Files uploaded by Roman Kubanskiy (talk · contribs)

Nonsense PD claim. Works must be free (PD) in US and country of origin per COM:L. Even if PD in the US, it would not be in Somalia (country of origin) which is, per COM:SOMALIA, pma + 30. Image is far too recent for this condition to be met.

• File:Mohamed Warsame Ali (cropped).jpg
• File:Mohamed Warsame Ali.jpg

Эlcobbola _talk 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 12:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Roman Kubanskiy (talk · contribs)

I understand that the user has taken photos from krd.ru - a government site that declares to publish its materials under a free license. But these photos were obviously taken by other people, not this government. It is highly probably that they are not PD yet as we don't have proper information about their publication.

So, I suggest we delete them

• File:Почетный гражданин г. Краснодара Виктор Горбатко.jpg
• File:Мирошниченко Дмитрий Григорьевич.jpg
• File:Лыхин Сергей Егорович.jpg
• File:Ковалев Константин Федотович.jpg
• File:Козлов Владимир Васильевич.jpg
• File:Гореглядов Владимир Степанович.jpg
• File:Ignatov GP.jpg
• File:Кабанов Владимир Егорович.jpg
• File:Игнатенко Иван Игнатьевич.jpg
• File:Баленко Николай Филиппович.jpg
• File:Авакян Грант Арсенович.jpg
• File:Алисейко Владимир Титович.jpg

rubin16 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, some files were indeed accurately created by krd.ru (by the Press Service of the Administration of Krasnodar). Not all the files of heroes of the Soviet Union were uploaded to this site. Here you can see the files of persons related to the Krasnodar Krai.
  • File:Почетный гражданин г. Краснодара Виктор Горбатко.jpg. On his jacket there is a ribbon "to the honorary citizen of the city of Krasnodar". It's easy to assume that this was created by the Press Service of the Administration of Krasnodar. Viktor Gorbatko is the first Kuban (it's region in Russia) cosmonaut.
  • File:Козлов Владимир Васильевич.jpg. Here, the freshness of the photo (the person died in 2014) and the blue background stand out. Usually, for "official photos", this is what Russian government websites do, putting a blue or white background behind them. (for example: File:Гончарова Раиса Ильинична.jpg from the same krd.ru). This also applies to File:Игнатенко Иван Игнатьевич.jpg, he was awarded the title of "Honorary Citizen of Krasnodar" in 2009.
• Secondly, I didn't assign the true authorship to krd.ru. I specifically pointed out that the author (photographer) of each of the files is unknown. Of course, some materials could have been provided or made by other special services. It's also possible that the press service of the site could agree with other file holders. I am sure that they have some kind of specific agreement, it's still an official government website, and not some amateur blog. In any case, the true author is unknown. Anyway, what is the point of arguing who is the true author, if this true anonymous author has long been dead?
• Thirdly, some files taken from krd.ru, they are not available on the Internet at all, except for this site (or there are, but with less quality). For example, this applies to File:Лыхин Сергей Егорович.jpg, File:Гореглядов Владимир Степанович.jpg, File:Кабанов Владимир Егорович.jpg.
• Fourthly, some files were not uploaded by me, so it is better and more correct to call the nomination "Historical files from krd.ru".

By the way the site files krd.ru even earlier, they were distributed by CC-BY-3.0 (see here; 2013 blind version).

And this has been shown more than once. Let's recall the same archive of Putin and his photos of his parents. It's not clear who took the photos, it's not known when, but we must attribute for some reason kremlin.ru and call the author Vladimir Putin (it's like "personal archive"). File:Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin.jpg, File:Maria Ivanovna Shelomova.jpg, File:Spiridon Putin.jpg (check out this nomination - Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vladimir Putin). Roman Kubanskiy, (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you have some basis for assumptions but I still believe it is more likely that krd.ru just released photos without thorough review of their status (sometimes it happens, even with kremlin.ru or ria.ru and we individually delete such files despite being published on a cc-by website). People being related to Krasnodar just explains that they are posted on the website, but it is highly possible that they had no review of the original authorship/date of publication, otherwise they would post author's details somewhere around the photo. If the authors are unknown, it is another way of thinking about being in public domain due to age. But for Russian PD we need to be sure that photos were published (not made) 70+ years before and still we have no such evidence. rubin16 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The grainy photos that are obviously scanned from books and newspapers should not be kept on Commons since the CC licence is for when the claimant is the owner and first publisher, not a republisher of a work.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination and the precautionary principle. These are obviously just republished by that website, and we don't have enough information to determine their actual copyright status. --Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Roman Kubanskiy (talk · contribs)

• File:Gigachad (97174623).png
• File:Gigachad (279677800).png

Derivative work of art project berlin.1969 by Russian photographer Krista Sudmalis --Trade (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep in my opinion this is below TOO. If you don’t know the meme it looks like a b&w photo of some random guy. Dronebogus (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that's meant to prove. Of course if you aren't familiar with a source work, you won't recognize a derivative work - but that doesn't make it any less derivative. Omphalographer (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant to say that “black and white photorealistic image of bearded muscular man” is not copyrightable. The only way to “rip off” Gigachad in this case would be to use the actual image or a functionally identical one. Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. Given the filenames and description, the author's intent was clearly to create a lookalike of the berlin.1969 photos. That makes these images a derivative work. Omphalographer (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Delete, per @Omphalographer and @Trade. This AI-generated derivative work obviously used the specific copyrighted art linked by Trade.

Ooligan (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Roman Kubanskiy (talk · contribs)

AI-generated fakes. As well as being derivative work of presumably non-free content, these images are highly problematic as being represented as being images of real life people when they are in fact inventions of a computer program.

• File:Vladimir Putin (1172161063756763239) 3 (cropped).png
• File:Vladimir Putin (1172161063756763239).png
• File:Vladimir Putin with monkey (1173814355247235082).png
• File:Trump meeting with Putin at a hotel (1174039114484555826) 4 (cropped).png
• File:Trump meeting with Putin at a hotel (1174039114484555826).png
• File:Vladimir Putin (1174085937920213212) 4.png
• File:Vladimir Putin (1174085937920213212).png
• File:Vladimir Putin (995431274267279440) 1.png
• File:Vladimir Putin (1174086325901738084).png

TommyG (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not presented as images of people, the source indicates Midjourney, and the license says that it is in the public domain, as it is generated by a neural network. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. Fictitious, potentially misleading pictures of identifiable living people. Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Keep – No valid deletion rationale has been provided so far. The images are high quality and show how images of real people can by generated by AI among other possible purposes. There are also other AI-generated images and even -videos of Putin which never were challenged with any (in this case invalid opinions-based) DRs. Moreover, agree with Kubanskiy and the images are well titled and categorized to prevent this from being mistaken as actual photographs. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

What specific educational value do you see in these images? The fact that image generators can generate images of recognizable people is already thoroughly documented; we hardly need more proof of that. Omphalographer (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not "proof" but a high-quality implementation of that. Just because we have very few images of that kind already does not mean more aren't allowed, especially since those few are mostly much lower in quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• It seems we need a general policy for this kind of things. Perhaps the question should be moved to Village Pump. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Or to Commons:AI-generated media.

  In any case, no valid rationale for deletion has been provided and as Kubanskiy noted these are clearly marked as AI made. There are other AI images of living people and even Putin in specific on WMC, it makes absolutely no sense and is against all WMC policies to delete these high-quality valuable, incl educationally valuable, images. @Roman Kubanskiy please add {{vk}} to your comment above. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Images can potentially be used starting from articles about neural networks (including for Midjourney) and even for the article "Deepfakes in relation to Vladimir Putin" as an example. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  We already have hundreds, possibly thousands, of examples of images generated by Midjourney alone, and even more from other image generation networks. Unless there is something which makes these images exceptionally good examples, I don't see the argument that they could be used as examples particularly compelling.

  With regard to that article: what article are you referring to? I don't see anything by that title. Even if it existed, File:Vladimir Putin warning Americans on election interference and increasing political divide.webm seems like a much more appropriate, and less potentially confusing, example which is already in use on many Wikipedias' articles on deepfakes. Omphalographer (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  They are higher quality than the other images. There are hundreds of images of Trump in Category:Caricatures of Donald Trump, thousands of the Eiffel tower, and terabytes of porn and over 600 porn images by "Exey Panteleev" where people continuously say the existence of some images is not a valid rationale for deletion. It's also not a valid rationale here. And in contrast to many of these examples, these images here are actually realistically educationally useful. Seems like admins don't care about WMC policy anymore. WHY would these images not be okay? They are very useful and deleting them is few-refuted-opinions-based policy-unacceptable censorship. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  The files are in use now and thus by definition to be kept IF Wikimedia policies are still of any value which may not be the case.

  @Fma12 @Skogshare @Lasemainecomtoise what do you think? It's always the same very few people that comment in these DRs. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

   Keep this is a DR based on subjective POV rather than any precautionary principle. I think that some people (as @Prototyperspective: stated, few of them) don't like AI images so they nominate or vote for deletion of them without other reasons than their personal opinions about the subjects.

  When they say "derivative works from copyrighted images" (derivative from WHAT images?) I dealt with such arguments on my own AI uploads and none of them could prove those images were really copyvios. Some of them were also images of high quality and artistic value and they were deleted anyway. There are thousands of low quality or poorly drawn pieces of "art" accepted on Commons, but when an AI image appears, it is automatically nominated under the statement of "no educational purpose" or "we already have real photographs of that image" so don't they understand that those depictions are OTHER FORM OF ART?

  To be clearer, File:Fender stratocaster a.i. image.jpg (among very others) was deleted in a massive DR that involved portraits of celebrities, sportsmen, or fictional characters, without taking into account that it was an artistic depiction of a Strat, not an image pretending to be a 'real' photograph. That's the point with AI images: they may have educational value as long as they can be used to illustrate (per example) articles where a free image can't be found, or specific AI or technology articles.

  Fma12 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per nominee @TommyG. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The nominee makes two points:

• a) being derivative work of presumably non-free content – that is not the case as that is just training data and AI art is in the public domain
• b) as being represented as being images of real life people when they are in fact inventions of a computer – completely disproven as they are clearly labeled and categorized

This rationale has been refuted. No valid deletion rationale has been provided. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per Fma12 Sebbog13 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Keep In use--Trade (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, but I'm a little concerned that some of the galleries in b:AI Art Application and Improvements Handbook are being used more as a vehicle to keep controversial images than to demonstrate those images' educational value. Omphalographer (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- no copyrights have been infringed, they are clearly marked as AI-generated, and several of them are in use. —holly {chat} 23:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)