File talk:Warren Cup Scene B 20thCentury london British Museum.jpg

The image provided

In some jurisdictions around the world, the viewing of that image may be illegal (it may be considered to be "child pornography" or "an image depicting child sexual abuse". By a visitor clicking on the link to our article, the visitor may be exposing himself to prosecution in his local jurisdiction, and BoyWiki would be complicit in his prosecution. Is this a good idea? User4 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be getting away with it. Leucosticte (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the same thing as user4 at first but after a very long conversations, the Wiki Council decided that because that is without question considered art that it would be OK to use it for now. That image has been shown on TV in both the UK and USA and I believe you maybe correct that this copy of that image originated at Wikipedia. --Etenne (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it counts as art would be relevant if the standard being applied were the Miller test (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)). A different standard applies to child pornography, per New York v. Ferber (458 U.S. 747 (1982)). In that case, the court ruled that "a work which, taken on the whole, contains serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value may nevertheless embody the hardest core of child pornography. 'It is irrelevant to the child [who has been abused] whether or not the material . . . has a literary, artistic, political or social value.'" Ferber, though, was a case that dealt with images whose production involved an actual child. I'm not sure if that difference is relevant or not. Theoretical issues aside, I doubt anyone would get prosecuted for an image of the Warren cup. Leucosticte (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get in to a major argument about these issues as I am not a legal expert...all I am asking is that people be prudent and try to use good judgement. I think it would be allowable to say that more info..torrents for movies, books, etc are available from Google or even by naming a specific site(but not linked directly). I understand that it is a pain, it is perhaps even unfair... but that is the world we live it. --Etenne (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to say that you should get rid of the image. Also, I think that you're right that we probably shouldn't provide torrent info, since it can easily be found by The Pirate Bay, etc. anyway. Leucosticte (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As there is a dispute as to the legality of this image and I am responsible for managing en.BoyWiki... I have removed this image from en.BoyWiki. --Etenne (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I vote that the image should stay - if its good enough for Wikipedia, then it's good enough for me! (excepting certain of their articles). What does Wikipedia talk say about the image? (Gee, I was just making a point about something, originally... I didn't expect it to be taken so literally...) User4 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, you could just put a link to the image in the article, and note its sensitivity. Then it becomes the responsibility of the visitor to click on the link or not, depending on the laws of the legal jurisdiction within which he resides. Problem solved! Of course, if you even have a link to the article on Wikipedia -- without a warning or a disclaimer -- then you are exposing the visitor to the very same risks as you would by providing the image itself. ("What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive..." User4 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

per BoyWiki policy, this matter has also been refereed to the BoyWiki council.--Etenne (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)