Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:6879 Anja Franke bearbeitet.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:6879 Anja Franke bearbeitet.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 12:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chester100 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Chester100 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment Please would you consider adding the {{Consent}} template with whatever parameters are relevent. --99of9 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Question How would adding this template be beneficial? In the case that consent is available it still remains a self-assessment by the uploader - a soft tool of proofing the legitimacy of possible consent. An OTRS-Ticket signed by the depicted person is a way more powerful and reliable tool to proof actual consent. Using this template will only work if we assume that poeple don't lie, which I do not. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 06:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously it's not foolproof, but it's somewhat like the copyright declaration {{Own}} where we accept it in good faith (until we find out if it's dubious). Of course OTRS would be even better still, but the WMF resolution stopped short of demanding that: The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media.... Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's a whole lot better than nothing. (Although for this photo in particular, I have little doubt that the subject approves of publication. I just want featured pictures to lead the way in following best practice.) --99of9 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the resolution, I was not aware of that. My critique for {{Own}} is basically the same. And here comes the part you didn't quote: "[...]and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place." The logic consequence of this resolution is that all images requiring consent for their publication must come along with consent of the individual, the owner, etc. Of course demanding this as a requirement for uploading content to the Commons would lead to a tremendous decrease in uploaded media files (at least if properly done through OTRS-Tickets), hence this half-assed template. Once again re-users remain fooled and without reliable information. As for this image: looking as directly into the camera under what seem to be studio conditions is to be considered as an implied-in-fact contract. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this applies to all pictures of identifiable people in non-obviously-public situations, hence my request on even this image. If you want to argue for requiring more (signatures??), feel free, but can we at least agree that halfway is better than nowhere? Finally, looking at the camera implies you're happy to have your photo taken, but not necessarily published (a clear counterexample is the distribution of ex-girlfriend pictures). --99of9 (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like this requires some additional explanation: first of all, let me assure you that I strongly disagree on encouraging people to use or promote this half-assed solution. Second, but more importantly, the subject of this image is considered to be a Person der Zeitgeschichte in German Law (this corresponds the public figure). Various judgements and scientific consensus have confirmed that public figures can be photographed in most cases (decisions are based on a balance between freedom of speech and personality rights). However, in this case the subject obviously agreed to being photographed. Your ex-girlfriend example fails to address this particular issue. Closing thoughts: it might be more efficient to "assume good faith" when people upload material to the Commons, by making this the default option. Whenever you don't have consent or got the image from another website, etc. you could add a template that informs people that consent is not assured. On another note: this template in general won't work in this case, because it seems like User:Chester100 does not speak English. Your turn. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your points of view, but I prefer the WMF resolution's approach. By the way, what I mean by ex-girlfriend pictures is ones that were also looking at the camera, also agreeing to be photographed, but always intended to be private - that get released after the relationship is over. --99of9 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)- Oppose per Yikrazuul Zivya (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
