Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloryhole readyforservice.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

File:Gloryhole readyforservice.jpg

[edit]

Previously nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda Upskirt.jpg. The reasons are the same: A porn image uploaded by a throwaway account (look at the user's contribution history, he even admits to this), no EXIF data, no real source other than a vague "own work". Per the comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gentlelife, this should be enough to delete images like this, since we definitely need more information than just "I'm a throaway account, trust me on what I say about this explicit picture." Conti|✉ 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The linked discussion says that such images can be nominated for deletion, not that they should be deleted. Sinnamon (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? --Conti|✉ 12:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conti, your nomination doesn't state a clear reason for deletion. Is the main reason because you think there is insufficient reason to believe the uploader is the photographer/rights holder? Is it out of concern for the privacy/personality rights of the subject? These deletion requests are easier to process when clear reasons are stated. Sinnamon's comment derives from that issue: you cite something as a precedent for deletion, when in fact it was precedent for nomination. -Pete F (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that precedent cites exactly the same reason as I do, and I honestly thought the reasons for deletion were blatantly obvious. But yes, I see no reason to trust the uploader, as virtually no source other than "own work" and a date was given. Everyone can make a new account here and upload whatever they want, claim "own work" and slap a PD tag on the image. If it's an image of a pretty flower.. eh. That's not nice. If it's an image of a penis? We better know exactly that there are no problems with the image, and if we cannot know (as is the case here), we better delete it. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep My first instinct was to vote "delete" per COM:PORN, but on further reflection I think this file should be kept. Three points seem important to me:
    1. Is this within COM:SCOPE? Yes, I think so. While I'm personally not all that interested in having Commons used to illustrate every sexual practice, glory holes are pretty frequently referred to in the world, and it seems worthwhile that our project should provide some illustration of what it is. There's an educational use, and this file's category (somewhat surprisingly) contains only three other files, only one of which depicts a glory hole in use.
    2. Is this a copyright violation? By the standards we generally apply, I don't think there's any cause for concern. It's a pretty generic shot, without any particular creativity. We typically expect uploaders to use OTRS when there is some reason to doubt the uploader's identity as the rights holder: when it's a high quality photograph, a difficult-to-access subject, etc. We don't require every uploader to verify his or her identity or prove authorship; such a standard would be completely unfeasible the way Commons has historically operated. I think we are safe taking the uploader's claim of authorship at face value.
    3. Are the subject's personality rights violated? I think not, because a glory hole by its very nature is designed to obscure a person's identity, and this photo is no exception. Not only is the person unidentifiable from the photo, but the person presumably participated in an act that was specifically designed to obscure his identity. If this were a close-up shot in a locker room without indication of consent, I would vote differently. But in this case, I see no cause for concern. -Pete F (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your second point gives the impression that copyright concerns are only valid with obvious copyright violations. That's a bit puzzling. I can only repeat my point here: This was uploaded by a throwaway account, with offering pretty much no source, who stated that he will "retire" his account and start a new one in another edit. I'm all for assuming good faith and all that, but this is just a tad bit over the line for me. Shouldn't we be especially critical when it comes to sexually explicit pictures? --Conti|✉ 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any particular cause for concern, and a search on TinEye.com doesn't turn up any other copies of the photo on the web. I don't think your position is entirely unreasonable, I just don't see any particular reason to doubt the authorship of this file any more than a picture of a flower (i.e. as you mentioned above.) -Pete F (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The difference is that a picture of a flower lacking permission from all the people involved will cause significantly less harm than a picture of a penis lacking permission from all people involved. Also, do have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda Upskirt.jpg and see the other image the user has uploaded, clearly showing that he doesn't bother asking for consent on these pictures, let alone for licensing rights. --Conti|✉ 14:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: border case. JuTa 22:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gloryhole_readyforservice.jpg&oldid=719070725"