Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloryhole readyforservice.jpg

k
← Older revision
Revision as of 22:50, 17 March 2013
Line 6:
Line 6:
 
*** 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''. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*** 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''. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
****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. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
****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. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
+
* {{vk}} 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:
 
+
*# 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, [[w:en:Glory hole (sexual slang)|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 [[:Category:Glory holes|this file's category]] (somewhat surprisingly) contains only three other files, only one of which depicts a glory hole in use.
 
+
*# 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.
 
+
*# Are the subject's [[COM:PERSONALITY|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. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gloryhole_readyforservice.jpg&diff=92784523&oldid=92783430