Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Soldier of love.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:Soldier_of_love.jpg

[edit]

This is another Peter Klashorst image which is of a possibly underage model with no evidence of permission or proof of age. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same allegation, maybe some dollars cheaper Mutter Erde (talk)
I am making no allegations at all. I am suggesting that if we, hosting this images, have not ensured that there was consent by the model & confirmation that they are adult, we are probably in breach of the law --Herby talk thyme 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple. Personality rights related images taken in non public places require consent of the model. No consent has been shown, despite a request. Images that depict people that a reasonable person would reasonably believe MIGHT be underage require proof of age. No proof of age has been shown, despite a request. There is no allegation here that Peter Klashorst is guilty of anything at all, other than choosing (as is his right) not to respond to a query. He MIGHT be guilty of something, but it's not being alleged here, at this time. He is not the uploader, so he's not being censored. We are just protecting Commons from possible legal issues. The pictures can be hosted elsewhere and it is then that site's issue, not ours. But we need to do what is prudent. Mutter Erde, your comments in general are not helpful, because you seem not to care about the ramifications to the site, you just stridently repeat the same baseless statements, or try to slant the matter in such a way as to draw attention away from the substantive issues. I would ask the closing admin to disregard your comments in this matter and in any other matter where you show such disregard. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is really a pity that not all people are voting in your sense, but I can't help you, sorry. Mutter Erde (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, so no worries there. ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Commons is not censored & I am happy about that. I think we should be looking for real confirmation of release by the model. In the absence of that deletion is the only option. I think for any such material where there may be questions there should be explicit OTRS permission at the very least --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We have no proof of age? That might be right, but when do we ever have a proof of age. I don't see many pictures were you find comments like "the model is ** years old". And even if she was underage: so what. This picture is no pornography, she is just being naked. We even have a Category for naked children. This is just as pornographic as a teenager at a nudist beach. Conclusion: even if we had proof that she was underage (which we don't have), this wouldn't be a reason for deletion! As long as it's not clearly pornographic, age is not an argument.--Lamilli (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, Lamilli but ... You've got matters the wrong way around. In this case and cases like it, we need positive proof of consent and of age. That there are other pics where this is an issue, or where the documentation isn't present, is no reason to keep this one. I think you are going to see this start to be enforced quite a bit more strictly going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The publication without explicit consent of photographs of identifiable nudes in a private setting is particularly intrusive and damaging to the subject, and we should insist on proper OTRS permission in every such case. Here, there is also the very real possibility that she may be under age, but regardless of her age the photograph clearly has to go. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos. How exactly is this equivalent to being photographed in a "private setting"? That's like being photographed by Hugh Hefner and expecting it not be in Playboy. -Nard 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea what he told these girls he was going to do with the images he took. Most of the photographs appear to have been taken in cheap hotel bedrooms and bathrooms. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a project that takes licensing so seriously I find it incredible that some people are so unconcerned about the validity of that licensing. For such quasi pornographic images I think it is incumbent on us to establish to the best of our ability that the model gives consent & is an adult. The photographer has failed to give that information --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep These are images by a notable photographer, they don't appear to be pornographic (so age would not matter) and at this point we have no indication personality rights may have been violated. Honestly I don't like his work, but this is not about like or dislike.--Caranorn (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking own vote. After thinking this over some more I believe there may indeed be some issues concerning personality rights. In doubt I no longer feel confident in voting either Keep or Delete at this time and feel a more in debt discussion might be in order.--Caranorn (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said to Lamilli, you've got matters the wrong way around. Positive proof is needed. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: From my point of view the whole issue is ridiculous. It's about prudish people trying to delete pictures depicting nudity. The question of the model being +18 or not would be of importance if we were talking about pornography. Indeed, we don't want any kiddy porn around here. But this picture is NOT pornographic, it's not ever quasi pornographic (some pictures of Klashorst might be considered pornographic, this one certainly not).--Lamilli (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, but I'm far from a prude, and I'm quite happy to see nudes on Commons. I do care to see us satisfy our legal (and moral) obligations in hosting such things. Let me get your position correct: nudes of potentially under-aged girls are okay if they're not "pornographic"? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep again there's NO reason to believe she's underage (at least no more reason than any other nude picture on Commons). And there's no reason to think it's a private picture (therefore no need of consent). Private place doesn't mean private situation. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no reason to believe doesn't cut it. We need positive proof. This applies to every image that is possibly taken in a private place. whether or not nudity or partial nudity is involved, but it's especially important when nudity IS involved, whether or not the image is judged "pornographic", which is a difficult metric to apply, and which is irrelevant with respect to rights. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Unfortunately, someone has decided to split the Klashorst deletion requests into several, separate deletion requests, which means the discussion has ended up all over the place. I think all the arguments in favour of deletion have been done to the death. Policy requires deletion. I will, however, copy-paste this refutation of every possible argument for keeping these (for all those reading this for the sixth time, sorry to spam every DR with the same crap, but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing, and doing this saves me time over refuting each argument individually). Enjoy the copypasta:
    1. Peter Klashorst is a prolific publisher of nude photos: So was R@ygold and the swirl face guy, and we're not about to start hosting their picture collection. That someone has a huge collection of such pictures on his Flickr account means nothing at all. This would only be valid in the case of, say, the Suicide Girls -- a business that we can count upon to get the requisite documentation before publishing (and as a side-note, hire photographers with talent, as well, something Klashorst should consider).
    2. Peter Klashorst is an artist: He's a painter, and possibly one that nobody would give a damn about if he hadn't got arrested for some rather unsavoury activity in Senegal some time ago. However good he is at painting, he is an amateur photographer. Or to put it less delicately, he's a not-quite-half-talented hack and it shows; even if he had an Uzi to his head I doubt that he'd be able to take a photo that wouldn't go down in flames at FPC like a skyscraper in New York (inb4 "so can you do better?" -- I don't have to be an expert on trains to tell you that a skateboard is not a train). He is certainly not an artistic or professional photographer. As such, we should apply the same standards to Klashorst as we would with anyone.
    3. His pictures are of posed artists: Bullshit. We know exactly where he finds the girls he photographs (it's not like his penchant for prostitutes is a secret, guys). And this is, again, made less likely by the fact that the kind of people that rent studio models can, at the least, take a half-decent picture if their life depended on it. So again, feel free to compare Klashorst's works to some of our Suicide Girls, for example: the difference between Klashorst and a professional studio photographer is roughly the difference between the paper airplane I just folded and a B-52 Stratofortress.
    4. These are not pornographic, so the age issue is irrelevant: An interesting position to take; try calling the party van and telling them that you have some nude pictures of under-age girls on your computer. Your end will be playing "mommies and daddies" in the prison showers with a fat, hairy fellow convict. Admit it: if these photos had any technical merit, they'd be soft-core porn. But we could even grant this premise and we'd still have the issue that there is no evidence that the models have given their consent for more-or-less unlimited publication of these pictures, so we don't even need to make this argument.
    5. Commons is not censored: Well, yes it is actually. We don't host child pornography on Commons, for example. We also don't host copyright violations. We are as uncensored as we can be within our legal (and moral) obligations. This is not an argument in itself; it is hand-waving to try and distract people from the real issues at hand.
    6. The related argument of This is a (possibly Senegalian Muslim) crusade to get rid of nudes from Commons: No, it's not. I am not a prude, nor do I really care to get rid of every nude from Commons. What I do care about is that we live up to our legal (and moral) obligations as codified in our policy on identifiable photographs of living people. Every one of these Klashorst photos fails our obligations on this count, and I'm damned if we should make an exception for Klashorst "becuz he's famous lol".
Thank you for your time. Can we start deleting yet? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a little correction: Please change "but that's pretty much what the keepers are doing" in "that's pretty much what the deleters are doing". Thank you Mutter Erde (talk)
No, I meant the keepers are doing it. I'm not going to see this issue zerg-rushed away. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:35, 21 June 2008 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Soldier_of_love.jpg&oldid=418506969"