee (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Seedfeeder&oldid=53119498"