Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts in sunshine.jpg

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:Breasts in sunshine.jpg

Similar to, and no better than, existing nudity pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. A poorly-framed pic of yet another pair of tits. Just what Commons needs :/ - Alison ^❤ 05:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, which images are the replacements? --Saibo (Δ) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick - Alison ^❤ 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the correct scope, Alison - don't fool me, thanks. --Saibo (Δ ∇) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The woman in this photo seems considerably heavier than any of the others in the gallery. Remember, the purpose of these images is not really porn, but as an educational resource, and with so many people being heavier nowadays, this is one of the most relevant photos we have. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Wnt, most of our breast images are of nubile young women who probably are underweight. This person is clearly overweight, rather the other end of the spectrum. Not the best image, but I'm inclined towards keeping rather than losing something potentially useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask.... useful for what? What encyclopedia article could possibly be improved by including this image? – JBarta (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not exist to provide images for encyclopaedias, we have a much wider remit to provide media for any sort of educational use. Let us accept that having images of breasts is within our remit (some are in use, so automatically are within scope). Then clearly, we better serve our audience if we provide a wide array of images to choose from, from a wide array of people of different body types. Not everyone wants their article or whatever to include images of thin people, maybe they're doing an article on fat fetishism, who knows, who cares, we provide them the materials for their work. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I suppose. Though I still think this is more exhibitionism <yawn> than a desire to upload useful content. "Hey Bubba, that's my ol' lady up there on the Wickerpedia!" – JBarta (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The motives of an uploader don't really matter, so long as the file is within scope and properly licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per COM:PEOPLE No evidence of model consent. No indication that the women in the image is aware that the image was created. This women should not have her image hosted on in a popular website with an irrevocable license unless she positively affirms that she knows that it was done. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I obscured her face so she's not identifiable. I would imagine that would solve that problem (more or less, and assuming the image in the history is deleted). – JBarta (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that someone should have an image of them taken in a probably private location of them nude with out their knowledge and uploaded EVEN with their face obscured, later. Think stalker. Think disgruntled ex-boyfriend/husband/think peeping tom. This image is just not so important or great in quality that we risk introducing an image of an unsuspecting person to the world forever! If we can get consent from the model, then, fine. But otherwise, keeping it is creepy weird. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but two things come to mind. First, is getting the consent of the subject required for all nude/sexual photos on Commons whether identifiable or not? If no, then why is this image different? Second, if you pose naked in front of a camera you know that image exists and may end up hither and yon. Personally, I think we have plenty of people uploading naked pictures of their various body parts and I'd be happy to see this image deleted along with many of the rest. That said, if consensus is to keep it because we don't have enough pictures of naked fat chicks, that's fine. But let's be level-headed about it. If you're creeped out that a nudie pick of you might get out into the world, then don't take any nudie pictures... it's as simple as that. As far as her not knowing, there is another by the same uploader that has (who I'm assuming is) her sitting upright with her business dripping like a hungry dog. I requested that one be deleted as well but someone suggested we really could use a picture of one dripping so we should keep it. Ah the joys of Wikipedia. – JBarta (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having consent of the model for images taken in private places is not optional. It is a requirement and one that has a good reason. People have the right to control how that their image is used. For an irrevocable image on a popular website is it is of utmost importance to get this right. In neither of these images is it clear that the person posed for the image. That Commons is very weak to police and enforce this requirement is no reason for not doing the correct thing in this deletion discussion. Your speculation about her being the uploader is just that speculation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest she was the uploader. Women normally don't get their jollies by disseminating stuff like this. Usually it's men. I sort of figured it was her husband or boyfriend who took the pictures and at some point uploaded them. All she did was let him take the pictures. My point was that she was probably aware the pictures were being taken. I might also mention that a close look at this picture shows her eyes are closed. That doesn't mean she is asleep or unaware that a picture is being taken, just that her eyes are closed. – JBarta (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking through COM:PEOPLE I see the word "identifable" several times. If the person in the photo is not identifiable, on what do you base your assertion that consent is still required? – JBarta (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you can remove someones right to control how this image of them is used by us blurring their face? That is very creepy weird. Honestly, think about what you are suggesting. It would be an absolute violation of this person to upload an image of her nude without her permission. We have no way of knowing if that happened here or not unless we get a model consent form. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have two discussions going on here.. the first is the photo as it relates to Commons policy. On that count it seems a reasonable case can be made to keep it (with the face blurred). If you think Commons policy should be changed or strengthened in this area then I would encourage you to pursue it. (though pursuing it in this deletion request probably won't get you very far) If you do pursue it, you'll probably have the support of other editors if you propose reasonable and workable changes. The other discussion is a much broader one... whether and how a person has the right to control pictures taken of them generally. I don't know where the law is on that subject, but I'd imagine it can get complicated depending on the circumstances so I'll avoid that discussion other than to repeat what I mentioned earlier... the reality is nude pictures have a way of making the rounds whether we want them to or not. So if the idea of some stranger gawking at your bits & pieces creeps you out, don't take any nude pictures. – JBarta (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when there is no explicit consent, the image needs to go. Epoch Fail (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Commons policy is there a requirement for "explicit consent" as it pertains to unidentifiable people? I'm actually with you on principle more or less, but I hate the idea of randomly making up rules on the fly to suit our whims of the moment. – JBarta (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially agree with rationale by Wnt (talk · contribs), above, unique and useful image. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The rationales provided by User:Wnt and User:Mattbuck are not only convincing but are both within policy and within the scope of the remit of Commons. As a provider of educational materials, it would be a traversty for Commons to delete photos of a pair of boobs simply because other photos exist. This female is clearly a larger sized woman, and as the world at large is not made up entirely of size 6 women with perky breasts, it would be amiss for Commons to delete files such as this, when there is clearly an educational scope. Ideally, it would be better for us to have a photo of a large woman standing upright with her non-perky breasts again being the focus of the image, but this is not the case, so we on Commons provide the materials for ALL projects, in case a project such as, for example, German Wikipedia wishes to utilise it on articles, and the like. russavia (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2012 (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:Breasts in sunshine.jpg

The previous deletion request, more than 12 years ago, raised concerns about the subject not having consented. Some comments rightly pointed out that such concerns do not magically disappear just because the face is obscured.

The previous deletion request also ignored some important claims made by the uploader:

The uploader, on their talk page, claimed to be the subject:

I (the woman on this pic) uploaded this only to show that also XXL women could be proud about herself and and I want to push their self-confidence.

This claim implies the subject did in fact consent.

The uploader claimed to be the copyright holder.

It is unlikely that both claims are true.

The information above implies either the file is not acceptable at all and must be deleted or the original revision (showing the face) is acceptable and should be undeleted. Brianjd (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it is unlikely that the uploader is both the subject and the copyright holder. I have been making that argument a lot, because it seems to be common wisdom. Now, I am not so sure. But this image seems unlikely to be taken using a timer, so maybe that argument is still valid. Brianjd (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m lost here. There’s no good reason to believe the subject didn’t consent to their photo being released (in fact there’s good evidence to the contrary) and there’s no evidence the photographer (regardless of whether they were the subject) didn’t consent to the licensing. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Then do you agree that the original revision (showing the face) should be undeleted? Brianjd (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why not Dronebogus (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]