Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sex intercourse.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:Sex_intercourse.jpg

edit

It's a photo of explicit sexual intercourse. There's no content advice. 189.49.120.20 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This image is used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_on_top_(sex_position). Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored, the explicit portrayal of sexual intercourse is not in itself reason to delete it. Whether or not this image belongs in the article is a matter to be discussed on the article's talk page. I personally do not think it adds enough to the article to be kept, but it is not proper to circumvent discussion on the talk page by deleting it without good cause. Therefore, keep unless a consensus emerges to remove it from the article, in which case delete. Icarus3 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is properly licensed and being used in an article.--Rockfang (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's completely relevant to the content as a photographic representation of the article it is used in conjunction with. The article is an explicit description of a position of sexual intercourse and therefore a photograph of the described position is both relevant and beneficial as a means to physically portray it.
  •  Keep - I think this photo should be kept. It simply demonstrates the activity that is being discussed in the article. It is helpful for people who need a visual aid. It is perfectly relevant to the topic being discussed.
  •  Keep - So thats how its done.
  •  Keep It's a useful picture depicting something most people are interested in. Unless more useful pictures are uploaded, we should keep this one. Jeeze, it's a constant battle fighting censoreship, isn't it? Khono (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (U*TC)

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sex_intercourse.jpg

edit

Pornography 216.117.236.178 21:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - this new request (opened few hours ago since the other DR was closed) is completly disruptive and pointless. It has been explained in the prior deletion request why this image is in scope & that commons is not censored but it seems that some narrow-minded & stubborn people don't want to understand. I'd recomend an speedy closure of this new request. 76.76.22.249 17:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sex_intercourse.jpg

edit

Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. It is not enough to just say "the persons pictured are obviously adults", this fact must be verified, recorded and testified indeed. --UAltmann (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep (see also discussions above). There's really no reason to believe the depicted persons are minors. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said pornography. Just enter '18 U.S.C. § 2257' at google.com . The law provides that records of the persons pictured must be kept and it must be testified that the persons pictured are of legal age for being pictured. It is not enough to state that the persons pictured are obviously adults, it must be testified with the picture in verifiable form.--UAltmann (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not misstaken, the law doesn't say that we must keep the record. The producer needs to. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed mistaken, please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:

"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: DELETE. --UAltmann (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep If the 18 USC 2257 is cited then there needs to be a comprehensive discussion by Wikipedia lawyers, not some uninformed non-expert trying to understand the law, and such discussion needs to include all or several similar pictures. For that matter, any picture with exposed breasts or tight clothes must have name and age information according to the original poster. I vote keep because it was overwhelming kept several times in the past, one as recently as late 2009. I can be swayed if a panel of Wikipedia lawyers lay down the law.

A signature would be nice. Who are you, anyways, to find whether or not s.o. is an expert?

  •  Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're missing one important point here: The law does not require to publicly state the names and/or ages of the persons depicted. Also, following your statements above, it says at the end of (f) 4: but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept;. So we neither need to know who the people are nor to know whether whoever knows it keeps a true record. According to the image description, one would assume the uploader knows who the people are. Also, we do not know where the picture was taken. We can hardly require everyone around the world to follow US law by letter in this matter. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the server is located in Florida, US law applies. Furthermore, you should carefully read the law. Anyone who is considered producer, must provide verifiable information about the persons pictured. Keep verifiable information of course does not mean verify. The person who put this picture here is certainly a producer, but the wikimedia foundation inc., who provides the display in the internet, is considered a producer, too. --UAltmann (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Speedy deleted per COM:SCOPE and COM:NUDE. --UAltmann (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't go around speedy deleting images with large deletion reviews. Ever. If there's not a clear consensus, then you close it as normal. COM:SPEEDY does not give COM:SCOPE or COM:NUDE as deletion reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@User:UAltmann: Are you a lawyer ("the wikimedia foundation inc., who provides the display in the internet, is considered a producer, too"), or are you just throwing legal threats? Mike Godwin is a lawyer and a member of foundation:Current staff. Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully read all the court's decisions concerning the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and yes, I am a lawyer. --UAltmann (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which decision of the court led you to believe that "the wikimedia foundation inc., who provides the display in the internet, is considered a producer, too"? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By its clear, unambiguous terms, the statute applies to any “producer” of photographs depicting actual sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a), and “produces” is defined to include anyone who creates the visual representation, for instance a photographer or videographer, as well as anyone who subsequently publishes the image, id. § 2257(h)(2).US-Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit, :| Please look here on page 5! --UAltmann (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per COM:PORN —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) {{{2}}} (UTC)

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:Sex_intercourse.jpg

edit

its bad 122.178.130.62 06:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator is clueless. Quality issues were discussed previously. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep well-discussed photo, and no reason given to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an ideal photo, but we have very few of actual intercourse at the moment. --JN466 12:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Censorship? Commons is not censored. COM:CENSORSHIP Sdrtirs (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - no reason given, previous discussions not addressed. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sex intercourse.jpg

edit

Apart from the usual (no EXIF information, no source other than a flickr account, etc.), the original flickr account has been deleted. Not only does this make it impossible to verify anything about the image, it makes it absolutely impossible to uphold the record-keeping requirements, since there is no way to contact the original author. So this image cannot be used by anyone, realistically speaking. Conti|✉ 10:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, Flickr check at the time confirmed it was licensed under the appropriate free-use license at that time, which is irrevocable. -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point: "Any content reuser in the United States who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" this work and also qualifies as a "secondary producer" under this Act must document the age and identity of all performers depicted, or face penalties of up to five years in prison per infraction." (per Template:2257) Since it is impossible for anyone to provide these documents (or even find a place to ask for them), this image cannot be reused by anyone any more. And even disregarding that, people make mistakes, and there's no way knowing whether this image wasn't flickrwashed originally, etc. And then there's the precedent of Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gentlelife. If the reasons (no EXIF, closed flickr account, etc.) are good enough for russavia, fae and mattbuck, it should make you think. :) --Conti|✉ 00:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the very good explanation, and for the polite way in which you delivered it. But in this case, with this particular image, isn't it okay since both subjects are not identifiable? -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I can figure out here, all that matters is "sexually explicit conduct". There's no word on whether anyone has to be identifiable. So no, it's not okay. --Conti|✉ 10:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • From that link, they do indeed go into discussion about what does or does not constitute "identifiable", and in this particular image no one is clearly identifiable, so this image fails that metric and no one is identifiable. -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I should've linked to meta:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Age_Record_Requirement first: "Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2257 imposes record-keeping requirements on producers of materials containing sexually explicit conduct to prevent child pornography". There's no word on identifiability. The definition of what "sexually explicit conduct" is is linked in my comment above, and that too shows that it's irrelevant whether anyone is identifiable or not. That identifiability is irrelevant makes sense, too: The point of the law is to make sure that everyone in those pictures is an adult to make sure it's not child pornography. It could still be (hypothetically) child pornography if no one would be identifiable. --Conti|✉ 11:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • That seems to be an interpretation by Conti (talk · contribs) to allow Conti (talk · contribs) to try to delete all pictures of adults for fearmongering purposes of a rationale along the lines of "But think of the children!!!". -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nice try, but no. If you think that my concern are the children, or that I dislike all porn images on commons, you did a pretty poor job of reading what I wrote. --Conti|✉ 17:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Reading skills deteriorate rapidly and consistently in discussions about images of this nature. The "you are on a crusade against porn" accusation is rolled as misdirection so often that I suspect some people haven't noticed that it only serves to identify them as the ideologues they accuse others of being. Although Cirt is usually more subtle than this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Flickr has been confirmed and is present as the source (thus there is no need for "source other than a flickr account, etc"), and there are no "record keeping requirements". Similarly other reasons are not reasons for deletion, but simply "IDONTLIKEITVERYMUCHPLEASE". Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The image is being used for an educational purpose, and doesn't appear to have been generated for immoral or pornographic purposes, and therefore fails the "lascivious" test of Template:2257, and should be kept, per the text at Template:2257. -- Cirt (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not quite the point, either. Even if that were true (and I'm not sure it is), the point is that people who want to use this image for whatever purpose will have to adhere to what's written in that template. And they cannot possibly do that, because there is no way to get the required information from anywhere any more. They can't contact the author and ask for the information required. So, basically, this image is "commons/wikimedia only", which is clearly against our rules. --Conti|✉ 11:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same can be said about the images of swastica, or trademarks. But we, on Commons, only care about copyright issues when such things arise, to say that "if there is a law anywhere which disallows the use of an image, then the free licence is void" would disallow almost all the images. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It also should be noted that regardless of everything discussed above, this is still an image with no EXIF information, coming from a deleted Flickr account. That alone should be enough to cause concern (see Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Gentlelife). --Conti|✉ 11:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Please see this rationale from a prior nomination in a comment by Peteforsyth (talk · contribs). From kept discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gloryhole readyforservice.jpg. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The essential claim is that a work whose 2257 obligations cannot be complied with is effectively not free. However, even if the records keeper cannot be contacted, that doesn't prevent them from being used outside the US (where 2257 is not in force), or by other noncommercial institutions like Wikimedia Commons that don't qualify as secondary producers and have no obligations under 2257. Many works on Commons have limited use due to non-copyright restrictions (e.g. publicity rights, trademark) and this case is similar. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with your interpretation, however, that's just one of the reasons for the nomination. I would have nominated the image either way, given the lack of EXIF data and the deleted Flickr account. And I regret that I ever brought this up, given that every "keep" vote will now point to one of my arguments while completely ignore the others (which were more than enough to delete images in similar deletion requests). --Conti|✉ 10:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am also concerned that the original site is missing, and this makes it difficult to verify the license and compliance with COM:IDENT. On the other hand, the uploader User:Sdrtirs is an established user with no more than a few deletion requests per year, which I reviewed. They were either files transferred from En, duplicates, tricky derivative work issues, scope deletions, confusion about the Find a Grave license statement, or deleted incorrectly - no clear copyvios whatsoever. The file File:Painted Girls.jpg uploaded by the same user, also from Flickr and with no EXIF, was nominated for exactly the same reason at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painted Girls.jpg and was kept unilaterally (albeit in 2011). In light of precedent and the user's record so far, I find their degree of scrutiny upon upload trustworthy, and so maintain my present !vote above. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your reply. I don't agree with the conclusion, but I can respect your opinion. I wish more users would put as much thought into their votes. --Conti|✉ 20:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We have already discussed 2257 quite extensively. It creates considerable (non-copyright) restrictions on much of our media in the United States. Fortunately educational uses (our main function) seem exempt and the law does not extend beyond the US. Concerns about Flickr remain an issue for the Commons, but there's nothing especially worrying about this image or other sexuality images. Many Flickr accounts get deleted (a sufficient spell of inactivity will cause it to happen). We do not have an extra layer of copyright skepticism for sexual material. --Simonxag (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that we do not and cannot ever know whether this image was (a) flickrwashed or (b) taken/published/licensed without consent is "nothing especially worrying"? We need an extra layer of copyright skepticism for sexual material. --Conti|✉ 11:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Flickr check at the time confirmed that everything is OK. There's no reason for this deletion request. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -FASTILY 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sex intercourse.jpg

edit

don't know sourse 2601:48:C504:9720:7DB8:F1E1:E67B:882F 22:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No known valid valid reason to delete and per 5 other previous deletion requests. Also file in use in cs.wikipedia.org Pohlavní styk, eu.wikipedia.org Sarpen (sexualitatea), Giza sexualitate, iu.wikipedia.org ᓴᓂᓕᐊᖅᑐᖅ, lb.wikipedia.org Heterosexualitéit and uk.wikipedia.org Жінка зверху. Tm (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kept - no new arguments wrt the 5 previous deletion requests. Elly (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sex_intercourse.jpg&oldid=582249226"