Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fuck you! (nude).jpg

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

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg

[edit]

I'm all for pics of nude women on Commons, but this one is unused and could use a better name -Nard 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Fuck you!" seems to be the title of the work, as used on Flickr. --Simonxag 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gosh I'm sick of those deletion requests of nude pictures! Here's my triple POV:

  1. it's a work by Dutch artist Peter Klashorst so it could illustrate his work (and it doesn't matter what one personally thinks about him and his work). And if one says something like "we only need a few pictures for the WP article", I'd answer "so why don't we also delete most of the works available on Commons for artists like Renoir or anybody?" Also, Commons is not only made for WP.
  2. when I uploaded it, it was part of a will to correct the bias among the offer of nude pictures on Commons. Indeed most of them were White/Caucasian people. I tried to diversify the offer in order to show a better diversity of human reality by uploading Black and Asian nudes. (actually it's a work on progress, I may continue later, and also try to find male nudes)
  3. as for the title, I kept the original title (I suppose it may be logical for a work of an artist) and added "(nude)" as a description. I'd understand if one would like to re-upload it under another name though I'd prefer it to keep the original title - for instance I propose "Fuck you! (nude by artist Peter Klashorst)".
    Thanks for your comprehension. --TwoWings (ID confirmed on my talk page) 86.67.47.199 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentIf this is not a public photo on flickr (I can't view it, although I logged in) it have to be deleted. --GeorgHH • talk   20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If our Flickrreviewer bot could see it, it's obvious it was public at least at one time. And yes I can see it just fine when logged in. -Nard 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect your problem may be your Flickr content settings. Flickr defaults to showing only pictures classed as inoffensive, if you want to see e.g. nudes you have to change your preferences. Morven 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).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 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with others, it is time to revisit this previous deletion debate. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know I nominated this last time, but I've changed my mind. Peter Klashorst is a genius plain and simple. And if he was doing shady business he would have been shut down. Keep. -Nard 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Klashorst specializes in painting and photographing young women, particularly from the Netherlands and several African countries. He also has a wife and children in Africa.[1][2] In 2000, in primarily Muslim Senegal, his art caused him to end up in custody of the police for some weeks.[3][4][5][6]He was suspected of taking advantage of prostitution, inciting debauchery, and the production of obscene pictures, because he had painted local women in the nude. By bribing officials, he managed to buy his freedom,[7] and he sneaked into Gambia to flee the country.[8]On another visit in 2003 he was also deported from Gambia for pornographic paintings.[2]"[1]
    Funny definition you have of genius there N. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Klashorst is not a genius, by any stretch of the imagination. My comments in the previous deletion requests hold true. Show me just one of his photos that wouldn't go down like the Hindenberg at FPC and I'll change my mind on that count. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why I get more and more the impression, that the muslims from Senegal and Gambia are already here? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment does not make any sense. It also doesn't support a keep. Retaining this image is against policy. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not make any sense. I am certainly not a Muslim, nor am I from Senegal. That there are people who would seek to delete these pictures for religious or cultural reasons, does not mean that unrelated arguments put forth by other people are invalid. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:16, 14 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 12:45, 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) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The concept of what is and what's not pornography varies from person to person, but given the work title, i don't think it can be argued the work has no pornographic connotations. Platonides (talk) 20:31, 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) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 20:15, 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]
So...he's some kind of super seducer now? -Nard 21:13, 14 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) 21:35, 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) 11:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is a very serious risk that the subject's personality rights have been breached by the publication of this image on the internet and by its release under a free licence. So far as I am aware the photographer has not once even asserted, let alone demonstrated, that he obtained a subject-release. If he can show he has such a release the image could be kept, but his silence when asked implies strongly that he does not. The burden of proof lies squarely with the photographer and the uploader to show that no rights have been violated. It is simply not good enough to say: (a) I cannot or will not prove that this subject gave consent, and (b) that because of (a) "we have no indication personality rights may have been violated". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:22, 15 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) 13:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless model release and age confirmation will obtained. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 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... 15:33, 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) 17:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while there is a role on commons for nudes in general delete per Lewis Collard.Geni (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThere have been many arguments presented here. All very good, but most are irrelevant none the less. Some have offered up the opinion that Klashorst is a notable artist, others that his models might be prostitutes. Some have wanted to consider whether these photos are pornographic, and some have asserted that those who wish to delete this photo are prudish and/or embrace censorship. Some, all, or none of these assertions may be true. Regardless of the validity of these points, these arguments are not justification for refusing to uphold our legal and ethical responsibilities, and our own policies.
    And, here is where I’m going to cite our own policy: Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. 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. This photo (and the other Klashorst photos of identifiable people) simply does not conform to our requirement that if a photograph is taken in a private setting, we ‘must’ have model consent.
    In addition, because of the nature of the photo, we must also be certain that the author of the work has indeed verified the model’s age and found them to be at least 18 years age. I am not confident Mr Klashorst has done so. Should anyone feel so strongly about keeping these photos, please contact him to have him forward the appropriate documentation. In the absence of such, we must delete this photo, and the other Klashorst photos that have been brought forth for deletion. On a personal note, I’d like to compel the community to consider the following - would you vote ‘keep’, or want the rest of us to vote ‘keep’, if this were your daughter’s photo or your niece’s photo posted here under the same circumstances? How would we justify that? We couldn’t, thank goodness. Just as we can’t justify keeping this photo. Brynn(talk) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Bryan has already contacted Peter Klashorst seeking permissions, clarifications, model releases, and suchlike and has received no response. Mr. Klashorst is after all under no obligation to respond, since these pictures were harvested from Flickr, but if he does not respond, policy is clear, we are under no obligation to host them, and in fact we are under obligation to NOT host them. I'm sorry for nominating only a few at a time, I was trying to leave some of them in place but I see now that the thing to do is to nominate the entire body of his work, and offering to exempt any image for which the proper documentation is in place. If there are any such. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to create a Lex Peter Klashorst for a professional photographer. Btw.: I have proposed one of his "possibly underaged" :-) pics here. Mutter Erde (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep has been struck. You already commented Keep, above. Don't do that again, it's disruptive. I'd further suggest that you actually read the VP thread you reference, especially my last comment. This isn't going to come down to a vote, it's going to come down to an application of policy. This photo is in violation of multiple policies and unless the violations are corrected by supplying adequate documentation, or unless someone can provide a compelling reason why it's not a violation, or why policy doesn't apply, it will be deleted. No one commenting Keep has done that. Handwaving about artists and "I like it" doesn't cut it. It is time that this gets internalised, this issue has gone on far too long. Your comments, in particular, are singularly unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor was commenting about the new debate that has been introduced i.e. the deletion of all of Klashorst's work. --Simonxag (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Klashort's images but possible delete for this one. Klashorst is a recognized artist (his being persecuted by governments of the religious right for "pornographic paintings" does not change this) who deals mainly with the female nude. His subjects are models posing for an artist not private people in private settings. On the other hand pedo hysteria is in full flow and the Netherlands (where the artist comes from) has a very low age of consent. We should be wary of nude images wher the model might be underage. Most importantly STOP LIBELING THE MODELS!!!!. In western societies an artist's model is a most respectable profession (even for those who slept with randy Mr. Picasso), but prostitution is not. I am appalled by Wiki admins claiming to be protecting these women's moral rights and then smearing them without a shred of evidence. If you want to claim that any particular person is a prostitute prove it: that is exactly what you may have to do in court! --Simonxag (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyða, per Lars comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young black nude-2.jpg, no permission of the model, delete, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No model permission, no model release, no evidence of age of majority, no real usefulness for image. Bastique demandez 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:52, 21 June 2008 (GMT)

  1. ↑ de Sousa, Rosa. Peter Klashorst (in Dutch). Retrieved on 2008-05-22.
  2. ↑ a b van Eijken, Rutger (2003-01-16), “Kunstenaar Klashorst om zijn naakt uit Gambia gezet”, in Toestand[2], volume 21, issue 705, School voor Journalistiek in Utrecht, pages 4
  3. ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-02), “Klashorst wil niet worden vrijgekocht”, in NRC Handelsblad[3]
  4. ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-05), “Klashorst heeft taboe geschonden”, in NRC Handelsblad[4]
  5. ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-12), “Peter Klashorst weet niet waarom hij is opgepakt”, in NRC Handelsblad[5]
  6. ↑ Bouma, Japke-D. (2000-07-01), “Werkloze met hobby”, in NRC Handelsblad[6]
  7. ↑ van Asbeck, Geert (2000-05-26), “Senegal onderzoekt omkoping”, in NRC Handelsblad[7]
  8. ↑ Huygen, Maarten (2000-05-24), “Doe-vakanties”, in NRC Handelsblad[8]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Fuck_you!_(nude).jpg&oldid=164709048"