Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Sotos NYC.jpg

File:Peter Sotos NYC.jpg

Violative of commons rules as an AI image of identifiable person. I also doubt the own work license. The date says it was when it uploaded, but then the description says 2009? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took this picture myself in 2009 with a camera. I took a photo of that picture with an iPad in 2026. I cropped the photo and made it bigger. This is definitely not an ai generated image. I updated the metadata information that caused the confusion. JoeFargo23 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is very, very obviously AI enhanced. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what it is that is troubling you. I think it definitely improves the page with a much newer photo. I have the photo. I can take another picture of it and upload that. I didn't enhance the way he looks JoeFargo23 (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normal images do not look like this. Why are the eyes 10x higher resolution than the background? What on earth is going on with the beard and the ears? Why is there a strange blur over the entire image but then on his face it looks like it was painted on? It shows every sign of being AI enhanced per COM:AI and COM:Upscaling. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload the original? Or upload your preferred crop without enlarging it? Making a small image bigger creates data that wasn't originally there and it might cause some oddities. Nakonana (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does your 2009 photo have the same cutout style edge around the subject? If you zoom in on the file you uploaded here it is very striking. It may be that your iPad did some automatic processing of the image without informing you: perhaps being confused by what its cameras were seeing and trying to blur "the background" as if it was taking a live photo of a real person, or possibly if you were zooming in when you took the photo, the iPad stepped in and processed the image to add more detail to it.

If your original 2009 photo does look different to you, could you try taking another photo of it, or asking a friend with a different camera (or ideally a digital scanner) to do so? Belbury (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeFargo23: In the same vein as some people previously said, it is really really likely that your iPad camera software was set up in a way to use (most likely automatically / as default) algorithms and technologies that include "AI" tools, despite not being called as such. It may masquerade as "image enhancer", as a function "automatically enhance image", as a button with some flashy, starry icons or similar. Your explanation, "I cropped the photo and made it bigger" is telltale for such tool use. "Making an image bigger" is, when speaking about photographs, ALWAYS also making the image worse. This is often not visually evident, and it's at first speaking from a technological, IT standpoint; as it is founded upon the very principles of the so-called en:raster images. Any given raster graphic has a finite amount of image information: lighting and colour values for each pixel, and that amount of information can't be augmented by any means. It can only be reduced: by cropping or downsizing. Any software that advertises that it makes your image larger is basically programmed in a way to invent data for pixels that were not present at the starting image. That software is interpolation or guessing at what to do, and modern programs, including apps on smartphones and tablets, often use generative AI functions to do that pixel value guessing.

Consecutively, that means that any image that was produced by modern smartphones (that includes tablets of course) and processed with automatisms not checked and controlled by the user, which results I may sarcastically call it "algorithmically painted colourful pixel heap", is currently less-than-suitable for Commons and liable to get deleted. Such imagery may look vibrant and nice on phone screens; and that's what the camera software is built to provide: eyecandy in phone screen size, not suitable for printing, for instance. But its suitability for an inclusion in the media repository "Commons" is low at best, especially as you used a less-than-optimal device to digitise a hardcopy of something. To make an actual photoprint available as digital file, you really shouldn't use a phone/tablet camera, but a dedicated scanner, even a cheap flatbed scanner would produce a better result than that camera app.

Delete, not educationally useful, clearly overprocessed. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be AI (even though Apple DOES appear to use AI in some cases, for example when you remove the background), but it's clearly tampered with. Don't really care how the tampering happened, this isn't educational.
@JoeFargo23, if you are serious, tell us more. What camera did you use to take the photo in 2009? What are you aiming your iPad at? A professionally printed photo, a photo printed with an inkjet, a photo displayed on an ebook reader/television/laptop/etc? What was the occasion where you took the photo? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what camera I used. I'll scan it and hope that it turns out better. I also added the books behind him and maybe that made the picture look off. I think it made it better but I won't do that. JoeFargo23 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the scanned photo. I think this one is better but please let me know. JoeFargo23 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it such low quality and so tiny? Why don't you know what camera you used to take a portrait photograph of a famous author? Why don't you atleast have a better scan? Did you scan this from one of his books or an article about him? Geoffroi 15:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The background there looks really blurry. Is the photo that you're starting with a full, high quality headshot of Sotos? Or is it a group photo where you're "scanning" it by using your iPad camera to zoom in on Sotos until he fills the screen? Belbury (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the original is a group photo, that could be a problem. Considering the disgusting shit he writes, whoever else that was in that image might not want the original to be public. I say this in case the uploader is encouraged to upload the original. I just wonder why people are working so hard to save a crappy image when there's already a somewhat less crappy free image in the article? Geoffroi 17:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to save it, just to work out what unedited photo JoeFargo23 actually has there, in case it's (even only slightly) better than the only other photo we have. Belbury (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You really give a shit what quality of image we have of a child pornographer? Geoffroi 17:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were calling him a "famous author" a few comments ago? I've never heard of him. Belbury (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you. Geoffroi 17:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I give a shit about the quality of the images we have of everyone, no matter how terrible. What, are we going to use a bad image of Hitler to own the Nazis? Ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of scope, and possible copyright violation considering the terrible quality original. Both should be deleted per COM:SCOPE/COM:PCP. Geoffroi 01:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer think it is a copyright violation, to be fair, just a very overprocessed / AI processed photo. The original one might be in scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a portrait scanned from one of his books or from an article about him. Why else is the original so small? Strange that this uploader would photograph a notable author up close but not have a high resolution original and not even know what camera was used? Also, this author is highly controversial so I doubt he allows many photos. Geoffroi 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is he did take a digital photo of him like 15 years ago but the original is so low resolution as to be useless. And there are a lot of photos of Sotos, that was never something he was especially cagey about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual in this image is a convicted child pornograper who writes about harming little kids. We should take care when dealing with the above user, as he may be a creeper too. Geoffroi 17:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What has this editor done that would make you think that? That is an extremely serious allegation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Sotos 2009.jpg

Blurry background, strange cutout. His nose is less lopsided in this one, but these photos raise way too many questions and answers from the uploader remain vague. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of scope and possible copyright violation. Geoffroi 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that the media and us the consumer are abusing these kids too. And that it is horrific and shouldn't be prettied up for TV. But your opinion of me and Sotos isn't relevant.

I am trying to make the site better. The picture I have is better than the one currently posted. The picture that is currently posted isn't just blurry, but is also more than 40 years old.

The picture I have is much, much more recent. There is no copyright issue. I took the photo and I uploaded it. Many of the people on here know much more about editing and pictures than I do which is why I scanned it and posted the raw photo when asked. JoeFargo23 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeFargo23 If it's any consolation, I did find a bunch of free photos of Sotos from the early 2010s a few days ago. I can upload those later and we won't be totally imageless. But even if I didn't, we can't do this to photos. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like early AI where it swapped out a new nose and new eyes from a library of similar eyes and noses. MyHeritage had an early version that did just that. Sadly we have been deleting examples of early AI enhanced images that have been paired with the original image. We should be maintaining historical examples of each iteration of each software company's software. --RAN (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bad AI upscale of a small and/or blurry image. The uploader has not "scanned [and] posted the raw photo" here, and this should be clear to them if they compare it side-by-side to the photo they started with. This file is not a raw 2009 photo. Belbury (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]