This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Looks like an attack image to me. Either the uploader is the redhead and thus is apparently insulting himself or this is a copyright violation. At the very least, needs to be renamed and the description edited. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb04:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. I don't think there's any real need for a discussion here - it's also a copyvio/derivative work of windows xp/youtube/whatever is on youtube. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I highly doubt an amalgamation of different (likely copyrighted) trademarks into one image qualifies it as Commons-worthy free media. Dynaflow (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I highly doubt an amalgamation of different (likely copyrighted) trademarks into one image qualifies it as Commons-worthy free media. Dynaflow (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file File:Boekenbon.jpg is a scan of a booktoken from 1934. The licensing the uploader gave was cc-by-2.5-nl. Uploader didn't give any more information. I did a bit of research and added the fact it was taken from http://www.museumenschede.nl/?id=148, which is a copyrighted website. Can we keep this file and if so, what license should it have? (and on a different note - if we can keep this file, the original on the site is a larger size + has more parts that we'd probably want then too). ---- Deadstar (msg) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment The personality rights tag only means that users have to take care for i.e. not defamatory usage, consent of the person to any publication is still needed. Model releases regulate all details of contented or not-contented usage. Again, i am strongly astonished about how few juristical knowledge is spread here. Free information and free content is NOT meaning to take people all their rights away by highway robbery. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me why COM:PEOPLE applies - it appears to me that this is taken in an outdoor courtyard (ie a public place where there is little to no reasonable expectation of privary). In addition, the photograph is taken from only a few feet away and the subject is looking at the camera (so there is no unreasonable intrusion). Thanks for explaining your thinking. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 seems to be a dislike of the photograph involved. This photo seems likely to have been taken in public place so personality rights are unlikely to be an issue. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Release/OTRS lacking. We distribute this picture under a free licence for any purpose, a personallity rights tag (for example against defamatory usage) is not enough.--Martina Nolte (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An unexceptional image. Commons has never required releases for full-face portraits. 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)[reply]
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. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep defamatory usage would hurt the author's and possibly the model's rights anyway. BTW: What's the difference between this image and others with the personallity rights tag on their description page? This is not to be discussed here. --Yamavu (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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 [1]) - 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) 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person is clearly aware she is being photographed, and it's tagged with personality rights anyway, so there is no issue. Other than that it's also someone who is clearly posing for the artist. Do NOT reopen DRs simply because you don't like the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbuck (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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.wb01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CommentAppears 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)[reply]
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.wb01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 evil00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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 deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Release/OTRS lacking. We distribute this picture under a free licence for any purpose, a personallity rights tag (for example against defamatory usage) is not enough.--Martina Nolte (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Seems to be just plain porno and completely outside the project scope. You can rub your genitals with anything; how is this special? 68.173.113.10619:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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).
(Translation:) To deliver clear again, I am concerned about the display of the female child's genitals
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Circumstantial evidence: In two of his four edits User:TZV wrote on the talk page of Felix Koenig. The comments are barely comprehensible and riddled with babelfish type errors. In particular, the translator must have been a german-english babelfish ("Verschreiben" --> "to prescribe"). At the time, these comments were written, a German WP user de:Benutzer:Felix Koenig was closely associated with German WP user user TZV. They literally came in a bundle. This german user TZV is notorious for bad practice, when it comes to sources for his contributions. He consistently describes himself to be a mid-teenage pupil. Now, it is more than unlikely that a german teenager gains access to the core of a russian nuclear plant, takes a photo and is allowed to distribute it freely. There is no meta information on the camera used. In addition, the image uploaded to WikiCommons features weak moiree artifacts. These are telling signs of a scan of a print. There has already been a deletion request for the image. However, two out of three users assumed good faith and voted in favor of the image. Consequently, User:Anonymous Dissident decided to keep it. User:Detectorcomplained. Anonymous Dissident recommended to renominate the image and link to the discussion. A few days later, an IP presented a link to a webpage, that contains a copy of the same image. Summary: The image is most certainly copyrighted by someone else.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a window-less engine-room, illuminated by electrical light only. So different hue is due to post processing, rather than because of a different time of day. The point of view is exactly the same in both images. The technician on the right, is in the same position on both copies. The loose cable to the left of the fuel rods is in the same position, too. I see no significant difference between the two images. Even if these were different images, circumstantial evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt, that File:RBMK.Reactor.jpg is not own-work of User:TZV.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to be entirely certain and it does not really matter, but it seems to me that the technicians are in different positions. I have visited nuclear reactors in the Soviet Union, and I have made photos inside. I could scan them, but they are not that encyclopedic as I do not quite remember which reactor this was. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last deletion discussion can be found here. I still don't believe that the user names are just an coincidence. And the user is to young to believe that he got access to the reactor of a Russian power plant and permission to take photos. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You might although take in consideration, that de:user:TZV was active on german wikipedia only minutes after this upload here in the article de:RMBK, the type of reactor shown. It was although de:user:TZV who added this image 3 days later to that same article. de:user:TZV is currently blocked for his lack in the use of sources. He was blocked before for using serveral russian source, without being capable of understanding them, but protecting his edits via editwar. --Blunts (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's summarize. 1. The morphology and syntax of the phrases by the Commons User TZV is indubitable german. The chance is very small, that there are two german users with the name TZV, who work at the same sectors in german wikipedia. 2. The german user TZV is well known for source problems regarding his articles in wikipedia as well as in wiki-commons (ChNPP is his officially Commons-Account). I think everybody can conceive that it is impossible for a 14 year old kid to get access to a russian nuclear power plant and take some photos. 3. There are obvious moire patterns on the images. In addition there are no meta datas of the camera. --Paramecium (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is highly unlikely that the guy with the red hat on the right is at exactly the same position in both images (unless he stands there all day). The two images are from the same source. Quartl (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interseting aspect as you can see a paper-like structure in the upper half of the picture. This would support the scanned-thesis. --Blunts (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Listed as PD-Art, but, as also mentioned in the description, it has been restored and reworked, and consequently PD-Art does not apply. See also copyright notice for page where it was taken. • Rabo³ • 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the link you give above: Images may be downloaded from this site and used for any purpose subject only to the condition that the copyright is acknowledged and an attribution given to RestoredPrints.com (for example: Image courtesy of RestoredPrints.com). Any on-line commercial use should, out of courtesy, clearly exhibit a link to: www.restoredprints.com. Seems free enough for Commons (it's basically cc-by), don't you think? --Tryphon (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that was not my point. The currently claimed PD-Art clearly does not apply, as specifically said on the above link. So, for this file (and the other) to remain here on wiki, another copyright licence that matches above should be applied (be that the above suggested cc-by or another, if they fit this specific case - I'll leave the judgement and application of this for others with a better grasp of the possibilities). If it was just a basic "clear copyvio w/o any possible solutions and should be deleted", I would have forwarded them to speedy deletion instead of here. • Rabo³ • 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems to fit perfectly. And to Rabo³, my answer was based on the fact that this is a deletion request, and it wasn't clear to me that your question was more can we remove {{PD-Art}} and find an appropriate license. Sorry I missed the point. --Tryphon (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Listed as PD-Art, but, as also mentioned in the description, it has been restored and reworked, and consequently PD-Art does not apply. See also copyright notice on page where it was taken. • Rabo³ • 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepI don't understand why my creation is a "copyvio" (no text, volontary deformed shapes...) when others of the List of 600px association football flags (for example Lille, Lorient or Lyon amoung french clubs etc.) are not. I simply wanted to update SM Caen alternative logo, to make it closer to the current official logo rather than old one.--Hastings II (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is nearly exactly the same as the original except for 2 elements and has been stretched ... It doesn't appear as a creation but as an attempt to do a counterfeit. For Lille it's hard to protect such an image (a part of a circle + a text that is based on free font). For Lyon I have some doubt, for Lorient I must agreed, it looks nearly exactly the same (replacement of the fish by a free one, but doing a mimetism of the logo) => no creation at all would be accepted by any judge. I agree that it should be asked for deletion. Most of the logo I ve seen on the page you linked, respect at least a work of creation.Dionysostom (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I don't believe this is a copyvio. That being said, the description states fantasy, so I am curious as to why a fictional football team's flag is in scope. Ho hum. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
UK anonymous works (other than Crown Copyright) do not go into the public domain until 70 years after publication. As such, this is still copyrighted until 31/12/2010. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Don't agree with your "real source" since the real source is that NY Times photo, however, I would agree with your time estimate. But anyway, it would be a very weak argumentation for keeping it as PD-US. -- ShaggeDoctalk?09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a no purpose file. Provided description (pls read) seems that the user uploaded it for fun maybe to insult. talk Abdullah Harun Jewel, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keepimmediately. 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)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:47, 5 April 2008 (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CommentCOM: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keepimmediately. 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)[reply]
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" --Herbytalk thyme18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, well within Commons:Project Scope. Bad faith nomination. Commons is not censored. -- Catちぃ？ 23:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WeakKeep 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.wb01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
This seems to be the case here. The picture is described as "Girls with Christina piercing", but the small shiny dots apparently don't work as an illustration (compare with others from Category:Female_genital_piercings). (The dispayed persons might also be underage. Maybe a pediatrician could make an educated guess.) --Kurt Jansson (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I don't agree with any of your points. About redundancy/scope-argument: this is the only picture on Commons which displays women wearing a Christina piercing in more than just detail. An good quality image of three women, standing upright, that gives you a nice impression of how the piercing looks like. That's why it is in use multiple times. And about that underage thing: in pretty much every western nation it's very very hard to find someone who does genital piercings on underage persons which makes it very very unlikely for these girls to be underage. I don't see what an pediatrician could ad to that. --Lamilli (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"gives you a nice impression of how the piercing looks like" — I'd say that's exactly what the picture doesn't achieve.
Doesn't that mean that you had to delete every picture at Commons that displays nudity or genitalia? How could you ever be sure? And in this case it is even highly unlikely (for the given reasons).--Lamilli (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so sure that the displayed persons are not underage, why did you use the phrase "Mädchen mit Christina-Piercing" when you inserted the picture into the German Wikipedia article about piercings? In an encyclopedic context you don't call a person of full age "Mädchen". --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIf in doubt of under age, you can easily be shure if there is a written permission. Otherwise: Delete all this stuff. -- smial (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is doubt, just read the comments. You as uploader could dispel them, but you don't. Anyway, that's not my main point. The image is a perfect example for a "file that falls outside the permitted Commons scope" as cited above. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment C'mon Kurt, your main point isn't Commons scope, it's about nudity, isn't it? Would you worry in the same way if the picture would display a pierced ear, nose, belly button etc.? Would you come up with all that "underage" stuff? Would you mind the scope? What's the matter with the scope? The picture is the only one on commons that show what it shows - and it's in use therefore. What else do you need. This is a nudophobia campaign like we had it before (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barbara Clit.jpgCommons:Deletion requests/Image:Lauren Nipple by Tommy T.jpgCommons:Deletion requests/Image:Lizas Labiaplastie.jpg) Again: if you don't like naked people, don't look at them. Stop posting weird deletion requests. This pic is not porn, the people are not underage and the picture is used!!!!!!!!--Lamilli (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lamilli. Vielleicht hast du die Löschbegründung auf englisch nicht verstanden: minors = minderjährige (hier Mädchen). Du selbst hast sie beim Einbinden (samt automatischer Selbstsichtung) auch hier als solche erkannt und benannt und führst jetzt einen edit war, um das Bild drin zu behalten und "wird benutzt" zu schreien. Das Bild ist weder richtlinien- noch gesetzeskonform. Jetzt besser? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gut, meinetwegen auch in deutsch. Was soll ich hier nicht verstanden haben? Das es um vorgeschobene Minderjährigkeit geht oder was? Ich hab in Folge dargelegt, warum es für mich abwegig ist, dass die Personen minderjährig sind (einfach weil niemand bei Minderjährigen Intimpiercings durchführt). Und überhaupt: wie kommt der Antragsteller drauf, dass sie dies sein könnten? Er hat bisher noch keinen Grund geliefert, anscheinend geht es ihm auch nicht wirklich darum (“Anyway, that's not my main point”). Und dann: ich führe einen Editwar? Vielleicht. Angefangen hab ich ihn sicher nicht. Es ist nicht Richtlinien und Gesetzeskonform? Welche Richtlinie, welches Gesetz??? Selbst wenn die Personen minderjährig wären (und das Wort „Mädchen“ implizert, für mich zumindest, keine Minderjährigkeit) - was ich jedoch aus besagten Gründen ausschließe - welches Gesetz wäre verletzt? Handelt es sich um Pornografie? Wohl kaum. In jeder Bravo hast du Nacktbilder von unter 18-Jährigen, über welches Gesetz redest also du?--Lamilli (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Es mag vielleicht erlaubt sein, Piercings in dem Bereich auch bei Jüngeren zu stechen, üblich ist es definitiv nicht. Es ändert nichts am Gesagten: 1) es ist wesentlich wahrscheinlicher, das sie über statt unter 18 Jahren als sind. Sogar laut Urheber-aussage sind sie dies. 2) Selbst wenn sie das nicht wären: gegen welches Gesetz würde verstoßen. Es handelt sich hier nicht um Pornografie, so das die Frage der Minderjährigkeit eigentlich gegenstandslos ist.--Lamilli (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the sentence “Pictures of minors without parental release have no place on Wikimedia projects” was never said or written by me. I would maybe agree if we were talking about minors as identifiable people, but here we have a picture of body parts. And then again: why are we talking about minors??? There is not even an indication that they are minors and certainly no proof.--Lamilli (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?? Your contribution on which I refered was a referenced edit on de-WP that Christina piercing was banned for under 16s, so that your former argument the Christina piercing would in itself be a proof for their majority is highly contractory. The uploader worte: Girls. Being the photographer he should easily be able to initiate a release. One of them is identifiable by her tatoo. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Former usage due to Lamilli spamming the picture crosswiki, I'm not convinced that an encyclopaedic use is possible. Where is the model release? And again: bad bad canvassing on dewiki Achates (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more pictures that show genital piercings how they actually look. Rather than the typical widespread close-up, you can actually see, in proportion, how it looks in real life. It is illegal to pierce in the US on anyone under the age of 18 (without a guardian being present), & I highly doubt that a father/mother would take their daughter to get a genital piercing. Should we go around deleting every image of genitalia stating that there is no "proof" the people photographed are adults? As many have stated above, there is no reason for deletion. hmwithτ17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, per the above discussion. Two points were raised in this DR: out of scope and underage. The first one is easily dismissed by the fact that the image is legitimately in use. The second one is trickier, but on the account that the subjects are unidentifiable and the argument that this kind of piercing would be very hard to get for an underaged girl, unsubstantiated suspicion is not enough to justify deletion. –Tryphon☂23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - it may suprise some people, but sexuality and reproductive organs are in the projekt scope. So, suprisingly we do have articles like de:Vulva or en:Vulva, which even more suprisingly do have pictures showing a specific part of a naked females body. A female who can not be identified by that picture ether.--Blunts (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated in the first paragraph of COM:PEOPLE...do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable... Not the most descriptive image of a vagina, but a differen angle, so it can have educational value image and we can keep it within scope. --Javier ME (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. The consensus appears to be that this image is within the scope of Commons. The subject is not identifiable (at least not unless someone knowns them extremely well...). WJBscribe(talk)16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deletetagged 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"permission for this image to be used on Wikimedia." is not enough. We need permission for use by anyone, for any purpose. It also does not mention if derivative work is allowed. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photo is a derivative work of the depicted diorama. You need to get a license of its creator or copyright holder. An authorization to take photos does not imply the right to publish the photos. --Rotkraut (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file has not been used anywhere, There is another file with this same name in wikipedia and that was used in an article. Copyright issue is also concerned.
Abdullah Harun Jewel( Talk) 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
release/OTRS lacking. The person could be recognized by her body and the flat. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by this person.--Martina Nolte (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCOM:PEOPLE has absolutely nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. The flat is probably hired, and if the subject "can be recognised by her back" we may as well have no images of people at all on Commons. 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)[reply]
For me it's not because of the photographer's identity. I truly believe that the subject can be recognized, but I understand your remark. I'd also like to say that it looks fairly out of scope: it looks very much like the "personal photographs" that we usually delete: no educational content, no notable subject and bad quality. The fact that the author may be recognized as an artist does not change the fact that this is a photograph without composition, made with a portable phone (!), with both under- and overexposed parts, which makes me think that the subject was not conscious at all of being shooted by a "professional photographer" who would then publish the picture. Looks like a "stolen photograph", and this is why I think we shouldn't host it without explicit consent of the subject. --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture could have been taken by Doisneau or Cartier-Bresson, it would still be a crappy cell phone picture and I still cannot decently believe that the woman knew it was aimed at publication. When Picasso blows his nose, his handkerchief does not magically become a notable work of art of reasonable educational value. --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree with Eusebius on this one. The case is not much different from other personal snapshots that get routinely deleted. The image could maybe illustrate Dating#Dates making phonecalls they don't want you to hear, but how educational is that? The woman here is not posing in front of a photographer with professional equipment, and she may very well have had an expectation of privacy (certainly in making that phonecall). But she is not really recognizable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand objections to value, but subject can't be recgnisable for sure. I mean, if someone knows this person they might suspect who she is, with the same lack of certainty others would misrecognise a different person. Please excuse my English. --Javier ME (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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) 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Parental release/OTRS lacking. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by the parents. The public scene does not justify publication, as this one child has been fokussed out alone. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. We accept even images of minors unless in a private place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that we should consider a swimming pool a public place. We don't know the status of this one, and even for "public" swimming-pools, there's a recent discussion somewhere (can't remember where, should be the talk page of a policy page) in which arguments have been advanced saying that people at a swimming-pool can reasonably expect not to be photographed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here with MichaelMaggs. Public swimming pools are almost all places where I would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy (it may interest people to know that I actually am a lifeguard - this is something I know about). See Talk:Nudity for the discussion referred to above. However, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one goes to the pool with a photographer and their camera. Of course one can concoct scenarios where that would not be the case, however I think some small amount of good faith can be assumed here. The image should be kept since on balance, in this situation, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't agree, what makes you think, by looking at the pictures, that the parents went to the swimming pool with their child (I don't see them here, the children may be with somebody else), and that they allowed somebody to take pictures and publish them? Plus, we don't know whether it is a public swimming-pool, but I think that's less relevant. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I used the word "public" in the technical/jargon sense, not the COM:PEOPLE sense. Regardless who the child is with, they are the child's legal guardian for that time & for this entirely non-harmful picture by a (semi-)professional photographer, can give consent as far as I'm concerned. — Mike.lifeguard21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Adambro (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So all we need is that some people/newspapers/... consider us an artist and the rules for normal people like FOP, personality right, model release, trademarks, ... will not apply for us anymore? Then I will be allowed to photograph minors witout permission of their parents? -- Cecil (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The flickr picture has been deleted. Why? We don't know. But *if* a party didn't want their child to be photographed, this would exactly be what could happen (that they ask that the picture will at least be taken off flickr). BTW, just in general: The quality of the picture does never constitute a reason for keeping an image that might infringe on privacy rights. It sounds frightening how some of you argue with the picture quality!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. There are good arguments on both sides. Since our policy is somewhat fuzzy, I am closing this as keep on the basis of consensus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
release/OTRS lacking. These Tatoos are far away from little standard tatoos, so the person may well be recognized. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by this person.--Martina Nolte (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Adambro (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The personality 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 or whereever.
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.
The complete lack of any contract regulating usage rights of a photo is strongly to be assumed, as Klashorst himself declares that he photographed in 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 any proof for her consent.
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.
Kept. Per consensus. I doubt that "identifiable" in COM:PEOPLE should be read as meaning "identifiable to an intimate partner". --18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)MichaelMaggs (talk)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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[4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
Zumal Klashorst himself diese Knipsereien gar nicht zu seinem "Werk" zählt, sondern das als Erinnerungsfotoalbum versteht. -- smial (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It was deleted by yahoo [5], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Actually, if you open up the SVG file in a text editor, there are a fair about of text elements and vector paths; not sure why they don't display, though... Give the original uploader a reasonable time to fix the problems, and if still isn't fixed, then delete the image...
P.S. Trivially added an opaque dark background, so you can see the paths (but still not the text, for some reason, though the text does display in Adobe SVG plugin). AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this objection is supposedly based on, since that's part of the standard minimal Dublin Core Metadata SVG file info, as automatically inserted by a number of programs:
Sorry. It was not meant as an objection. I mistakenly thought the external reference might explain why this did not show anything. I must have been confused. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
For sure the characters are copyrighted. But this image was draw for Centenary of the Japanese Immigration as mascots. But now, I think we must have Mauricio's permission too. I already asked. Just waiting for his response. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No source; Unknown who commissioned this work appears to be similar in nature to a portrait painted by Steve Polson. This file does meet CSD but do to the nature of the person shown I will not list it as so. Marcusmax(speak) 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Though the image may not be in an article right now, it's still potentially useful for later expansion, or for use on other wikimedia projects. There's no reason to delete it. --Elonka (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"You can present photos from our site, just add the source." is not a free license. It does not mention permission for derivative work, commercial use or any use outside of Wikipedia. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The file on enwp had a quote from the Ukrainian source site that according to google translate says: "When the information in printed or electronic form, a reference to the All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland" is required." I doubt there was a permission for commercial use and derivatives. If this must be deleted here, the license on enwp should be adjusted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was uploaded on Wikipedia along with many other images from the same website and there was no problem. Now I don't know who and why moved it here and I am not sure if it is OK with commons but in case of deletion please restore it on Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Avala and thanks for reading here. The requirements on Wikipedia and Commons are the same, the only difference is that Wikipedia allows images under the terms of fair use and that Commons is more scrutinizing. The problem is: Commons and Wikipedia accepts only images that everyone can use for every purpose, including commercial purposes. Press images are often free at first sight, but in most cases they are restricted: Commercial usage yes, but only for press and books, not for other commercial use like advertising. Derivative works are not allowed in most cases. The website does not say much about copyright, but the absence of a prohibition for derivative works is not reliable enough. We need their clear statement, that everyone can use the photos for every purpose including every commercial and derivative use, otherwise images from this website should be rejected on both projects, wp and commons. --Martin H. (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is an svg better version : image:Developpement durable.svg, it is used only on talk page on fr to improve it. Superseded. --- Zil (d) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The SVG version now renders correctly in MediaWiki. I have replaced all usage of the .png with the .svg. There's no reason to maintain duplicate versions now. --129.2.99.24021:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that was me, forgetting to log in... sorry! Again, all the uses of .png have been replaced with the .svg version. So we should remove the .png now that it's totally redundant. Moxfyre (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may suprise some people, but sexuality and reproductive organs are in the projekt scope. So, suprisingly we do have articles like de:Vulva or en:Vulva, which even more suprisingly do have pictures showing a specific part of a naked females body. A female who can not be identified by that picture ether.--Blunts (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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. Adambro (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated in the first paragraph of COM:PEOPLE...do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable... Regardless notability of the artist, educational value of this descriptive image is easy to grasp and within scope. --Javier ME (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. 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 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 this is even a problem for him. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe in some users there's a need for genital photos in heaps. But how many of that does Commons actually need for eduacational issues? AFAICS no voyeur has to go to expensive porn sites any longer as Commons seem to have a tendency to turn into an uncontrolled host of such material. All that under the disguise of "no censorship please". BTW: Noone ought to imply that I'm prudish, I'm a regular visitor of the sauna and therefore used to see naked people in a relative public. But I have a profound aversion to see people, espescially women, reduced to their genitals for obvious motives which are not educational. Man spürt die Absicht, und man ist verstimmt, literally translated: One feels the aim, and one ist displeased. --Eva K.is evil00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you get the impression that there is a desire to host a great deal of "adult" content on Commons. What is the possible motivation? You can't seriously suggest that anyone who wants to look at such images couldn't find thousands of times more images elsewhere very easily. Sure we have a reasonable number of similar images but I would note that this one is in use, something which you seem to have neglected to address. It isn't possible to simply look at this image in isolation and say it is one too many. To delete images on the basis that we already have many similar images would require us to analyse what other images we have. You've not attempted to do this either and haven't suggested a similar image that could replace this one. I would however suggest that it is difficult for us alone to make judgements about such things without consulting with those projects that use these images. It would be quite arrogant of me to believe that I know enough about the subject of every Wikipedia article to be able to decide what is and what isn't useful in illustrating that subject. If you so strongly object to this image then you should query why it is being used at the projects concerned and discuss alternatives which they can use. Simply deleting this image will have an adverse effect on those projects that use it. Adambro (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The other images (the ones I didn't mention) don't need to be deleted. Though, we could have a hostile view from Ford if they ever find out: do we really need to keep the images licensed most likely by mistake? →Ditithepenguin — 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that have a non-permitted licence as a watermark. Even if the original Flickr licence said something else, it is clear that these were never intended by Ford to be free. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They made a mistake, this is their problem, the watermark doesn't have juridical value and with Creative Commons licence you can't reverse the licence to another. So CC-BY is right. Vascer (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where did you read that the watermark doesn't have juridical value? The CC wiki? The Copyright Act? Please source your statement. I took my time to explain on the Village Pump as well as here, with information from the CC wiki itself, that the way you obtained the pictures is determinant in determining which license to use. →Ditithepenguin — 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that someone at Ford either can't make up their minds a/or can't deliver the right instructions to whomever uploads this stuff. We've had this problem from god knows when (The earliest i've seen is File:Ford_Escape_Hybrid_(pshot).jpg). And conveniently enough, that image also has this link.
What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work.
So now we're left with a problem: Ford has changed the CC terms, but not before some of us have gotten the image under the less restrictive license. And under CC rules, Ford can't exactly stop us from using the images downloaded/uploaded under the less restrictive license before they had a "change of heart" because many of us can point to the upload stats on Commons and if needed, we can get the activity logs from Flickr and point out that Ford changed the license to something more restrictive after we uploaded the pics here. Or something like that. Someone that is competent in such matters can be abit more clear. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these images were uploaded with a watermark in place limiting use. The watermark never changed; the photos on Wiki show that watermark. The question is whether in dealing with conflicting information that was put up simultaneously, we go with the less or the more restrictive. IFCAR (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I just noticed something very damning. Diti, you need to either change the deletion request to include every single image in the category, including all derivative works like File:David_Duchovny.jpg, File:Christensen, Helena (FMC) crop.jpg, etc. Or you have to give a valid argument as to why you didn't include many of the celebrity pics that were cropped from the Ford images. You can't "selectively" go after some images, and let those images stay. File:Ford Escape Hybrid (pshot).jpg has the deletion request, yet not request deletion for File:A Ford Escape Hybrid & David Duchovny.jpg, when both have the same {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag on them. Either you take the whole enchilada, or you don't take the whole enchilada. You can't be picky.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you have a look at the file history of each picture? I selected the copyvios—the images having been obtained (the most important word in your citation above)— with the NC clause, as the first version of each file cleary shows the watermark. I included File:Ford Escape Hybrid (pshot).jpg within the deletion request by mistake, though. I removed it from the above list. →Ditithepenguin — 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, 293.xx, we are talking about the images with watermark in the original version only. The images without the watermark (or without having the watermark cropped) are not for discussion, the license of this images alowed commercial use at the time of the upload here and no other license was given per watermark or metadata. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well these images were uploaded with the CC-by-nc watermark, of course Ford people made the mistake but it is clear that their intention was not to release these works under CC. ■ MMXXtalk08:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionDid anyone tried to contact with the flickr account owner or the ford press department and ask them to change the license? ■ MMXXtalk08:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dimitri, got your email regarding Ford images on the Ford Flickr account - let me look into the issue and get back to you. However I would say that all images were released under CC non-commercial (as per the watermark) so any other use would not be permitted.
I'll let you know if I can get someone from Ford to jump into the discussion and shut it down - looks like a lot of images have to be deleted, unfortunately :-(
Comment It is just four days ego maybe we should wait for reply, anyway even if we delete these images, we can undelete them whenever we got the permission. ■ MMXXtalk11:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please DO NOT do this. They are used in a lot of articles across multiple wikis. If you delete them, the commons unlinker will remove them from the articles and it will be a pain to clean up. I suggest we have a moritorium for a few months until this can be cleaned up. There is no deadline or rush, and removal is only done as a courtesy as Lar suggested below. This entire thing amounts to concern trolling. --Dragon695 (talk)
Comment You can't stop the removal of images that are only for CC-BY-NC and I doubt it would take a month or a few months to replace these images. This deletion request is trolling? If so you need to assume good faith! Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We may have a good case legally – I do not know US-law. In Denmark offers are binding with some exceptions. If the up loader was not Ford it would not be binding, but that does not seem to be the case. Next if “we” were not in good faith or if it would be unfair to uphold the offer it would not be binding. For example say Ford has a car that should cost 25,000 $ and it had a sign with 24,000, $ it would be binding. If the sign however said 1 $ it would not be binding or if the sign said “By Ford for 25,000 $” you could not demand to bye the whole Ford Company for 25,000 $. In my view we do not have good faith if there is a watermark saying something different than the license written in “text”. --MGA73 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although await any further details from Ford in response to the request for clarification. Two weeks from March 3 would take us to March 17, I suggest not closing this deletion request until then at the earliest. Where a watermark conflicts with information from the setting on Flickr, it isn't safe for us to simply ignore it and go with the less stringent licensing because that is convenient for us. Where the licensing situation of an image is unclear, as obviously is the case here, images should not be hosted but attempts to clarify the situation should be made. Adambro (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Adambro. Ford gave conflicting information similtaniously, with clear CC-NC on the watermark and CC-BY in the tagging. The change of license to CC-NC indicates that was their original intent; despite the initial upload as CC-BY the conflicting license claim in the watermark should at least give pause that the Flickr tag may not have been correct. Ford has been contacted and made aware that some nice images which would be useful for illustrating articles on Ford products could be deleted if we don't hear from them about allowing use under a free license. If we don't hear back in the affirmative, Delete -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can I request an extension on this, right now I am busy in school. However, I have already run this by User:Lar in the past and he said we go with the tags on the flickr page at the time the image was uploaded not what is in the watermark. Please take no action until you have spoken with him. I will attempt to get in contact with another admin on en-wp who also can verify this. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. This is complex in my view... I hope the note to Ford works and they license these images to Commons under a suitable license. If they do not, there are two questions: Were the images intentionally licensed in a Commons compatible way? If not, I think we're fairly clearly obligated (at least in my worldview) to "do the right thing" even if legally we aren't, and delete them. If they were intentionally licensed but now they are not, then I think we have to decide if we want to allow "takebacks" in this case. Our policy on takebacks is that we grant them, as a favor, to contributors in good standing even though we don't have to, as long as doing so won't materially harm the project. Ford's marketing arm (or whatever Ford organization uploaded these on behalf of Ford the corporation) is not a "contributor in good standing" but they are an organization that we might want to do favours for. Especially if we communicate successfully with them and they give us some images we can use.... but that should not be a quid pro quo. So I agree with the call to wait a bit to see what happens. But I also think we do have some unanswered questions we need answers to. And a personal preference question too. ++Lar: t/c18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clear that Ford have these images as CC-BY-NC (If theses images hadn't have been watermarked then it would have been different) and if Ford end up letting us use these as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA at a future date then these images could be reuploaded or undeleted. Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the CC licenses are irrevocable, then these images should be kept. However, if there is a CC clause that states something along the lines of "if two licenses are granted that conflict, then the license is invalid" then the images should be rightfully deleted. OSX (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything going to happen with this? It's been a many months now. If we're not going to delete the images, let's take the deletion tags off -- they're not very attractive. IFCAR (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. – some kind of closure is needed here. The consensus is that these images are not under a license that is currently acceptable, and Ford's potential position on this is grudgingly accepting at best. The safe move is to get rid of them; and that's the general agreement anyway. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image is not PD, because the State of Minnesota is not the federal Government of the United States; portrait commissoned by the state government of Minnesota Marcusmax(speak) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The copyright owner is either the state of Minnesota or the original painter, Stephen Gjertson, but certainly not the federal state. {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply and there's no indication that the painting is available under a free licence. Pruneautalk17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Promotional brochure for a publishing house from 1954. It's not "own work", and as such cannot be licensed as self-cc-by-sa etc. It's not yet PD either. ---- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not free part of : 学生六体书法小字典, Xuéshēng liù tǐ shūfǎ xiǎo zǐdiǎn « Petit dictionnaire de caractères classés selon les six styles pour l'étudiant »/ «Small dictionnary of Chinese letters ordered by styles », made by 北京大学出版社 Běijīng dàxué chūbǎnshè Presses universitaires de Pékin/ Bejing University édition. --- Zil (d) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete reason see above --KS aus F (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep, added {{Personality rights}} to the photo. --Martin H. (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment The personality rights tag only means that users have to take care for i.e. not defamatory usage, consent of the person to any publication is still needed. Model releases regulate all details of contented or not-contented usage. Again, i am strongly astonished about how few juristical knowledge is spread here. Free information and free content is NOT meaning to take people all their rights away by highway robbery. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (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){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&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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){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){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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
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}
.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-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral The flickr picture has been deleted. Why? We don't know. But *if* a party didn't want their child to be photographed, this would exactly be what could happen (that they ask that the picture will at least be taken off flickr). BTW, just in general: The quality of the picture does never constitute a reason for keeping an image that might infringe on privacy rights. It sounds frightening how some of you argue with the picture quality!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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){kind=link}
Question Where did you read that the watermark doesn't have juridical value? The CC wiki? The Copyright Act? Please source your statement. I took my time to explain on the Village Pump as well as here, with information from the CC wiki itself, that the way you obtained the pictures is determinant in determining which license to use. →Diti the penguin — 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.modernbeauty.de/images/stories/illus/Bauch.jpg){kind=link}
