Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Clauappl2a

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 found with Special:Search/Clauappl2a[edit]

Unreliable Flickr account. Account was created in 2017, but many of the photographs were on the web before then, and at least one image is from Getty Images. The photographs are of varying quality and not organized in any way, while licensing and labeling are inconsistent. It appears to be just a depository of gymnastic photos.

Ytoyoda (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment This Flickr account is supposed to be Claudia Applebe's account, and we have one file with OTRS approval from this photographer, so I tend to think she knows what she owns and how she can license it on Flickr. So can anyone tell us what's in the OTRS approval ? It may help... @Carrotcake5: Your comments may help as well, since you uploaded the file with OTRS approval linked to that same person. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Ruthven. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: In the OTRS ticket we have an explicit permission from the copyright holder. I think that the Flickr account is legit. Thus  Keep --Ruthven (msg) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Note that many other files have other licenses on that Flickr account, generally those with the best quality. IMO it may prove that this person really is the photographer/owner and that she considered some pictures didn't deserve to be with a free license. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Looking at the Flickr account, two things were apparent. First, the lack of proper EXIF data for any of the images I examined. Some had EXIF data from images editing software, but I don't think I saw anything with camera EXIF data. Fora a photographer taking these shots at these competitions, that is suspicious. Second, there are a striking number of crotch shots. Specifically, the crotches of young female gymnasts in shiny leotards. Lots of shots of front-on shots of girls in shiny leotards doing the splits on mats, or doing the splits jumping between uneven bars, or just random crotch shots of gymnasts not even performing.

Let's look at an image from User:Carrotcake5 that was deleted. File:Julie Martinez 7 - Gymnastics World Cup Ghent 2007.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation because it appeared elsewhere (specifically, on Pinterest). The source of that Pinterest post is Tumblr. The original image is here. A version of that image also appears on the Flickr account. It is lower resolution and has no camera EXIF information. And it's a crotch shot, naturally. Looks like Flickrwashing to me.

I Googled "Claudia Applebe". They don't seem to exist outside of Commons. I also tried "Claudia Applebee" in case she had misspelled her own name. If Claudia Applebee is a real person who was accredited to attend the Olympic Games as a photographer, she keeps a low profile. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@World's Lamest Critic: You might be right about everything. But it's strange that we have the OTRS approval for File:Marine Petit.jpg (@Ruthven: there's no reason to have doubts about it ?). And if everything is dubious, shouldn't we also delete all uploads by User:Carrotcake5 ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's a photo that is not present elsewhere on the Net (at least, that I'm aware of), for which someone claims to be the photographer wanting to release it under free license. Assuming GF, there are no reasonable reasons to doubt of it. EXIF data may be missing for a lot of reasons, and all the photos in the Flickr account are coherent. I don't see where she can have obtained the photos if they aren't shot be herself. --Ruthven (msg) 11:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I don't see where she can have obtained the photos if they aren't shot be herself" > For most of them indeed. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While in the above ticket, on second thought, something deserves to be checked (already in progress), we have another file from the same photographer that is approved under ticket:2018070110004984. @Arthur Crbz: might give his opinion on this ticket and on other ones he checked; nothing looks suspicious to me for these files. However ticket:2018070310005738 seems to have some issues (still about a photo of Claudia Applebe). --Ruthven (msg) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for all your responses. Couple of additional comments from me:
    • I mentioned some images that were already on the web before the Flickr account was created. The most obvious ones are the Carly Patterson photos, most of which can be found in this 2016 blog post, and a reverse image search of the uneven bar photo appears to have been published in this Dallas Morning News online article and credited to Michael Mulvey (unfortunately, the images are missing so I can't confirm one way or the other). A photo of the French gymnastic team was posted in 2011, albeit at a different quality.
    • I share User:World's Lamest Critic's question about how a photographer who has accreditations to shoot at Olympics and World Championships, and for the French national team has zero digital trail outside of Commons and Flickr.
    • @Ruthven: I'm not that familiar with the OTRS verification process, but how sure are we that the Flickr user is the photographer? Is it possible for an imposter with a Flickr account to simply keep pretending? Ytoyoda (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Ytoyoda: Yes, they can pretend, but if there is no "smoking gun", i.e. a file already published elsewhere under a different name, who are we to doubt of a customer that goes through the process? Here as well, the Flickr account (besides some isolated cases) seem to belong to a kind of official photographer of the French team. I asked the customer for more information. On my side, I'll wait for a more solid confirmation. --Ruthven (msg) 16:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: That approach feels very... naive, especially for a Flickr user with zero online presence or link to an offline person, and "isolated cases" seems like a very generous interpretation. I was hesitant to do too many reverse image searches because the links I was getting back gave me the creeps, but I just did two sort of randomly: File:Sophia Serseri.jpg was posted in 2012, credited to Thomas Schreyer, and File:Rinette Whelpton photo 1.jpg gives you a porn link from 2009. As much as I believe in assuming good faith, it's hard to ignore the evidence that this Flickr account likely belongs to a crotch- and butt-shot enthusiast, not a world-class sports photographer. When I opened this request, I wasn't really sure, but I'm not convinced that Claudia Applebe is not a real photographer. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ytoyoda: I repeat, you can have doubts, and I invite you to signal copvio (even as speedy deletions), but our role (as OTRS agents and Commons users) is not to doubt of every upload or suppose bad faith from other users (the latter is explicitly against the guidelines). This can end up in paranoia, which brings to behaviours close to vandalism. There are several possible explanations for this Flickr user to have gym photo while not being not a world-class sports photographer (e.g. the parent of an athlete). What I want to say is that simple suspicion is not enough for a deletion, and must not be used to open a DR in any case. We are facing someone that 1) has a rich Flickr account, 2) wrote us permissions for unpublished photos. If there are proofs, we delete the copied files (and all the ones that reasonably fall in the same set), otherwise we are happy to host them. We are not here to delete files, eventually, but to enrich the project. --Ruthven (msg) 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: It's not "paranoia" when it's not just one or two images that are suspicious. When there are multiple obvious copyvios from news agencies and more than a few photographs that appear in softcore porn links that predate the account's creation, that should be enough reason to maybe not take an anonymous Flickr user at their word. And I think you misunderstood my point about "world-class sports photographer". This Flickr user is passing off photographs from the Olympics and other international competitions as their own and tagging them as freely licensed—comp moms and hobbyists don't just get photographer accreditations at these events (and these photos are taken from restricted areas, not the stands). Ytoyoda (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given ample evidence that the Flickr account is unreliable, is it is only sensible to doubt everything from that account. If you feel that is a violation of COM:AGF, you obviously have a different understanding of that guideline than I do. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another example of copyright violation in the Flickr account. This image of McKayla Maroney "taken sometime in 2012" was actually taken by Reuters photographer Lucas Jackson (it's image 20 if the link doesn't go to the right place in the slideshow). Unless someone wants to argue that the mysterious "Claudia Applebe" and Lucas Jackson and Carrotcake5 are all the same person, of course. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you can add Roslan Rahman: Flickr photo and AFP/Getty Images photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete The examples of photos credited to different authors elsewhere (Thomas Schreyer, Lucas Jackson or Roslan Rahman) show that we unfortunately can't trust this Flickr account nor Carrotcake5's uploads. Thus we should delete everything, including all Carrotcake5's uploads and even those with OTRS approval. I was so happy to find so many artistic gymnastics pictures :-( --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment If these images are deleted, can the closing admin please add the account to the Flickr blacklist? Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete clearly an under age soft porn dump, if you Google image search them, most are also posted on porn websites. It's all women, and there's lots of crotch & bum shots, and they're all young. Most recent uploads are under 18 crotch shots... Closing admin to add the account to Commons:Questionable Flickr images.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's sad to consider artistic gymnastics as soft porn... :-( --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More than sad, it makes no sense. If seing someone in a swimming or gym suit looks like porn to you, better not switch the computer on! LOL Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you're misreading the the original comment. It's not that photographs of scantily clad children is automatically porn. Whether you think the photographs qualify as porn (and it's a pointless discussion, since porn in one context is art or photojournalism in another context), the fact is that many of these photographs were shared on "non-nude" porn sites (reverse image search points to sites that literally have "fap" in the domain name) on the internet before they appeared on Flickr, and therefore, their copyright status is unknown and they're likely being shared without the consent of the photographers or their subjects. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ytoyoda: You didn't need to explain that because I understood. I was just commenting that it is sad to consider gymnastics as soft porn. No direct link with the DR, just a will to share my feelings. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry I wasn’t clear, my comment was directed at Ruthven, not you. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The images are not porn themselves, but are clearly being used and collected for that purpose. Why are there no photos of adults? They are all underage females.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It isn't surprising that some men would find these types of images arousing. It is sad that some men make collections of them on Flickr and Commons. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I’ve requested that the Flickr account be blacklisted at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images#ClauAppl2a / 157242856@N07 Ytoyoda (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and other comments above. --Yann (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_Clauappl2a&oldid=359967070"