Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cardinal Schuster.jpg

File:Cardinal Schuster.jpg

This looks very much like an AI "enhanced" version of File:Schustercardinal.jpg which was not declared as such, is not properly sourced and was inserted into several wikipedia articles. As this is an inferior duplicate of the original, it should be deleted and redirected to the original. Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Keep: I saw it was replaced with the unretouched photograph, so now it's technically a derivative version properly attributed to the original file. 83.61.231.21 13:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @RAN for confirm this is right. 83.61.231.21 13:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Delete too manipulated, better than the original. Moreover, the IP is the same user who uploaded it.--151.57.245.42 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• According to the edit history, the only manipulation now has been to crop the frame from the image, and that is all I can detect. The file size is 83 KB in the other version versus 138 KB in the version that is up for deletion. I have no problem with upscaling images, and smoothing grain, and adjusting contrast/brightness with AI, so long as properly labeled and we have a copy of the unmanipulated file. See w:They Shall Not Grow Old and w:The Beatles: Get Back for projects by Peter Jackson that have been AI manipulated, that have gained general acceptance. --RAN (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have souspicions that 151.57.245.42 is actually a LTA abuser trying to harm me in some way because he doesn't agree with any of my edits. My contributions here have been, in almost all cases, review files which needs to adjust their license tags or collaborating with other users to add or improve source's templates.

Also note that if I were the user who created the file –Marck Giannini– as this IP claims, I would't have removed files nominated for deletion that he inserted among other wikis.

In any case, this issue shouldn't be addressed in this DR.

•  Info
  : In the case of @RAN's comment, I think the same too that it shouldn't be any problem regarding to these type of digital improvements, providing that they're labeled as such and properly attributed to the unmanipulated file –if it is also hosted here–.

However, regarding the examples of manipulated Peter Jackson's files that you mentioned, it seems to me, if I'm not wrong, that the reason they've gained acceptance has been because those manipulations have been done as the files are not free-licensed, but tagged according to English Wikipedia's fair use criteria. I don't know what you think about it or if this is right.

83.61.231.21 02:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• I reverted to the upscaled version and think it should be kept, the original should be loaded separate. --RAN (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• It would be very useful to know what person or software did the enhancement. If it is entirely done by AI there would be no copyright on the enhancement. If no, and if the uploader is not the person who did whatever other work was involved, there may be a copyright issue. If no copyright issue it's acceptable, but should certainly be noted as {{Retouched}}. The upscaling can't be done by hand, but that doesn't mean no hand-retouching was involved. Whatever was done should be made explicit. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)