Hey Sarah et al

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather than
> expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant experience.
> I understand why people don't want to get involved.

You did good. But I will give you the same advice that I give others. ...

If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy
images, then look at whether consent was given for their initial
publication (as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT).
Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to
be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free
licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial
publication is what matters currently.

Thanks, Russavia, this is very helpful advice. Regarding consent, Commons:IDENT says: "Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image. ... The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons."

So a model release would presumably have to include agreeing to release the image under a free licence, or explicitly to upload it to Commons. It could not simply be agreement to publication, which might be of a more limited kind.

Is that your interpretation too?

Try to avoid, especially for high quality (legal) sexuality images,
arguing against scope. Human sexuality is an all-encompassing topic,
and what is depicted is definitely part of (legal) human sexuality.
You may not like it, but part of Commons mission does include hosting
resources relating to (legal) human sexuality. This is going to be a
somewhat emotional hurdle that many will basically need to accpet, and
realise that such photos are not something that are going to
disappear, but it is definitely something that we can manage inline
with our other policies (some of which I've described above). By
making the "scope" less of any argument in nominations for such
high-quality photos, it will keep your nomination to the point, and
others will often fall inline. By making scope an issue, you risk what
Mattbuck has done, in demonstrating scope (make note, it is only a
comment from him, not opining on whether they should be kept or
deleted), and also risk making the issue an "emotional" one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gif
is perhaps a good example of how generally not to conduct a DR; it was
overly emotive, and missed the point that the underlying image was
basically a copyvio. So avoid scope arguments if you can for high
quality photos, or "unique" images - keep such arguments for the low
quality "here's a photo of my dick y'all"-type shots. But in your
current nom, scope won't be an issue.

Hope this gives you a little bit of basic understanding of how, I at
least, approach DR's on Commons.

Thank you, that makes sense.

Sarah