Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep. (While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link to it.)
The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
---o0o---
- File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg
To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in source." This has not been addressed at all, as you can see above. We need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these. Conti|✉ 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given that and 3 previous keep votes,
Keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to identifiable people in sexually explicit images? --Conti|✉ 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep: For the first concern (model age), please see {{2257}}. For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a number of years (flickr set), some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but justifiably in my opinion --moogsi (blah) 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
---o0o---
The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is particularly relevant in this regard:
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.
---o0o---
In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased editing in early 2011.
No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such) to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and to be used commercially in perpetuity by anyone who sees the image on a Wikimedia site.
Surely, we can all imagine a number of scenarios where one or more of these assumptions might prove mistaken. (I have personal experience of a case where the director of a small publishing house specialising in underground comics put out an entire book with nude images of his former partners, including one with whom he had a child, without asking any of them for consent.)
There are hundreds of similar Flickr uploads on Commons, and more are added continuously.
It would be helpful if the Foundation could insist on a standard letter to be sent to Flickr users that would advise them in advance of the intent to upload an adult Flickr image of theirs to a Wikimedia site. This would point out to the Flickr account holder that the image may become highly visible through inclusion in Wikipedia, and that once uploaded, it will be available in perpetuity for commercial re-use by anyone who sees the image on a Wikimedia site.
It would then ask for formal confirmation that the model(s) have been advised of these facts, and that they are happy for their image to be used in this manner. This would also go a long way towards ensuring that any commercial re-users of the images are safe, and won't find themselves at the receiving end of a legal claim.
I believe it would be in the Foundation's best interests to advise Commons admins that they are expected to uphold these requirements, and to de-admin anyone who fails to do so.
On a slightly different, but related topic, Commons admins should be advised that in the case of sexual images whose description states that they depict a minor (i.e. below the age of 18), the appropriate action is not to open a deletion discussion (there was a recent instance where this happened), but to have the image promptly removed by an oversighter and/or Foundation staff. Again, I believe it would be in the Foundation's and downstream users' best interests to issue a warning to any admins failing to do so, and to de-admin them if the warning is not heeded.
Andreas