Whether your Dad whacks you off whilst you have your head in the sand, or not is really besides the point for this discussion.

Just one eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=forefinger&fulltext=Search

And what if they aren't searching for porn? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=coddle&fulltext=Search

Link did you want? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=bell%20tolling&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=0 What is most amusing about all of this is the NSFW monikers that people are adding, cos you know that sometimes even if you want porn, you know that now isn't the best time to be viewing it.

Then you've not been using the site properly. The issue isn't so much that there is porn on wikipedia, but that it flashes across your screen when you least expect it. It is getting to the point where you cannot search for any media file without some pornographic image being included in the first few results.

Most wikipedians are dead from the groin up.

The Nature article is full on bullshit. It isn't even close to an accurate appraisal or comparison between the two works. You'll find the debunking of the nature article all over the web if you chose to look. As an example of 18 months the article on NURBS was wrong in that it had mixed up cN and gN continuity. The history articles are abysmal one would be hard pressed to find one of them of any reasonable length that wasn't riddled with errors. Large chunks of it are copied verbatim from 17th and 18th century histories, with all the errors and slanted views of the period. Some 8000+ pages have been tainted by an editor with 60,000+ edits who has systematically misrepresented, over egged, or simply lied to remove references to Western Europe discoveries in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, History, Philosophy, and Art. You can help clean up the crap here. The pages on organisms frequently have photos that aren't of the organism that the page is about.

The problem is that any re-user of a multimedia file had better ascertain for themselves whether the file is actually free to use, and that it wasn't something that some 14 yo uploaded from the web and slapped a CC license on. If some company has reused a copyright image, the rights holder is going to go after the company not the dumb kid that uploaded it. That they found it on a website isn't going to play out in court.

The Wikipedia article on the case goes into some detail.

And do they mention that there has never been a supreme court judgment on the issue?

The judiciary are adept in coming to a justification for what they want to allow and what they don't want to allow. In the the Bridgeman case Corel performed their own digitization using the Bridgeman slides. An equivalent act would have been if the wiki-thief had made prints from the digital files and then craeted his own digital files from the prints.

However, in this case the physical jpegs the thief responsible simple purloined the files belonging to another. If that was the situation that came up before Kaplan I doubt he'd have found in favour of people rifling through the computer files of another.

That's what I said. They chose to have crap images. I chose not to supply commercial entities with my work.

I don't contribute either. My photos appear on academic sites, articles, blogs, and advert free news services etc. I have images of things of which there are no other online sources. However, these will never appear in wikipedia precisely because they insist on them being licensed for commercial use. They never will be, they will only ever be licensed CC-NC. If you want to use an image commercially pay the price. Oh and don't bother asking me as they are NOT for use commercially.

How the fuck would he know what a UK court would decide? A few years before the B v C case US courts would have decided for Bridgeman.

You have a whole load of extra issues to do with how the person is posed, the angle, what's in the background.

Except that in many cases these are formulaic. Ever wondered why it is that all those local portrait studios churn out the same type of photos?

Layout designs which include placement of lights, distance from subject, subjects distance from background. All of it is predetermined. There are even franchises that will provide a photog with camera, lights, background, etc.

All the photog has to do is make sure the subject is looking at the camera and has their eyes open.