This is rather sad. As a kind of revenge for my nominating some of the porn stuff for deletion on commons, a picture I uploaded some years ago has been nominated in return. It is by Alfred Bestall, who illustrated the Rupert Bear books in the 1940's and 1950's. The picture of the castle has been a part of the Peter Damian user page for some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=268971661

There is a terrible irony in this. Bestall's work, while not 'high art' or anything like that, was loved by generations of children and is emblematic for me of lost childhood and the innocence of youth. It will be deleted (see below for the reason) and the nominator seems to have succeeded in getting 'cumshot on face' restored, as a sort of tit for tat.

I don't believe this stuff about pornography being harmless to children. Anyone who has parented children, or works with them, know that before a certain age they find the whole thing quite disturbing. This attitude of these internet libertarians seems close to cruelty in my view. Or rather, many of them being so close to childhood themselves, they have the natural disdain of the teenager for childhood, and do not have quite the same view of it as a much older person would.

It is also a shame that so little of Bestall's work can be seen on the net. He gave the copyright on all his work to the Daily Express, who have never bothered with it, and he died in something close to poverty.

That is really sad.

You are dealing with pernicious and idiotic evil. Not "big evil" by any means. More just evil on the scale of little boys who pull legs or wings off flies, hemorrhoids or genital crabs.

The Foundation do not account for the degree of such petty vindictiveness in their promotion of the game.

I had a look over some of that Saibo's commentary. He seem pretty idiotic, a "we are the community" wannabe hard nut.

One of the images they were debating was a young guy with carving knives stuck up his ass. Now deleted but still Google cached.

Take your disappointment and write it into a letter to some sponsors or educational departments.

That's interesting. Saibo nominated an image I had uploaded to Commons for the same reason. There is a thread I started about it on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...t_by_user:Saibo

I'm looking into it, but Alfred Edmeades "Fred" Bestall, MBE (Mandalay, Burma, 14 December 1892 – 15 January 1986 in Porthmadog, Wales).

If the book was post 1927 and he died in 1986, I don't know how I can argue that it belongs on common where we only have clear GFDL compliant (PD-Old would be what I would want).

As I mentioned above (and in the deletion request) it will have to be deleted. I was simply commenting on the irony of having to delete such a beautiful image, in return for a nice cumshot or anal cream pie.

Well, because it is a nice image the copyright is enforced. The porn is all on Wiki because it is too crappy to be worth a suitable money making copyright for a porn website.

There you go. Note that it is not a copyright violation against the late Bestall, who died almost impoverished because of the way that Daily Express appropriated his work, almost without recognition. Double irony.

Trouble is, as far as the rules are concerned a copyvio is a copyvio, whether it's against some struggling impoverished writer or a plutocratic international company. For example, Sibelius' music is still in copyright in most countries as he died less than 60 years ago. Most of the copyright belongs to his estate and I asume the royalties benefit his family. However, he sold the copyright on his Valse triste outright, to his great regret as it was one of his most popular pieces. So the royalties on that go to some corporation. Should Commons be allowed to host a sound file of Valse triste any more than of say his First Symphony?