Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lick it 3 (nude photograph by artist Peter Klashorst).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.

Image:Lick_it_3_(nude_photograph_by_artist_Peter_Klashorst).jpg

[edit]

 Delete I'm fixing a nomination for another user, who made a dubious claim of being the model. I'll ignore what User:Ribi said[1]. I personally support deletion as there's no evidence that the model consented to publication on the internet. This is obviously not a nudist walking down the street. It's taken in private, so consent of the model is essential. Also, there's a possibility the model is under age, but the image is obviously designed to be sexually suggestive. --Rob 06:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "under age" sentence is a joke, or? :-) Mutter Erde 06:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By under age, I mean *may* be under 18 years old. Obviously she's phsyically an adult woman. Generally laws are based on age, not puberty. I understood that, in the U.S., publishers of erotic and/or pornographic material are supposed to keep records of the age of their models. This obligation exists, even for models over 18. --Rob 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? Julo 07:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little astonished, that this classic vandal named Ribi has got his own show here yesterday. First he vandalized Dutch models, than he was male, than female. First he was an advocate of a friend, later of poor African prostitutes, later of poor African women in general and so on ... Even if I would accept his last role: Is anyone here, who really believes, that a wellknown artist as Klashorst spares the 5 dollars extra to get an permission from the model, that allows him to publish his photos wherever he wants? Mutter Erde 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not supporting or defending anything user "Ribi" did. I don't care if he's blocked. But that's beside the point. If you have evidence that a model release was obtained (from a 18+ year old) please let me know. We don't go by reputation, without evdience. We demand sources for licensing information, so why not for a model release, if it's absolutely required. Peter Klashorst has to worry about the laws of the Netherlands or wherever he lives (I don't care). We have to worry about the laws of the United States. There is a fair bit of material that's tolerated in the Netherlands and some other countries, but not always in the U.S. Being a respected artist, doesn't make all of somebody's work exempt from the law. --Rob 08:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you would not be satisfied, when somebody would pixel her face, isn't it :-) And commons has this template for {{personality rights}} pics from reliable extern sources. And btw: this is a real natural woman from the continent, where human live began. She's beautiful. No superoxyded hair, no fake tits, no plastic surgery, no bleeched teeth - so nobody has to ask, how old she might be without that stuff from western "civilisation". Klashorst has made a nice picture of her. Congratulations and  Keep Mutter Erde 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a forum to discuss if we can legally keep the image. Concepts of beauty are irrelevant.. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as long as we don't have a proof of what Ribi says. He's been vandalizing all Klashorst pages and treated him of being a pedophile and of abusing African women. See at the Village pump yesterday + the talk page of the Klashorst cat + Ribi's talk page. What Ribi says is never the same thing (once he says one of his friend is part of the models and now he says it's herself while I'd bet his a man!). Anyway, we don't have any model release for any picture on Commons so either we assume good faith for every picture or we delete them all any time there's somebody pictured. As for Klashorst's pictures, they come from his account on Flickr (even if they've now become private there) and we have to assume that such a recognized artist should be able to deliver such model release form. But again if we do make any effort to obtain that kind of form for his pictures there's no reason to behave differently with any other picture depicting a person on Commons (and not only naked pictures). To finish with, we have to respect the presumption of innocence. Ribi claims Klashorst has made some crimes (pedophilia, abuse...) but we mustn't judge that ourselves. We're not a court. As long as nothing has been proved about what Ribi says and as long as Klashorst has not been convicted, we don't have any reason to delete his pictures. What's more, even if Ribi's right about one or some women depicted, it wouldn't mean all Klashorst's pictures are concerned (and Ribi's history shows that s/he tried to delete them all). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You successfully argued Ribi shouldn't be trusted. Unfortunately, that's not relevant to the issue of deletion. The need for a model's release is not a simply "all or nothing" thing. Often a model's release isn't needed. Also, it's only for sexually suggestive images, where the proof of age (18+) is important. Also, Klashorst's reputation is not relevant. Klashorst could have followed all laws that applied to him, but that doesn't mean all the images can be published by us in the U.S. --Rob 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not porn so we don't have to keep any record. And there's no reason to believe this woman is underage. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, who cares what type of person Klashorst is? Let people make judgments, that's up to them. (Making the judgment that judgments are wrong is hypocritical.) Even if Ribi is right, it doesn't affect anything. There's a difference between nudity and erotica. Records of consent and age are only required by law if the material is pornographic. We don't keep records and we never will. This is different from "publicity rights". Rocket000 03:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Commons:Project scope. However I don't know how strict US laws are about pornography. If this is considered pornography we should delete the image or we'll get into trouble with model release blabla. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mmh, because you don't want to trust your eyes or your biology teacher..... let's wait for Ribi and see, whether she wants to admit that she is under age. Mutter Erde 21:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what Ribi says, or does. S/he should have been blocked for defamation and disruption. That's beside the point. Anyway, you keep on confusing chronological age with physical development. There's no dispute the model in question appears to have gone through puberty, and is physically an adult woman. I'm not claiming this is kiddie porn. Rather, I'm saying, that looking at the image, it's apparent that it's sexually suggestive, and she may well be under 18 years of age. Apparently you can see information I can't. Please, do tell me, from your superior "biological" information, what exact age is she? Please tell my how you deduced this age. Personally, I've seen older looking people who were under 18, and younger looking people who were over 18. --Rob 22:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I definitely consider this porn (especially by U.S. standards). There's a good chance she's over 18, but without records we can't be sure. This is why the law requires it. {{Personality rights}} is just something we use to help inform reusers of the subject's rights. It changes nothing and means nothing legally. I agree it's not a scope issue because it was created by a notable artist. And no, the argument that it's art doesn't make it any less pornographic. Porn can be art too. Rocket000 03:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with US standards, I don't see why it would be considered as porn. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's porn because it's the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter. However, after looking into U.S. record keeping a little more, I don't think there's much issue with keeping (very) softcore material like this. There are many U.S.-based sites that have similar material that don't keep records (including some very well known sites). And since the artist is somewhat notable and it's obvious his sole purpose isn't to sexual excite, the art defense works here as well. Rocket000 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a depiction of sexual subject matter! How can you tell that self nipple-licking is sexual?!! It's erotic, not sexual. However, I agree with the rest of your answer. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    w:Oral stimulation of nipples (found in w:Category:Sexual acts) states "Oral stimulation of nipples is a human sexual practice." and "Some females and even some males experience breast orgasm without other forms of sexual stimulation". It uses a crop of this image as an illustration. It just seems obvious the model is trying to appear as though she is sexually stimulating herself and the image is made to sexually arouse the viewer. I think it's important to distinguish this image from simple nudity. --Rob 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - An absurd theatre. The censors are coming. No way, no chance! "Could be", "Maybe" - these are not possible causes for a deletion. Marcus Cyron 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, censorship sucks, but if it's breaking the law, I think that's a valid concern. Rocket000 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a cropped version? Where? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SelfNippleLick.jpg in w:Oral stimulation of nipples --Rob 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. there is no evidence of the consents of the woman in publishing this photograph, 2. there ist no hint on the records you have to keep according to the requirements of US law, Title 18 USC 2257, 3. there is no evidence this person is not younger than 18 years old and I have no idea on dutch regulations -> delete, because this photograph can produce serious trouble. --84.62.10.244 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't understand anything in what you wrote? Could you rephrase? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Permission information requested from Peter Klashorst, but has not been supplied. There is no evidence that this model is of age. No evidence that consent of the model has been given. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. However I am extremely concerns about the rights of the subject in such a case & I would be unhappy if many other reasonable people did not feel the same way. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. Equally I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to create a lex Peter Klashorst for a professional photographer Mutter Erde (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rights of the subject? - It's a professional model. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Klashorst is a recognised artist, and apparently obsessed with doing naked work. That was why I quit art - I didn't see the point of sketching naked women for three years. I'd also say from some of the other photos that it was done in a studio, and so it seems unlikely that the model didn't know what she was doing. I'm going to assume good faith here. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete In the absence of the requested proof of model consent, there is no legal right or basis for presumption for posting PK's pictures. On behalf of the real human being depicted without her knowledge, thank you to all who support deletion. I have learned much in this process about the wiki community and human nature ribi
  • It is my understanding that a model release has not been provided by Mr. Klashorst even though it has been asked for. Missing a model release is a serious problem in a picture that is this frank. "2257" may also be of concern. The image is still inside the system and can be undeleted if or when these two issues are resolved in one way or the other (eg. Mr. Klashorst or Foundation lawyers). Samulili (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Lick_it_3_(nude_photograph_by_artist_Peter_Klashorst).jpg&oldid=418537875"