This has been on commons for *a month*.. Options

[The Adversary]

linky

(umm, take a look at contributions )

[Somey]

Could you describe it? Looks like MBisanz deleted that image and all related to it about 30 seconds after you posted here about it.

I assume there was some amount of obscenity involved?

[MBisanz]

Could you describe it? Looks like MBisanz deleted that image and all related to it about 30 seconds after you posted here about it.

I assume there was some amount of obscenity involved?

Yep, and if anyone finds more images like those, always feel free to email/message me if you can't find an oversighter and I'll do my best to keep them off the net.

[Somey]

Yep, and if anyone finds more images like those, always feel free to email/message me if you can't find an oversighter and I'll do my best to keep them off the net.

Well, if you're just going to leave it to our imaginations, we'll just have to assume it was a photo of a guy wearing a tube-top having group sex with multiple penguins while his hair was on fire.

In other words, just like all the other photos on Commons...

[The Joy]

Good gravy, just look at some the pictures here (NSFW):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nudity

Edit: Oh and an old favorite from David Shankbone!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%2...d_Shankbone.jpg

[MBisanz]

Good gravy, just look at some the pictures here (NSFW):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nudity

Edit: Oh and an old favorite from David Shankbone!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%2...d_Shankbone.jpg

I should probably mention I once found an upload of tubgirl on enwiki that had gone unused and unnoticed for three years, so I really can't be that surprised or compelled to start ranting about Commons' practices.

[The Joy]

Good gravy, just look at some the pictures here (NSFW):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Nudity

Edit: Oh and an old favorite from David Shankbone!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%2...d_Shankbone.jpg

I should probably mention I once found an upload of tubgirl on enwiki that had gone unused and unnoticed for three years, so I really can't be that surprised or compelled to start ranting about Commons' practices.

Why were you searching for that lead to "tubgirl?"

[The Adversary]

Could you describe it? Looks like MBisanz deleted that image and all related to it about 30 seconds after you posted here about it.

I assume there was some amount of obscenity involved?

Yep, and if anyone finds more images like those, always feel free to email/message me if you can't find an oversighter and I'll do my best to keep them off the net.

Sigh. The pictures weren´t bad/obscene....(just portraits, and you can still see them on the photobucket links) .........it was the text that went with it which was a horror-story...and that is still there!! I guess it will be oversighted in about 30 seconds after I post this, but you can always google the sentence "was born in a bog in 1990 and spent most of his adolescent life ploughing fields and molesting small farmyard animals in County Kerry,Ireland" or: "had to preform various homosexual acts on homeless gentleman to feed his alcoholic addiction" or: "admits that most of his sexual 'fondling' towards his mother was done at night while she" ...and look at the cached version.

Anyway, in general; my impression is that on commons there is very little control with what editors write/upload, much less than on wp (which tells you something..)

[Eva Destruction]

Anyway, in general; my impression is that on commons there is very little control with what editors write/upload, much less than on wp (which tells you something..)

My opinion of Commons is not high, to put it mildly, ever since an incident in which a fair use image I'd uploaded to en-wikipedia (complete with detailed explanation of why its copyright status was uncertain and a fair use rationale) was transferred to Commons, and when I complained it was kept with a "probably out of copyright" rationale. That said, I wonder if the problems with copyright violations and homemade porn on Commons are any worse than on comparable sites like Fotolog or Flickr. (Commons may well be different; this is just a guess of mine based on human nature and the tendency of any new medium to be used for smut. Within 50 years of the invention of the printing press, Pietro Aretino had invented porn; the first movie was released in 1906 and the first porno flick in 1908...)

[The Wales Hunter]

The Flickr situation is odd. I've never really been involved with Commons, but am I right in saying pictures are taken from Flickr and added to Commons on a regular basis, with only the claim on Flickr that the image can be used being used as evidence that it can be?

[Eva Destruction]

The Flickr situation is odd. I've never really been involved with Commons, but am I right in saying pictures are taken from Flickr and added to Commons on a regular basis, with only the claim on Flickr that the image can be used being used as evidence that it can be?

Sort of. If something on Flickr is licensed CC-by-SA (e.g., it's been authorized for commercial use and modification) you can tag it and a bot will copy it across, preserving the attribution info from Flickr and linking to its Flickr history (see here for what it looks like in practice). If it's not appropriately CC-by-SA tagged on Flickr, the bot automatically rejects it. Because Flickr is deliberately set up so one can't accidentally release material - to make a photo CC-by-SA involves manually checking a string of boxes - there's not really a problem with "I didn't realize what the small print meant".

[Peter Damian]

I notice that User:Tyciol participates in the discussion http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Lolimanga.JPG

Some of the comments he makes from his LiveJournal account make me a little disturbed he is contributing to Wikipedia. His views on the morality of paying for downloads (=wrong) contrast with his view on watching abusive child pornography (=OK).

Tyciol: I don't download child porn due to it being illegal, but I actually don't see anything wrong with it. Paying for it is wrong, sure, but not obtaining it freely. I do get the cartoon porn though, it's fun. Thanks for the new pic

gutterstar0x0: child porn of anything be it real or cartoon advocates and encourages sexual acts towards children cartoons are mildly lesser of two evils.

Tyciol: That's not really logical. Do cartoons with death in them encourage us to murder? If anything, it'd probably decrease things. But one way or another, whether or not I do something is not up to me, I'm not just going to do something because of some picture. Indulgence and understanding, not suppression, is what leads to control.

dookiedragon: Kiddie porn, as in the images with REAL people and children is FUCKED. Free or not, a child WAS harmed, maybe not by you, but still. Cartoon/manga/anime kiddie porn...Whatever. That's fine. Because it didn't hurt anybody. It's a CARTOON. That's fine.

Tyciol: In some cases they'd be harmed, in which case I'd hope I wouldn't be aroused by such images, but there's still nothing wrong with viewing them, though there is something wrong with paying for them, or not reporting them to the authorities. That's one big problem these days, if it were legal to download kiddie porn then it would be a hell of a lot easier to track it down to its point of origin. Vigilante service is cool Even so, to say that they'd always be being harmed isn't necessarily accurate, as that would mean any sex would be harmful. There would exist a minority that wouldn't harm the child. I didn't have any outside influence at all from adults and I did a lot of weird perverted shit when I was 3-4, much less 7-14, that I can remember. I think we're sexual throughout our entire lives, albeit in different formats, so exploring within proper formats would not be harmful.
http://community.livejournal.com/kick_the_freak/11491.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th October 2009, 10:54am

[Happy drinker]

My opinion of Commons is not high, to put it mildly, ever since an incident in which a fair use image I'd uploaded to en-wikipedia (complete with detailed explanation of why its copyright status was uncertain and a fair use rationale) was transferred to Commons, and when I complained it was kept with a "probably out of copyright" rationale. That said, I wonder if the problems with copyright violations and homemade porn on Commons are any worse than on comparable sites like Fotolog or Flickr.

Commons has a higher copyright standard than Wikipedia. The latter confines itself to US law hence allows fair use. As I understand it, Commons only allows material where there are no copyright problems in most countries, hence does not allow fair use, which is not recognised in English or European law. It's really rather silly to move WP fair use material to Commons; it just causes problems. I'd guess there are fewer copyright violations on Commons than Flickr, as there are lots of people looking out for them. I've heard of Flickr photos being deleted from Commons because they're "Flickr-washed" copyright photos.

[carbuncle]

I notice that User:Tyciol participates in the discussion http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Lolimanga.JPG

Some of the comments he makes from his LiveJournal account make me a little disturbed he is contributing to Wikipedia. His views on the morality of paying for downloads (=wrong) contrast with his view on watching abusive child pornography (=OK).

Tyciol also edits on Simple and is active on en.WP. Yikes!

[Eva Destruction]

My opinion of Commons is not high, to put it mildly, ever since an incident in which a fair use image I'd uploaded to en-wikipedia (complete with detailed explanation of why its copyright status was uncertain and a fair use rationale) was transferred to Commons, and when I complained it was kept with a "probably out of copyright" rationale. That said, I wonder if the problems with copyright violations and homemade porn on Commons are any worse than on comparable sites like Fotolog or Flickr.

Commons has a higher copyright standard than Wikipedia. The latter confines itself to US law hence allows fair use. As I understand it, Commons only allows material where there are no copyright problems in most countries, hence does not allow fair use, which is not recognised in English or European law. It's really rather silly to move WP fair use material to Commons; it just causes problems. I'd guess there are fewer copyright violations on Commons than Flickr, as there are lots of people looking out for them. I've heard of Flickr photos being deleted from Commons because they're "Flickr-washed" copyright photos.

Do you read posts before you reply to them?

[Peter Damian]

I notice that User:Tyciol participates in the discussion http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Lolimanga.JPG

Some of the comments he makes from his LiveJournal account make me a little disturbed he is contributing to Wikipedia. His views on the morality of paying for downloads (=wrong) contrast with his view on watching abusive child pornography (=OK).

Tyciol also edits on Simple and is active on en.WP. Yikes!

Yikes. He changes the value judgment "Generally, pedophilia and bestiality are bad. " to the neutral "Most people have decided pedophilia and bestiality are bad. "

Is simple edited by children, in particular girls? I found out some more about Tyciol, whose "age of attraction" girls aged 12-13, and who has been involved in a pedo site for adults attracted to very young girls. Some of his edits to Wikipedia itself are worrying, being mostly about manga and lolicon and child pornography.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 24th October 2009, 3:20pm

[Kelly Martin]

The Flickr situation is odd. I've never really been involved with Commons, but am I right in saying pictures are taken from Flickr and added to Commons on a regular basis, with only the claim on Flickr that the image can be used being used as evidence that it can be?

A lot of porn (copyrighted, naturally, and not legally released under any sort of open license) is illegally uploaded to Flickr, tagged as "cc-by-sa" by the uploader, then copied to Commons. Flickr doesn't police very aggressively for copyright, and Commons doesn't ever audit Flickr uploads to see if the license has been subsequently changed or the image deleted (their position on this has consistently been "that was the license at the time we got it, and you can't revoke a CC license grant, so neener.").

I'd hazard to say that probably 80% of the porn content on Commons is infringing, and that much of the rest violates personality rights, US law regarding model age declaration statements for pornography (which Wikimedia has simply decided to ignore entirely, even though it clearly applies to them), or various laws regarding publishing sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject.

[The Wales Hunter]

The Flickr situation is odd. I've never really been involved with Commons, but am I right in saying pictures are taken from Flickr and added to Commons on a regular basis, with only the claim on Flickr that the image can be used being used as evidence that it can be?

A lot of porn (copyrighted, naturally, and not legally released under any sort of open license) is illegally uploaded to Flickr, tagged as "cc-by-sa" by the uploader, then copied to Commons. Flickr doesn't police very aggressively for copyright, and Commons doesn't ever audit Flickr uploads to see if the license has been subsequently changed or the image deleted (their position on this has consistently been "that was the license at the time we got it, and you can't revoke a CC license grant, so neener.").

I'd hazard to say that probably 80% of the porn content on Commons is infringing, and that much of the rest violates personality rights, US law regarding model age declaration statements for pornography (which Wikimedia has simply decided to ignore entirely, even though it clearly applies to them), or various laws regarding publishing sexually explicit photographs without the consent of the subject.

This is precisely what I mean, just explained in a more coherent manner!

I've long been of the impression that Flickr allows blatant copyright infringements and Commons takes anything tagged as a non-infringement from Flickr, even when it's obvious.

[SB_Johnny]

Commons shouldn't be transferring stuff from Flickr et al. Full Stop.

It's hard enough keeping on top of individual contributors on commons. Absoutely stupid to have bots transferring shit from Flickr when we have absolutely no track record to go by, much less any easy way of establishing communication.

[CharlotteWebb]

Absoutely stupid to have bots transferring shit from Flickr when we have absolutely no track record to go by, much less any easy way of establishing communication.

And guess whose idea that was…