Category talk:Peter Klashorst

Are you guys sure that all of Peter Klashorst's photos are art and not porn? I am a bit worried that some of the images might fail the w:Miller test. Rickyrab 06:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any picture here can be considered as porn. It's merely nude and not porn. Even the few "ready to masturbate" pictures. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ribi

These are pictures of poor kenyan prostitutes, who did not sign consent forms to be posted naked on the net. Some are underage. Peter Klashorst is a convicted pedophile (in Senegal) and someday in Kenya he is going to get what he deserves... Ribi 13:41, 20. Mai 2008 (UTC)

Are you from Kenya? But why you are vandalizing mature Dutch models ? 78.52.89.245 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am from Nairobi. Sorry about the white lady, she was the first on the page and got deleted... I am a friend of one of the black girls, and you better delete her pics from the internet or when you come to Nairobi I will have you deleted... on your way out from the Florida club... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2008 May 20 (UTC)

If you're right you'll have to prove it but you can't behave like that on Commons. There are rules to follow. You can't blank pages and accuse without proof. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So what can I do to have the pics of the Kenyan girls removed from this page? I made a delete request, but I cannot see it anymore... why not ask Peter Klashorst for proof of consent before letting him post pictures of the girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2008 May 20 (UTC)

We on Commons sometimes upload free-to-use pictures found on the internet. Those Klashorst's pictures were found on Flickr. They were (and still are) available on a website that doesn't allow pedophilia or such things. And Klashorst is a recognized artist, with published books and important art exhibitions. So we on Commons have to assume good faith, we're not responsible of Klashorst supposed crimes. But of course, if his crimes are proved we will delete those pictures. And COmmons won't be the place where you'll be able to sue or fight Klashorst! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha smartboy! Peter Klashort's pictures have been deleted from FlickR for inappropriate content. Go check for yourself and let us know (he has 6 pics left--no nudity!). Please help me remove the naked Kenyan girl pics. These are real women with family and boyfriends who did not ask to have their genitals for all the world to see. If he produces one single signed form of consent, I will back off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking pages does not remove them, a deletion request must be made. Rocket000 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me by suggesting the deletion request. I tried it first, but am not sure it worked. It is complicate for me and computers are very slow in Kenya. You are a good man for taking me seriously. I don't understand why Two Wings sides with Peter Klashorst over 50 young women looking dejected as is evident from the pics? Is it because Peter is a socalled 'artist' and white, while the girls are uneducated and black and asian? Is that what us Africans are here for? The pleasure and amusement of whites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2008 May 20 (UTC)

Simply because we have no proof of what you say. And also because I'm French and in France we have presumption of innocence (=innocent until proven guilty). So your behavious is not tolerable on Commons. Also, pictures on Flickr were not deleted. They are just private now. That doesn't mean anything. Actually non-nude pictures aren't available anymore so that doesn't prove what you say. And please sign your messages on talk pages by using --~~~~! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There ARE six non-nude pictures in Peter Klashorst FlickR archives. Check again if you like. The rest have been removed. Presumption of innocence should apply to 50 women who did not sign consent forms over one single animal who used them for self-gratification and profit. But if you are so impartial as you like to convey, can you please help me do a deletion request and consider it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20. Mai 2008 (UTC)

It has not been removed, it has just become private (on Flickr you can keep photos private). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot afford the money to stay on the internet any longer trying to persuade selfish white folk that their socalled 'artistic photos' are a humilliation to the models concerned. For all you 'art lovers,' LET THIS DISCUSSION STAND AS A MASTERPIECE OF HOW THE DIGNITY OF POOR YOUNG BLACK AFRICAN GIRLS IS IRRELEVANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHTS OF 50 YEAR-OLD WHITE MEN TO FUCK THEM AND POST THEM NUDE ON THE NET AFTERWARDS TO SHOW OFF THEIR EXPLOITS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20. Mai 2008 (UTC)

What you say here is a kind of racism or/and feeling of neo-colonialism. And there might also be a problem of cultural perception of nudity and erotic (which are not accepted the same ways depending on the countries or cultures). What you say here is irrelevant because there's no reason to think Klashorst had less respect for his black-skin models than his white-skin models. And actually you strangely felt sorry to have tried to delete one of his white nude! Why? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally: Peter Klashorst if you read this, watch your back next time you come to Kenya. I am going to take nude pictures of you and post them on the net against your will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 18:45, 20. Mai 2008 (UTC)

That kind of threat is not acceptable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask again that the published rules of COMMONS apply to Peter Klashorst’s photos in that (1) some were taken in private places without consent; (2) they are illegal because depicted persons did not agree to their posting; (3) they are unacceptable because they are illegal in Kenya (where they were taken) and (if there are minors) in the USA; (4) they raise moral issues in that they ridicule some of the subjects, were unfairly obtained, and intrude on the subject’s private life; and (5) they are evidently more intrusive than the picture used as an example of pictures requiring consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2008 May 22 (UTC)

Those remarks seem irrelevant, exagerated or incoherent to me. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

user:TwoWings please note that my extensive arguments above are based explicitly on the Commons rules. In dismissing them, you say only they "seem irrelevant, exagerated, or incoherent" to you. You have no argument based on the rules themselves, which makes YOU (not me) "irrelevant and incoherent." It also seems to me that your stubborness has completely clouded your judgment to the point that now you refute anything I write by retroactively inserting your opposite views. Please argue based on the rules of Commons, or stay out of the discussion signedRIBI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2008 May 22 (UTC)

It's the way you interpret Commons rules. And the way you behave and behaved makes your arguments somehow irrelevant. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't "interpret" rules. I quote them. Get over my initial behavior. I am here to do business the Commons' way. I suggest you engage by quoting the rules, and not by 'presuming' and 'assuming', which is all you have done so far. signedRIBI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2008 May 22 (UTC)

There was a parallel discussion to this one on the village pump of May 20, which has been archived. I would like to succinctly recap the key points made there in favor of the removal of Peter Klashorst’s pictures of naked African and Asian girls:

1 – some of the pictures may be illegal depictions of underage models

2 – there is no legal evidence of consent from the models (signed releases and copies of ID)

3 – the license-validating source for those pictures—FlickR—no longer allows them in public areas

The pictures do not comply with other Commons’ guidelines on pictures of living persons in that:

4 – they may have been taken unfairly as some of the models were uneducated prostitutes not in a position to refuse or understand that their pictures would be posted on the internet

5 – they raise moral issues of dignity and privacy as some of the models are shown in bed, showering, or urinating.

6 – they significantly infringe on the models’ privacy, inter alia, by exposing them to the world as prostitutes.

7 – the pornographic content of the pictures is illegal in the countries where they were taken (Kenya, Senegal, southeast Asia)

Additional arguments in favor of removing Peter Klashorst’s pictures were:

8 – Peter Klashorst’s law-breaking precedents underscored by his incarceration in Senegal on pornography and prostitution charges and his fugitive status from justice in that country.

9- lack of encyclopedic value of the pictures, since Peter Klashorst is known as a painter, and not a photographer and since the photos appear to be more of a personal nature (‘sex-tourism’) than a deliberate artistic body of work;

Moreover:

10 – There is a personal request to remove her pictures on behalf of one of the models, who has sought to prove her identity and personal concern by sending a dressed picture of her to an administrator

The counter-arguments against removal of Peter Klashorst’s pictures are essentially presumption of consent, and recognition of his artistic work. But, please, someone else feel free to make the case on the basis of applicable law and Commons’ rules on pictures of living persons.:--Ribi —Preceding comment was added at 12:23, 2008 May 26 (UTC)

1 - no reason to think any of them is underage. Their physical appearance doesn't prove anything.

2 - no reason to ask for model consent for Klashorst's pictures only. So if you want to deal with such topic, don't aim only Klashorst's pictures.

3 - nonsense. If it has been released in the public domain and if the licence had been valided the pictures will always stay in the public domain even if they're not available anymore on the original source website

4 - without any proof and justice court decision that kind of argument is invalid and could be seen as diffamation

5 - if it's private then why were there a professional photographer and recognized artist there? As for the dignity, it's subjective.

6 - it doesn't say they're prostitutes. YOU say that. Nude models are not all prostitutes you know?

7 - not sure it's relevant since it's a Dutch artist. And actually nothing really proves where those pictures were taken exactly. Agains this is not the role of Commons to prove such a thing

8 - Oh so he's not been convicted for pedophilia as you said several times? And as I already said at the village pump, we don't know what "prostitution" means in Senegal. It may include "nude photography" and that is not forbidden on Commons. Also, being convicted in Senegal doesn't mean that anything Klashorst do is illegal. And we don't have any prove that one of his pictures we have is conected to what he's done in Senegal.

9 - Klashorst is know an artist, which includes painting, sculpture and photography. Also, some pictures have other encyclopedic values because the encyclopedia is not censored (it's not Senegal!) and includes nudity, sexual and erotic topics. Some pictures are actually used on some pages. Also, I have to say why I was the first one to upload some Klashorst's pictures: I noticed that most nudes on Commons were white women. That wasn't neutral nor fair to make people think anatomy had to be white! So I tried to find free-to-use pictures of nude black and yellow people. There was a real encyclopedical will in my uploads: trying to represent a better variety of human ethnicities etc.

10 - this is a different issue and it's totally fair. But that doesn't explain your will to delete every pictures by Klashorst. As I said above, if he's done something wrong in one particular case, it doesn't mean that all what he's done is wrong or illegal. Justice doesn't work like that.

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

..."free-to-use pictures of nude black and yellow"? They would only be "free-to-use" if the "black and yellow" gave their consent, which there is no evidence of. Your motivations and your language are condescendingly racist.

Rather than refute the pro-deletion arguments above with opinions, can someone else argue against deletion on the basis of legal compliance and Commons regulations on photos of living people?

--Ribi

By the way, this model IS clearly underage and there is no evidence of consent from his legal guardians http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Young_farmer_%28by_Peter_Klashorst%29.jpg :--Ribi —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 2008 May 26 (UTC)

There is no racism in what I said. You said "white" many times so saying "black and yellow" is nop more racist than your utilization of the word "white". So don't call me racist. My motivation was actually the contrary of racism since I thought it was racist to show only white skin bodies as if human anatomy could be summed up with only white people. What's more, my use of the "black and yellow" expression was only motivated by the will to be clearly understood (even if I admit it was clumsy) and I was only speaking about colour of the skin, not about race (there's only ONE human race!) If I was racist, I wouldn't have asked that...

Also, if you want evidence that the "black and yellow" gave consent, you have no reason not to ask the same thing for "white" people! But you don't care about white as you already showed your despise against them (and you call ME racist?)

As for the "Young farmer boy" picture, yes he is underage, of course, but it's not pedophilia. Make the difference for God's sake! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal arguments. Since you ask that, you'll be pleased!

According to en:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act: «On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.»

Also, according to the 2257 Regulations, paragraph c4 may exclude Commons from the obligation of keeping records.

So if you really want to complain, you may do that only with the ladies you have proof of non-consent. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with TwoWings and I strictly oppose any deletion of these pictures unless any laws are violated - which is in my opinion not the case. None of these models which are shown in erotic poses looks younger than 18 and there is no reason to assume that they are underage. I nterms of personality rights: why don't we just add this tag which specifies how these pictures are supposed to be handled? I really can't understand the outrage as soon as nudity is depicted.--Lamilli 17:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not only this "might be underaged"-stuff. Some people on commons have even a problem with the elder generation, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Susan.jpg. That´s really sad. Not for me - for the youngsters (and especially their girl friends, who know: One day I will be old too) Mutter Erde 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What the? Was it deleted just because it depicted a nude old woman? Let's ban Gustav Klimt's paintings then! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Yes, Susan was nude - no, she was not painted :-). I've started an undelete request, but it looks like, that at least one of them confuse that with a poll, sigh.... btw.:If you combine this head (a bit younger) and gesture with this abdomen, you will get the right impression of Susan. Mutter Erde 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at-hand, please let us not forget that all the pictures were extracted from flickR and have since been "NPSAD" (deemed inappropriate for public search areas). The attributed licensing criteria for their posting in Commons has therefore been voided. In addition to that, there are all the aforementioned concerns with age of the models, consent, fairness, privacy, dignity, encyclopedic value, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you ever manage to be a bit honest and objective with your arguments? When you click on the Flickr source link of Klashorst pictures, the Flickr page tells you "'This photo is private, Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo." That's NOT what you say, it doesnt mean "inappropriate for public search areas". As for the licence, there's a system on Commons that validates the licence so even if the picture is not available on Flickr anymore doesn't mean the licence is not valid. Read Commons and licence rules about that. Your last sentence if just the repetition of what you said a thousand times and I won't try to tell you my arguments again, they're just above if you read well! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

user 'TwoWings' you really seem to believe you have a God-given right to masturbate to posted pics of poor african and asian girls, for whom there is no proof of consent or legal age. I suppose it turns you on to know that they are powerless and humilliated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.99.21 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Such comment is pathetic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been well over a week and the controversial pictures are still here despite a plea from one of the models to remove them, the continued lack of proof of age or consent from any of the models, and the blatant contradictions with Commons' rules on photographs of living persons. Perhaps that deliberations and due dilligences are being made that take time. But should the pictures not be removed in the meantime? Who should be given the benefit of the doubt? The user who carelessly and selfishly posted the pics? Or the 20-30 young women previously exploited by Peter Klashorst and now by the entire Commons community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 Jun 2008 (UTC)

You're really stubborn! Haven't you finally understood that we don't need any proof of age when there's no reason to think they're underage? Nor any proof of consent as I showed you legally above? Of course if you have a proof that one particular model didn't give her consent, just do the right thing and it will be treated. Be patient for that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me names. You proved NOTHING, other than that you took the pictures from flickr, where they are no longer authorized. Do you really think that the women shown urinating gave their consent to be photographed? Look at their faces!!! Do they look agreeable to being photographed? Why don't you just save the pics to your hard drive and masturbate in private? Ribi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribi (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Are you deaf, man? On Flickr, those pictures are now PRIVATE, not unauthorized! And if you know how to read, you can see above that THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK THEY'RE UNDERAGE, nor that they haven't given their consent (and the legal arguments I gave you show that it's not are task to keep consent records). What do you want more than that? Your problem is that you don't know what to say because I'm right! Your supposed friend is another problem and, as we already said, there's a way to complain and to prove there's a problem with one of the girls. Apparently you've done that so be patient and if you're right the picture will be deleted. But even if that happens, that would prove nothing for the other pictures and you have to understand Commons is not a justice court!

About their face: that doesn't prove anythin. There are many artist who take photographs of models with sad faces. It doesn't mean they're sad. It's like acting you know?

Oh BTW, don't worry, I have saved a few of my favourite Klashorst pictures on my hard drive. But for artistic reasons, not to masturbate? My sex life is OK, thanks for being worried about me! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax, TwoWings. He's been blocked for a bit... you know you don't need to keep responding. It's not like his opinion is going to determine the fate of these photos. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time. There's more constructive things to do. Rocket000 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. But his attempts of threat and diffamation against me make me continue! But you may be right. I should ignore him. He's too stubborn to understand and accept what I wrote. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess if I was in your situation and those comments were directed at me, I would feel the need to defend myself. But be strong, don't give in! ;) Rocket000 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User TwoWings why don't you have Peter Klashorst take some nude pictures of you and post them on this page? After all, pictures of your dick would have encyclopedic value... oh! I forgot! you have no balls.Say-no-to-racism

Stupidity is ignored. (BTW, there's no question of racism) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

by the way,,the kenyan girl in bed with peter is married to a white guy,,the ones with the cum on her face and ass have no artistic value whatsoever,,and no,,she didnt give consent,,sign any free to use forms,,and this activity happened in amsterdam and bangkok,late 07/early 08,,you can see by the look on her face in the bedpeace2 shot that shes confused,im sure she agreed to do the poses thinking that sexual payment wasnt nessessary,, but knowing how nieve and trusting kenyan girls are she was pressured into sex so he could shot these other pictures debasing her further,,i kindly ask of you to please delete all the photos with her in them,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.39.45 (talk • contribs) 30 June 2008 (UTC)

argmuments since now

So let's see what we have since now in the single deletion discussions:

1. argument: The personality tag is enough, is one argument for keeping.

• This tag only points out towards prohibition i.e. of defamatory usage. The tag does not effect the question if publication (like here on Commons) is consented and thus allowed at all.
• Publication of a person's photo without his or her explicitly consent is a violation of his/her personality rights, "defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity". And: "to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation." (see also COM:PEOPLE#Legal_issues). Commercial exploitation is per se possible under the CC licence. Pictures with restricted nc conditions are not allowed on Wikimedia projects. So, in general, release and OTRS tickets are necessary when not showing a person of public interest or not showing persons in a public scene (like on a festival or a busy street).
• Protection of personality rights applies even more in nude child photography. The caroline-rulings (more detailed in de:Caroline-Urteile) by the European Court of Human Rights from 2004 established special protections for minors regarding their personality rights. They are binding in European countries. Comparable law exists in the U.S., too. Parental consent is strongly needed.
• COM:PEOPLE#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place says: "consent of the subject should normally be sought ... Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy." As we do not have a studio setting here, there is no evidence that the person was aware that the photo was not for private purposes only, but would be published quasi worldwide and given under e free licence in public for any purpose.
• COM:PEOPLE#Photographs_taken_in_a_public_place demands particularly a release in cases of moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained)
• The complete lack of any contract regulating usage rights of a photo is strongly to be assumed in countries like Senegal with female illiteracy of 74%. Quite the opposite is to be assumed, as Klashorst himself declares that he photographed mainly prostitutes what - with very high probability - implies that they might have allowed him taking pictures as part of their actual sexual business, but did not for sure be aware of then being published quasi worldwide under a free licence and for commercial purposes.
• COM:PEOPLE#Moral_issues points out that pictures are unacceptable if they are obtained under unfair conditions. Or: if they attack upon the subjet's honour and reputation. In traditionally oriented and muslim influenced countries like Senegal, Ivory Coast, Gambia - partly charging Klashorst juristically for his work with local women - as well as in Kenya and Thailand this is certainly the case. Even in so-called free, Western countries publication of nude, partly porn pictures mostly causes a women loss of reputation.
• US-law does not apply in these matters, as COM:PEOPLE#What_are_.27public.27_and_.27private.27_places.3F says: "if there are any local laws which control the taking of photographs, or the use that may be made of them without the subject's consent, those will take precedence."

2. argument: educational use as Work by notable photographer, and so: fully in project's scope

• In what exactly should educational use be given? Peter Klashorst is - apart from moral debates on his works - as artist weekly relevant on WM projects. For the short WP articles there are and will be several uncritical paintings and photos to illustrate his work, so there is no additional encyclopedial use for these questionable ones. Strong legal and moral doubts stand against week use.

3. argument against censorship

• Have a look at Commons:Project_scope#Censorship. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC) app. --Martina Nolte (talk)

Yes all recognizable nudes are indeed a problem. But not the rest of the pictures... or we might delete 90% of all pictures we have on Commons illustrating unknown people! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that this a real problem that I am pointing on. A lot of person images (not only nudes) on Commons violate existing laws and are risking harm for Wikimedia. See for example Category:Children. People tend to hang up the messenger for bad messages... --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to change that kind of thing you mustn't behave like you did. Launching DR as you did wouldn't lead to a constructive debate. You have to launch a larger discussion about the criterias and rules on Commons. Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criterias and rules on Commons are very clear, there's no broad discussion needed. Rules only have to be implemented. Nevertheless I had the same thought as you and tried to initiate a general discussion on Commons:Village_pump#Canvassing (16:43, 29 January 2009). No reaction at all. I checked out exemplarily Category:men, Category:women and Category:children, only few have a proper release (OTRS ticket). It seems to me that there is nearly no entrance control on Commons. I am still not willing to believe that admins ignore legal issues consciously like it might seem in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Smoke_(by_Peter_Klashorst).jpg and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Happy_Dutch_beauty.jpg. Any iedea how to come out of this two side poving? --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah: why don't you accept that your fight is just a matter of point of view and accept the decision of the majority? The way you act is clearly unbearable. You have your opinion about the laws, other people tend to think your interpretation is wrong and too strict. Just accept it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues are not a matter of point of view and cannot be decided by users majorities. --Martina Nolte (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they can because there's (almost) always a part of interpretation of any law (if there wasn't there wouldn't be any trial and any condemnation would be automatic!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The "decision of the majority" that you stated means that - clearly existing - personality laws should be ignored in purpose. This has nothing to do with little interpretation gaps in lawsuits. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ribi won; TwoWings lost; just delete the rest

This is an interesting and educative discussion. Ribi had to threaten, beg, and argue to remove a couple of pictures, but in the end ALL NUDE PICTURES WITH THE MODELS' FACES WERE REMOVED (more than 20 pictures). TwoWings owes the Wiki Community an apology for posting illegal pictures and he specially owes Ribi a big apology for giving him such a hard time. Otherwise, Two Wings should be blocked so that he never again posts unlicensed pictures, and, possibly, nude pictures of minors. Finally, what is the value of the remaining pictures? PK is NOT a significant photographer. He is just a horny middle-aged guy taking pictures of younger women from poor countries. Should Wikicommons serve as a showcase for Peter Klashorst's sexual exploits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.210.33 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol. I just realized the existence of this message. That's just pathetic!... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving category to Category:Files by Peter Klashorst

Nominating this category to move to a proper name, like Category:Files by Peter Klashorst. The reason is that categories with people's name are used to illustrate the people itself and it would be better having a category just for their work. You may see at Category:User categories some categories that follow that concept. As in this category there are paintings, I think the Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst would not suit well for the paintings, so Category:Files by Peter Klashorst would suit well for photos, paintings and anything else that may come in the future.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Create subcats if you want (photographs by, paintings by, sculptures by...) but keep this cat since some files show Klashorst himself. Oh and BTW Klashorst is not a Wikimedia user ! See Peter Klashorst. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• No. Agree with above comment; leave this as a parent category, and if wished subcategories like "Photographs by ..." and "Paintings by..." can be created. That suggestion fits with what has often been done with other photographers and artists here on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with two comments above. The artist needs always its main cat containing its name and proper categories (birth, from, people by name, ...). --Foroa (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)--Foroa (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Then move the files to a proper category, like above comments. It is more logic the files be in a proper category than raw linked in Peter Klashort category. That is the logic I presented. If the category move isn't the best way, then files move may be. Either way, it would be more logic than being in this category rawly. --Sdrtirs (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   Done 3 subcats now exist. One file could not be moved because it's protected (therefore some admin has to do it). Some few files are both in subcats and in the main cat because they show Klashorst himself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I took care of the last image (protected as vandalism target, apparently). Suggest this request be closed; images are now more specifically categorized than the move request. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)