OK did some more research and found this disturbing page from Wikia here

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Category:CC-BY_images

I won't post any of the images there, you can imagine what it's like (nipple rings, dungeons &c, japanese schoolgirls) except for this one here

http://spankingart.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Fr..._The_Tracks.jpg

of which there are a number similar. It wouldn't be out of place in your typical family photo album, except for, er, it is very much out of place here. Where did they get all these photos of pubescent girls from. Answer: their parents. Here for example

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hobbs39/sets/72157603687579739

which appears to be maintained by a single dad proud of a pretty 13 year old daughter who has taken a lot of photos of her, artistic in a chocolate-box pass-the-sickbags kind of way. It seems like it is really is genuine (if not, the mind boggles, really). E.g.




Is he really that stupid. I have a daughter of exactly the same age & I have ballerina photos, holiday stuff which NO WAY goes onto a publicly available website, however innocent it may seem to begin with. And I would question whether it is so innocent - the dad has comments enabled and some of them are pretty creepy, e.g.



Er, right, call in social services. I despair. Perhaps someone should let this guy know where some of his daughter's pictures have ended up (i.e. next to a nipple ring on one side and a torture dungeon on the other). I despair.

I'm afraid at this point, I can't even bring this to any authority's attention. I suspect that I'm personally viewed as the "resident anti-Wikia crackpot" at the IRS, the Florida Consumer Affairs department, the blogosphere, the WikBack, etc.

Other people need to spread this information around. Not me. People other than me. Change public opinion. If necessary, organize a boycott of Amazon until they stop funding this particular Beast.

We've always said Jimbo is just a former porn peddler re-branded as an encyclopedia editor. It would appear that we were frighteningly off the mark, in that this particular Wikia hosted on his servers, is actually worse than mere "porn".

Greg

For what it's worth, I don't believe the guy is "stupid" - he's a victim of the kind of thing that happened to the "virgin mobile girl". The fact is, the majority of users of "social" sites are unlikely to be making fully informed licensing decisions - fed by flikr's marketing guff for new users, I doubt he had sufficient information to understand he was "licensing" the pictures for this kind of use.

There's a fair few pictures of that kid alongside the beaten kids, child upskirt shots and general soft porn. I've dropped the father a line through flikr, pointing him to the spanking site, the wikia contact page, and this thread - he seems unimpressed by the site, but he will hopefully have some recourse.

Thanks for doing that. I still think it was a dumb thing to do. As I say, whatever a site like flikr says, if you post pictures of your children on the beach or whatever, it's in public view, without the watchful care of parents and guardians.

Those comments are jaw-dropping. Who the hell are these people? This guy made a comment on almost every pic, and he seems to like doing terrible photoshops of other people's children.

And yeah, you can't exactly revoke openly-licensed photos. And your privacy never comes back.

Don't blame him for being naive about the kind of perversion the internet promotes.

"But Gramma, What big teeth you have!"

"Always AGF my dahlin'" [*]

[*] from the Suthern edition

Why the hell not? Would you prefer to blame the child?
Disgusting!

I don't think this is a naiive person, nor a normal one. The comments about her body, even her "hands", etc indicate something weird.

Having said that, I completely blame parents, or anyone, who is naiive about kids and the internet.



True. Maybe your wife, or brother, or whoever else, or someone you know could report it.

On the other hand, something this egregious could be reported, even by a famous anti-wikipedian. It's child abuse. All bets are off.

I think I'd blame Creative Commons really. I've had a look through the site and I think there is either the same naivety there. The only words of warning I could find buried there (but I am happy to be proved wrong) are:



In other words, not a lot. Derogatory treatment might be a let out, but it doesn't sound very convincing.

I doubt that few had realised that CC was a licence to allow others to pervert your work - it is all so "For the Greater Good (Greater Good)". Flikr makes it all seem so Helpful.

{{{Cedric}}}

What is the meaning of this???!!

(no seriously, what is the meaning of {{{ }}}). Not catching your banter, old chap.

AB has strong feelings about child abuse.

That was a "hug".

He likes to give those.

AB is a she. :-)

Potatoe(sic) - Potahtoe(sic)



"AB" is gender neutral for a name, no?

Besides, on Wikipedia, you never know what gender half the population is. So many of them are cross-bi-changed-or-whatever. No offense intended to the diverse population, or AB. Just making a lame probably politically incorrect joke.

After all, nobody knows what sex Disillusioned Lackey is either.

Well, it was originally Armed Blowfish, which is really rather
masculine, no?

Seriously. I spent mayhaps a year intentionally letting
people think I was I guy, because in my experience, being
known to be a woman on the internet increases one's
chances of being the target of sexist jokes... and sometimes
worse. Eventually someone outed me, and after failing to
get it removed from WP, I gave up trying to keep it secret.

Hey, it's not like it's uncommon for me to wear men's
clothing anyway.

So it really doesn't matter all that much if you get my
gender wrong.

Belated:
{{{AB}}}

Thanks. : )

Hugging an armed blowfish can be hazardous to those with sensitive skin.