User talk:Fredvs79

Speedy deletion of File:Full Brazilian wax.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Full Brazilian wax.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

nude photo - no details on fair use or permission - speedy delete due to privacy concerns

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:Full Brazilian wax.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Prostate-cancer3ds.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Prostate-cancer3ds.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Anus tint.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anus tint.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Amalthea 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Full Brazilian.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Full Brazilian.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Amalthea 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:After Bleaching.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:After Bleaching.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Amalthea 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Hi Fred.
To explain the above, Wikipedia gets a huge deal of copyright violating images, in particular from relatively new accounts. To protect the rights of the author, we need to be quite strict, in particular with images. From the look of it, the images you uploaded are of very high quality, so they look like they've been taken on a professional photo shoot. Would it be possible that you provide some evidence that you really took them?
I apologize for the inconvenience, and hopy you understand.
Amalthea 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Courtney Cox2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Courtney Cox2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Amalthea

Hi Amalthea,

 I would have posted on your talk page, but you said if you made a comment on a talk page to comment there since you would be watching it. I understand that wikipedia is concerned about the copyright of all images, hence why they ask what is the copyright on images that are uploaded. You seem to have challenged every single image that I have uploaded recently. So let me address your concerns.

The nudity images on the wikipedia page pertaining to anal bleaching were taken in my own home, of a personal friend, who obviously (as you can tell from the images) consented to being photographed. The images are therefore mine. I chose the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license because these photos are from a personal collection and have not been copyrighted per say. Mostly I chose this because a photo on the "nudity" page which was also personal work of another photographer was using the same licensing, and I felt this was acceptable for my work.

I have dabbled in professional photography, and do possess quality cameras, but the photos were not even taken with high-end cameras. Two of the pictures (anus_tint.jpg & after_bleaching.jpg) were taken with a Canon Powershot S500. This camera takes standard 5MP shots at a resolution of ~2600 x 2000 pixels (2592x1944). The camera cost me about $300 as I got it used from a friend of mine. I don't know how you intend for me to "prove" that I took the photo.

I believe the metadata for after_bleaching.jpg confirms this.

The file full_brazilian.jpg was flagged for nudity, but the wiki page on which it is displayed (brazilian wax) shows several other pictures of women's labia and mons. The picture was from a free gallery on erotica-archives.com, which holds a copyright to the image and they state that you are not allowed to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell, or otherwise use their images for any commercial gain. They allow one to "make personal (non-commercial) use of this site and the images on it but not to modify it, or any portion of it". As wikipedia is not making any money off of displaying this image, I do not think this violates the copyright. However, non-commercial use can be a gray area. I have followed the survey here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/03/what-is-noncommercia.html And it seems that it is agreed that commercial use means you are making money off its use. But if you disagree with me, I would be happy to take another picture from my collection to use to illustrate the full Brazilian wax.

The file Prostate-cancer3ds was found here: http://photos.ecanadanow.com/prostate-cancer3ds.jpg. ecanadanow.com is a photo sharing website that allows the free sharing of pictures. I do not know who created this image, however, it was cited in an article on Onlyhealtharticles.com in Feb of this year. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:k87PkfFQw2EJ:onlyhealtharticles.com/health-news/2009/02+%22Prostate-cancer3ds%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a The article seems to have since come down.

The file Courteney_cox_2 was found on Flickr, but I have also discovered it to be on Chinadaily.net, Stuff.co.nz, Jezebel.com, Esquire.com. and Sofeminine.co.uk, askmen.com to name a few. Askmen.com posts that the image came from Kevin Mazur of wireimage.com - which is a free celebrity picture site. http://www.chinadaily.net/showbiz/2009-01/04/content_7363830.htm http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/172773 http://jezebel.com/238596/courteney-cox-is-kinda-funny http://www.esquire.com/women/10-things-you-dont-know-about-women/ESQ030710things http://www.sofeminine.co.uk/star/pictures-390681-courteney-cox.html http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/actress/32_courtney_cox.html Wireimage.com states it provides "professional media worldwide newspapers, magazines, websites, mobile, publicists, PR firms with immediate access to time-sensitive photo coverage of entertainment (celebrity, film, music, fashion), sports, and news." I assume that it is public domain if no-one is posting a copyright on it, any info on it, or otherwise.

I hope these answers satisfy you.

Hi

Thank you for your lengthy reply. I acknowledge that you are acting with the best of intentions.
OK, let's start with File:Prostate-cancer3ds.jpg. The image is displayed at ecanadanow.com, as you said. I see however no indication that they released the image, or anything on their site, under a free license, or under CC-by-SA 3.0 as you tagged it with. Actually, the terms of use say that "You acknowledge and accept that all trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyrights provided in any and all content of this web site belong either to their respective owners or eCanadanow.com. Material may be downloaded and printed from this site for personal, non commercial use only." Based on this, the image can't be used here.
File:Courtney_Cox2.jpg; Wireimage is not at all a "free celebrity picture site". To the contrary, their business is to take those pictures and sell them to e.g. third party news outlets, which is why they are often so widely distributed, and incorrectly reused by blogs. Their terms of use explicitly say "Unless otherwise indicated, all of the content featured or displayed on this Site, including, but not limited to, text, graphics, data, photographic images, moving images, sound, illustrations, software, and the selection and arrangement thereof (“WireImage Content”), is owned by WireImage, its parent company, affiliates, licensors, or third-party image partners." The askmen.com site explicitly attributed it as "© Kevin Mazur, WireImage.com." When you say "I assume that it is public domain if [...]" you're approaching this exactly the wrong way. By default, every image you find on the web is copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. There are some organizations that release all or almost all their documents and images into the publich domain, like a number of governments, or the US military. But those are the exceptions, not the rule.
File:Full Brazilian.jpg; Personal use does not include uploading it anywhere else for public use, I'm afraid, and in any case Wikipedia can't accept pictures for non-commercial use only (see WP:Image policy#Adding images) except in very limited circumstances. If you upload an image where you're unsure about copyright status, could you in the future please always add the source where you found the image? It will make it easier to figure out whether an image is usable on Wikipedia or not. You've marked this one as if you'd own copyright.

Based on the above I will have to delete these three images. If you think I was wrong with any of my explanations and am overlooking a released into PD or under a free license, I'd gladly undo it.

Now, concerning the two anus bleaching images, if you're interested to quench any lingering doubts it would be very easy to prove that you've taken the images. The easiest one would be to snap a quick picture of your home without the model, from about the same perspective used in File:After Bleaching.jpg so that one can see that it's really been taken at your home. Could you do that?

Again thank you for your reply, and for putting up with the very strict rules here about copyrighted images. The rules are here to protect the rights of the author, and make sure that the uploader, Wikipedia, and all reusers of Wikipedia's content aren't in legal jeopardy because of the use of copyrighted images.

Kind regards, Amalthea 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I suppose I see your points on the first three images. As to defending the last two images, as I said they were taken in my home, but over two years ago, and unfortunately I no longer live there. Can you suggest another method for proof?

Fred

The usual way is to upload the original image from the digital camera. I wasn't sure if you were willing to do that though so I suggested an alternative that wouldn't include publishing a full-resolution version.
Oh, and not sure if you noticed, there's a short discussion at Talk:Anal bleaching about the images.
Amalthea 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]