Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination

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.

Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png

[edit]

Improper CC 2.5 tag. Based on this, this work is a derivative work, and no citation of the original, which fails compliance with CC 2.5 - "and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work" --75.105.13.17

Sorry, but having two images, one larger and not cropped and the other cropped is clear proof that it is derivative. Did you even follow the link? 75.105.13.17 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is the en.wikipedia link/log in question, and the same author claims authorship of both it appears. Are you seeing his release of his own claimed image is false? Or am I misreading you? I can certainly crop and release my own image as CC if I feel like it. rootology (T) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a blatantly false release. Instead of stating that this image was a derivative work from an already licensed and released work, which Wiki Commons would require per CC 2.5, he simply regurgitated the original release information. We need to cite the source. That is why these photos normally require data on the original photo and then people acknowledging when they altered it. Hell, we don't even know if he actually altered it because he never acknowledged that it was altered. This was very sloppily done and they are already talking about finding a free replacement that will not have these problems. 75.105.13.17 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your evidence of why it's blatantly false. What evidence exists that User:Cp79 is not the author as claimed? I'll happily switch to  Delete if someone can show a viewable reason to not believe he's the author of the original. I claim I took Image:Catch of the day.jpg--what proof do you have that my release is not blatantly false and I am not the original author? My history of images? What if I had only ever added my first image of Image:Seattle Washington from West Seattle.jpg? Would that be in doubt? Is any one-off image upload in doubt? Why no AGF here? rootology (T) 15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a larger photo makes it clear that the one currently used was not the original, and was not "taken" at anytime. It was edited from another picture that was licensed, which makes it a derivative, which needs to be legally referred under the clauses for derivatives. 75.105.13.17 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image which is deleted and can only be viewed by an Wikipedia/Commons Sysop(Unsure if the image was hosted here or Wiki). From what I understand (On whats been said at a number of locations on Wiki) the larger photo uploaded by the same user and it was requested by users on Wikipedia that the image should be cropped in which the uploader did therefore it doesn't fail derivatives. Bidgee (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your statement right there proves why it fails. It was not acknowledged as cropped. The larger photo that was already licensed was not acknowledged in the release. The previous release is still legal even if it was not taken down, and the copy and paste of the same release statement with different conditions would invalidate the new release as being incorrect. 75.105.13.17 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words! I said an image that WASN'T taken or uploaded by the user/uploader that has been uploaded/edited not a photo that they have taken and cropped. That would mean Image:Amy Taylor.jpg breaches the so called derivative even though I took the imag, cropped it and uploaded it. Ooooh no I've broken my own CC licensing. Well I infact haven't nor has the uploader of Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I said an image that WASN'T taken or uploaded" no. You never said any such thing. Your words are right there for everyone to read. 75.105.13.17 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Only fails if it's an derivative image that the user didn't take and has that edited (I'm not talking about an image that they took but an image that they used taken by someone else). You can't say that it fails derivative works since the editor edited their own work unless you can prove it's a copyvio and that the user didn't take the photo. Bidgee (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC) "
Editing their own work that was previously licensed and then claiming that the new work is the original work fails CC 2.5 derivative work language. All derivative works must be acknowledged, even by original creator, for it to be released under CC 2.5, because all users of it must state the derivative history. 75.105.13.17 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How was the original "not taken" at any time? Again, what evidence do we have that User:Cp79 is not the original author of the original image he posted? And the idea you can't use your own image is absurd as mentioned below. Look:
Description Seagull face, crop of original image I took
Are you saying this kind of use is invalid? I don't need to upload my original to commons (though I did in this case). I can take a 10,000px wide image, upload a cropped 2000px image, say I cropped it, and not have to upload the original to offer proof. I took the original photo, I stood under the roof where the gull was, on a camera I own, modified the images myself, and posted them. I'm simply saying: this is all fine. It's no different than if I shot a gull's face or some girl's neck with stuff on it. Where is the proof the original claimed author of User:Cp79 did not take the photo? rootology (T) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rootology, by your own photographic standards - where is the date of the original being taken in this release? Where is the source listed without it being a lie (because it was copied and paste from a work that was not edited, and thus needs to be acknowledged as the source for the derivative)? Photos of non-sexual nature get removed for this lack of information all the time. It seems to suggest a biased among many people who are commenting (especially with them failing to acknowledge the arguments) to keeping this photo instead of finding an easy replacement that is released properly. 75.105.13.17 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below. I asked en.wiki admins to confirm if the deleted original image there is the same one. If it is, unless we have evidence Cp79 faked it, what are we basing the assumption on that it is not his image? Because it's sexual? We take free one-off images all the time on both projects under AGF, even if people don't fill out their forms in triplicate. "I took it. I own it. I release it. Never logging in again," and those images typically stay. rootology (T) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, if the original simply mistated the release of his OWN IMAGE that we have no evidence he's not the owner/author of, that's no big deal and not a reason to delete. Look--I screwed up my crop of my seagull on purpose. It's a crop of an existing seagull image I uploaded. Delete? Absurd. rootology (T) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lays in him copying and pasting a release from a previous photo which was improper. What needs to be down is certified that the other is the original photo (assuming that one isn't a derivative), state when he cropped the photo. And We don't even have dates for any of that, which makes the licensing even more sketchy, nor do we know if the model in the photo signed a release for her identity (for the original) to see if that was a proper release. 75.105.13.17 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have confirmation now that it's the same image. Since it's cropped, I don't believe need a model release, let alone even a personality rights warning--it's an anonymous human neck. Again, unless someone can correct me, we don't have a firm policy that requires precise time stamps. I've mixed up my own date stamps on my images by a day or two, if the time on my camera was off, and I uploaded days later. Not a DR concern. And the extra insinuation that the original original may not be owned by the author is distinctly unhelpful. Please provide evidence of that claim or it's discountable. :) rootology (T) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have confirmation that the work was edited, as you admit. Therefore, it is a legal derivative of a previously licensed work. Therefore, the original deleting requirement of it having a non-compliant CC 2.5 tag stands. 75.105.13.17 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to offer proof that the original author did not own the original image, or that it's a copyvio, or else stop this. You've passed into being disruptive, and are not addressing any points being brought to bear to disprove your allegations. rootology (T) 16:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment shows that you are purposely misleading about what the complaint is. This is a mismarked and non-compliant CC 2.5 tag. It is not a claim that the author stole the work. It is a claim that a derivative is not properly cited. All proof provided has shown that this is a derivative work. Therefore, you have no argument. 75.105.13.17 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we get the original undeleted, moved here (all legal and above board) then crop it down and cite the original? Note that I have already added the appropriate source to the cropped image we're discussing, so... I guess thats that. It's cited as a crop to the original source. rootology (T) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that would work! Gesh. I've already pointed out that possibility. Its as if no one seems to pay attention to the many easy to do fixes. 75.105.13.17 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the suggestion makes no sense. As you seem to have conceded the same author created both works, they're not obliged to credit their previous work to create and license a derivative. If someone else had made the derivative, such a credit would be required, but you've already conceded they're the same author. One cannot infringe upon one's own copyright (duh). Luna Santin (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep No proof that it's a copyvio and this isn't proof, the image is licensed under both GNU and CC 2.5 plus "description of the image: pearl necklace, made in a private session. We are a couple like many others, not "pro", so get this photo "as is". is clearly saying it's self-taken. Bidgee (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sizes of the images and one is cropped (this one). That means that this is a derivative and fails the above CC. 75.105.13.17 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only fails if it's an derivative image that the user didn't take and has that edited (I'm not talking about an image that they took but an image that they used taken by someone else). You can't say that it fails derivative works since the editor edited their own work unless you can prove it's a copyvio and that the user didn't take the photo. Bidgee (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that isn't true. It fails because the original statement was fraudulent by claiming this was the original work and not a derivative. The existence of the original work proves this. You cannot copy and paste over a previous statement for an edited work. Thats not how license releases work. 75.105.13.17 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove that it's a fraudulent claim then saying here say that you haven't backed-up. Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did above. But to be clear: "made in a private session", this is wrong. The original image was "made in a private session". The current image was "cropped from previous image made in a private session". Thus, the release is incorrect. 75.105.13.17 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader clearly says We. Bidgee (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there is only one name attached to it. The plural would suggest that there is another legal problem. 75.105.13.17 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like that you're lawyering then addressing the issue. So what Images here have self-made, We took it, I took it ect. Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your response has nothing to do with what you are responding to. The statements do not match. 75.105.13.17 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right.... Shows that you've failed to read what I've said Bidgee (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked, it has a link to both images. Your claims of "hearsay" are false. 75.105.13.17 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CC 2.5 is clear that this is in violation - " "Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses." This means that it is necessary to identify the original. This has been proven to be a derivative based on a larger size that is not cropped. 75.105.13.17 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your statement shows that you did not actually read the argument. What is stated is that all derivatives must be marked as such with acknowledgment of their original source. 75.105.13.17 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but i did read your original research on what constitutes a CC 2.5 breach. By that (ie. your) definition most newer professional pictures would be in violation of the licence - merely because the photographer color-adjusted it in a photo manipulation program, after downloading the original from his camera.
I (and as i can see - most others) think that your interpretation of the CC 2.5 licence is incorrect with regards to derivatives created from original material by the original creator. --KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same image merely with the identifiable face removed. The semen spots are in exactly the same place. I guess if you were real clever you might achieve such placement twice but I doubt it! --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we are back to having no evidence the original author is not the photographer/owner of the image, and we're back to the delete argument consisting of non-DR relevant semantics that the owner/author misstated on his cropped upload of his own image, like I did on my seagull example above. In other words, this image is fine unless we get evidence he's not the owner. Right? rootology (T) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herby, your statement proves that it is a derivative. If you remove a face from another photo, the new one is a derivative. 75.105.13.17 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an admin on both enwiki and Commons, I can verify (just like Herby) that it is the same image. No valid reason to delete unless deus ex machina-type evidence comes up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herby proved above that it is a derivative. ITherefore, it is not "the same image", it is a derivative of the original image. 75.105.13.17 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's the SAME author/owner, who can freely do such things! Just like my gull example!!! rootology (T) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that argument is so incredibly flawed that it's funny. If this wasn't a picture of someone jerking off on a girl's neck, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Content is not a valid reason for deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would have. As I have stated before, it is easy to find a compliant image. However, your statement reveals a bias that shows that you don't care about copyright or not. 75.105.13.17 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud. The image isn't a copyvio without hard evidence and nor does it fail just because it's cropped by the uploader of the original and as I said you may as well mark Image:Amy Taylor.jpg since it's a crop of an original photo I took but I'll doubt you'll get that deleted. Bidgee (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CC 2.5 says all derivative works MUST state that they are derivatives and cite the original work. This does not have either. Therefore, your claim it isn't a violation is patently absurd. 75.105.13.17 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the source section I added to the pearl image? I cited it as a crop and to the source. What are you still arguing about? It's 2.5 compliant. rootology (T) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wont work like that, because we don't have acknowledgment from the original poster that he edited the work. We need someone else to crop it and upload it, and mark it as a derivative. 75.105.13.17 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your photo is released under CC 3.0, which says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". You have not specified that derivatives must be acknowledged. CC 2.5 does. 75.105.13.17 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish I've not broken my own licensing. I've release it and anyone who uses the photo must "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" not me since I took the photo. Bidgee (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you reread, you'd see that I pointed out that your CC 3.0 cannot be broke, because it is 3.0. 75.105.13.17 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an cropped version Image:3801 Wagga Wagga.jpg but nor have I broken my own licensing. Bidgee (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, {{Sofixit}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the steps I pointed out on your talk page and then it will be compliant. We do not have acknowledgment from the uploader that he created the derivative, so we need someone to create their own derivative and acknowledge it. 75.105.13.17 16:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is absurd. By uploading the cropped version of the original that he took he's stated he cropped it! What, do you need another photograph of the author working photoshop to prove it?! rootology (T) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What reasons? Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious about that, too, since I don't see any applicable reasons obviously described on this page... Luna Santin (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - no credible reason to delete I can see (perhaps I can't parse it out of all the back and forth). If the original item is freely licensed, then derivative works can be as well. Also... everyone please be mellow, thanks... ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote struck, the IP causing the ruckus here feels that my turning down a block review request over their disruption means I can't comment on this deletion request. That's horsefeathers, frankly. But to remove even a whiff of any suggestion of any thought of any possible potential semi imaginary hint of impropriety, vote struck. This is an overwhelming keep anyway from what I can see. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There's no copyright issue. Mattbuck summarizes the relevant issue quite well. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per many good point shared above. Benjiboi (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not for creative commons reasons, but because the claim of self-creation strains credulity. If I may, I'd like to refocus the discussion. The real issue, it seems to me, is that the balance of evidence regarding this image indicates that it is probably a copyright violation. No, there is no smoking gun: I have not searched every facial cumshot image on every porn site on the internet to find it. However, there are quite a few suspicious things going on here. First, the lighting in the image is even and correctly white balanced, and the original (uncropped) image was a 640x480 .png, which were technical aspects shared by the (infamous copyvio) Publicgirluk images. Second, this image was uploaded in the exact same timeframe as the Publicgirluk images, shortly after they were deleted. Third, this image was provided by a SPA, who hasn't -- to my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- substantially participated in commons, en.wikipedia, or it.wikipedia in any way not related to this image. Fourth, the image was provided with the same character of explanation as the Publicgirluk images ("Oh, here's some snapshots made by me and my partner.") Fifth, the image was provided with the same license as the Publicgirluk image. Sixth, the original image's format (640x480, png, no metadata) is commonly used for galleries on pornography sites; most consumer digicam and digicam software would produce a jpg, and have at least some metadata; this could of course be changed manually, but it's another consideration. Lastly, the original uncropped image provided identifiable facial details of a person in a situation in which most people would refuse to publish photos of, other than paid pornographic models, and such works are normally copyrighted (and some of those identifiable features persist into the cropped version). The difficulty -- I would say "practical impossibility" -- of finding a publicly available version of such an image on the internet speaks to the extreme unlikelihood that this claim of self-creation is legitimate. In summary, although there is no single "smoking gun" here, I think it would require great credulousness on our part to accept this license as valid, given that it shares technical similarities, subject matter similarities, license similarities, single-purpose-account similarities, and was uploaded at around the same time as a set of images that were used to troll and publically discredit and embarass en.wikipedia to great effect. Nandesuka (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the important bit of that is *Delete, but not for creative commons reasons. . The rest is just guesswork, conjenture and "I fink". --Allemandtando (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely -- although I'd call it "reasoned analysis" rather than "guesswork". Let me turn the issue around: for images to be on Commons, they have to have a credible license. The mere assertion of ownership isn't enough. I'm saying that the totality of circumstances around this image are suspicious, and that accepting the licensing assertion from the single-purpose account goes way beyond assuming good faith: it borders on irresponsible. Nandesuka (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More claims that you can't back up. It would be fine if you had a suspect site or even the URL to the image but to say the lightning is like a pro photo is wrong and to say they could be another user again is wrong and the image size (640x480) well it's a crop of the original image and there is no metadata as it's a PNG like this Image:Hampden Bridge design 1.png (Just because my images don't have meta data doesn't mean I didn't take them such asImage:Hampton Bridge 2003.jpg). Bidgee (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of metadata is hardly evidence of anything but a lack of metadata; a quick "save for web" in Photoshop will totally strip out metadata, for example. Everything else is just an amazing amount of conjecture. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of metadata isn't evidence of anything for most pictures. For an image that shares the same subject matter, format, timing, nature as the publicgirluk photos, and contributed by an editor with nearly no other history, I think it's another piece of circumstantial evidence. Focusing on that one argument to the exclusion of all the other points I make seems a bit narrowminded. Nandesuka (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this as the reason for deletion was invalid. Nandesuka, while I am sure you have your reasons, I feel you are reading too much into this. If you have any real evidence, feel free to reopen this. Otherwise, I think it's clear that the result of this DR is keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace_small.png_3rd_nomination&oldid=418381250"