Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Out of scope; obviously a personal image, thereby violating personality rights and highly unusable.--Heraldicos (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Have you read the description? Photo was made during an interview. The image is in use in es:Jaci Velasquez. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Probable copyright infringement, derivative work. --Heraldicos (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Derivative of what? Uploader is an admin on Spanish wikipedia, and he says that it is his own work, I see no reason for distrust. On the other hand there is your deletion request with reasons that have no merit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
: Sockpuppet of Heraldicos (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos) Patrícia msg 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete are you his spokesman?, no matter if the user is an admin on Spanish wikipedia or youtube, personality rights warning, the description is "headshot", clearly copyright infringement.--Vexilio (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC): Sockpuppet of Heraldicos (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos) Patrícia msg 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons given above. --Prodigynet (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The pictured has been taken in a interview... please, show me the source of this picture???... I have the original and the resolution is so big to be a copy. I am sorry for my bad english.--User:Netito777 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence (and none has been presented) that this is a copyvio. Image is currently used on :es and :fi. In addition, our personality rights-tag has nothing to do with this rfd, but is mainly directed at re-users of such images in order to protect the depicted persons from inappropriate use or changes of their images. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --KS aus F (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The image is used in es:Jaci Velasquez and fi:Jaci Velasquez, therefore it is within project scope. The subject is a pop singer and the image was taken during an interview, thus in a moment this person was actively seeking the public interest. One can hardly imagine any situation where the subject has less a reasonable expectation of privacy. The accusation of a copyright infringement without any foundation is just malicious. --Rotkraut (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
: Sockpuppet of Heraldicos (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos) Patrícia msg 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Illegal used in es:Jaci Velasquez or fi:Jaci Velasquez by uploader, the subject can be a pop singer, the mother of nature or even a queen, this image was taken in a private place and requiring consent (no provided by uploader).--Celestial (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC): Sockpuppet of Heraldicos (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos) Patrícia msg 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete the uploader already has committed a violation of copyvio before, see his image File:EvelynGarcia.JPG with http://deportes.elsalvador.com. And now the uploader no provided any official consent because she's a pop singer, no his sister or some.--Orgfox (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Celestial & Orgfox: did you actually read COM:PEOPLE, in particular Section “What are 'public' and 'private' places?” If so, could you please enligthen me and explain how someone can have a reasonable expectation of privacy while giving an interview to the public at the same time? And on the copyvio issue: it's soo easy to accuse somebody. But it is dishonest to accuse somebody without giving even a tiny hint on what the accusation is based on. What makes you believe that this image is a copyvio? --Rotkraut (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Sockpuppet of Heraldicos (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos) Patrícia msg 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This image was taken in a private place and the uploader no provided any official consent, because she's a pop singer, COM:PEOPLE. It's more easy to deceive somebody, also the permission for use of this work hasn't been archived in Wikimedia OTRS system.--Celestial (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is a interview a private place???... please!!! --User:Netito777 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: in scope, public place, notable person, no reason to believe it is a copyvio etc. --Kjetil_r 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - in scope, notable person. Technically where the interview is taking place may not be a public space, but it seems to me that if you're giving an interview then that kind of changes things. Clearly you would expect to have photos taken at such a thing, so seems to me there's no issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heraldicos, use one account at a time, please. Thank you. Patrícia msg 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heraldicos is an infinite expulsed user in w:es with many Sockpuppets... I blocked his sockpuppets there. It just is information to you know who is he. --User:Netito777 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Heraldicos, use one account at a time, please. Thank you. Patrícia msg 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use, In Scope Abigor talk 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
outside project scope, image without use propose. --Heraldicos (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why would this not be in scope? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete We have an actualized version.--User:Netito777 04:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Map is in scope, we do not supersede images. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope; obviously a personal image, thereby violating personality rights and highly unusable. --Heraldicos (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio http://deportes.elsalvador.com.--Heraldicos (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation.--Prodigynet (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, it was my wrong. --User:Netito777 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, no permission. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Similar reasons to Commons:Deletion requests/File:President George W. Bush, 2008, Oil on canvas by Robert A. Anderson.jpg; artist maintains Copyright to portrait and does not appear to be in PD. Marcusmax (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see [1] -Marcusmax (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Withdraw - Admin please quick close this for me, I did not notice prior disscussions which give me a better sense of this image. -Marcusmax (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed at opener's request.Geni (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the artist transferred copyright to the government, and even if she did, there is no reason why it would be PD. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader has a history of putting out copyvios as "own work" Tabercil (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Kahlen3.JPG too. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Falls outside the scope of commons; uploader did not fill out Summary in a correct manner 98.228.6.230 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
“Permission: No” says it all. Deleted. →Na·gy 08:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
i don't think this is self made. SvonHalenbach (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
no use in uploaing the same shit twice. SvonHalenbach (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Do we have a {{noboobies}} yet? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Abigor talk 05:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your picture, but your penis is too small. SvonHalenbach (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Low quality photograph (no comment on the penis), adding nothing to what we have already. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
self promotion. SvonHalenbach (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Plus a possible copyvio. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
no information from the uploader. SvonHalenbach (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. rimshottalk 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
probably copyvio. Is that "di caprio"? SvonHalenbach (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks like a derivative work to me. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(c) violation - from http://www.sonoraproductions.com/heifetz.html Skier Dude (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. In the future, please add {{Copyvio|it is from URL}} to the image description page. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this template is obsolete and template:PD-China is used instead --Chanueting (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Redirected. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 08:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Even at the photo Izvestia.kz is shown as an author of the photo, so uploader could not be the right holder to give the photo to the public domain. --Mheidegger (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- You failed to add the {{delete}} template to the image page and to inform the uploader with {{subst:idw}} on his talk page. Without these actions, the deletion request is invalid. --Rotkraut (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as User:Mheidegger stated --High Contrast (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - Kermit the Frog and the other non-Sesame non-Fraggle Muppets are copyright Disney, and I don't remember Disney having Freed anything. Damian Yerrick (☎) 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted movie. --Okki (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted movie. --Okki (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Minor. No release by the parents. And now, let's see what excuses you find for keeping it. Cecil (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Of all the images in category:Children, Cecil requires parental release for this one. Because it is a featured picture? Or because of the person of the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Your problems you claim are about sexual poses. How is this sexual? It's just a child playing with paint, as almost every child in the world has done at some point. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As soon, as you treat others with respect I will do that. But since you have no problems violating the personality rights of children, the most defenceless people on earth, I can't respect you. But as we can see from the category:Children there are a lot of people like you who have no problem releasing children pics for commercial use (even so unlinke you most of them probably did not know what they were doing). -- Cecil (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleteinnocent or not, there has to be a release by the parents. We are talking here about a photo which we give out under a free licence for any purpose Did the parents know this when they allowed taking this picture? Did they even allow that or was it a playing scene beside a prescool taken from the street? So if you are not 100 percent sure, delete. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There seems to be no model release signed by the parents and so the image has to been deleted. --ST ○ 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar, oder kann mir mal einer erklären wo das eingebaut werden könnte? --Ra Boe (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Changing my vote, I am a relative commons newbie can someone please provide a link to the policy on minors, thanks. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above.--Prodigynet (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Martina Nolte, basically: 1) doesn't look at all like a public place; 2) it is illegal to publish pictures of minors without the consent of their parents (and of the subject, if he's above a certain age varying from country to country), and this is especially problematic on Commons since we allow and encourage republication. Yes, I think all the "Children" category is potentially problematic and dangerous for Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The can with paint seems to have some lettering in a non-Western script. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Eusebius. The fact that the picture is featured is of course not relevant to this discussion. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)--KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep My reading of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is that model release is usually required if somebody reuses the image commercially, (added after posting:)or in a country with strong moral rights and privacy laws. It is not required to use it in a non-commercial Wikimedia project. If it were my child, provided the principal of the school had given the photographer permission to take photographs, I would be delighted the picture was released into the Creative Commons: it is visually striking and I am sure it helps encyclopedia articles to communicate with their readers. However, I would not miss it: judging by its usage according to the checkusage tool, it is quite easily replaceable at Wikimedia. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- In scope as of possible documentary value related to the life and work of a (minor) notable artist. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The projects are indeed non-commercial - WMF is a 501c3 not-for-profit afaik. See COM:SOSUMI.
- That the CC-NC license are not accepted is true but unrelated to this discussion. Commons is non-commercial as far as personality rights go.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as it appears to that there is a certain agenda afoot to equate nudity with pornography. I don't believe that's the case. And isn't the subject actually wearing a nappy? As for "private versus public" - this appears to be in a classroom type setting, and the image is not derogatory. Megapixie (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I write something about pornography in my deletion request? Those requests were done by Smial. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is COM:PEOPLE for anyway when most users are not willing to respect it! --KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're not answering my comment, but I maintain that on this picture, nothing allow us to infer that it is a place with "no reasonable expectation of privacy". Since I would not allow my child to play like that in the street, it looks to me that this place is more like a homeplace or a school (in which I'd sue anyone taking pictures of my children without my consent, and in my country at least, I'd win, against the photographer and against Commons, this is why I think this picture is "dangerous" and should be removed). --Eusebius (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. The motivation here seems to be a dislike of the photographer. Adambro (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry about my mistake in assuming this was the same nominator. I would suggest that the user who nominated so many of the images by this photographer individually making it difficult to comment on them without resorting to copy and pasting is partly responsible for this though. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Marcusmax & Adambro... Electron (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to see any problem. It's a child playing with paint! Keep immediately! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality (and featured) image by a notable artist. No valid reason for deletion. Prolog (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Innocent picture from two years ago with which one can harm no rights: by the time this discussion is over, the baby has grown a beard. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per discussion Abigor talk 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't want it anymore Ufc ultimatefighter91 (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Very much arranged and obviously posed. If one models like this for a painter/photographer who makes a living of selling this kind of work, one must expect that one's image will be published. But the only use that I can imagine on Wikipedia would be to illustrate articles about Klashorst. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete juristical doubts against lacking encyclopedical use. Peter Klashorst has reached relevance on WP as painter nor as "photograppher" --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC) --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Man das gibt es doch nicht, muss das sein? COM:PEOPLE --Ra Boe (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep by Kuiper's reasoning. Also, work by a notable artist, so very much in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This image has already been deleted because of COM:PEOPLE Why have we to discuss it again? --KS aus F (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- That deals with identifiable people. This person is clearly not identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Must agree with Pieter Kuiper. --Javier ME (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & Pieter Kuiper... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not identifiable therefore no problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This image was (before its recent deletion) used on es.wikipedia.org so by definition it must be useful for an educational purpose. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment See also previously Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gesluierd3.jpg; kept 12 december 2007. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. COM:PEOPLE does not apply here as the subject is not identifiable. Apparently it was used on es.wp so it's within scope, and there are no copyright issues. Therefore no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
no model release, personal rights, individual portrait, no public place smial (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks like a park to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- How am I disrespecting them? She clearly knows the photograph is being taken - she's posing. It looks like a public place, therefore personality rights do not apply. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how that is relevant here? Although the subject is identifiable, she is posing for the camera, so she clearly knows that a photograph is being taken of her. Furthermore, it seems to be in a public location such as a park. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A park doesn't mean public scene (like a concert, and even there you are not allowed to publish a photo were you picked out a single person). Nobody is allowed to publish a private photo of a person even she or he is posing for him wihthout his or her consent. So without release.. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- From the much-loved COM:PEOPLE: In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), assent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- US laws don't rule the world. Or is that a proof how little human right count in that county? --Eva K. is evil 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they do. But are there specific local laws here whereby personal consent WOULD be required in a public place? It seems to me you just want to delete all klashorst images, and you are trying anything you can think of to justify it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Now getting personal and suspecting ad personam in lack of arguments? This photo and all others in this range have not been taken in the USA so that US-law is not applicable. Foundation-Servers standing there does only mean that lawsuit would be nessessary there, but again not that US-law aplies. I'm well aware that demanding releases like, indeed, is done here would cause additional work to the support team. But that should not be a reason for violating personality rights. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it seems I'm getting personal, but in the past few hours I've been accused of being a racist, sexist, and a party to the slave trade just because I voiced a differing opinion. It's rather got on my nerves. This photo was apparently taken in Holland, where EU law would apply. The woman is clearly not underage, so that's not an issue, and as far as I know EU law is common with US law on this matter, and so there are no specific local laws to be observed about photographing people in a public place. If there are any, I would ask that they be cited. If there are no such local laws, and I would assume there are not, then that is not a rationale for deletion, it's merely a smokescreen. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they do. But are there specific local laws here whereby personal consent WOULD be required in a public place? It seems to me you just want to delete all klashorst images, and you are trying anything you can think of to justify it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- US laws don't rule the world. Or is that a proof how little human right count in that county? --Eva K. is evil 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be acceptable under the laws of both the US and Holland. Photos should not be deleted just because some users find them offensive, or there will be no end to it. Virtually everything can offend somebody. Please read COM:PS#Censorship carefully. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Personality rights are an entirely different concern. Megapixie (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Appears to be - what a juristical definiton is that?! Personality rights include a so called "right on someone's own picture". Here is the proof that the Netherlands also know a "right on somebodies own picture" (and they do extend this even to pictures where the face can not be seen) --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Is it really too much to request a model release? See COM:PEOPLE --KS aus F (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why a model release is needed here? Although the subject is identifiable, she is posing for the camera, so she clearly knows that a photograph is being taken of her. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simply a low-quality snapshoter and dauber, AFAICS for some blokes the only notable with him seems to be his porn photos, isn't it? All that blah about art and freedom of information is only subterfuge for them to satisfy their voyeurism and misogyny. They claim respect and human/personality rights for themselves, but deny other's claim for human/personality rights and respect. IMO such people harm the project in an intolerable manner. --Eva K. is evil 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is ridiculous! This has nothing to do with COM:PEOPLE. This DR is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy and the absence of objectivity of many people who hate Klashorst! Be neutral please! Judge the pictures, not Klashorst (who I agree seems to be a "bad person"...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep no comprehensible reason for deleting this image. --High Contrast (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me --Yamavu (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Without explicit permission by the person shown, this image violates the "right on one’s own picture"" in the origin country’s law nl:Portretrecht (see also [2]) - and is therefore not according to COM:PEOPLE#Legal_issues. An OTRS ticket is needed or the image has to be deleted. The previous keep decision has missed this imperative aspect that does not allow any open space for decision. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The person portrayed here is clearly aware of being photographed. She could have known the photo might possibly be published. So I don't think nl:Portretrecht has been violated here. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No OTRS ticket is needed as it is a public space, and as was said the person is clearly aware she is being photographed. Tagged with personality rights anyway, so there is no issue. Do NOT reopen DRs simply because you don't like the result.
This is a personal work, out of project scope. Ottre 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Under the weak justificative of "artistic depiction", many so-called "artists" are just using Wikipedia Commons as advertising space. There are so many vulva depictions that its dazzing me if it's a serious content or just another justification for free advertised erotic art. 189.84.193.2 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Are you Anons just running out of excuses? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
"I think while I'm a puritan, you're a pervert and this pic is just trash, how about that?"
Ok, now it's black butt... what's next? Soon we'll see white butt, asian butt, gypsy butt, jewish butt, amerindian butt, brazilian butt... anyone knows what a butt is, no one needs free advertised erotic art at Wikipedia Commons! 189.84.193.2, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete
- It is in use on a wikibooks page about the artist, however. --Tryphon (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting me. I should have checked, but I just thought the picture was so poor. I change my vote to Keep. --Simonxag (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting me. I should have checked, but I just thought the picture was so poor. I change my vote to
The same user tried nominating File:Christina_pierc.jpg, but forgot to link the request here. The reason given is pretty much the same (it's porn, see this comment too), so I'd say keep just like this one. -Tryphon (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as in use and this nomination just seems to be another "oh no, porn" type deletion request with no real substance. Adambro (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept
1) There is no visable proof that this file is used for advertising content.
2) "Black butt" is a filename which " Fuck.jpg and Fuck" or " Shit.jpg and Shit" is too.
3) Commons:Project scope says "Commons is not censored" and that's what it is!
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE, smial (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It was in use (see above), so it is in scope. And exactly what part of COM:PEOPLE are you referring to? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - hardly identifiable. (waits for EvaK to claim he's sexist or hates black people or something). -mattbuck (Talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete viel zu dunkel für eine Vorlagen zum .......... Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PS - no encyclopedid use rational. Commons is not a stock for photographic pieces of artwork. ---jha- (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, or is commons mainly a butt collection? I think there's enough of that stuff for those who need one-handed reading material. --Eva K. is evil 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use, or at least it certainly was before all the deletions started, therefore it isn't clear why Smial (talk · contribs) suggests it isn't in scope. Rather than simply stating it isn't, it is necessary to explain why. Photo doesn't show an identifiable individual and so again it isn't clear why Smial refers to COM:PEOPLE. Don't just quote policies and guidelines, explain why they apply. Adambro (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per the 2^32-1 previous related deletion requests. Megapixie (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Where is the educational or encyclopedic value in a picture like that? Aren't there enough xxx-sites in the www? --KS aus F (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please explain why it doesn't have any educational value rather than simply suggesting it doesn't? Adambro (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Project_scope#Censorship says: The counterpoint to that is that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the permitted Commons scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity and male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules on scope. Often (but not always) such images add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, and hence fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose.
- Could you please explain why it doesn't have any educational value rather than simply suggesting it doesn't? Adambro (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quite astonished. This is one of several pictures without visible or foreseable encyclopedical use - a nacked ass should illustrate which article, please? - that have been deleted from flickr (see google). They have instead been uploaded here to Commons and now give an additional selfpromotion platform for an artist from whom we have more useful pics to show his range than one short article on his person will ever get. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- COM:SCOPE says “Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose”, not “Must be useful for an encyclopedic article”. Or, in a nutshell: Commons is more than a file repository for Wikipedia or even the WMF wikis. It seems the photographer is viewed as an artist by a lot of people (even if you, I or others may not agree), so a photograph by him should be “realistically useful for an educational purpose”, even if he is primarily a painter. --Rosenzweig δ 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm quite astonished. This is one of several pictures without visible or foreseable encyclopedical use - a nacked ass should illustrate which article, please? - that have been deleted from flickr (see google). They have instead been uploaded here to Commons and now give an additional selfpromotion platform for an artist from whom we have more useful pics to show his range than one short article on his person will ever get. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of black female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, because:
- Out of scope?: No, this image is definitely in scope even some people don't like it. Commons is (a)not cencored and (b) this image is not one of those low resoluted "I show my dick/vagina on Commons" images.
- encyclopaedic value?: Of course this image has an encyclopaedic value. Two answer Martina Nolte's question "a nacked ass should illustrate which article, please?" Well what about Vulva, Buttocks or Labium? Not mentioned other articles on en.wikipedia and other articles in different language in different projects where this image could be used. Even it's may not the best one to illustrate this articles you could use it and that's enough.
- COM:PEOPLE: The best reason on com:people which you can find is "Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place" in section Normally not OK. Even this could apply here I think so. You can't see any details with which you could identify this person (Of course if you have seen her naked it would my be something different, but I'm assuming that you haven't seen her naked so far). If there would be a blurred face it would may be something different (fact is that there is no face at all). If this file gets deleted, because it shows nudity in a private place, even the person is not identifiable, many images would have to be deleted too, because they show just a woman wearing a bikini in a hotelroom no matter if ther person is identifiable or not.
- deleted on flickr: Just because that image got deleted on Flickr doesn't mean that it was deleted by an admin there because it was against the guidelines on flickr (may you didn't know it, but on flickr (unlike on Commons) you can delete your own pictures). To assume that the author moved his files to Commons, because some crazy admin deleted all his images on flickr is as you would think that good old Jimmy is the ruler of the universe (possible, but very very unlikely).
- "is commons mainly a butt collection?" Well, I don't think so. According to Special:Statistics there are 3.868.851 files (at 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)). Even it is like that let's say we have 10.000 images with asses, dicks, etc.. Let's say that 868.851 files are copyvios, userimages, WMF logos etc.. Overall there would be 0,33% genital files maximum. The reality I guess is that there are maximum 2.000 genital files and that there are 3.500.000 usable files. The new percentage would be 0,057%. So: Commons=Dickland/Vaginaland? Well... no.
- If I wouldn't have kept this file on 2008-12-18 I would do so now.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
kept work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete auch hier kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment don't really agree on that, identity of the photographer does not make this picture very different from the other genitalia we usually delete because they add nothing valuable to our "collection". --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Even porn pictures by so called "notable artists" are still porn pictures und do not contribute to the project scope --KS aus F (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't seen the image (which seems to have been prematurely deleted) but if the artist is notable (as mattbuck asserts above; I don't know the artist), wouldn't the image be worth keeping as an example of that artist's work, independently of how usable it is for any other purpose? I don't think that would be less applicable simply because someone considers the image pornographic: the same has been said of Mapplethorpe, but surely we'd take any image of his that his heirs would license appropriately. Again, I have no idea how notable this artist is, but artist's notability is a factor. A Malevich black square is not interchangeable with one I might cut out of construction paper. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I have to agree with delete, work of a known artist or not, the image is of poor quality, out of focus and poor composition. Theres bound to be PLENTY of other similar images available of higher quality then this one. Raeky (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A work by a notable artist, and the subject is unidentifiable. Prolog (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Merely being "a work by a notable artist" does not automatically give a work educational value, at least not if we use "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. (As we'd say on Wikipedia, "notability is not inherited".) There may be some artists whose every single work is notable enough to have educational use, but I'm not convinced Peter Klashorst is one of them. In any case, from what I can see, this file does not seem to be legitimately in use. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would have to agree, people use notable with this guy, but quite frankly my definition of "notable" must be much different then everyone else's here. Hes been mentioned in maybe a handful of news articles that all appear to be local, a scant amount of web reverences. I'd at least think Notable as being someone who's been in newspapers at least globally, international gallery shows, something. What exactly makes him notable? And how does the BULK of his images people keep keeping here have educational value? For me this has nothing to do with nudity, but Commons should only archive stuff that has historic or educational value (which I think is what is "in scope") theres plenty of websites you can upload images too (he has flickr) that has no restrictions. Forget about the nudity and look at it from notability and educational value point of view. Raeky (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete auch hier kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Image gives no contribution to the project scope --KS aus F
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep close-up so COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply. And it's in the scope as any good picture of female genitalia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant...Electron (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per voters ChristianBier (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of black female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This appears to be the only example of black female genitalia, and therefore seems relevant. Well-known artist with no privacy issues as well. Keep! Scirocco (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per voters ChristianBier (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
"flickr terminated the account, which only happens when the person was falsifying image releases. We shouldn't be promoting flickrwashing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)" Bulwersator (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "which only happens when the person was falsifying image releases" - proof / source for this? --Saibo (Δ) 14:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - irrespective of the accusation of falsified image releases, it is required that media is legal in its source country as well as the US for it to be uploaded to Commons. In most African nations, pornography is illegal, and without evidence that the creation of this photograph was legal, I believe it should be deleted. Klashorst has been arrested in several countries for producing erotic images against local laws. --Claritas (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting rules you are trying to push forward here. Can you tell me where you read those rules? Most useful would be a statement on the COM:PS talk page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I read that particular rule at Commons:For_Wikipedians#Policies and guidelines where it is clearly stated, and I added it to the project scope page because it was missing there. I've re-added it because Rd232, an admin here wrote that information page, and I presume that it is stated on another policy page but was simply omitted at COM:PS. --Claritas (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Admins do not make policy. And: the help page you have cited is a help(!) page. COM:PS is one of our topmost policies! Please don't simply add something there. Start a section on the talk there - not here in this DR. --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's policy, because Rd232 wouldn't have stated it so explicitly if it wasn't. I'll ask him. --Claritas (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wrote that part of the page a while ago and it must have been based on something apparently authoritative I'd read on Commons... but I can't now remember, or find, what that was. So I've removed that point from the page. If you can find a source, please let me know! Rd232 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it was already policy then you would not need to add it to policy, huh? ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's policy, because Rd232 wouldn't have stated it so explicitly if it wasn't. I'll ask him. --Claritas (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Admins do not make policy. And: the help page you have cited is a help(!) page. COM:PS is one of our topmost policies! Please don't simply add something there. Start a section on the talk there - not here in this DR. --Saibo (Δ) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I read that particular rule at Commons:For_Wikipedians#Policies and guidelines where it is clearly stated, and I added it to the project scope page because it was missing there. I've re-added it because Rd232, an admin here wrote that information page, and I presume that it is stated on another policy page but was simply omitted at COM:PS. --Claritas (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting rules you are trying to push forward here. Can you tell me where you read those rules? Most useful would be a statement on the COM:PS talk page. --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We have a reliable source for this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- KeepThe image licence was reviewed, thus the termination isn't really relevant. The image must be releaseable under a free licence or public domain in both original country and the USA, that's what most people here are talking about. Even if pornography is illegal in "most african countries" this doesn't mean that we cannot have images of any nude black women. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This was clearly Klashorst's own account. Licences are not revocable. No reason to delete his pictures from Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept - flickr account removal is fine since we have a review, and I refuse to delete on some unproven grounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Unknown if model is of legal age NobodyIsHere321 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Account created for the sole purpose of nonsense request. --Yann (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As the artist got relevance on WP as painter this photo, like his others, is - prooved also by the non-professional setting and technique - his hobbyist photos. Or shall we now illustrate prominent persons with their dogs and paintings? --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist (who is also a photographer) + illustration of female genitalia + a sexual pratice (ice stimulation) therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic or historic value. Just because it's the work of a "known" artist doesn't mean it has value to society in this image archive. Raeky (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Kept 2 times before (see hereand no new or valid reasons given for deletion. So it has to be kept again. Author is notable artist, so it is in scope. ChristianBier (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Nude photo 203.17.70.161 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy Keep; nominator gives no reason to delete this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- not any censorship: Keep dontworry (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be just plain porno and completely outside the project scope. You can rub your genitals with anything; how is this special? 68.173.113.106 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept as per every time before - like him or not, Klashorst is a notable artist, and thus his photos are within scope. Not saying they're special, but they are within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Before you nominate anything else, please clarify what you mean by "see also COM:PEOPLE". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Vague notability. Not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of black female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Possible educational and encyclopedic value for human female figure/body. I have no objection. Raeky (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sehe ich auch so, sie ist definitiv unter 18. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- "definitely less than 18"? How do you know that, definitely? Adambro (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- X Kinder, davon X Mädchen und XX Lebensjahre, aber zeig das Bild einer/Deiner Mutter und sie wird es bestätigen. ;-) Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- "definitely less than 18"? How do you know that, definitely? Adambro (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifible people. This is not identifible. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. Megapixie (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Again, no encyclopedic or educational value - additional: the model seems very young! Please: if in doubt about the age of a photographed person, it would be better to have a model release. --KS aus F (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete *ack*' KS aus F --Eva K. is evil 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of the best images in this category illustrating shaved female genitalia. Richiex (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because it's a close-up. And an interesting one, as any good picture of female genitalia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete She is presumably underage and her photo was taken by a pornographic photographer together with a series of other pornographic photos - no way to keep. --Erzbischof (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- She is presumably underage? How do you judge that? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hast Du Kinder? Dann würdest Du es erkennen können. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd also be interested in how the photo having being "taken by a pornographic photographer together with a series of other pornographic photos" has any relevance in determining whether it is within the project scope, primarily the question being whether the image is realistically useful for educational purposes. This reasoning seems to be more "I don't like" it than anything based upon our guidelines and policies. Adambro (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- She is presumably underage? How do you judge that? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry aber Du kannst erkennen das sie jung ist und auch wer sie ist, zumindest die Eltern, Freunde, Trainer o. ä. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The argument about the age has no sense at all. There's nothing that can lead to be sure the model is underage (no more than we cannot be sure she's more than 18 either btu at least it cannot be an argument on either way) Furthermore I'm not sure such a picture would be illegal even if the model was underage: there's nothing pornographic about it and we don't see the person's face. I remember that I've once seen (in the early 90s) a book about anatomy made for children and teenagers where there was a naked girl and a naked boy, both about 12-14yo (and the photos actually showed them full nude with their face recognizable). There wasn't anything illegal about that, it was clearly educational. Therefore such a close-up is even less pornographic and I doubt it would be a legal problem even if we were sure the model was underage (which we may not be able to be sure anyway...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
File is a version of File:Female abdomen frontal view.jpg - with a little more leg, all WIkis use the other version, so this one is unused Ronhjones (Talk) 00:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - so you want to delete that file's source? And since when did not being in use become in of itself a reason for deletion? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is the original, not a version. And File:Female abdomen frontal view.jpg is just a crop (BTW without any indication of cropping in the description). Trycatch (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Unused doesn't mean useless. Commons is not only made for illustrating Wikimedia projects but also for providing various pictures on the subjects developped on Wikimedia projects. How useful would it be to mention a link to Commons on a Wikipedia article if the reader only finds the files used in the article ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept per above. --Leyo 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value - can't those porn lovers make their own wiki? --KS aus F (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because it's a close-up. And an interesting one, as any good picture of female genitalia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 02:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant...Electron (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me --Yamavu (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. "COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because it's a close-up." ChristianBier (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Again! See: COM:PEOPLE --KS aus F (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deletehobbyist photos from a painter on tourist tour, without encyclopedical use but with a juristical backpack. see also --Martina Nolte (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- ' Weak Keep' In scope as of possible documentary value related to the life and work of a (minor) notable artist. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Close-up. Therefore nothing to do with COM:PEOPLE since we don't see the persons' faces. And yes it's in the scope. It's actually the only picture we have that deal with both women's genitalia and buttocks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 02:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant...Electron (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I write it here once, but as it would get boring, I do not repeat it in every single deletion discussion, and I beg you to rethink your position for all thoroughly: your so-called "notable photographer" says himself that he is NOT a "photographer" but only takes pictures from NON-professional models just for fun and for his later paintings (that is for what he is relevant on WM projects). And, he is quite aware himself that his photos are out of law in theses countries: http://peterklashorst.blogspot.com/ http://www.asian-sirens.com/blog/comments.php?id=742_0_1_0_C. His own blog has - though containing much lesser critical material than we do have here - a warning on the entry page. I am even not sure if he would like to see his older hobbyist stuff here at all. Might be that we even deliver him to complaints. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your remark helps the debate, Martina. Where does he say he is "not a photographer"? I saw nothing on those links (maybe he has since updated his blog.) Commons is normally sympathetic to requests from authors to take down their work. I get annoyed by the promotion of Klashorst's work by some uploaders here, because I don't like it. But as far as getting rid of it, a claim by himself that he is not a photographer would put all his pictures out of SCOPE. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what difference it makes if he doesn't describe himself as a photographer. Someone might not describe themselves as a criminal but it doesn't mean others can't do so. I'd therefore strongly dispute InfantGorilla's assertion that "a claim by himself that he is not a photographer would put all his pictures out of SCOPE". Whilst some of these images might only be realistically useful for education purposes based upon the identity of the creator, I would not accept that all of them are. Images don't have to have been created by a notable individual to fall within the project scope! Even if a non-notable individual was the photographer, it would be likely that at least some of the photographs would be "realistically useful for an educational purpose" without the creator being notable. It seems quite bizarre to suggest otherwise. Adambro (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would make me change my not-vote for this image (if he was serious.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Adambro, I agree that some of the pictures for sure could be useful for educational purposes. But we first of all, have to find one common measurement. I mainly see legal problems because of lacking permissions to a free distribution (in this picture the girls seem adult to me, but one is identifiable by her scarves and mother's marks). So Adambro is right: the question if the pictures show his work or if they show his hobby is only one of several aspects and - for me - not the main one. That all is not as easy as one perhaps would like it to be.
- But, to answer your question, InfantGorilla, did you scroll down the "asian-sirens"-site? There Dear people ,this is Peter himself with some explanation ....I am not a glamour or pornartist .....and dont claim to be one ...the ladies I photograph and paint are just friends no professional models ... A friend of him delivers: "Peter does not claim to be a photographer. He uses the photos he takes to aid him in his painting and as a way to document his life. Like Peter I use flickr not as a portfolio of my best work but simply as a way of sharing my life through photographs."
- Would his photographs count to his artist work he wouldn't be allowed to publish them here because professional artists in 99% have a contract with the www.pictoright.nl (equivalent to the German Verwertungsgesellschaft BildKunst) which holds most of his publication rights. (in gereneral the reason why it is so hard to get art under free licences). For "normal" (documentary/journalistic) photographers they don't hold exclusive rights (only the rights on flat rates for reproduction), but for artists they do. Last hint. Klashorst is not offering one single photo: http://www.klashorst.com/shop.asp If we don't come to an agreement in this question somebody just could send him an e-mail and aks him. --Martina Nolte (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would make me change my not-vote for this image (if he was serious.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what difference it makes if he doesn't describe himself as a photographer. Someone might not describe themselves as a criminal but it doesn't mean others can't do so. I'd therefore strongly dispute InfantGorilla's assertion that "a claim by himself that he is not a photographer would put all his pictures out of SCOPE". Whilst some of these images might only be realistically useful for education purposes based upon the identity of the creator, I would not accept that all of them are. Images don't have to have been created by a notable individual to fall within the project scope! Even if a non-notable individual was the photographer, it would be likely that at least some of the photographs would be "realistically useful for an educational purpose" without the creator being notable. It seems quite bizarre to suggest otherwise. Adambro (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subjects. Prolog (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Not suitable! 92.27.249.150 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion, ungrounded request. Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
not realistically useful for educational purposes Fernrohr (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - work by notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in use. Speedy close. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Why not to check previous DRs, when you renominates something? DRs like this are no more than time wasters. Trycatch (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per same rationales as last DRs.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy close. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Realistically useful for educational purposes Tm (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 10:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
More Files by User:ChNPP
[edit]- Image:RBMK Reaktorhallenaufbau en.PNG
- Image:RBMK-1500 Beschriftet en.PNG
- File:RBMK-1500 Kostroma.PNG
- Image:MKER Beschriftet en.PNG
These are english versions of the images deleted here. (not own work, but derivative). See the german disc. for details.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that is a long discussion in German, most of which does not have much to do with copyright. Why don't you just give links to the images these drawing are supposed to derive from? Otherwise I will say: keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And again, someone is removing deletion requests where I already voted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per request and German discussion page (see above). --S[1] 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Funny image, but not encyclopedical. GeorgHH • talk 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- What does encyclopedical mean to you? --Lamilli 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine which wikipedia page this image can illustrate. Please don't say it is appropriate for en:Heat. --GeorgHH • talk 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might think about en:Vulva or en:Nudity or en:History of erotic photography or en:Peter Klashorst. Whatever. Heat is maybe not the best option.--Lamilli 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Work by artist Peter Klashorst. No reason to delete it. And illustrates shaved genitalia of a black woman. Etc. And maybe exhibitionism. I'm sick of those kind of deletion requests. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 08:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is nice pic but it has no informational value. Tuohirulla 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (weighing in rather than closing without consensus) - agree with TwoWings, and Lamilli that it can be useful in several ways. — Giggy 13:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete really unencyclopedic... __ ABF __ ϑ 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Ireas talk•de•en 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Potentally useful in lots of areas, like the Photography Wikibook. Rama 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Let me explain: Its not used and I belive it will not be used. The name is not good and i belive it only should be funny and not encyclopedic. We have enough such photos and we do not need one with a ventilator. __ ABF __ ϑ 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The previous debate was closed with the closer also participating in the discussion. I'm relisting this to gauge more consensus. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:04, 22 January 2008 (GMT)
- I confirme my opinion: Keep at least because it's a work by artist Peter Klashorst so we have to keep it for that. For those who think we have enough of his works, I'd answer that it would mean we have to make a choice to delete some of his works and keep other works, which would be a non-neutral choice, i.e. contrary to the rules of Wikimedia. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just a note: Usually we keep renominations on the same page. But this way works too. (Oh, and no reason to delete. The last one wasn't a valid closure.) Rocket000 08:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As per Commons:Deletion requests/Inappropriate cartoons. Since this is a notable artist, it is not our task to decide which images other wikis want to use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep image is perfectly fine and yes, too hot. -Nard 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, and person is not identifiable. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete auch hier kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'd say it's out of scope because it lacks educational value. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value. --KS aus F (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here since it's a close-up. And yes it's in the scope. (BTW I think there was a first DR for that picture a long time ago, where is the archive of the first discussion?) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I found the previous DR: here for the first one and here for the second one. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
porno 190.19.117.174 00:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept - not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work abf /talk to me/ 13:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete moreover out of project scope. --Svens Welt 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- KeepThe artwork (such as it is) on the Coca Cola bottle is only incidental. We have lots of pictures of things and these things (like cars) often have company logos on them. If the picture was of the artwork rather than just containing it. the situation would be different. I don't personally much like them, but some of Klashort's pictures are being used on the Wikipedia to illustrate sex-related articles. --Simonxag 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Vol de nuit 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Shows mainly the text part of the logo which is {{PD-US}} anyway. See Image:Coca-Cola logo.svg. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Bryan. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the copyright status of Coca-cola bottles? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete contains copyrighted material (Coca Cola logo) in combination with female genitals, i.e. simple and cheap porn, poorly photographed. --Eva K. is evil 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value - and PLEASE note that the model might be too young for pornographic photos! --KS aus F (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of female genitalia therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good, high quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The face is not visible. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value, also with the very visible placement of the copyrighted logo it may not be legal under the freedom from panorama laws. Raeky (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The image is likely in violation of the Freedom of Panorama due to the very visible Coke logo and bottle (also copyrighted), it couldn't be used for a commercial publication, so it is in violation of Commons:Licensing so it shouldn't be kept on those grounds. I have no objection to the nudity, it's just the Coke copyrights that I think exclude this image from Commons. Raeky (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Mmmh... there might be many problems then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The logo you might argue is in public domain by now, but the bottle's creator died in 1972 so its copyright would still hold, in theory. Raeky (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. I wasn't really arguing, I was just pointing out that, if this is a problem for this picture, this will be one for many other pictures we have. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also it's possible those images in the Coca-Cola category might violate the Commons:Licensing because I'm *sure* the company will assert copyright even though the logo's creator definitely died more then 70 years ago. If anything they (and this picture) should acknowledge the trademark on the logo (And bottle?). Raeky (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg (previous DR, should have been included here); the Coke logo is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Logo yes (still a trademark), bottle's designer died in the 70's, so it's copyright is still valid. Raeky (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bottles are utilitarian objects, like cars, chairs, mobile phones, etcetera. Protection against commercial imitations is belongs to the realm of design patents etcetera, not copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The bottle is not copyrightable (utilitarian). It may be a trademark, not sure... actually it is, according to this article. Confirmed with a USPTO listing. But, still not copyrightable :-) No reason to delete on those grounds Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Frage an die Admins, warum wurde diese Bild gelöscht, wenn File:Cola_bottle_and_vulva.jpg nicht gelöscht werden sollte. Bitte erklärt mir den Unterschied. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Logo yes (still a trademark), bottle's designer died in the 70's, so it's copyright is still valid. Raeky (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg (previous DR, should have been included here); the Coke logo is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also it's possible those images in the Coca-Cola category might violate the Commons:Licensing because I'm *sure* the company will assert copyright even though the logo's creator definitely died more then 70 years ago. If anything they (and this picture) should acknowledge the trademark on the logo (And bottle?). Raeky (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. I wasn't really arguing, I was just pointing out that, if this is a problem for this picture, this will be one for many other pictures we have. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The logo you might argue is in public domain by now, but the bottle's creator died in 1972 so its copyright would still hold, in theory. Raeky (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Useless and out of scope. Angelus (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - work by notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Abuse of DR (file kept twice because work of an artist). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that it is the work of a "notable artist" does not mean that it deserves to stay. This image is beyond the scope of the project! And moreover it is also unused. No educational or encyclopedic value. Angelus (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not useless and in scope per Mattbuck and TwoWings. Also, just because an image is not in use it doesnt mean it has "no educational or encyclopedic value". By that kind of rational most of the images in Commons would be deleted. Tm (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "No educational or encyclopedic value" because it is out of scope. What would be the "educational" scope of this picture? Angelus (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Simply because it illustrates Peter Klashorst's works. We don't use all Van Gogh paintings on the article about Van Gogh but we keep as much as we can on Commons. It's the same logic for Klashorst. Just think before writing, Angelus ! Commons templates on Wikipedia say "Find more about". How useful would it be if we'd find the same files as the ones used on WP ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Ok. Then I think this deletion request may be considered closed. Angelus (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's always nice to see that some people can question their own DR and realize their mistakes. That deserves to be applauded. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is pornographic and serves no purpose on here. 216.15.111.243 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic illustration of female masturbation; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Erklärt mir mal einer warum wir diese Bild brauchen? Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - "notable artist" - LOL. Wenn du den Verstand zwischen den Beinen hängen hast, brauchst du sowas möglicherweise. --ST ○ 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Damit ist meine Frage ja beantwortet ;-)) --Ra Boe (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The artist has articles in WP-projects as painter, not as "photographer" of mainly week and private pics. Release of the person shown there is needed additionally. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Notalbe artist? He's simply a third class porn photographer who makes a fuss to be get publicity by some tabloids - out of project scope and against COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. If you consider this should be deleted because of the identity of the photographer, please say so directly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is really identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Image made with a top of the line camera. Shutter time 0.4 second, but no blurring due to camera movement, so not hand-held. The model is posing, for a photographer who is making a living of selling his work, so COM:PEOPLE does not apply. Subject not recognizable anyway. Sexual content is not automatically out of scope, and it would be preferable to have images by a professional and notable photographer rather than the stuff submitted from anonymous single-use accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply because the person is not recognizable. And it's in the scope at least to illustrate female masturbation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro, Pieter Kuiper & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant...Electron (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Previous Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg, which was closed as kept April 2008. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Dadurch dass der Hochlader ein anderes Foto unter demselben Namen hochgeladen hat, das in Hochformat ist, wird das ursprüngliche Foto, auf das es zurückgesetzt wurde, auf den Wikipedia-Seiten jetzt stark verzerrt dargestellt. Das sieht unmöglich aus. Ich habe das gute Querformat-Foto mit neuem Namen neu hochgeladen und in die Kategorien eingefügt. Bitte dieses löschen. Der alte Bildnahme ist auch nicht angemessen. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Because the uploader has uploaded another photo under the same name, which is in portrait format, the original photo to which it was reset is now displayed in a very distorted way on the Wikipedia pages. I have re-uploaded the good original photo with a new name and added it to the categories. Please delete the old one. The name of the old photo is also not appropriate. Sciencia58 (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment About the name : if we consider Klashorst as an artiste and this photo as his work, we may keep the title considering it as an art title (since the picture comes from Klashost's own Flickr account). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was a faulty overwright of the original, it has been correctet since, nothing to do here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: User blocked and edits reverted. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
sexual image 62.24.251.240 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Put simply, we don't care. If you don't want to see it, don't look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
does not meet project scope, see also COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete definitiv unter 18 Jahre altes Mädchen. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Vague notability of the artist Megapixie (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is this "notable artist" crap? Still: No educational or encyclopedic value - Just porn, and the age of the model can be very much doubted. Please keep even the slightest hint of pedophilia out of Commons - too much tolerance can be fatal in those cases! --KS aus F (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- KeepCOM:PEOPLE is about images where a person can be recognised. If we accepted that the age of the model can be very much doubted in this pic, we'de have the same problem with other pics of genitalia of young people. Value and scope depending on artist's relevance. --Javier ME (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here since it's a close-up. And yes it's in the scope, at least to illustrate Klashorst's work as a photographer (because he is ALSO a photographer) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me --Yamavu (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. work by a notable artist, therefore within scope Abigor talk 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(4th nomination) Explicit erotic photo by artist Peter Klashorst, that is not used on Wikimedia projects and therefore seems to be out of scope InfantGorilla (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the proposed Commons:Sexual Content. Works of a notable person are in scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- That proposal says "Borderline cases should go through the full deletion review process," so here we are. In my opinion we have enough Klashorst photos, and enough vulva photos, which means I strongly recommend deletion under the COM:NUDE agreed guideline and recent WMF statement. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete definitiv unter 18 Jahre altes Mädchen. ES sollte ein Fachmann gefragt werden. Egel ob man nun das Gesicht sieht oder nicht. (Klarhost ist bekannt für minderjährige Modelle) ---Ra Boe- (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Partial translation by google translate) - definitely under 18 years old girl. ES should be asked an expert. Egel whether one sees the face or not. (Klarhost is known for under-age models).
- Um noch mal klar zustellen, es geht mir um die zur Schaustellung kindlicher weiblicher Genitalien. ---Ra Boe- (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Translation:) To deliver clear again, I am concerned about the display of the female child's genitals
- Um noch mal klar zustellen, es geht mir um die zur Schaustellung kindlicher weiblicher Genitalien. ---Ra Boe- (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- (Partial translation by google translate) - definitely under 18 years old girl. ES should be asked an expert. Egel whether one sees the face or not. (Klarhost is known for under-age models).
- Keep - Raboe's opinion on the model's age is irrelevant. This is a work by a notable artist, and thus is in scope. The person is non-identifiable, so there are no personality rights to consider. This has been kept numerous times under our current sexual content guidelines, and apparently it's ok under the new ones too. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't follow that if this image isn't used it is therefore out of scope. As the Commons:Project scope states, Commons aims to "provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." It then goes on to outline five conditions that all media files must meet. Where whether a file is in use comes in is in deciding whether a file meets the requirement that it "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". If a file is in use then it is "considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". Commons:Project scope doesn't say that any files not in use are automatically beyond the project scope. Therefore, the nominator hasn't really explained why this should be deleted. If I assume it is because the nominator feels it isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose" then I would disagree. That a Wikipedia article about the artist exists in eleven languages is a strong suggestion that he is notable. In such a situation, I feel that the aim of Commons "provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all" is furthered by having an as comprehensive collection of this artist's work as possible. Adambro (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Adambro, you inferred my meaning correctly. However, our scope guideline does not empower as to make a fully comprehensive repository. In particular, I would draw the DR community's attention to one sentence in Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose: "The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images". This image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on Peter Klashorst, but at least 11 Wikimedia communities have chosen not to. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So long as we consider Klashorst a notable artist, we collect all his work we can.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept Consensus to keep all work of notable people, including vulva images. (non admin close by nominator.) InfantGorilla (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image serves no purpose on here and is not used for any article. 216.15.111.243 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep immediately. Oh come on! I'm sick of those DR! And I'm sick of anonymous IP coward requests! This picture is 1) a non-pornographic picture; 2) a work by artist Peter Klashorst (and if one thinks we already have enough of Klashorst's work, I'd answer that this artist is famous enough so it would be non-neutral to determine which works we would keep and which we would delete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Commons is not censored. We do have adequate pictures of this nature but we act as a repository for material across the Foundation. It is not pornographic even if it is "graphic" --Herby talk thyme 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, COM:PEOPLE smial (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The artist has articles in WP-projects as painter, not as "photographer" of mainly week and private pics. Release of the person shown there is needed additionally. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - work by a notable artist, therefore within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete out of project scope, 3rd class work of a 3rd class snapshooter. --Eva K. is evil 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is really identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Image made with a top of the line camera. Shutter time 1/8 second, but no motional blurring. The model is posing, for a photographer who is making a living of selling his work, so COM:PEOPLE does not apply. Subject not recognizable anyway. Sexual content is not automatically out of scope, and it would be preferable to have images by a professional and notable photographer rather than the stuff submitted from anonymous single-use accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
KeepAs Pieter Kuiper puts it, intentionally blurry face un recognisable model, nothing in COM:PEOPLE allows deleting this image. Vagina and fingers are focused, so it may fall within scope.--Javier ME (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Not recognizable so COM:PEOPLE doesn't apply. And it's in the scope, at least for being a great illustration of Depth of field --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro, Pieter Kuiper & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant...Electron (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, unidentifiable subject. Prolog (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Picture is not useful for encyclopedias Toni Müller (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Unvalid reason. Or that would mean that any nude picture has to be deleted, which is not the case of course. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is not Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, this is Wikimedia Commons an image repository and this image is in scope. Kept 4 times before, since 2008. Tm (⧼Ta lkpagelinktext⧽) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep As in previous discusion: All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron ツ ➧☎ 21:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 00:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; scientific paper “Dust Atoms and Molecules”.Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Mattbuck: my bad, personality rights on this one
Photo of an aircraft of the 1930s taken from the web; unlikely in the extreme that the uploader is the copyright holder Rlandmann (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete this and the other uploads of this user. Taken from websites without any information about author or source, so there's no way to verify the copyright status. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
error en el nombre Kiko (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no better photo is found. I suppose it's better to have this poor-quality pthoto for historical reasons that to miss any photo. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 15:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Canadian newspaper from 1979. Lupo 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan. Where does the original come from? Lupo 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- == crypte de Saint-Victor ==
Le fond de plan provient du livre "Provence Romane" paru en 1974, mais tous les renseignemets particuliers ont été effacés. Les lettres et les numéros qui ont été ajoutés, sont un travail personnel et correspondent au texte de l'aticle sur Wikipedia Abbaye Saint-Victor de Marseille.Robert Valette (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ça veut dire, qu'il s'agit d'un Œuvre dérivée. L'auteur du livre maintien le droit d'auteur sur le plan original avec ou bien sans les renseignemets particuliers originales. -> copyvio Delete --Rotkraut (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- ce fond de plan a été utilisé dans d'autres livres, mais je comprends que cela pose problème. J'aimerais mettre un plan similaire avec les indications des localisations des sarcophages que j'ai indiquées, mais je ne sais pas comment procéder. Si la carte est supprimée, il faudra supprimer les légendes qui ne se rapporteront plus à rien: c'est dommage. Si quelqu'un peut m'aider pour faire un nouveau plan, merci d'avance.Robert Valette (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - tagged with personality rights, I don't see the issue here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop this petty behaviour. Feel free to express your feelings, but make it in a form which is not a personal attack. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete tagged with personality rights does mean that personallity rights have to be respected in usage (i.e. no defamatory usage). This tag is needed even if a release for distribution under a free licence for any purpose would have been given. I'm more and more asking me if there is anybody with basic kowledge of legal issues in photography. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete had already been deleted because of COM:PEOPLE --KS aus F (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep An unexceptional image that would never have been put up for deletion if it were not for the photographer. Commons has never required subject releases for all portraits, which is what those voting to delete would seem to want. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Personality rights are not an issue. Megapixie (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment "Personality rights are not an issue" when black people's rights are involved - is that so? --KS aus F (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Megapixie. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Don't see how her rights would be violated. Obviously she is very aware of being photographed.--Lamilli (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, and the image page already has the personality rights tag. Prolog (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Although the applicability of COM:PEOPLE is not straightforward, the fact that the source of the picture in flickr has disapperaded prevents us from verifying whether it was taken in a public or private place. Therefore, the most privacy-respectful decision must be made. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, this image is big ... but it is also useless. 92.226.229.63 08:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- 10000 x 10000 pixels; the original .png file is just a white square in my browser. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused and not useful MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a film screenshot. Flickr is licensed CC-BY-SA, but I doubt the uploader owns the copyright to this. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Schwarzenegger and Park acted in a number of Sword and sandal movies. I doubt that any script ever called for suntan lotion to be applied...... It obviously is a candid shot taken when the actors were off-camera - Arnold was a known admirer of Reg Park - see article. It doesn't look like a screenshot at all!! Give the Flickr uploader the benefit of the doubt. I do note, however, that PeterSymonds is brand new to his job. Rotational (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think one should judge an image on its own merits and not be influenced by unsupported doubts and suspicions about other images. The user's being only 37 years old disqualifies him from having taken the photo himself, but does not rule out his rights to a CC licence (he might have inherited photos from the photographer, for example). To assume the worst makes a mockery of supposed good faith. ciao Rotational (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The flickr user has uploaded more than a hundred photos of Schwarzeneger under CC licenses. And I really doubt that all were taken by himself, as some are obvious scans, others are from the mid sixties while the flickr user is only 37 years old according to his profile. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Salma Hayek1.jpg. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Kam Solusar MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong file Koko art (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio from [3] --Rotkraut (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope and unused anywhere. Uploader's only contribution. Looks to be a logo for something and, as such, may be a copyright violation. Regardless, I couldn't find what the logo is for so it seemingly has little potential use. Doulos Christos (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No educational value. Adambro (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's in use on the user's page at it.wp, but on the other hand, I doubt that the images of the gun and gas mask are free (the source is not given anyway), so delete as a probable copyvio. --Tryphon (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be a private holiday image of a non-notable person; image still unused. Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am Win Sisson, newly defined as a non-notable person; this is a picture of me, taken with my camera by my girlfriend, significant other, Karen Pitts. What is the issue?164.106.171.229 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
and:
Bad quality. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Horrible quality, indeed, but they are in use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Why require a model release? There are thousands of other photos in Category:Women. Very often we do not even know who made the photo. In this case we do, and that seems to be the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Irgendwo muß man halt mal anfangen. cat:woman und insbesondere cat:girls sowie cat:boys lohnen. -- smial (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Model releases are only necessary in some jurisdictions for commercial use. That is why that {{Personality rights}} template is there. But it is not necessary for commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- CommentReleases are nessessary for all publications (exceptions do not aply here). But even in your logic: the free liecence distributes the photo also for commercial usage. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Irgendwo muß man halt mal anfangen. cat:woman und insbesondere cat:girls sowie cat:boys lohnen. -- smial (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - tagged with personality rights, I don't see the issue here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Gesetzloser Raum Commons, ok nicht mit mir. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Where did you get THIS "knowledge"? Model releases are necessary for any publication of an persons photo. Exceptions (i.e. group in a public scene, person of public interest) are not applicable here. All the worse if we have thousands of such photos here. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE Why again? --KS aus F (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment 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 by the subject 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).
- 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 with high female illiteracy. Quite the opposite is to be assumed, as Klashorst himself declares that he photographed mainly prostitutes in Thailand (and other countries) 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 countries 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."
- 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 this questionable one. Strong legal and moral doubts stand against week use.
- Have a look at Commons:Project_scope#Censorship. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bitte informiere dich doch erst einmal, was Wikimedia Commons ist, bevor du hier so unqualifiziert herumschwallst. Wikimedia Commons ist nicht nur ein Service für die Wikipedia, sondern nimmt Werke auf, die dem Bildungsauftrag der WMF entsprechen. Da der Fotograf eindeutig relevant ist, sollten wir froh sein, via Flickr so viel wie möglich von seinem Werk dokumentieren zu dürfen --Historiograf (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, die gewohnt angemessene Wortwahl des Kenners... --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Zumal Klashorst himself diese Knipsereien gar nicht zu seinem "Werk" zählt, sondern das als Erinnerungsfotoalbum versteht. -- smial (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, die gewohnt angemessene Wortwahl des Kenners... --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Bitte informiere dich doch erst einmal, was Wikimedia Commons ist, bevor du hier so unqualifiziert herumschwallst. Wikimedia Commons ist nicht nur ein Service für die Wikipedia, sondern nimmt Werke auf, die dem Bildungsauftrag der WMF entsprechen. Da der Fotograf eindeutig relevant ist, sollten wir froh sein, via Flickr so viel wie möglich von seinem Werk dokumentieren zu dürfen --Historiograf (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This long article by Nolte (posted in several DRs) does not seem very relevant here. Individuals may have a right in certain jurisdictions to control the commercial use of their image - but the photographer has the copyright, and not much else matters here. The private-place stuff is not relevant either: a photographer with professional equipment (top of the line) is taking images of a posing model. Exposure was 1/6 of a second and there is very little motion blurr, which means that a tripod was used and that the model was very still. She must have known that this was for publication. This woman is not nude; if her state of dress is a problem in Germany, community standards on moral issues must have become Victorian in comparison with the Asian country (Thailand?) where this image was made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Funny. Kuiper, could you please decide for one of your contradicting arguments: "Model releases are only necessary in some jurisdictions for commercial use." (22:56, 25 January 2009 ) Or: "The private-place stuff is not relevant"? (00:33, 27 January 2009) CC licence leaves the photos for commercial use, thus release is necessary. Using a pro equipment is no proof at all of consent for public release. Holding copyright is one side, personality rights the other; that's what model contracts and releases are made for. And their existance has to be documentated on Commons by OTRS if consent is doubtfull like in this case. In this question, full or half nudity or full dress is not the deciding point. COM:PEOPLE shows - right on top - a fully dressed Jimmy as one example where release is necessary. Explain me one: why is it so hard to explain in what the value of the photo consists to balance out serious legal doubts? --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I do not think I am contradicting myself. Use on commons is not commercial use. I think the problem is a clash between the law and the general public's sense of what is right. It is hard to explain why Micke Mouse should be protected by copyright when any company can just put a picture of some highschool girl on billboards (like the case of Virgin advertising using Flickr images). Dogs and humans are fair game, the law only serves corporate interests, grossly unfair. But there is no legal problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- "She must have known that this was for publication." LOL, reine Vermutung ohne jeden Beleg. "Exposure was 1/6 of a second and there is very little motion blurr, which means that a tripod was used " LOOOL, VR-Objektive existieren, und selbst ohne solchen neumodischen Krams habe ich schon halbwegs scharfe Bilder mit 1/4s hinbekommen. Pseudoargumente ohne jeden Belang, sorry. -- smial (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & Pieter Kuiper... Electron (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photographic ART and thus in project scope. "Pfui ist kein Argument". "Wichsvorlage" ist eine absolut unsachliche begründung. I m wondering about the clear censorship from ST and the other German users. If the work is legal on Flickr re personality rights it should be also here. There is no evidence that the model hasn't given consent for distribution. --Historiograf (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- CommentHisto, you know quite well that on de-WP this picture wouldn't have a chance, because what's needed is evidence that she DID consent and admins are very aware of how protecting the project from legal issues instead of pure gathering. --Martina Nolte (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No special problem with this picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Really sure that you weren't in slight error by uploading here? Please read http://www.asian-sirens.com/blog/comments.php?id=742_0_1_0_C and his own blog http://peterklashorst.blogspot.com/. --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Again. He says: the ladies I photograph and paint are just friends no professional models ... A friend of him delivers: "Peter does not claim to be a photographer. He uses the photos he takes to aid him in his painting and as a way to document his life. Like Peter I use flickr not as a portfolio of my best work but simply as a way of sharing my life through photographs."
- If his photographs would count to his artist work he wouldn't be allowed to publish them under a free licence because professional artists in 99% have a contract with the www.pictoright.nl (equivalent to the German Verwertungsgesellschaft BildKunst) which holds most of his publication rights. (in gereneral the reason why it is so hard to get art under free licences). For "normal" (documentary/journalistic) photographers they don't hold exclusive rights (only the rights on flat rates for reproduction), but for artists they do.
- Last hint. Klashorst is offering not one single photo on the art market: http://www.klashorst.com/shop.asp If we don't come to an agreement in this question somebody just could send him an e-mail and ask him for an e-mail to the OTRS support team. --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- He gave his permission when he licenced them under CC. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- If he has given away exclusive rights his permission to CC is invalid. I will ask himself. --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- He gave his permission when he licenced them under CC. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, and the image page already has the personality rights tag. Prolog (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I was ambivalent until I learned the photo has been removed from Flickr, "The photo you were looking for has been deleted", presumably for a reason and they also report, "peter klashorst is no longer active on Flickr", so there is no longer evidence of licensing. With no license and an obvious effort to remove the image from the public eye, it seems many of reasons to keep mentioned above no longer apply? --RJFerret (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was checked by FlickreviewR - that's sufficient evidence of licence. As for effort to remove it from public view, we don't know who deleted it (flickr or klashorst), and CC licences are nonrevocable - it doesn't matter whether the original source was deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was deleted by yahoo [4], not by Klashorst. But anyway, even though CC licences are nonrevocable you first need to have the right to put a image under CC or we would already have a lot of images from Getty since many people upload them here under a CC-licence. But sadly they don't have the right to licence them under CC so they are deleted. Klashorst himself claims (as was linked already in this discussion) that this girls are just friends, not models. So he definitely does not have a model release and so most definitely non of the girls have declared their agreement not only to their image be spread over the internet but also put under a licence that allows commercial use. -- Cecil (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Someone has to close this and it might as well be me ... This is an identifiable woman in a private place (a bedroom; and no, not it's not a photographic studio). Evidence is needed of her consent, and an assumption that the photographer always obtained such consent is not evidence, even if it were true. In fact, we have nothing to back up such an assumption other than a vague statement that he would have obtained consent as he is a "professional photographer". I do not particularly want to re-open the very lengthy discussions that have already taken place about this photographer, and I would suggest that yet more arguments would be unhelpful unless anyone has any new evidence. Just to be clear: this image is being deleted on the basis of policy/guidelines and not on the identity of the photographer. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Is that Klashorst? Then it is obviously useful to illustrate articles about him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete juristical doubts against lacking encyclopedical use. (Peter Klashorst has reached relevance on WP as painter nor as "photograppher") --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Sure, this is Klashorst. It was in some interwikis before 195.93.60.102 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleteklar ist er das, aber brauchen wir ihn so, will sich der Maler so sehen? --Ra Boe (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Nachtrag: Mal das Bild beschnitten, mit etwas PhotoShop den Hintern noch weg und gut ist.
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE Why again? --KS aus F (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This was the photo I referred to in my comments at Village Pump - nobody sleeps like that; that it is so obviously staged is evidence of its poor artistic vision; regardless, it lacks any educational value. --David Shankbone (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment This tag only points out towards prohibition i.e. of defamatory usage. The tag does not effect the question if publication is consented and thus allowed at all on Commons.
- Publication of a person's photo without his or her explicit 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).
- 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 a 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%. It is to be assumed, as Klashorst himself declares that he photographed in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Kenya and Thailand 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. We don't have a proof for her consent.
- 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 and Gambia - partly charging Klashorst juristically for his work with local women - this is certainly the case. Even in so-called free, Western countries publication of nude, partly porn pictures mostly cause a woman 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."
- In what exactly should educational use be given? seems likely is a bit week. 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.
- Have a look at Commons:Project_scope#Censorship. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & Pieter Kuiper... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete there might be a problem because we can consider the woman is recognizable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, when there are at least two cameramen in the room and their equipment includes massive studio lights[5]. We don't know if the "studio" is the same though and I wouldn't be able to recognise the quality of that equipment in the resulting photos, but I just wanted to note this in one of these deletion requests. --Para (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, and the image page already has the personality rights tag. Prolog (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & Pieter Kuiper. Image by a notable artist. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Someone has to close this and it might as well be me ... This is an identifiable woman in a private place (a bedroom; and no, not it's not a photographic studio). Evidence is needed of her consent, and an assumption that the photographer always obtained such consent is not evidence, even if it were true. In fact, we have nothing to back up such an assumption other than a vague statement that he would have obtained consent as he is a "professional photographer". I do not particularly want to re-open the very lengthy discussions that have already taken place about this photographer, and I would suggest that yet more arguments would be unhelpful unless anyone has any new evidence. Just to be clear: this image is being deleted on the basis of policy/guidelines and not on the identity of the photographer. There was a previous mass deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/nudenoconsent which I closed, but only on the basis that the images should be presented separately. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - tagged with personality rights, I don't see the issue here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete ich würde sagen nein, bei Gesichtern muß eine deutlich Zustimmung erfolgen. Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteObviously a private setting, so there must be a model release to keep it. Guy, check out what kind of technically poor, juridically, politically, and ethically dubios photo without any enyclopedical use you are supporting here by what? Pretending "anti-censorship"? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE Why again? --KS aus F (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Personality rights are not an issue. Megapixie (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. Adambro (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, and the image page already has the personality rights tag. Prolog (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Neutral backgound, which is not dissimilar to many portraits we have here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
kein model release, persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt, keine enzyklopädische verwendung smial (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why would commons require model releases? That is for commercial use of photos. But there is a different problem with this image, and that is the background. One might guess that it is a framed portrait by the Dutch photographer Gerard Wessels. Normally I would say that it is de minimis, but then there is the file name. Derivative work? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Keep as not identifiable, but I'm dubious about the title. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete see COM:PEOPLE - No encyclopedic or educational value --KS aus F (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. Adambro (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist + illustration of female body therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality image by a notable artist, and the subject is unidentifiable. Prolog (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Previous deletion requests are not displayed, maybe because of the unnecessary image-to-file change. Anyway, in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gerard Wessels.jpg a person objected to the file having his name; the name is not uncommon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept.Model not identifiable. COM:PEOPLE does not apply. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploads by MarceloBibancos
[edit]All uploads by MarceloBibancos (contribs, deleted edits, talk):
- File:Figure-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-8.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-6a.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Figure-Supplemental-6b.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The images have no descriptions except "Work done by Marcelo Bibancos" and are not used anywhere. They are probably some original research (most probably crackpot science; they are categorized to Androids, Android [sic], Robots, Nobel Prize (!!), and Cancer), see the (immediately reverted) edits by the uploader on the English Wikipedia; his userpage (where the images have probably been used) has been deleted as "Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something", and the user has been blocked indef as "Spam / advertising-only account: Using Wikipedia solely for self-promotion" --Mormegil (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason whatsoever to become insulting and use words like "crackpot science". Marcelo Bibancos says that this is from his thesis, and googling shows that there is a graduate student by that name, working in this area. Maybe he is planning to write something on a wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the linked edit on w:en:? Oops, sorry, the link I added was wrong, see again. He found a way how a “Universal Cure Against Cancer” [sic] should work? (OK, maybe he found such Cure and he chose Wikimedia Commons to publish it and receive his Nobel Prize, so forget the word I used.) He already wrote something on Wikipedia, and it has been speedy deleted as blatant advertising and his user account blocked indef. That was a fortnight ago. --Mormegil (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care about the others but please keep File:Figure-Supplemental-5.jpg. I just used it for a barnstar. Thanks --Sargoth (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Even if they are original research (or plain wrong), they remain educational. But I would suggest to delete the ones for which there is no clue or potential understanding with the current level of description. --Foroa (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It does not make sense. Some of it is fair use of work of others, and should not be offered with a free license. Much of it was put in category:Nobel Prize, which I am cleaning up now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. All self-created work of no apparent educational value, especially as there are no descriptions at all. Sargoth, sorry about the barnstar. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Used only in a non-notable bio article on enwiki which has been deleted. Questionable licensing. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I Tameko Wood born 12-27-1959 give Tameko49 the right to publish this picture as part of public domain. I Tameko Wood residing in the county of Suffolk in the State of New York relinguish any and all rights to said picture. This picture was taken by me with a camera and pod. Those of you who wish to challenge my authenticity email me
This is a true story of a woman who has been given newspaper coverage "Times Review" contact Julie Lane for verification.
Tameko is a recording artist who is on the official playlist of radio stations contact Paul Richards of WHLI 1100 AM 631-770-4200. Contact Rich Anderson WLIX 94.9 FM radio 631-924-0176. Contact Ms.Chester of WUSB Stoney Brook Station. While your doing all this please be sure and requests my songs so I can get paid the royalities!
I own the licensing for all material written about Tameko. I am the president of Tameko Inc. My name is Tameko Wood. My company Tameko, Inc can be verify through the New York State Governments records online. Go to [6] Type in Tameko only in the search engine and it will pull up verification of who I am.
- Based on this diff it would appear that the uploader misunderstands "public domain". This image is very likely to be a copyright violation and should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I sent in a letter of release from the newpaper and from myself. Please check it out.
Tameko49 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is at Ticket:2009012610023275 for any OTRS users who want to read it. Everything seems to check out on the licensing side. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Licensing may well be fine, scope might not be & certainly not the way it has been used here. --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Herby I rewrote the article to have educational value as a story of triumph over the odds. Don't you think it has educational value to those who may think they have nothing to live for and want to give up. Please reconsider because we have to live in this world with the people around us. It is up to us to make this world a better place. How do you do that?? By educating the people who think they can't make anything out of their lives. How do you do that? By stories like mine. It is up to you guys but I really think my story has educational value. Not book value but a deeper more important value that can effect us all especially now with such economic devastation. Now more than ever people need to see a way through adversities. You guys have the platform to educate....let's educate. People are killing themselves because they can't see a way out. I made it out of the pit so can others. Let's give people a story of hope and strength now before it is too late for some! Tameko49 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Herby
My intent on this site is to educate the people who are lost and drifting. It is a spiritual education as well as a life lesson. If you would think about the economy and the fact that people are killing themselves as a result you should reconsider this article that I posted. I am trying to educate people on the fact that no matter how low you go or how bad things get there is always hope. You and I as well as everyone on this planet have to live with what we have created. I am trying to counter produce the negativity that this economy has given people by offering hope to those who feel it does not exist. Through my story people can see that if one person can survive and make that climb back then certainly someone who hasn't had so much to suffer and overcome can too. What we need now is survival techniques and this goes beyond book knowledge. You must understand what happens to the world and all those in it is a direct result of the uneducated mind. When did we stop using other peoples stories as tools for living? When did we decide that a persons failures and successes are not educational to others. My story could save someone's life and you and the administrators of this site can allow me this platform to do that. Your site is seen all over the world please won't you be a part of saving the lives of others be helping me to tell my story. I would be willing to you and your administrators writing the article for me if you want but now more than ever we must do something to help stabilize those lives who are on the brink of falling off into hopelessness. You guys are a strong and mighty force that can be used for good. Please won't you help me? Tameko49 (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tameko49"
- Delete Outside scope. I would also want to know why the uploader added a {{Hangon}} template, without immediately creating the associated talk page, as requested.
I am sorry but I have not been part of this type of editing and uploading before so I am not really sure about everything. If I did something out of context of what I was suppose to do it is because it is a little confusing to me since everyone's instructions are together on one page. I am not that computer literate as you guys know I was once a homeless person who was abused and beaten on a regular basis. That is why I am telling you it is a miracle that I was able to make a come back. Please forgive me for my error. I still don't really understand what I did wrong just that I can understand that it was something. Tameko49 (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- A further copy of this image has been uploaded at File:Tameko W.jpg. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image of a non-notable person. Out of scope. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation -- IMo the copyright tag {{|tlPD-text}} is icorrect: the image does NOT consist solely of text and simple shapes. What is more, the image is the image of a work of art. By the logic of the uploader, the en:Black Square of Malevich is not copyrightable as well. SemBubenny (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It consists only of words in standard fonts, therefore it is not copyrightable. So keep--russavia (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whether this is {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-text}}, the work is a simple circle with text. The phrase may be trademarkable, but it isn't copyrightable. --russavia (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might repeat is as many times as you want, it's not "a simple circle with text". --Eusebius (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then what is it? --russavia (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the processing used to simulate reflections and shadows, in order to give the illusion of relief, although simple, makes it something more complex than "a simple circle". --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have re-edited the image to remove all of those "simulated reflections and shadows", so there is now nothing more than a circle with text inside of it. I still stand by my original opinion though. --russavia (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't oppose this version. Maybe you should just mention on the image page that it is "the reproduction of a logo designed by..." rather than "a logo designed by..." and identify yourself as the author of this version. --Eusebius (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have re-edited the image to remove all of those "simulated reflections and shadows", so there is now nothing more than a circle with text inside of it. I still stand by my original opinion though. --russavia (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the processing used to simulate reflections and shadows, in order to give the illusion of relief, although simple, makes it something more complex than "a simple circle". --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then what is it? --russavia (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might repeat is as many times as you want, it's not "a simple circle with text". --Eusebius (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have released the updated version into PD. --russavia (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-textlogo}} actually, since you cannot yourself hold a copyright (and thus release it). --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- But why use JPEG format? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-textlogo}} actually, since you cannot yourself hold a copyright (and thus release it). --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the badge is clearly "creative work" since it combines the cyrillic alphabet with the Nazi SS symbol (which is not in the cyrillic alphabet). It's also clearly hate speech, something like putting a swastika in place of the c in America, and should be deleted immediately. Idlewild101 (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't agree with the last part: it has not been created/uploaded on Commons for attacks or hateful activities, but to illustrate Anti-Estonian sentiment (it illustrates a notable hateful activity). It should not be used on a WMF project for attack or propaganda purpose, though. --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes the first part - the "creative part" of putting the non-cyrillic Nazi SS symbol in the cyrillic text means that it is copyrighted. My second comment doesn't directly apply here, except that in the wikipedia article ESStonia is was being used as hate speech (which I've deleted). Using the file as an illustration in an NPOV article wouldn't be a problem if the image was not copyrighted by Komsomolsky Pravda. Idlewild101 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- And which I have reverted, because it is being used the illustrate the term in a visual form. And there is no copyright, you can't copyright words. They can be trademarked, but we don't concern ourselves with trademarks, only copyright. --russavia (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete pr. Advertising/promotional material -meaning outside of the project scope + possible copyvio. -the ad has been created by a magazine. --Termer (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no copyvio, and you are deleting it from articles on WP, simply because you don't like it, which I would tell you to read WP:CENSOR --russavia (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let me spell it out: Everything you have said above is currently irrelevant not only because this is not Wikipedia but since Advertising/promotion falls outside of the Commons scope, the reason for deletion is listed at Commons:Deletion_policy#Regular_deletion. Regarding copyvio concerns, sorry but your claims only are not good enough. The release into the public domain needs to get verified by the original publisher-distributor through the Commons OTRS system. But even if you get your claims verified, the image is still an advertisement.--Termer (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure at all that copyright can be claimed on the current version, and it is definitely not advertisement in the way that it does not promote a product or service. I'd categorize it under "propaganda" and deem it valuable as such. --Eusebius (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let me spell it out: Everything you have said above is currently irrelevant not only because this is not Wikipedia but since Advertising/promotion falls outside of the Commons scope, the reason for deletion is listed at Commons:Deletion_policy#Regular_deletion. Regarding copyvio concerns, sorry but your claims only are not good enough. The release into the public domain needs to get verified by the original publisher-distributor through the Commons OTRS system. But even if you get your claims verified, the image is still an advertisement.--Termer (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, the font used, the colour and the layout of the text within a circle clearly represents a creative work of graphic design. 203.35.135.133 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Info Original nomination was about an earlier version of the file. --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Photoshopping aggravates copyvio even more. SemBubenny (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The image has been altered from the original file nominated for deletion. It consists only of text and colour, and hence it is not copyrightable. The random darts that other editors are throwing for deletion are not valid and are more a case of en:IDONTLIKEIT. We are not censored, and this is a valid example of anti-nationality campaign. --russavia (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also, this is no more "copyrightable" than the other images in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-textlogo. --russavia (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The image is obviously creative enough to be covered by copyright laws. The choice of different fonts and the text layout are not trivial, so these choices constitute art. If it was alone, it might be feasible to argue that the colour is a simple plain red, but in the whole composition, it does not apply anymore. All in all, this image has a level of creative content roughly comparable with the Coca-Cola logo, except that -- unlike that logo drawn up more than a century ago -- its copyright term can not have been expired. Thus, its place is not in the Commons. Digwuren (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can't copyright words. There is no creativity in that. This is clearly not copyrightable. --russavia (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, but only because it is a copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Undeleted PD-textlogo. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-06#File:I don.27t travel to eSStonia.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There are no and there was not evar such building not only at Abaya and Seifullina cross-road but in Almaty at least. This is a falcification in Commons. --Mheidegger (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- You failed to add the {{delete}} template to the image page and to inform the uploader with {{subst:idw}} on his talk page. Without these actions, the deletion request is invalid. --Rotkraut (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The nominator is correct. This is a building that has been designed by Aedas but is yet to be built. The image is an architectural render used to illustrate articles and is therefore not a falsification. I suggest the nominator reads this page from World Architecture news before acusing people of falsification. http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2247
Deevincentday (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the article link I posted earlier this month people can go here http://www.aedas.com/Imaging/AbayaSeifullina to read about the project. The image and information relating to this project were provided to me by Aedas themselves and can be varified by visiting the links provided. Deevincentday (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have re-added this to the log because it is not getting sorted out. Primarily because the requestor did not fully follow the deletion request procedure. The deletion notice did not appear on the page (nor on my page) and I only learned of it recently. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with this as a matter of urgency since the page has a notice saying that is has been nominated since January. It is now June. I do not want to remove the notice myself as according to the notice it is still subject to discussion and cannot be removed until the discussion is closed. Deevincentday (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has had plenty of time to send proof of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This picture is the fake! --Ds02006 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - This appears to be a derivative work of a text by Niemoeller, and no evidence is given in the desc page that Niemoeller freed the text. Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The original text of the poem is published on the referring article anyway...- Oppose - It is a freaking photo of a monument....get real?!?!
- Oppose - text freed here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niemöller MoiraMoira (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't speak German. Would you translate the part of the article that refers to Niemoeller's statement freeing the text, or is it just an otherwise free article quoting the text under the German counterpart to fair use? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I took this photo of a monument.... I had no clue that I would need permission for a monument?!?!
Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The first clue would be COM:DW. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - COM:DW specifically says that utilitarian objects are ok, and this is a fairly utilitarian sign, with the only possible copyright being on the text itself. As to that, this seems to be from several speeches that Niemoeller gave in the 1940s. In that case, I would think that the text would not be copyrighted because it was never put in a fixed physical form. COM:DW is annoyingly nonspecific on the subject of texts, possibly because a photograph of a copyrighted text would be a copy and not a derivative work. --Brunner314 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the text is short enough to be considered fair use. Lerichard (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Obvious delete This reproduces the entire text of a poem. Using an entire poem may not even be fair use, but it's certainly not free, as required here. 66.31.40.74 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, FOP does not apply, Niemoller died in 1984, so no PD. Kameraad Pjotr 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Derived from File:Aerialviewvalletta.jpg which in turn was deleted due to its unclear/dubiuos license status (see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aerialviewvalletta.jpg for details) --Rotkraut (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Je dis et je répète que le site maltavista.net, d'où est tirée la photo d'origine, autorise l'utilisation des photos de son site «the use of copyrighted materials is allowed strictly with a hyperlink to MaltaVista.net» sauf mention contraire comme sur cette autre photo. Alors merci de respecter le travail des contributeurs qui cherchent et illustrent les articles pour le bien de tous les lecteurs. -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I say and I repeat that the site maltavista.net, source of the original photo, allows the use of photos of this site -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, use is not specified (unsure whether they allow commercial use). Kameraad Pjotr 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Cuando cargo una nueva versión con correcciones, no se sustituye la antigua. Con lo que los cambios no se aplican. Carlos Chiva Robles (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept, clearing the cache usually solves that problem. Kameraad Pjotr 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Christian Brogi is a living artist, therefore all images included in this category, apart from the first three, are copyvio. I wrote the uploader here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aloesiena asking whether he is Christian Brogi himself, or otherwise whether he can get a ticket from him. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted those that seem suspicious (video clips etc.), asked the uploader to provide evidence of his identity to OTRS. Kameraad Pjotr 12:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Both are living artists --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's mine whork, i offer to pubblic domine. My name is Christian Brogi (user: Aloesiena). Grazie.--Aloesiena (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ich sehe keinen enzyklopädischer Grund ein schwarzen Hinterteil zu behalten oder wozu braucht man so ein Bild?? --Ra Boe (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Korrektur --Ra Boe (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No use here. --DaB. (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Was there a reason this was deleted outside of the normal deletion cycle ? Megapixie (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't seen the image (which seems to have been prematurely deleted) but if the artist is notable (as mattbuck asserts above; I don't know the artist), wouldn't the image be worth keeping as an example of that artist's work, independently of how usable it is for any other purpose? - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. (simply closing request) Kameraad Pjotr 12:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused; better alternatives exist. See COM:NUDE. Oneiros (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable artist, so in scope. I do not know any real alternatives for that view. --178.39.34.160 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - work by notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Really nice shot! Not all photos of this theme are that great. Good example for the ones who look for it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare --Starscream (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Leyo 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This image has no pedagogical value whatsoever and should not be on Wikimedia. It has been deleted on flickr for what it is. Only the trolls governing Commons see a potential value in this image. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per my previous !votes: Klashorst is a notable artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are a troll and you should be banned on Commons. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, you seem to be the troll. You've renominated an image which at last DR was closed as a unanmimous keep, and are calling people who disagree with you trolls. You vandalised the image page, you did the same to this page a few weeks back, and are now nominating all the images you uploaded, which you released under an irrevocable licence, for deletion on the grounds that I love assholes. And it's true, I do love assholes, in fact I have a little pet theory that relationship compatability is proportional to the similarness of the taste of the two people's backsides. But that's beside the point. I'm sorry that this one image has soured your view of Commons, but I should point out that Commons, like other Wikimedia projects, may contain material that you consider to be offensive. What's more, there's a simple solution to it: don't look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then you are a troll and you should be banned on Commons. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NOTCENSORED. No reason for deletion given. --Saibo (Δ) 19:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe no pedagogical but artistic. --Starscream (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of whose work it is. Folks, not everything on here is going to be to your taste. That is your problem, not Commons'. I continue to be in favor of a way of reducing or eliminating the chance that someone encounters images of human genitalia when they are not looking for them, but I'm entirely opposed to eliminating such images from the Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Our photographic nudity tends to be white; this is an important exception.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete. Please do not make personal attacks directed at fellow editors. Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Flying Spaghetti Monster permission to use is a wikipedia only license and not a free license. Since all FSM images are derivates of Bobby Henderson work we can't use them --Geni (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- So pretty much everything in Category:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster is a potential issue. Worse still the original author's site is now CC-by-nc-sa license.Geni (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it were previously a free license, still valid. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ja but no evidence of a previous free license.Geni (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is my work and was done by me and my gf and then presented on Bobby's page: http://www.venganza.org/2008/12/03/fsm-holiday-cards/ So I guess this discussion is over. :d Work is Pubic Domain as previously stated.
- Comment I have sent an OTRS e-mail asking him to clarify his position. Kameraad Pjotr 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ja but no evidence of a previous free license.Geni (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it were previously a free license, still valid. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- So pretty much everything in Category:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster is a potential issue. Worse still the original author's site is now CC-by-nc-sa license.Geni (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all files in category except those showing public events etc. No OTRS permission tag after 6 months. Sv1xv (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
english version of the image deleted here -<(kmk)>- (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason is given to delete this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - yes, there's no reason to delete this image. -- Felix König ✉ 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - no reasons to delete. And there was never a version in another language. --ChNPP (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept No obvious reason to delete this specific image. Sv1xv (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There are no and there was not evar such building not only at Abaya and Seifullina cross-road but in Almaty at least. This is a falcification in Commons. --Mheidegger (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- You failed to add the {{delete}} template to the image page and to inform the uploader with {{subst:idw}} on his talk page. Without these actions, the deletion request is invalid. --Rotkraut (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The nominator is correct. This is a building that has been designed by Aedas but is yet to be built. The image is an architectural render used to illustrate articles and is therefore not a falsification. I suggest the nominator reads this page from World Architecture news before acusing people of falsification. http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2247
Deevincentday (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the article link I posted earlier this month people can go here http://www.aedas.com/Imaging/AbayaSeifullina to read about the project. The image and information relating to this project were provided to me by Aedas themselves and can be varified by visiting the links provided. Deevincentday (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have re-added this to the log because it is not getting sorted out. Primarily because the requestor did not fully follow the deletion request procedure. The deletion notice did not appear on the page (nor on my page) and I only learned of it recently. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with this as a matter of urgency since the page has a notice saying that is has been nominated since January. It is now June. I do not want to remove the notice myself as according to the notice it is still subject to discussion and cannot be removed until the discussion is closed. Deevincentday (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has had plenty of time to send proof of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This picture is the fake! --Ds02006 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted banknote image. -82.31.164.108 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
