Talk:Downblouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Picture Discussion

No disrespect, but is a picture really necessary for this article?

Why not? A picture is worth a thousand words in this case?!--PeterMarkSmith 10:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Downblouse is a term used to describe images, enjoyed by voyeurs who like women, showing the view down a female's shirt or blouse. Taking photographs of someone surreptitiously is an offense in some countries, but in others there are no laws to prevent this. Some people consider this sort of photography to be a form of sexual abuse and an invasion of privacy if it is done without consent.

An alternative form of this type of voyeurism are upskirt images - similar to downblouse but with the intent of showing a woman's lower half.

The advent of cell phones fitted with cameras (aka camera phones) may be reason for surge in these types of photographs. Pcghost 18:52, 11 Novemeber 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this picture really legal?

I just voted to keep this page on AfD, but I'm disturbed by the picture. Could somebody point me to an explanation of how this type of picture is uncopyrightable and legal? If we need a picture on this page, why not use one with a known, willing model posing? --Allen 00:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the picture. I can't imagine the shit we'd be in if the woman in the photograph found out it was on here. --Allen 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You are over reacting, firstly there is next to no chance at all the model would be aware of this photo if she is not already aware of it. Secondly it is bordering on impossible to identify the person in the photo anyway. Mathmo Talk 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... the picture's still up, on the past versions of the page. I don't know if there's an easy way to take care of that (sorta new here), but as the case here is legality, SOMEthing should be done. If it turns out later that it's legal, and the woman consents to it being posted, it can always be uploaded again. --Anonymous 16:57 EST, 17 February 2006

According to a post on Cleavage, this is a picture to whom the "model" (the wife of the photographer) readily agreed. Not the most exciting things (no offense), but kosher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalisphoenix (talk • contribs)

[edit] The new picture is legal

We took that picture for this article specifically. The image description describes that it is public domain with a consentual adult model. However I think the previous comment refers to another picture as the comments are from February and I only recently posted this new one in response to a request at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures. HighInBC 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

<comment removed (User:84.9.26.19 suggested a better picture could be found)> --Allen 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the picture down, there's not picture on the "upskirt" article, why should there be one here? 68.149.23.252 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture was requested, it is topical, it is legal, it illustrates the article, information should not be removed without reason. HighInBC 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Downblouse.jpg

Ok, every so often somebody removes this but nobody has given a reason. I am creating this section for the discussion of whether or not this image is valid.

I am not overly attached to the image being here, but we did make it on a request for this page. Now, if you don't think it should be there please outline your reasoning below: HighInBC 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a {{dbauthor}} tag onto this image. Jimbo has not clarified this[1] statement. Since I don't know what the alledged trolling was I can only assume he meant the images she contributed to related articles. I don't wan't to be called a troll, and "indef banned without so much as a how do you do", so I am playing it safe. HighInBC 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a picture of me. Can I post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsource1 (talk • contribs)

Maybe. We've been bitten in the past by people uploading questionable images, claiming they were of themselves, when they were actually of others, who had never given releases. I think this would call for something like the procedures described Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses. Please read that, and if you can comply, please go ahead. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators' Noticeboard

The lack of verfication has been mentioned on WP:AN#Downblouse. I mention this in case anyone cares to concisely comment. — edgarde 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you realise that the image discussion you have just posted under nolonger exists? Doesn't even matter now. Mathmo Talk 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the image was deleted minutes ago. Thank you for your participation in this process. — edgarde 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I was refering to a different image. The previous one which is now gone could have been fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
lol, thanks bot again! Was just about to do that myself... Man, why am I being so forgetful at the moment? Mathmo Talk 06:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Per the various discussions, let's address the issue of "image requested."
  1. I have no doubt that someone out there wants to see an image of women's breasts surreptitiously taken. Fortunately, there are hundreds of sites on the web that have them. The "it was requested" isn't a very compelling argument.
  2. Legal? Well, maybe, maybe not. It depends on what is shown, but it's probably legal to take a photo with permission of the model, which would more or less rule out the "surreptitious" bit.
  3. Needed? Is there anything ambiguous about "photo taken looking down a woman's blouse?" Is there anything hard to imagine or visualize about "photo taken up a woman's or girl's skirt?" Is there anything about such an image that would actually illustrate the article?
So, from my point of view, the gain to the article from having an image is purely prurient, and the "request" to have a picture, like the "illustration" urge in adding it would be a gain not to the explanatory power of the article, but merely the voyeuristic desires of the viewer (not reader) of the article. Therefore, I think there is no argument for adding an example to this article or "upskirt." Geogre 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requirements to upload this type of image

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-09-05/Publicgirluk

Without debating the merits of including an image — I don't think it's a bad idea — I just want to add that for Wikipedia to host an image of this type, the image must conform to the following:

  1. Image must be free from copyright violation.
  2. Subject must give permission to have this image posted on Wikipedia.
  3. 1 & 2 are verifiable.

A problem we were having at Upskirt is the uploader was claiming he had permission to upload, but refused to provide any verfication that this was true. This exposes Wikipedia to legal trouble when the copyright owner or unwilling subject finds the image posted (especially risky with sexually intimate or pornographic images). It also potentially runs us afoul of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.

I've asked around on this, and if one chooses to upload their own created image as a declared Public Domain (or otherwise-licensed) work, there are at least two ways to satisfy verification and subject permission needs:

  1. The norm for amateur sex-related pics is to take the same photograph with the subject holding a written statement like "Posting of this picture allowed on Wikipedia", or even simply "Wikipedia OK". This would prove both copyright ownership and authorisation to post, and we would keep the 2nd picture as proof while posting the other original.
  2. If a "Wikipedia OK" image cannot be provided, you also have the option of submitting your own personally identifiable information to Wikipedia. This way you do not have to reveal the identity of your "shy" "girlfriend", as long as you are willing to be held legally responsible in case the subject claims it was uploaded without permission, or in case of a copyright violation. Here is the necessary procedure: Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses#Verifying the uploader.

Note that a Public Domain work is free for anyone to use. If your subject doesn't want their image flashed on At Large with Geraldo Rivera, or photomanip'ed into something gross, they don't want it posted on Wikipedia.

There are of course other license options. These would also require verification in a similar fashion. — edgarde 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for going to the trouble of writing that out. However.... it does have various problems that I can see. I'll start of with one of them: the verifying uploaded link that you have included goes to an inactive page that is nolonger policy and is only kept around for historical reasons and thus is not of current relevance to this article.Mathmo Talk 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The linked article is inactive because it was written as a policy proposal that never became official policy. However, the linked procedure is still the best description I can find for that process. — edgarde 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
best != correct Mathmo Talk 21:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Right now you're only gainsaying, and it's not really helpful. I don't have any reason to believe you actually know anything. — edgarde 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography?

This article states that "There are many websites that promote downblousing as pornography, but in real life, taking photographs of someone surreptitiously is a legal offense in some countries." And Oxford Dictionary states "printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement." So wouldn't young teenagers in search of stimulating pictures key in "downblouse" and see this picture? Just a thought.

  • You're missing the legal context. In the United States, the appeal is to "community standards." That has caused fits in the world wide web age, and there is a battle between "most restrictive standards of any community where it available" and "most permissive standards of any community" for employing that, but what thrills a teenager can be any oval at all, so appealing to those suffering from testosterone poisoning as the community is probably a non-starter. The old joke is that they find the crack of dawn to be exciting. Geogre 14:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously now, if this is/was the best so called "porn" that a teenager can find on the internet then we have much bigger things to worry about for that teenager than him/her seeing a bit of "porn" here! Mathmo Talk 19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)