Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Archive 1

Proposed new guidelines

Here are some suggested guidelines for uploading images of identifiable people, with particular emphasis on when the subject's consent may be needed. The guidelines are based on some generic legal principles and some fairly universal moral precepts that I hope should find general agreement here. Please feel free to comment and discuss below. --MichaelMaggs 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Children

Is there any legal basis for the claim "Images of children may require particular care and consideration"? I certainly don't see any moral basis for it -- children have the same rights as adults, but no more rights than adults. —Angr 18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In the UK case of Kelly v BBC (2001), it was said that "No child, simply by virtue of being a child, is entitled to a right of privacy or confidentiality." Of course, the legal situation in other countries may be different. As to the moral point, extra care does need to be taken as publication may sometimes harm an innocent child in a way that it would not an adult. To take the "obese girl" example, several users suggested that it was unacceptable to post the unpixellated version as she was not fully responsible for her own size, and that primary responsibility for her weight rested with her her parents. Had the image been of an obese woman photographed in a public place, I very much doubt that anyone would have worried that consent was not obtained. --MichaelMaggs 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You use the loaded term "innocent child", but that's what I really object to: the idea that children are somehow "innocent" in a way adults aren't. There should not be any difference at all whether the obese person eating ice cream in the picture is 8 or 38. —Angr 09:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the page to remove the artificial distinction between children and adults. —Angr 11:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've no strong views, and your text is simpler. --MichaelMaggs 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe the disclaimer here: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:South-Goodwin.jpg&filetimestamp=20061029105405 . The picture shows a boy painting a boat, and below it sais:

That picture shows one or many identifiable people that are alive or died recently"

If I was that child I would be scared to death - how can people think in such categories? Please, supply a more humane version.

Please provide words that address your concern and that convey the same meaning. I tried and failed. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why a child should be frightened by being told he's alive. —Angr 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking versus publishing

There is a reference to a court ruling in US about taking pictures in public places. However, nothing in the quotation refers to publishing the image and releasing it for free use. Samulili 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the European Court of Justice case Friel v Austria? --MichaelMaggs 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Generally, in a public place anyone is free in principle to take photographs and the taking of such photographs in such circumstances can be considered a trivial act that must be tolerated by others, even if some people may consider it unpleasant that someone else should take their photograph." Samulili 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the Court held that in considering whether a photograph infringes article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (essentially the same as Art 12 of the Universal Convention, quoted in the guidelines), it should take into account:

• whether the taking of the photograph involved an invasion of privacy
• whether the photograph is of a public or a private act,
• the purpose for which the photograph was created, and
• the actual use of the photograph, including the extent to which it was distributed to the general public.

The uploading to Commons comes under the last head. But I don't think the guidelines should get too legalistic; general principles are all I am aiming at here. --MichaelMaggs 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Private vs. public

What is the definition in this proposed policy based on? Judging by the OK and not OK lists, the definition is clearly contradictory to that which used in Finland, at least. Samulili 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the (legal) definition of public/private varies between countries and also according to the type of law being referred to. So what is 'public' for privacy purposes may not be the same as 'public' for trespass, or 'public' for freedom of panorama. What is used here is a proposal that is intended to be generic, and is based on the general expectation of the subject, rather than on any strict legal rule.

The wording is actually extracted from the UK Press Complaints Commission rules of conduct, which are a series of non-legal guidelines setting out the type of photographs which are generally considered morally acceptable for publication by the press and others in the UK. I'm suggesting that we adopt something along these lines as our moral code, accepting of course that each country will have its own legal rules which of course still apply. Attempting to capture every country's legal rules would be a nightmare, as they are all so different, and in any event are only peripherally connected with coyright. --MichaelMaggs 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think that freedom of press is quite good a starting point. Bearing in mind, of course, that while the press may use a picture in one context it may not be able to use it in all contexts or without any context. The latter being the case in Commons (and the first what we are potentially helping people to do but this probably quite irrelevant). I would also like it if we were to take in account of local legislation because the privacy that people reasonably expect depend on where they live. Samulili 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously local legislation - eg on personality rights - will take precedence, but as several users on this page have already noted we shouldn't be giving couuntry-by-country legal advice on such non-copyright issues. --MichaelMaggs 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Special focus on a primary subject in public places

I like this page, it appears to be well thought-out. One thing I'd like to see is more detailed discussion of legal standards for "public" and "private" in specific nations, particularly the US where the servers are housed.

I also had a hypothetical scenario to raise - say you have a public party and you take a picture which places particular emphasis on a single individual partygoer, such as a closeup of their face. The shot does not show the context of the party, and the person is just an attendee and does not draw particular attention to themselves. Would this be unreasonable intrusion? What if the full name of the person were attached to the photo on upload? Dcoetzee 21:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I first tried to approach your question from one angle, but I realized your example about a party raises more questions, namely, what is the purpose of the image. We do not have to worry about personality rights if we delete the image because it is out of scope. But if the image was used to portray obesity, sideburns, dental abnormalities, lazy eye, freckels, noce peircing etc, I would object.

A rule of thumb that I would like to add in some form, is that when regular people are minding their own business, pictures focused on them should not be published in Commons. This would allow us to use pictures of celebrites, permorming artists, public speakers, people in demonstrations, crowds etc. Naturally, this is not a rule that would say what is allowed. It would only exclude some images. That is also why I don't propose that rules written by should be MichaelMaggs. Instead I propose that they are complemented with this point of view. Samulili 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'public' and 'private' distinctions aren't legal definitions at all, but rather represent my attempt to capture some general guidelines (based on freedom of the press type ideas) as to what is generally acceptable on Commons. Your view that ordinary people doing ordinary things shouldn't have pictures of them uploaded to Commons is interesting, and merits more discussion. My reading of the situation is that such images are nomally accepted without consent being provided, and that if consent is to be insisted upon we would have to delete large number of pictures. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --MichaelMaggs 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, some such images have been deleted before. One example was probably a person of some ehtnic background in a developing country. I'm afraid it is impossible for me to find that case but I suppose it was some 9 to 15 months ago. There may be even more, I don't follow deletion requests much.

I'll use this occasion to be more clear on my point: I think that ordinary people minding their own business (walking on the street, sunbathing on a beach etc, or "doing ordinary things") when one person is in the focus, shouldn't be hosted on Commons. A crowd of people throwing frisbee would be ok. A crowd of overweight people on the streets of Houston to show the overweight problem would be ok.

I come to this conclusion from a very scientfic poll including myself and all the respondents say that they wouldn't want themselves in that position :) As a project reaching out to the community, I think we could try to get a larger group to answer this questionaire. We could pick one or several of these "ordinary photos" and ask some of our friends (with no affiliation to any Wikimedia project) and ask how they would feel if they were on the photo and the photo was publically distributed for use in (m)any purpouses. That would show that we care about the concerns, if any, of the community. Samulili 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you phrase the question like that, no doubt everyone will say that they don't want their photograph taken or used, thank you very much. But that's not the end of the matter, as accepting such a response uncritically is equivalent to giving all identifiable subjects an absolute veto or, to put it another way, to the community voluntarily extending very strong Personality Rights to people in countries such as the US and the UK where such rights are not granted by law and where it's commonplace for newspapers to print such images. Your suggestion would exclude, for example this image which was placed second in the recent Picture of the Year competition. --MichaelMaggs 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia commons is not your attorney

The page comes off sounding like legal advice, much like our trademark template did before Kelly Martin recently improved it. We need to avoid sounding like we're giving legal advice. --Gmaxwell 22:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the use of a nude image is an unnecssarly loaded illustration, furthermore the claims of the foundation carrying liability for defimation are factually inaccurate under US law. I'm also not aware of any stock agency that actively restricts the use of non-wavered images, but rather they seem to instruct the users of the content that they do so at their own risk. --Gmaxwell 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The nude image was the first one that I found on a quick search that had a clear consent listed. Feel free to replace it. Reference to Foundation removed in connection with potential liability. --MichaelMaggs 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The "advice" on this page is misguided legally as well as practically. It needs a complete rewrite. Kelly Martin 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kelly. Feel free to do it. This is a Wiki ;) Or perhaps more interactively: which specific points are you referring to? I'm more than happy to discuss. The point of this is certainly not to give specific legal advice - it's to provide practical guidance as to what sort of images the community will ask for consent on, and which it will not. --MichaelMaggs 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, do not suggest that any sort of image is "OK". If it turns out that such an image is not "OK" then you might get in trouble for providing faulty legal advice. Second, this page should not focus on summarizing legal rules regarding personality rights. Instead, it should establish guidelines for what we here at the Wikimedia Commons are prepared to accept. Most of the current page is unsuitable toward that purpose -- and I'm not sure that the community has even had sufficient discussion to establish what the community considers acceptable. Kelly Martin 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling to follow your line of thought, I'm afraid. I entirely agree that there is a need to "establish guidelines for what we here at the Wikimedia Commons are prepared to accept"; and that's the entire purpose of this. The only legal advice here is that the image has to be legal according to the law of three jurisdictions, which is surely right. There is no legal advice on personality law at all, and I wouldn't presume to do so. "OK" and "Not OK" are not legal categories but general pointers to what the community is comfortable with. And I also agree that the community may not have had sufficient discussion to establish what it considers acceptable, but why do you note that as a criticism? This page is a contribution to that debate. Let's use it as a springboard to discuss, for example, whether it really is OK to the Community to upload picture of ordinary people doing ordinary things in public or whether - as seems to be suggested by Samulili above - only images of people who might expect to be photographed are OK. --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The text has been substantially modified in response to Kelly's comments to make it quite clear that this page is providing guidance on what Commons users are likely to accept, and not what is legally allowable. --MichaelMaggs 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exception for selfportraits

Nice stuff. I would just include a small section exempting self-portraits from this policy (such as images for Wikimedia user pages), except where may be doubt that the person portrayed is in fact the uploader (such as naked photos or famous people). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified that in the intro. --MichaelMaggs 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personality rights template

Should we add a recommendation to use our shiny new {{Personality rights}} template on photographs of identifiable people? —Angr 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, though I'm unclear what real benefit that template has. It seems to me that if it's to be used as intended it would have to be added to each and every photograph of an identifiable person on Commons, and that's a lot of images, far more than would need say the trademarked template. Perhaps I've misunderstood its pupose. --MichaelMaggs 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Marking as guideline

It's a guideline, use it for guidance. It's a wiki page, take it as a work in progress. Improve at will. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other countries' legislations

Germany: As far as I know it is not allowed to publish images of private persons, which were taken in public or private spaces unless they are famous or part of a large crowd (like on a demonstration, at a soccer match etc.) However, taking pictures of persons in public is allowed. Is it therefore illegal to publish an images taken in Germany on wikicommons (which hat its servers in the US)? Does the nationality of the photographer matter?

How about other national regulations?--Christoph Michels 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the same German Recht am eigenen Bild has counterparts in most EU countries as far as i know, following Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data. / Fred J 11:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Public figures vs. non-public figures

Should we perhaps make clear that this guideline should especially apply to private persons, i.e. persons who are not public figures?--Pharos 04:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they apply to both.--MichaelMaggs 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Be wary of pix of nude youngsters

The United States is sternly against child porn. This is because we Americans are against kids getting hurt, abused, or otherwise forced to grow up before their time. Because of that, the USA seeks to jail people that make or possess pictures depicting sexualized children. This could potentially include any nude child. Thank you for your concern and pls use discretion - and delete any illegal photos you guys might find. Rickyrab 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The page already says that local laws apply, and your blanket comments really don't add anything to this article, which is to do with issues of identification. - 19:35, 13 December 2007 User:MichaelMaggs

Edits by G.dallorto

I have reverted a number of edits as they fundamentally change the guidelines as to what may be photographed in a public place, and would severely limit the number of images of people that could be hosted here. The changes would, for example, exclude one of the winning images in last year's POTY competition: Image:HomelessParis_7032101.jpg. In particular, it would be interesting to know the legal basis for "the close-up up of a single train passenger asleep on the train, normally requires his/her consent (a release) should it be published". At present such a photograph would be allowed as the sleeper is in a public place has has no expectation of privacy. We don't generally distinguish such 'portrait' shots, and I'm not aware of any generally-applicable legal rule that says we should (accepting of course that specific countries may have specific rules which we must follow). There may be such a rule in Italy but it doesn't apply generally. --MichaelMaggs 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say two things here. One, I agree with G.dallorto on the sleeping person (there may be a rule allowing it in the US bit it doesn't apply generally). Two, "at present such a photograph would be allowed" isn't what the guideline says, in my opinion. Samulili 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There were long and pretty inconclusive discussions before these guidelines were put in place, and it's pretty clear that opinions do diverge widely. Some have said that we should have a straightforward rule that all portraits need consent, and that candid photos of anyone in a public place may never be allowed. Others take a diametrically opposite view, and hold that even private images are OK provided that the subject knows he or she is being photographed: see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boblebad.jpg. As a legal matter, personality rights do vary on a country by country basis, some countries such as France having much stronger rights than, say, the USA. There is a danger, though, in allowing images to be deleted based on a global view of strong personality rights - namely that since model releases are in practice virtually impossible to get in many cases we will simply end up with no portraits whatsoever. At the moment, if we were notified of a specific assertion of personality right by the subject in a country where such rights exist I would expect an admin to delete the image. However, that's very different from modifying the guidelines so that they effectively proscribe pretty well all portraits except crowd scenes. Sleeping people might be unacceptable anyway as an unreasonable intrusion. --MichaelMaggs 19:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look also at Commons:Deletion requests/Kolkata Red Light photos. Is it your view that Commons should require model releases for these? --MichaelMaggs 07:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If local law, meaning that of India or West-Bengal, so requires, yes. Samulili 08:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's agreed, of course. That would be covered by the existing text that says:

• There are a variety of non-copyright laws which may impact on the photographer, the uploader and/or the WikiMedia Foundation, including defamation, personality rights and rights to privacy. These vary from country to country, but the general rule is that an image is definitely unacceptable to Commons if it is illegal, or arguably illegal, in any one or more of: (a) the country in which the photograph was taken; (b) the country from which the image was uploaded; (c) the USA (where Commons images are stored).

We were discussing, though, whether the rules should be changed to require a model release as the default position, and I don't think they should. --MichaelMaggs 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Relabeled as "proposed"

I have read through the history of this proposal and its talk page. Very few people have commented or contributed to this proposal and there has not been sufficient discussion to warrant claiming this is a guideline. I see no evidence of a section here asking whether there is consent to make this a guideline. I see no evidence that people were ever asked to come here and give input. Most of the questions/objections raised about the proposal have been responded to by a single proponent.

Accordingly, it is not accurate to say that this page reflects the views of the entire community. I have relabeled this as a "proposed guideline" rather than a "guideline". Before considring this a guideline, a notice should be posted to the wider community asking for their input. More discussion is needed to see if the community backs this idea or not. Johntex 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't always been the greatest fan of this proposition/guideline/policy but, as it is so vague, I haven't really cared what it is :) Samulili 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The original proposal was posted to the Village Pump in March 2007 [1], with a request for input. They were labelled 'guidelines' by Pfctdayelise in April 2007 [2]. Of course, this is a Wiki - if you didn't join in the public discussion first time around there's nothing to stop you proposing improvements at any stage. --MichaelMaggs 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what makes a "official" guideline here doesn't always follow the same procedure as WP guidelines do. We're a little less bureaucratic, but of course I'm always in full support of discussion. As it is right now, it's pretty general and not that authoritative (e.g. "Probably OK", "Probably not OK"). I see it more of a informative page than anything. Definitely not potential policy material, but for guideline, it's cool. "Guidelines" as in guidance, not as in rules. I wouldn't get caught in what we call it, if there's something you oppose feel free to remove it or if you want to add something feel free to add it. If you're not sure, let's discuss it. Rocket000 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I swear I didn't see this comment earlier, but the person that dubbed this a guideline stated above "It's a guideline, use it for guidance. It's a wiki page, take it as a work in progress. Improve at will." Exactly what I meant.:) Rocket000 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Johntex, that notice was posted here: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Mar#Proposed_new_guidelines:_Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. Now, we can't force people to comment on stuff they're not interested in, so I would be very interested to know how you can force consensus on something people don't comment on.

More interesting than arguing about the status of this page is discussion about its content. What do you think is wrong with it? How can it be improved? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK good, I am glad to know that it was posted. I searched for such informaiton and could not find it. Thank you for providing that information. Still, it does not seem there has been much discussion. Perhaps it should be posted again. Perhaps it should be cross-posted to some of the major Wikipedias since they rely on Commons for collecting this type of content.

My personal opinion is that I do not see a need for such a guideline at all. I consider it "instruction creep". We cannot have an instruction for every possible eventuality. Some of the instructions here are not needed because they are already covered by policy. For instance, there is an instruction warning against a caption saying "a prostitute speaks to her pimp" because of defamation issues. Is that really needed? Johntex 04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples like that are useful because they give users an idea of what the community here is or is not likely to accept. Examples mean we don't have to go over the same ground in Deletion requests again and again, and we have somewhere to point new users when they ask "can I upload such and such?". By the way, these are not instructions, they are guidelines, and in on Commons guidelines are fluid and are always considered a work in progress which are open to further improvement. This isn't en.Wikipedia, and we treat guidelines much less rigidly they do there. Both rules and approach are different here. --MichaelMaggs 07:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "guidelines" and "instructions" is of purely academic interest. Say what you will, people do tend to feel they should actually follow guidelines. Their is no reason to try to proscribe such behavior. Johntex 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos of identifiable non-celebrities taken in public and published without consent

Use of photos of identifiable non-celebrities taken in public without the subject's consent to publish them should not be allowed in most cases.

The guidelines here are quite skewed towards the very restrictive definitions Americans have of "privacy". What has been deemed "moral" here is illegal in some (and I would assume, many) democratic jurisdictions. Using a photo like the one at en:Paraguay without consent is nothing less than shocking in my opinion. The cost to the subject of the photograph may be much greater (how can we know?) than the informative value of the photograph on Wikimedia projects.

I will quote from the website of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [3] a discussion of the case Supreme Court case Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. (1998):

In that case, a young woman brought an action in civil liability against a photographer and the publisher of a magazine for taking and publishing a photograph showing her sitting on the steps of a building on a Montreal street. The photograph was taken in a public place and was published without the young woman's consent.

The majority of the Court concluded that the right to one's image is an element of the right to privacy under section 5 of the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. If the purpose of the right to privacy is to protect a sphere of individual autonomy, it must include the ability to control the use made of one's image. The Court spoke of the right to one's image as primarily a personality right. There is an infringement of a person's right to his or her image and, therefore, fault as soon as the image is published without consent and enables the person to be identified.

The decision can be read here. I'm afraid I'm not an expert, but I think this view is likely to be the consensus in most civil law jurisdictions. The decision gives an indication it would be in France.

Assuming the photograph was taken in Paraguay, does anybody here actually know what the law in Paraguay is on this? What should we do if we simply don't know?

I understand that people may feel very strongly about taking full advantage of U.S. laws (thanks to the servers' location in the U.S.) in order to avoid censorship of controversial ideas and certain copyright issues (via fair use). But other than in special circumstances, publishing photographs of unknown people gets us absolutely nowhere in terms of disseminating useful information. Therefore I think it would be prudent in this area to hold to practices that are legal in almost all free societies rather than adopt a position which many would find unacceptable, for virtually no benefit. Joeldl 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look over the images in en:Paraguay - I can only assume you're referring to Image:Guarani girl.jpg. As you can see that image carries a "Personality rights warning" tag. My opinion is that this image is both high-quality and highly informative, as it demonstrates a particular race and culture using a representative in her culturally relevant environment. She is also not being denigrated or insulted explicitly or implicitly in this image. Notwithstanding the lack of consent, I find this a reasonable tradeoff between privacy and education. Dcoetzee 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not contending that the commentary is denigrating. What informative value the photograph has does not outweigh the subject's expectation of privacy. If you read the court decision I referred to above, the court accepted that the subject had suffered damage. She testified that she had been ridiculed at school, although she had not been denigrated. It is conceivable that the same could occur in this case for the simple fact that she is on a webpage that can be expected to have high numbers of visitors.

Please imagine how you would feel if someone put your picture, without your permission, on the page en:United States, with, for example, a caption reading "a white American" (if you are one). I am sorry for the simplicity of this argument, but I think it's the most direct one for anybody who is really willing to hear it.

The convenience for us of simply ignoring the issue of consent does not outweigh the potential violation of the subject's personality rights. The alternative, for us, is not the absence of any photograph at all, but the necessity of obtaining one with consent. This should not be prohibitively difficult (particularly if such photographs have the value you ascribe to them), since there are many "representatives" of her race and culture. Joeldl 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the culture is a local one primarily found in South America, with 57,400 living individuals - and I don't personally know of any contributors in a position to find and photograph one. If a substitute becomes available, then we can reasonably discuss the tradeoff of privacy and quality. Dcoetzee 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of availability to us. No doubt there is a tremendous convenience to us. The point is that it would be easy for anybody who really cared to obtain consent, perhaps by paying someone or finding someone willing to do it for free. The fact that no contributor would likely care enough about Wikipedia to go to the trouble is beside the point. In any case the effort involved would be less important than the potential violation of this person's right to their image. The damages awarded to the plaintiff in the court case I cited were $60,000. It may be that part of that was punitive, but in any case it illustrates that the potential damage to a person can be measured in thousands of dollars, less than the price of a ticket for you or me to go to Paraguay and find someone willing to pose and have their picture published. The photographer was already there, and it would have been easy for them to obtain consent from someone. Joeldl 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

<- The guidelines are indeed written more from the Common Law angle (US, UK etc) than from the Civil Law (France, Quebec etc) which generally have stronger personality rights. It does make clear that where personality or other local rights would make the photo unlawful, it should not be uploaded, but I have no objection if somebody wants to suggest a further section which explains Civil Law personality rights in more detail. In practice, though, few images are deleted because of personality rights, not even Image:HomelessParis_7032101.jpg which was taken apparently without permission in France. That image came second in the Picture of the Year competition 2006, and is considered OK simply with a warning template. Would you argue that that should go? --MichaelMaggs 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If the homeless man did not give his consent for publication of the photograph, then I find it quite troubling that his picture was used in that way, prize or no prize. In this case, I find the potential for damage to his reputation to be particularly high. The informative value of the photograph appears to be less than the potential damage to the subject, given the ease with which similarly informative photographs can be taken with consent for publication, perhaps in exchange for compensation.

If it is necessary to give a concrete example of how this person's reputation could be damaged, imagine he has since emerged from his situation at the time. Say he has gotten a job. People who know him might come across the photograph. We must remember that in the view of a good number of legal systems, this occurred only because his rights were violated. This case has a much higher potential for damage than the picture of the girl sitting on steps.

The page mentions that there are certain moral issues which must be taken into account, even if we and the photographer fall short of breaking the law. I would say that given that this sort of thing is illegal in a good many jurisdictions, including many democratic ones, it can be argued that there is no consensus that this is moral. (Here, I do not mean consensus of editors, but consensus in a broader sense of worldwide opinion.) For moral reasons, I do not believe it is enough to rely on the laws of the country in which the photograph was taken.

I note that most of the contributors to this discussion have contributed in English. They have likely to some extent internalized as normal practices which in the rest of the world are not considered legal, let alone morally acceptable. Joeldl 14:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion request

There was just a deletion request for some of the pictures with recognisable people taken without consent: Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_with_recognisable_people. The debate was closed for formal reasons however the reason for the request is still true:

It is forbidden to publish an image of a person without its consent. §22 German KunstUrhG: Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden. A similar paragraph exists in Austria.

In the United States those pictures violate state law e.g. Indiana Code 32-36-1-8: A person may not use an aspect of a personality's right of publicity for a commercial purpose during the personality's lifetime or for one hundred (100) years after the date of the personality's death without having obtained previous written consent from a person specified in section 17 of this chapter.

This situation is the reason why picture databases like iStockphoto require a model release [4]. See an example for such a relese here. Let's keep the images where we can get such a release in written form (fax or letter to WMF). --Epiktet 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The above situation is exactly what the {{Personality rights}} template is for. Commons is not a royaltee-free image database like istockphoto; we are here to support Wikimedia projects and therefore are mainly concerned with copyright (and, of course, that simply publishing a photo on commons does not break a law). For photos coming from countries with more restrictive laws, that is more of a consideration, especially if it puts Wikimedia itself at risk. Otherwise, you are suggesting a major policy change (and shift in focus) for Commons, and I don't think you'll be successful with that. For similar reasons, we accept images containing trademarks (provided the copyright is OK), which would also not be OK with a royaltee-free database. You can't use photos of people in certain contexts, but there are often many contexts where it is OK (usage on Wikimedia projects is usually fine). I am unsure about usual practice in many countries; it seems as though the standard varies greatly. Please see Commons:Licensing#cite_note-0. If you think a specific photo violates a specific law in its country of origin, you can nominate it for deletion. Be sure to check for exceptions; I think that German law has a number of exceptions to the above statement. Carl Lindberg 23:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Basic Questions

Premise and conclusion, I don't follow

This first question deals solely with logic and wording. I understand the paragraph quoted below to assert that: photographing private people in public places is OK without consent. Therefore we will allow you to [take and] publish those photos to your heart's content.

In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), assent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that the subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual.

Just to be extra, extra clear, I'm not opining on the merits of the guideline. I don't know whether publication is permitted in the US or not. Perhaps the wiki project enjoys the privileges of, for example, the news media, where, I believe, the guideline as written would be entirely on point. Or there may be some other rationale.

But this particular passage doesn't say anything like that. As an example (which, to clarify again, I am NOT arguing is on point here) there's a reason you see so many pixellated images on US television non-news programs.

The premise above is correct. Photographing and filming is never a problem. The potential problem arises when the image is published--in the case of my example, aired on television. And here, uploaded and incorporated into something that purports to be an encyclopaedia, dictionary, etc. As far as I can tell, the conclusion does not follow from that premise alone.

On the merits

I missed the (a) citation. Could somebody point me to it (or one)? Thanks.

Snakesteuben (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifiable persons on reused photos

I'm a little in doubt on the limited use of photos showing identifiable persons vs. all-ready published photos from PD-sources (like US GOV sources). I.e. the photo Image:People lining up for shelter in Superdome in New Orleans.jpg, shows in full size easily identifiable persons. Another example could be this photo (http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=28143) on the US Navy NewsStand (photo gallery): Since no name of the dutch sailor is given, it is possible that he hasn't given consent for release of the photo (i don't now the US Navy's policy on these matters) and as it is within exercise area it's most likely not a public available area.
From a general perspective, the reuse of these photos on Wikipedia should never be a problem, since they are already public and free available (though they may receive more hits on Wikipedia than on the US Navy gallery site), but i would like some comments on this, which we in the end could turn into a section on the project page. --Hebster (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any difference between directly uploaded photos and ones taken from other websites in these matters. This is what the {{Personality rights}} tag is for, or if you feel there may be a larger problem, submit something for deletion. Privacy is rarely an issue in these photos (they are likely taken on the job at the very least where usually there is no "expectation of privacy"), though publicity rights as always may be (use in advertising, etc.). The Library of Congress has a page about this here. The only real issue I could think of would be if we were publishing a photo which would be illegal (due to privacy laws) in the country of origin but OK in the U.S... that would be OK for a U.S. website but we may consider deleting it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we would consider deleting it for reasons of privacy in the country of origin. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. We only delete for copyright reasons (in the country of origin and the US.) But the photographer and uploader must still obey local privacy laws, which this guideline emphasises. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally true, but if simply hosting a photo here -- which is publishing and distributing it -- breaks the law in itself, that may be different. Most of the time, these other restrictions are dependent on how the media is actually used (such as personality rights), so we just have to make sure any of our usage does not break these laws, but privacy rights in particular may be an issue. It would probably depend on the particular circumstances of the photo, which country, if the pictured person requested deletion, etc. Certainly if something violates privacy laws in the U.S., we would have to delete it, as Wikimedia would be directly liable, and also see the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Acceptability section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

how important is the 'identifiable' bit?

This is coming up in some discussions related to Commons:Sexual content (my thoroughly rejected proposal), and I thought I'd bring it here for analysis. If I were to attend a private party, and take a photo of a naked man in a bedroom, I think it's fairly clear that he has the expectation of privacy, so this policy would apply. If I were to crop his head out of the photo, or if he were standing with his back to the camera, for example, do all aspects of this policy no longer apply? I would presume they still do, though I'm unsure? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy applies only if the person is identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

got ya. That's interesting - the discussion of 'moral obligation' in the 'private place' bit seems to hint at broader concerns, and is practice currently clear that identifiable == face? Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats how it's defined in the legal sence in the United States. Ever see a person's face blurred out on a TV reality show, etc? Those are the people they had to make "unidentifiable" for one reason or another. J.smith (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

so we seek to adopt the legal position in the US? - makes sense! I think we might need a bit more advice on how things like body parts, tatoos, moles, etc. etc. might work in media containing nudity etc. - and my reading of the example above is that under current commons policy, a photo taken at a private party of a naked person, uploaded without their permission, but with their face obscured, is ok in terms of this policy - presumably the only other applicable requirement would be that it's 'realistically useful for an educational purpose'. cheers, and many many thanks for helping bring my understanding of how stuff is intepreted etc. into focus :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Body parts are not "identifiable" in this sense. --J.smith (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

further query on the public / private thing

I think this guideline is clear in that "the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded." - I'm interested in the terms of 'normally' - and specifically how they might apply to this 'topless' shot of some women. My feeling is that it might not be a black and white thing (ie. they're in public, so it's fine to use their image) - especially given stuff like this story - my understanding is that this is the role of the 'personality rights' tag (to warn downstream users) - but I feel there's space to address the aspect of 'appropriate sensitivity' within this guideline too.... thoughts most welcome, and maybe I'll try and drop a small addition here at some point to show you what I mean.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. L0b0t (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts - no more process creep please. Read those news stories you posted. They have NOTHING to do with us. Notice how flicker isn't the one in trouble there? There is nothing flicker could have done to prevent Virgin Mobile's advertising firm from violating the CC licensing or from subtitling the image inapropriatly. J.smith (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

From what i - briefly - read of the flickr thread it isn't really clear that Virgin Mobile's advertising firm even violated CC-BY-SA-2.0? --Hebster (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"family or private life"

After a Deletion Request garnered 11 Keep votes and only 2 votes for Deletion, an administrator deleted the file which showed three dead American soldiers following a failed operation in Afghanistan, stating "as per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life", which brought me to this page. I find it hard to reconcile that photographs of war-dead are related to "private or family life" since they are by definition the public life (and service) of those subjects shown. I can't imagine we'd delete File:Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg because it was an intrusion into his "family life", so I'm hoping we can clarify what exactly constitutes "private or family life" in the context of this page. My understanding would be that photographs of say, your next-door neighbour in an identifiable photograph preparing breakfast for her children would be a violation (without model consent, of course), as would perhaps a photograph of your favourite actor at a restaurant with his family trying to enjoy a meal. Am I grossly misunderstanding this clause? Sherurcij (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Privacy laws in France, a comprehensive report

Hi there. I came to find this report on the internet, made by a researcher about privacy and data protection laws in France. The report is in French, unfortunately. I find it pretty useful, well-organized and documented. It is long (81 pages), but with full text search it allows to find answers to quite precise questions (for instance, I've just discovered that the fact that a picture was taken in a public place does not matter in itself, page 26). I just thought that people interested in this page may also take interest in this document, as a reference. --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Übersetzung

wäre schön wenn jemand diese Seite übersetzen könnte. ;-) Tschüß --Ra Boe (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal to clarify this policy

Please see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal. Comments are welcome at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Schade, daß das versandet ist, der Ansatz war eigentlich zielführend. -- smial (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nudity

What would happen with photos of celebrities with little or no clothing, originally made during a photo session for such effect and published by recognized media; and fallen into public domain by old age or other case specified in local law? (such as "Playboy" magazines or similar) Belgrano (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet there's a fair number of US nude photo works that have fallen into the public domain because they predate the US's joining of the Berne Convention and did not display a copyright notice. I think these are totally legit for upload; the person had a professional knowingly photograph them for the known purpose of wide publishing and dissemination, and probably even signed a release form. Paparazzi nude photos are another matter - those need to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where to upload consent forms with possibly sentitive address information?

For Wiktionary, I worked with an ASL teacher to get photographs of his students producing signs they learned in that class. Each images thus clearly qualifies as a photograph of an identifiable person, so I also created consent forms which they all signed, except for the minors, whose forms are being sent to their parents/guardians for an additional signature. Now I want to upload the consent forms somewhere, but I'm concerned about the address field on the form. Presumably, the students wouldn't want their addresses made so public. Should I block out the address on the scanned copy, upload the altered copy to commons, and just keep the physical copies on file in case consent is later challenged? Or is there a more secure upload scenario for storing the unaltered consent forms, where the general public would not have access? Rodasmith (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My first advice would be to send them to OTRS as attachments. However, there is no precedent for such a scenario. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone uploads consent forms. We had a big discussion about it at Commons:sexual content and even for that I think people agreed with me that we didn't want to create privacy issues by keeping so much personal information around. I don't think Commons would have much to lose if you didn't really have consent; it's mostly your own legal worry. I mean, you could upload the pictures to 4chan and they wouldn't ask you for consent at all (not that I'm recommending it). Wnt (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Personality rights template

My recent edit was prompted by an incident discussed at COM:AN/U.[5] [6] A search for "Personality Rights" on this page finds a number of interesting discussions including one from two years ago that seems particularly apt.[7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is still on the page above ;-) Also note that "commercial use" with respect to copyright is utterly different than the "commercial use" in respect to personality rights (also known as publicity rights) -- it has more to do with using a person's likeness/name/reputation in advertising or similar situations. Some countries do have a "portrait right", as part of moral rights, where I think the pictured person can control certain images of themselves more along the lines of copyright. These are also distinct from privacy rights. This loc.gov page goes into some of the differences. I'm not really in favor of putting that template on every single image of a person, though for some high-profile personalities it can be a good idea. Any advertiser really should be aware of those laws before they use them. I also think the alarming-looking icon and the word "warning" should be removed; it applies to so many images, and only comes up for very particular re-use situations, so I don't think it should look anywhere near as alarming as it does. The {{Insignia}} tag indicates far more significant restrictions, but looks much less alarming. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to start a discussion to change the template at Template_talk:Personality_rights. It has been translated into about 20 languages (see pages under P in Category:Translated restriction tags. But the icon can be changed easily, I think. Uploaders may be less likely to object to the tag if it is less alarming-looking. I don't understand how you would define "high-profile personalities". Surely anyone objecting to the tag would claim their subject is not a high-profile personality. I think it is better not to introduce a subjective criterion, even if the result is more encompassing than necessary. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Political Manifesto's

What is the position on photographs used on political manifesto's are these copyright or considered released to the public domain ? --Gibnews (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad image

The image used in this article uses deprecated license tags? Or just really badly written ones? Something needs fixing anyway... --Elvey (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is fine, it just needs to be reviewed. The new photo is not appropriate because it depicts an outdoor location which may not be a private place (making it a bad example). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

The opening paragraphs seems to written primarily for the US. Would it be possible to add some clarification on close-ups of non-public figures taken in a public place in other countries? -- User:Docu at 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the introduction and started the list with the country mentioned below. -- User:Docu at 12:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indentifying children by name

There's a recent photograph of a chess player in Poland, File:Kacper Drozdowski 2009.JPG. Judging from a quick Google search, he's not unknown as a chess player, but he's not a celebrity. This page says he was born in 1996, which gets me to my point; are there any concerns with having a picture of a non-celebrity child (12-13 at the time of the photo) on Commons identified by name? I know it's not illegal, at least in the US, and I know it would send some parents into a tizzy (then again, what wouldn't?), but I was wondering if there was any opinion on whether this is something we want to do?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The boy is from Poland, but photo was taken in the Czech Republic. In the Czech Republic, there is more strict protection of personality rights than is postulated on Commons (every photo of a person requires a consent, even at public places) but children are protected in the same way and extent as adults. In practice, it is usual to assume a consent facta concludentia if the person make no protest - but if he or his parents would protest, it has to be respected. However, a paranoea regarding photographs of children is there not as intense as in some other countries still. I assume, a Polish perception is not very different. --ŠJů (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A claim has been made in the edit comments that the uploader is the child's father, which would stop the concerns.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

At FEMA #29748, I bothered removing the name, but afterwards I noticed that this was somewhat useless, as I can't edit the exif. -- User:Docu at 12:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Names removed from EXIF. -- smial (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously published photos without consent

I've started a discussion at Commons talk:sexual content#Previously published images without consent which gets at some issues that have apparently been discussed here. Because sexual content is particularly sensitive, the policy wouldn't absolutely need to match this one, but it would be best to work out our underlying philosophical issues.

I think that there are sexual-content photos, such as one in Category:Lynndie England, which were taken as absolutely without consent as a photo can be; yet for Commons to respectably carry information like newspapers or search engines, it should surely carry them. And a vast majority of published photos like Category:Silvana Suárez were taken with consent for use in one publication, but probably not with consent to be distributed anywhere for any purpose.

To me it seems that the policy here governs only photos taken by Wikipedia uploaders, and not previously published photos, and that when a (legally) published photo comes out to the public domain or a Commons-compatible license, we are free to use it without consideration for the consent of the subject. I think this is the right decision.

Even so, we still have an issue: photos from Flickr, or received from a third party, which have not been professionally published. Above, I mentioned "(legally)", and that's the issue - how much content should Wikimedia Commons sacrifice in order to prevent the risk that such amateur content isn't legal? If we allow any Flickr picture to be uploaded, then anyone can circumvent the consent policy by uploading a picture from an account there, then "copying" it to Commons. But if we don't allow any Flickr picture to be uploaded, it makes Commons the poor abused stepsister to Flickr. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the link was intended to be Commons talk:sexual content#Previously published images without consent, although there is a similarly-named item under Commons:sexual content#Prohibited content. -84user (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The former - sorry, should have tested the link instead of just looking at the color! (I've fixed this above) Wnt (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Image of an overweight child

Would the child in this picture be deemed identifiable? And should this image be used on childhood obesity? Jmh649 (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in either case identifiable. -- smial (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should be used or no its should not be used as identifiable? --Jmh649 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In Germany it could not be used without permission, in case of children permission by the parents. Other countries I don't know. I do not like the way personality rights are dealt with at commons, but i must live with that. On the other hand this is a question of fairness... -- smial (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you were going to use a contemporary photo for a topic like that I would strongly recommend getting subject's parent's permission. Probably easier to get some adult who'd let you use their own childhood photo for the purpose. Better yet, I'd consider uploading an image where the face is not at all identifiable (possibly by way of a Gaussian blur). Blurring this photo wouldn't do, because the original is already published here and hence identifiable. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I pixelated the face. cheers, Amada44  ^{talk to me} 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not that he's overweight - his pants are just too tight. Give the kid some slack. Wnt (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-use of the image, and reassuring image donors

I think the 'Re-use of the image' section should further emphasize that putting something under the public domain or a CC license does not open the door for abuses of the right of publicity or defamation off-wiki. It is important for image donors to know that these acts are just as illegal as they would be otherwise, no matter the copyright status of the image, and that punishment can be enforced even on, for example, abusive re-uses of public domain US government images.--Pharos (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what the {{Personality rights}} tag is for. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. The idea is that this should be more explicit and further explained on the Commons guideline page as well.--Pharos (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh you meant the section on this page. I guess that couldn't hurt, although personality rights are also extremely complex, varying from nation to nation and even within nations widely, so we should avoid making bold sweeping statements that aren't true everywhere. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"people openly taking photographs" transform a private space into a public space???

Apropos this. So it's OK for us to host the pix if a bunch of paparazzi bust in on some poor sod doing his business in a a locked privy? ...on a couple getting busy in a locked bedroom? Since (once the door is open) they'd be 'openly taking photographs'? Sems a novel theory that "people openly taking photographs" transform a private space into a public space. Thoughts? Considering re-doing my undone edit. --Elvey (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand your edit either and nearly undid it myself, but was going to wait for a day. House rules on photography have basically no effect on privacy, the best I can tell, which your edit seems to imply. I believe it is "expectation of privacy"... in a bathroom or bedroom, absolutely that exists, but in most other places in the company of multiple people you don't know (i.e. not close friends and family) then there is usually no expectation of privacy. There is certainly no expectation of privacy in many places where photography is restricted for other reasons. The specific example your edit was made to is a "large private party or concert", not one of the types of places you mention above, and house rules on photography in those specific examples do not create an expectation of privacy, so your edit would seem to be at least misleading, and if you intended it to apply to a concert or similar setting, then incorrect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a bathroom with a "No photography" sign before; there is generally nothing restricting photography in a bedroom or bathroom, except for that expectation of privacy. (Which I might acknowledge sans people; poking around someone else's home bathroom can be pretty darn intrusive.) But the way your change was inserted, it read to me to be about restrictions printed on tickets, and I think people completely understand that no matter what that says, even if they bother to read it, that's not going to stop pictures of them showing up on Facebook, and people are going to think they're silly or weird if they object to it. You have no social expectations of privacy there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the first draft better caught the point that photography is permitted. The "large numbers" part also strikes me as odd. Plenty of times there is an event ranging from a Christmas party to a meeting of political volunteers in which only one person has a camera, but the general tone generally encourages that person to take photos. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about an expectation of privacy. More photographers tends to lower the expectation of privacy. Anyone think it's OK for us to host the pix if a bunch of paparazzi bust in on some poor sod doing his business in a a locked privy? ...or a couple getting busy in a locked bedroom? Since (once the door is open) they'd be 'openly taking photographs'? No, then our policy should reflect that.--Elvey (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No bathroom or bedroom I've ever seen has a sign saying no photography. Please, please stop conflating the signage issue with bathrooms and locked bedrooms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Prosafiles, Please stop beating your wife. In other words, I have no idea what you're talking about in your accusation. What if the photographers are all friends and family? or all employees? This page proves lots of folks see 'the signs; that's a helluva lot of images, so your edit summary claim is clearly false. --Elvey (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You conflate signs and bathrooms. The two don't go together. I don't know what you're claiming about signs in your link; this is the first time you mentioned "there will be recording" signs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And stop beating the strawman. The question is not about bathrooms or bedrooms. No one has advocated permitting photograph of people so engaged, and no matter what this page says, they won't pass DR. Those aren't the real questions here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN,what the **** are you talking about? The fact that "many people are openly taking photographs" does not ensure that there's no expectation of privacy. Anyone who thinks so is not thinking clearly. Because that's true, as I'm sure you agree, we need to find some acceptable wording that's not false and misleading. FFS! P.S. your recent edit summaries suck.

It generally does; the fact that someone or ones can break into a sealed room and take pictures of acts that would never have commenced if there were to have been photography in the first place is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It almost always does. And the fact that people are not taking photographs also does not mean you have an "expectation of privacy" either -- it is just one factor. For example, in a museum where there are "no photography" rules, that does not create an expectation of privacy. Bathrooms, bedrooms, sure -- but outside of that, if you are in the company of people you don't know, there is usually no expectation, regardless if they are or are not taking photographs. But, people taking photographs is a pretty strong indication that you *will* be photographed, so act accordingly -- the photographs would hardly be a surprise in that case. If it's only family, then it may exist -- hard to fathom a place of work being a place where you would expect privacy, outside of bathrooms, dressing rooms, and the like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Voice recordings

{{Personality rights}} links to Personality rights, which mentions commercial exploitation of voice. Should that be mentioned in sound files' descriptions, and how? It is not clear to me if the text in {{Personality rights}} is applicable. --AVRS (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit unclear on Consent of the subject?

In it's current form, the has the following text:

Consent of the subject (who is a non-public figure) is required even for photographs taken in public places in the following countries:

• China
• Czech Republic
• Germany
• Libya

(incomplete list)

The list was originally started by User:Docu (diff) with edit summary see talk. Later User:Isderion added Germany to the list (diff). China was then added (diff) by User:Jameslwoodward. Since Libya has also followed. For me - as a non-native English speaker - it is a bit unclear what exactly the consent is for. For China it's easy - User:Jameslwoodward even links to Commons:Licensing#People.27s_Republic_of_China which states it is for publishing the photo. For Germany you can photograph people in public without their permission if they are in a group of people, but if you pick someone out, you have to ask the person, before it's legal to take the photo (as I have been explained privacy laws in Germany by a German back in April - this may be wrong?). For the Czech Republic I have no idea and let's leave Libya out of the question for now. My question thus is: What consent is this list for? The taking of the photo, the publishing of the photo or the commercial reuse of the photo? Because I think that should be more clear. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On a note (this should have been included above), I'm impression that User:Docu's reference to the talk-page is to Indentifying children by name, which may give the intentions of the original list, but from my perspective doesn't give a clear picture. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As per de:Recht am eigenen Bild Austria and Switzerland have similar laws and should be added to the list. As of my knowledge a permission is required for any (public) use of such an image. Commercial use in the sense of use for advertisement/promotion does always require written permission, likely in all countries. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons is not an encyclopedia -- WP might be interested in the question, but as a practical matter, Commons doesn't care which rule applies -- any of the three rules stated above would prevent us from using an image.

If I may clarify Túrelio's comment -- if Coca-Cola wanted to publish an ad with a photo of me with a caption saying, "Jim Woodward likes Diet-Coke", it would require my consent no matter where the image had been taken. On the other hand, an image of me looking at a statue could be used in a calendar or on a commercial website without my consent unless it had been taken in one of the named countries.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On the same point, the summary advice included in the tutorial (see Commons:Usability_issues_and_ideas/Archive_3#m:Licensing_tutorial.2Fen) is somewhat misleading as it appears to apply to the US primarily and is rather bad advice if you are in one of the countries mentioned. --  Docu  at 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a U.S. slant to all this, as if the Foundation could be liable in the United States for simply hosting particular images, that is a major concern and can be a reason for deletion. Differing privacy rights in other countries generally do not apply outside those countries, and it becomes more a matter of Commons policy and the opinions of users here if we should remove images on those grounds. Often it is possible to blur parts without actually deleting them, and for "notable" people they are often public figures anyways with lesser privacy protection for this type of thing. Anyways, the page is describing possible issues which may surround re-use of the images here. Usage in the listed countries may well require additional permissions which Commons does not have, whereas usage in other countries may not. The list being referred to is about privacy rights, so it is more about the publishing and not the taking, I'm pretty sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the privacy rules in the countries listed concern the reuse of images already on the Commons and not to the uploading of the images on to the Commons in the first place? If so, I am not sure what you say is entirely accurate. The Libyan position, for example, appears to be that "[a] photographer may not show, publish or distribute a photograph unless the people depicted in the photograph have consented, unless the photograph is of a public event or of officials or persons enjoying public renown, or the public authorities have given permission for its publication for the general welfare. Notwithstanding the preceding, no photograph may be shown or circulated if doing so would result in detriment to the honour, reputation or social standing of the person depicted in the photograph." (My paraphrase; emphasis added.) It seems to me that uploading a photograph taken at a private event without the consent of non-famous persons shown would amount to circulating, distributing, publishing or showing the photograph in question.

I think this guideline is due for a rewrite as it does not really provide sufficient guidance to users as to the extent privacy laws of countries outside the US are to be respected. I note that such laws are really non-copyright restrictions, so the fact that we have this guideline is an exception to the general policy against applying the non-copyright restrictions of countries outside the US. Do we apply such laws with their full rigour, or only to the extent of privacy law in the US? Here is an example. Let's say the law of Ruritania simply states that no photograph may be distributed or published without the express consent of every person depicted. On the other hand, under US law (drastically simplified) such photographs can be distributed or published if taken in a public setting. Should the guideline be that the laws of both Ruritania and US must be fully complied with (in the same way as we require photographs to be in the public domain in both their source countries and in the US), which means that the more restrictive law will govern, or is it sufficient if the privacy law standards of the US are satisfied? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to refer to Ruritania, take Germany, which is quantitatively more relevant. Law of Germany clearly forbids the publication of images of non-public figures who haven't consented expressedly or at least indirectly to publication; for details see de:Recht am eigenen Bild (in German). This right is indeed enforced in Germany and usually the unwillingly depicted person does win the legal suit. In case of a violation likely we (the hoster) as well as a re-user is liable. To respect this restriction is rather easy with original uploads to Commons. However, it's less clear with images of already published on Flickr or like. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruritania is a fictitious country that I was just using as an example. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we apply such laws with their full rigour, or only to the extent of privacy law in the US? We are only absolutely bound to follow US laws, since that is where the Foundation can be sued. Others are more of a community decision... there are lots of national laws which we ignore due to their potential adverse affect on Wikipedia or other projects (Germany law on Nazi symbols, UK "perpetual copyright" on the King James bible, and others I'm sure). In general, we do try to follow the privacy laws I think, but if certain countries have certain aspects which we think go a bit too far, we may decide to ignore them. For example, if Gadaffi tried to claim that every single photograph of him is a detriment to his honor, would we automatically take them down? Doubt it. I can't find it at the moment, but I remember the only photo we had of someone from Europe, taken in public when he visited Canada, was requested to be taken down under their interpretation of the law in his country, and it was denied. Most of the time though, we should be able to respect the privacy laws, I'd think. We can blur faces of people incidental to the point of the photo, and that sort of thing -- there are usually a lot of ways short of deletion we can try to conform to privacy issues, and I think we usually try. We could split out a country-by-country summary of privacy laws to another page; this page should try to document the policies we actually follow, and starting to add every single aspect of all privacy laws may have the impression that we are changing policy to match. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the Foundation is only required to comply with US laws, but I think we really need to provide more guidance than simply "we do try to follow the privacy laws [of other countries]..., but if certain countries have certain aspects which we think go a bit too far, we may decide to ignore them". Can we not try and achieve consensus on precisely what situations we will regard as violating privacy and which ones we will not? If we are not rigorously following the privacy laws of countries other than the US, then we should not have a page listing those privacy laws as that will just cause confusion to volunteers. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Without seeing the laws in particular, it is hard to make a general case. It is entirely possible that a country may try to break new ground and add aspects that we feel go too far; perhaps we will not follow those. This stuff can be quite tangled; for example see this -- a Frenchman won a lawsuit based on the image right in France against a publishing house; eventually it went to European court where they ruled France had violated European law with that judgement (it unfairly interfered with the publishing house's right of free expression). In general, these rights do not automatically override rights of free expression; they are usually balanced against each other (even in the countries which have these laws) -- it is all part of what is "illegal". Treatment here may be somewhat similar; we are probably going to balance our educational mission and the photographer's rights against them. Photos taken in public are going to be fairly contentions (see the battles over File:HomelessParis 7032101.jpg). That said, the policy has said we do follow local law (regarding identifiable people anyways). I don't like the list in the first section, to be honest. It ignores a lot of subtleties and exceptions in those laws, which may be very relevant. The rest of the text seems to more illustrate the policy as I have understood it. But yes, those local privacy laws may very much affect whether we keep an image, if it is felt it is illegal in the country it was taken in. So I think we should try and document them somewhere, be that on this page, or a page dedicated more to privacy rights (this policy covers more than just that; we should be careful about defamation etc. in the titles or descriptions of images too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective (and somewhat in connection with my original question) I think that the best would be, to try to create a sort of "guide to privacy rights for countries". That said - since it's only a very few of Commons contributors who are actually lawyers - there is a danger, that someone might think it a sort of definite presentation of regulations. The background for my initial question is that recently I was made aware of the Danish legal stance (which I think very few danes are aware of):

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the pulication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interrest in publication.

A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the pourpose of depicting one or more specific person(s).

My intention was to add Denmark to the list, but I couldn't quite figure it out. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 15:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Clindberg's point is that we should not be creating a summary of all the privacy laws of different countries (like we do for copyright laws at "Commons:Licensing"), because it is not our intention to comply strictly with all of such laws. Instead we should just develop a Commons policy on the matter which may be more liberal than the privacy laws of some countries. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it would be useful to have such a page. I would think we can follow them most/all of the time, but there may be situations where there are other considerations. It would help to inform any such discussions, for sure. I don't like the bare list in the first section here, as it seems a bit simplistic to say "photos of people in public are not allowed", which is what that was -- I think it's quite a bit more nuanced than that. There are indeed "portrait rights" in some countries, which are a little different than privacy even, and we may take those into account as well (but we may decide that attempts to deny us *all* photographs of a person may be too much, for example). Those have been case-by-case thus far, and having a better grasp of local laws (and thus what rights people in those countries are accustomed to) would be very helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, must have misunderstood. My view, expressed above, is that such a page is not going to be very useful unless we indicate exactly which laws we are not going to require editors to comply with. Otherwise, the page will just serve to confuse people. ("According to the page, Ruritanian law requires this, that and the other thing! Why are we not complying with it?") — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point... but I guess mine is, it is entirely possible that particular countries have a version which goes into territory that other countries don't, possibly in conflict with the goal of supporting the other projects, and if so it may become a community decision on how best to balance them. It's hard to have an absolute policy when we don't know what the laws actually are. The policy was indeed written from a common-law (US, UK, Canada etc.) take on privacy rights, which was reinforced by the Foundation board resolution (emphasis on pictures taken in private places; no guidance on pictures taken in public). Civil law countries often do have different boundaries (again, not specifically mentioned in that resolution). The guideline does state that we do try to follow these variants as well. But, Europe seems to have a tradition of various forms of rights such as these, and when they come into conflict, the rights must be balanced equally against each other -- we probably have that same situation here. If it is at all possible to conform to the local laws by blurring portions, changing file names or descriptions etc. (i.e. anything short of deletion) we should absolutely do it. And often, deletion may well be the most appropriate way to handle it, even if it does harm the projects. Also, not responding to a specific request from a person just because their country's laws allow it isn't really a good idea -- we should weigh the merits requests from people pictured in public in all countries, I think. But, the right of free expression (and the educational purpose) should be balanced, in my opinion -- there are possibly situations where following the letter of the law to the very end may seem to be too much. Knowing the laws, and the particulars and nuances, can very much help to inform those cases. The Germany case, as far as I can tell, is fairly strict -- but there are several exceptions. One is obviously that "notable" people have less expected privacy, so the rules don't apply as much to them, as was mentioned. Another is people actually attending an event; the privacy rights are much less for photos taken of the event. I think there are few others as well. I think, really, that the more stringent privacy rights like that usually come with a number of exceptions and other factors to think about, and is not always clear-cut. It is hard to get that across in a simple list. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

@Henrik: if the situation you mention is correct for Denmark, you should add Denmark to the list. If you look at the contributors of prolific uploaders from other countries listed (e.g. Germany mentioned by Turelio), you will notice that there are hardly any portraits taken in public places of random non-public figures. --  Docu  at 02:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just talked this through with another Dane - who is a bit more skilled in the legal aspects than me - and Denmark should be on the list for the above reasons. I will add it and clarify the introduction to the list a bit. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: just in case anybody here wasn't already aware of it, as of May 29 the WMF Board unanimously approved a Resolution:Images of identifiable people. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now expanded the list a bit and given it a bit more descriptive introduction (diff). The location and/or form is certainly open for changes, but it should serve as a starting point. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, that is a definite improvement. A few things though. First, "commercial use" is {{Personality rights}}, and is not a reason for deletion -- that needs to be made clear (or maybe we just remove those parts to eliminate confusion, as there is no policy to delete images where that is the only issue). In this context, "commercial use" is completely unrelated to the term "commercial use" as used in copyright, and so long as Wikimedia is not using it commercially there is no issue. We are focused on images which are not legal to publish. The Germany section seems under-specified; that does not mention the fact that public figures have considerably less protection here, and also does not mention that photos taken at events the subjects are attending also do not really get this protection. The Danish section is indeed interesting. Do we feel that means that a) we need to proactively delete all portraits of Danish people (taken in Denmark anyways) unless we have OTRS permission, or does it mean that we will automatically respect any request from that person to delete it, or c) give strong weight to that law, but examine each case individually? The European Court of Justice decision I mentioned earlier states that rights of free expression must be balanced against these type of rights. I guess I'm of the opinion that we should not automatically delete photos taken in public places in most cases, unless there seems to be risk of unfairly disparaging the subject, but we should also strongly weigh these laws when deletion requests from the pictured person come in for photos taken in such countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing to detail the list, but we still need to introduce it at the beginning of the guideline. --  Docu  at 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we add a summary of the Dutch copyright law as it applies to publication of a person's image? So far I have found

COMMERCIAL APPROPRIATION OF A PERSON'S IMAGE page 8 of which has "The Auteurswet protects the individual against unauthorised publication of his or her portrait" and "Section 21 of the Auteurswet provides that publication of the portrait is not authorised in so far as the subject, or after demise of the subject, one of his or her surviving dependants, has a reasonable interest in opposing publication." Auteurswet is copyright. The work compares the law in several jurisdictions, for example page 12 has "Alabama, as in various other jurisdictions in the United States, the right to the use of a person's image is protected under the tort of invasion of privacy." -84user (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea of a page that lists country-by-country rules, as it may be helpful to both uploaders and re-users. However, I'm not convinced that it needs to be part of this page, as part of an "official guideline". Perhaps we should split it off, with a ==See also== to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the usefulness of the guideline should be limited to uploaders in the US. For user publishing images from elsewhere, e.g. (frequent sample in previous comments) from Germany, it's a fairly important part of the guideline and needs to be mentioned specifically. That said, the layout of the list could probably be done differently. --  Docu  at 07:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If the bulk of problematic uploads would come from just a few countries, I'd agree it would be worth briefly outlining the relevant portions of those countries' laws within the guideline. Listing full details for several countries would be overkill IMO, with the detail overwhelming the main message. I think we should already be cutting back on the detail, especially for countries with a smaller presence on Commons (e.g. Libya). A table might be a good way to summarise the information here, with a link to a page listing the full details. --Avenue (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons guidelines tend to be fairly specific for each country. Have a look at Commons:Licensing with its #Country-specific_laws part. Freedom of panorama would be pointless without specifics for countries. --  Docu  at 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "identifiable" mean. Perhaps we need two definitions.

This guideline does not define what "identifiable" means. I found a proposal page here that does contain a definition. I haven't investigated the history to see if that is an old version of this guideline or something that never was. However, it defines "identifiable" as "might be recognised in public by a stranger on the basis of the photograph", typically meaning the face or some very distinctive feature is included, and it "is not enough that the subject is able to recognise him or herself, nor that an intimate partner might be able to do so". I think this guideline must have a definition of "identifiable" and that the above might be reasonable for the legal aspects of the guideline but not necessarily for the moral aspects.

When the WP Medical Project last looked into the issue of medical photographs here and here (which are typically of patients), we found that leading medical journals take the view that all patient photographs were "identifiable". Their definition of "identifiable" would appear to include identification by the person, family members and friends. The use of a black band over they eyes is nowadays regarded as totally ineffective at making the image unidentifiable. I would argue that the pixelation of the obese girl in this guideline is similarly infeffective.

I propose that we consider these two definitions of "identifiable". How do these definitions fit with

• The type of image
• The name and classification of the image on Commons
• The use of the image in Wikipedia and other users of Commons images.

My current view is that the File:Childhood Obesity.JPG image should fail this guideline when suitably amended. It, by its name and classification is a medical photograph, and as such should come under the stricter definition of "identifiable" that includes identification by the person and people who know the person well. We should also consider disallowing photographs that make use of inadequate privacy measures like black bands on the eyes and pixelation. Even if the image was renamed and reclassified to be merely "Girl eating ice cream.jpg", its use in an article on Wikinews or Wikipedia on obesity should also fail this guideline.

The issues of consent wrt patient images is also worthy of discussion and note here I propose we discuss that later and stick to considering "identifiable".

Colin (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the courts in Germany, as far as I know (IANAL), identifiability means that someone who knows the depicted person could identify her/him in an image, even if the face of the person is not shown. For details see here (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the first definition is much more reasonable, because I do not believe that a picture of two square inches of skin is "identifiable" (and the medical journals apparently do).

There are two ways of looking at the act of 'identification': We could worry about a stranger seeing the image online, bumping into the person at the bus stop, and saying "Oh, you're the guy whose picture I just saw on Commons!" Alternatively, we could worry about a user seeing the picture online, and saying "Hey, that's Joe!"

IMO the first case is the important one. Joe isn't normally hurt by being identified by people who already know him (unless, say, the person who knows him is his parole officer, and Joe's robbing a bank in the image). But the first case might be awkward for the subject. Thus I support the "might be recognised in public by a stranger on the basis of the photograph" version, not the "my best friend might realize that's me" definition.

Also, I think that we should address the issue of revoking consent. A person might give consent, and then change his mind later (e.g., if the image becomes such a sensation that he's stopped every time he leaves his home, or if parents gave consent for publication of an embarrassing image of their child, who has since become an adult and wants it removed). There are practical limits to what we can do, but I think we ought to offer at least limited revocation: We'll take it off Commons, but we can't help the fact that other people have copied it in the meantime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission is a big issue, which includes revoking consent. I'd like to deal with that but in another section. I want to concentrate on what determines "identifiable" for now. I'm comfortable with a "harmless" photo being judged on the stranger-identifies-you threshold. I don't think this is adequate where the picture is potentially hurtful or embarrassing. It is also inadequate IMO where specific permission has been given but breached on the grounds that the image is not identifiable to strangers. Here's two examples:

• Someone takes a picture of your overweight daughter at McDonalds without your permission or even knowledge. Some short time later she goes to her school and the class go to Wikipedia to look stuff up. Meanwhile "Obesity" has become a featured article and is on the main page with your daughter as the lead image. The entire class clearly see your daughter held up as an example of obesity to all of Wikipedia's 8 million readers. They recognise her hair, her skin colour, her favourite t-shirt, her jeans and even the McDonalds they all go to. When the squint their eyes, it is even more obviously her. You can work out what sort of teasing will follow.
• Your father goes to his GP with an irregular mole on his cheek that he's had a while but finally decides to get investigated. He's referred to a specialist who diagnoses cancer and wants to take a picture of it. He produces a form asking for permission to use the picture for educational purposes, which your father agrees to. The specialist uploads the photo to Commons. Commons does not restrict use to "educational purposes" so his permission isn't valid but the specialist has cropped the photo to show only the face below the eyes and thinks it is no longer "identifiable" so this guideline does not apply. You see your father's face on Wikipedia when reading about his type of cancer. His irregular mole, his nose and mouth are all obvious to you. You help him take the specialist to a tribunal for professional misconduct.

The medical journals can play safe because they expect patient photographs to be taken these days with permission forms filled in. This guideline is trying to set the grounds for where permission is not required. Colin (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the second example, I see that the photographer has breached his agreement with the subject, but that seems to raise broader issues than just identifiability. What if someone took photos in a museum against house rules, and posted them here? I think that's much the same issue. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Permission and consent are related and you are right that they apply to inanimate objects too as private property comes with the owner's restrictions on whether photographs can be taken and for what purpose. Could someone point out where Commons has a guideline on permission? I can only find stuff on copyright. I do want to discuss permission, whether here or elsewhere, but I want to clear up the "identifiable" issue first. It seems this guideline is trying to cover the "whether you need permission/consent" aspect. But it states up front that it does "not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable" yet offers no definition of unidentifiable.

I agree the photographer has breached his agreement, but he could claim he didn't need to ask permission anyway because the person is not identifiable to strangers. I don't think that is acceptable. Colin (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the first example is covered by #Moral issues, "Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject" and "Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life". Declaring a girl to be obese is demeans the girl and invades her privacy. Such a photograph (or, more precisely, such a use of that photograph) is unacceptable unless the person has specifically given permission for it.

I don't think that the second case is covered here (although it is likely a breach of the contract). Also, it's something that could likely be improved by cropping the picture even further, to focus more on the mole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to derail this discussion, but I just stumbled across the essay Commons:Patient images, which seems somewhat relevant. It deals more with consent than identifiability, but does appear to advocate the "black band across the eyes" treatment (among others). --Avenue (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that essay. Perhaps I should have linked to it at the start. The talk page of that essay is more informative than the page itself. For example, the quote from the BMJ that "Black bands across the eyes are wholly ineffective in disguising the patient". Colin (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed there hasn't been more response to this issue, given that a recent WP Signpost highlighted the need to improve and enforce this guideline. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that we agree the obese girl picture is demeaning to the girl and that the technique used to disguise her is not guaranteed to make the image unidentifiable to herself or people who know her. I'll try to draft some suggested changes and I think we may need to try to delete the image in order to establish consensus (as well as for the obvious reason). Colin (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had/got time to contribute properly, but I agree this is a definition we need to be clear about. I'm sympathetic to your broad definition of identifiability. One thing I want discussed is post-identifiability. We realised in the COM:SEX proposal that an uploaded image (say with the head chopped off) was still in some sense "identifiable" because at any later time the photographer could release just the other half of the image. Similarly file metadata could be used to make connections if it is detailed. 99of9 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, basically you think it should not be possible to illustrate obesity with a photograph of a person, as all of them will be "identifiable" under new guidelines? I'm not sure I agree that pixelation is not effective. I would agree that medical images should be treated very carefully, as that type of information is very much guarded by privacy and other special laws, but I don't see a good reason to apply the same stringency to every other type of photo. Better I think to come up with suggestions to better anonymize such photos so that we can illustrate, not simply resorting to deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Err... are you assuming that nobody would ever give their consent to release a (suitably anonymized?) picture of them? We can illustrate anything if we have clear consent. --99of9 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, so now this guideline is morphing so we need permission of people taken in public, which is not what the board resolution was about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I never said that. I'm just saying that no matter what the definition of identifiability is, phrases like "not possible to illustrate" will never be the case. --99of9 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I meant "not possible without explicit permission from the pictured person". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion-requests of pictures of one or more specific person(s) taken in a public space in Denmark

For info: I have started this topic on the Village pump. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 09:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

POW

The "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" makes illegal to publish some photographs of prisoners of war. Specifically its article 13 protects POW from "public curiosity". I think we should add a section on this on this page. Images that are likely to fall in this category shouldn't be hosted on Commons. --  Docu  at 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But this rises another issue, which I'm not quite sure how to handle. Currently Commons already hosts a number of POW-pictures taken after 21 October 1950 (when this convention came to force), i.e. from Category:Prisoners of war in the Falklands War and Category:Prisoners of war in the Vietnam War (and there are further examples in Category:Prisoners_of_war and Prisoner of war). Should we have a principal discussion regarding those already hosted photos that are in violation of article 13 and if so where? Commons:Village pump or Commons:Village pump/Proposals? --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this subject on Commons:Village pump#Third_Geneva_Convention_article_13. Everybody is encourage to contribute. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

China

• File:GreatWallofChina3600ppx27.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The policy is not really clear about photo with chinese people's face in it. It says :

• Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Does not require consent
• Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Does not require consent (as per above)
• Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent

According to the Chinese Civil Law Article 100[1] photos of regular people may not be used for profit (commercially) without consent.

So, is it ok or not to host on commons photos with chinese people in it without consent ? Because it seems allowed to take the photo and publish it, it's only when the image is used that the reuser has to take it into consideration... and probably only in china. --Lilyu (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Using it "commercially" is another term for what is known as "personality rights" or "publicity rights". You can't use one of those photos to, say, endorse a product, or something like that, i.e. using a person's likeness or reputation to try to sell stuff (in this area, the meaning of "commercial use" is completely different than "commercial use" in a copyright context). This is pretty common actually, and not really anything peculiar to China (though as always the details will differ between countries, and differs between US states actually). Many photos have the {{Personality rights}} tag added to remind re-users about it, though really anyone involved in doing such work should know about those laws, and obtain a model release or other relevant permission from the person photographed. These commercial rights are non-copyright restrictions, and are distinct from privacy rights (where it becomes illegal to simply publish a work, and where Commons itself could be in violation -- those are where we consider deletion). So yes, we can host them. But if you are making an advertisement, I would steer clear from using them unless you obtain additional permission from the pictured person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving 'Country specific consent requirements'-section to a seperate page

Looking at the Country specific consent requirements-section it has somewhat quickly become quite big, so I'm thinking of moving it to a page of it's own (suggesting Commons:Country specific consent requirements). Any thoughts/comment on that? --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. Perhaps we can let the summary-table stay here and move the details to a sub-page. BTW, the section has to grow even more due to the fact that most non Anglo-American law systems including many big and important countries do not allow in principle to publish or distribute photographs of identifiable people without their consent, even if the picture was taken in a public space.--JordiCubero (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the summary-table on Commons:Photographs of identifiable people makes good sense to me. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 10:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think moving the details to a separate page is a good idea. It might be useful to retain a copy of the summary table in the new page too. --Avenue (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now moved it. The table is extracted to an independent page for template-inclusion as it seemed like the most simple way to avoid double-updates. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 08:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. I've added a navbar and expanded the note about reaching more details. --Avenue (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an argument for hosting the country-specific consent requirements on Wikipedia, as this is encyclopaedic information that (a) isn't a matter for Commons folk to interpret or judge and (b) would then come under the sort of policy scrutiny that WP encourages such as better sourcing. Colin (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving this stuff to WP:EN could be an option to consider, of course it may be of encyclopaedic interest. On the other hand, the focus is very strongly on specific image use policy problems of Commons here. On WP, others will make changes, perhaps without being aware of those needs, and the article could get less useful for Commons. I'm not sure. At least, let me some time, I have got some countries in the pipeline and would like to complete this here (I'm not a registerd user on English WP and usually don't contribute to English-language WP articles).

BTW, I wonder if common law countries like India should be added to this list. I don't know any details about India, but I think they all have this "no-expectation-of-privacy-in-public-space-rule" and therefore do not considerably differ from the standard Common politics (influenced by the Anglo-American system). At least, the exceptions mentioned up to now for India are perfectly viable without adding anything to the usual Commons criteria (since the use of embarrassing or derogatory pictures is not acceptable here).--JordiCubero (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

US/UK

Commons:Country specific consent requirements doesn't cover the US or the UK. This seems a strange omission - surely someone knows these cases and can add them to the table and the subpage? Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering what the laws in the US and UK are. I wouldn't be surprised if there were no restrictions in the US (as we typically rate freedom of speech over privacy), but it would be nice to know for sure. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Above the table, it says "The following is a list of countries where consent is needed for one or more of the mentioned situations." So if consent is not required in the US and UK, their omission doesn't seem strange. But perhaps it would be better for the table to include all countries, so that it isn't left unclear whether a country has no restrictions or just hasn't been added to the table yet. --Avenue (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Above the table it also says This list is incomplete: Just because a country isn't listed here, it does not reflect a fact that everyone is free to take/publish/commercially use pictures of people in public spaces in that country. I think the table should include all countries. Rd232 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, you can take photos unless there is an "expectation of privacy" (among family and friends, or in bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) Commercial use of course is always protected; that is {{Personality rights}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you speaking of US law, UK law, or both? Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally not OK

I was looking into the Normally not OK examples, and is trying to source them a bit. Initially I'm going to use them as examples in a talk about privacy discussions on Commons. Secondly it might be beneficial to link the examples on the Commons-page. What I have found so far is:

• A man and woman talking, entitled "A prostitute speaks to her pimp" (possible defamation)

Examples in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prostitutes in the street of Reeperbahn.jpg

• An identifiable child, entitled "An obese girl" (potentially derogatory or demeaning)
• Partygoers at a private party where photography is not permitted or is not expected (unreasonable intrusion without consent)

I see the Burning Man cases such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 2.jpg

• Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)

Basically the same as above

• Long-lens images, taken from afar, of an individual in a private place (unreasonable intrusion)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beach in Italy (302214719).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pregnant woman nude on the beach.jpg.

This leave me with two questions:

1. I can't find the discussion about the deletion of the "obese girl" (even mentioned in a image caption on the Commons page). Any pointers?
2. Any argument for not linking to above discussions to provide a bit more weight into the "not okay" listings?

In kind regards heb [T C E] 05:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The obesity deletion discussion is here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG. --Avenue (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personality Privacy rights, et al

(title modified for clarification, boldly: as I think this is what the OP is referring to. Feel free to revert if I am wrong.)--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, While reviewing past board resolutions (don't ask, I'm a geek, I know), I came across the resolution on Images of Identifiable People. After I re-read it, I admit to being a little surprised because I don't recall there being a ton of discussion about it here. It's possible that I've missed something, but I wonder if Commons has made any progress toward the parts of this that are directly pointed at this project, namely:

• Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
• Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
• Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.

An (admittedly superficial) review didn't seem to show a lot of movement on the policy question in the first bullet point, so I'm wonder if there's some way that my team or the Foundation can support the commons community in this. Would it be helpful if we were to get some suggested draft language from Legal/Community Advocacy? I'm not saying we should, it's just one idea for how the WMF could support the commons community in fulfilling this Board resolution that's nearly a year old. If there are other ways that we could be helpful, I'm happy to listen here and try to find the ones that make sense for this community.

I'm not here with any predefined outcome in mind: really, I'd like to open a discussion about how the WMF (and specifically the Legal and Community Advocacy Department) can be helpful in working toward the position laid out in the Board resolution. Thanks! Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I may be confused. I think the consent would have a clash with legal issues on privacy. If I take a picture of a friend in my house, he may allow it placed in commons but not wish to have his name known to WMF. WMF would have to go on my word that I have his permission. Anyone that sees an image of themselves could add a speedy delete tag and/or email the adresses that cover that?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know OTRS is backlogged, but this is what I imagined the service to be when it comes to issues like this. I know this will also run into some of the issues we have now over the PORN that we got, but as far as I am aware, I am not sure a lot of things were done. We just tag an image and call it a day. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we just create a policy that simply states that WMF is CYA and any uploader can have his butt sued for images? I removed a statement in an en:WP BLP article after the the BLP asked in help desk. I did this without question, speedily, and in good faith. We had a discussion on the talk page as to wording and reliable sources and the statement was replaced with a more accurate one that I think the BLP had to accept legally.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that would not comply with the Board resolution, which was not to CYA, but was directed to the community. So it's not a matter of the WMF covering, but rather of the commons community coming into agreement with the resolution passed by the Board, as I read it. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have time to answer properly just now, but two things that I'm aware of were done: COM:PEOPLE now includes the clause expecting evidence (at least uploader assertion) when consent is required, and {{Consent}} was created and discussed. The latter has not gone into widespread use yet - I would suggest that anyone who uploads photographs of people tries it out on their own uploads to see if it needs any other parameter options. --99of9 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I note that while you're obviously correct about the statement above, it's also important to say that COM:PEOPLE includes this statement:

If you would like to proactively assert compliance with these guidelines for a particular photograph or video, you can add the {{consent}} template to the file's description page. Please refer to the template documentation for further instructions. Use of this template is not required for compliance with these guidelines or other Commons policies.

A template without policy enforcement behind it does not satisfy my reading of the Board resolution. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the intent of that sentence is to say that there are other ways to assert consent, not just that one particular template. But I agree a bit of clarification could help. --99of9 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I put all versions of {{Consent}} on a file of mine that isn't used much yet: File:Watermark sample.jpg. Feel free to use it as a sandbox file. Should we put a link to the template on the upload page, or possible have a bot add it to all files in category:people to get uploaders to notice it? It seems good enough to be policy to me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The upload wizard will need a dropdown menu with each of the possible consent|parameters. --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note: this was discussed at VP (archive) last month. The issue hasn't gone away. For instance, we could more explicitly address privacy as a reason for deletion (see Commons_talk:Deletion_policy#Privacy). Rd232 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is serious and should be discussed. I am a bit worried though, that such resolutions are approved without as much scrutiny as changes in our guidelines. It is unclear how the resolution is supposed to affect existing images taken with undocumented consent. I suppose those should be kept, unless deemed very problematic. There is also the problem about declared consent being contested - by the subject, by somebody claiming to be the subject or a third party. The second is a serious threat to some classes of images (I remember a case about dead soldiers). The consent template would satisfy the resolution, but not these other problems. It was also introduced as a suggestion and should get more eyes before made official or put in wide use. --LPfi (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
• At this point should we decide where to actually discuss it. This thread may be buried in time soon, as it seems others have been. On the matter of the consent templates, they could be added to all the images in category people to draw attention to the issue. Changes to all the upload pages including ones like Commonist, Android, etc. may have to be made as well. A statement such as: 'If this image has living people then one of the consent templates MUST be used?'--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Does it have teeth? Is the policy sufficiently strong to back it up? Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if a bot master had a bot add:

A query has been raised regarding consent of identifiable persons: It is not clear whether all identifiable subjects have consented to the publication of this image or video. If you created this media, and it was taken in public or you have the consent of the subjects (or parental consent for minors), please replace the template parameter 'query' with a more appropriate one from Template:Consent. If this is not rectified, the media may be discussed for deletion as a violation of Commons:Photos of identifiable people.

...to every image in category people it would bring the issue forward to scrutiny. Just a thought though. Does present policy actually require some type of consent tag now with all images containing people?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My read is that the Board left some wiggle room. I think any attempt at proactively updating policy and strengthening it would be a welcome sign. I tend to think that mass-using a bot to drop a massive number of templates is likely to have a flashback effect that would be unwelcome. In that case, I think what we would see is a hardening of resolve by those opposed (who would also, quite rightly, point out that the time requirements needed to satisfy those would be extreme). I would suggest, instead, some sort of triage system that begins with higher-risk images (if such a thing can be identified) and works toward some threshold. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Could we create a category 'images of people lacking consent templates' type thing? A bot could add all the people images to this new category. I don't think there is a way to add all images of people robotically unless they are in the people category now. Then editors could go through all the files in the new category manually and add approriate tags to the obviuos ones?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think Canoe1967 is absolutely right that this discussion should be taken to a good place. One cannot be supposed to watch this page as it is busy and more or less English only. And any decision will affect a huge amount of images.

  On the subject matter: The change should be about new uploads. There the key things is having the templates and making the upload forms handle them smoothly.

  The policy has required consent, not documentation of consent. That could be read as uploading an image means implicitly assuring consent. Deleting perfectly good images because of changes in policy should be the last alternative (I have supposed Commons is a stable image repository in that sense). I think we should delete old files only if there is a clear violation of privacy (handling of complaints should probably continue as now).

  --LPfi (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that we shouldn't just bomb consent|query on every pre-existing image of a face, but I would point out that pre-existing policy reads "...the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined... that any required consent has been obtained." I'd say that past uploads should be given good faith, but if there are red flags flying, they should go to DR. --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy is just rubbish made during the Jimbo pron witch hunt and will get abused by the haters to get rid of images they don't like. Trick question: Find the board member who was an active Commons community member around the time of that resolution.

We don't need a board that sends commandments from their ivory tower, we need a board that actually helps us to improve things here. Now they're only making things worse: Rubbish policy, we don't abide to it and yet more material for the haters to dump on Jimbo's talk page. Good job board! Multichill (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your points. Until this thread was started I assumed that WMF was CYA and uploaders are to be responsible for permission under threat of legal action. I also mention that I read somewhere that WMF can dictate policy unilaterly because they control the servers type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion to:

Commons talk:Privacy policy? We could still have a bot tag all images in Category:Unidentified people? There are only around 10,000 images there, so that may not irk too many people, justify the tags, and create more notice of the issue?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the destination, I would suggest moving the whole discussion there to provide context and prevent forking. Dankarl (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Should it be Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people instead? That other section is for how commons handles our user data, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. If there are no objections, I'll move the discussion there so that it can be more easily carried forward. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. There is also some related discussion happening at Template talk:Consent. --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Private place

What is a private place, speaking of what I know, sport photographies can be done in privately owned stadium. I'm really not against enforcing a stricter policy on personality rights, but we have to consider all the pros and cons, and tune the policy. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Normally_OK. It seems that each country has different laws though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Are people talking about privacy rights or personality rights? They are not remotely the same thing. Personality rights have never been cause for deletion -- they are analogous to trademark, using someone's name or likeness for advertising and things like that, and are sometimes known as publicity rights. As far as the U.S., privacy rights happen when there is an "expectation of privacy". That is definitely not the case for sports photography. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP meant privacy rights. I think most courts would find that if an image from commons is used for financial gain of personality rights it wouldn't matter if the image was even considered public domain and is covered by other laws?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Carl Lindberg for your enlightning comment. I'm refering to the wording of the WMF statement, as Commons is an international project the wording must be better than that. I cannot be expected to understand that private place means expectation of privacy (and I won't blame anyone for misunderstanding such wording). --PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Private places and public places are discussed in the first 3 sections of the project page. Is this discussion adequate, both for scope and clarity, considering also the discussion of moral issues farther down the page? Dankarl (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Organize the thread?

Should we organize this discussion somehow?

• It should be made clear that privacy rights are far different than personality rights.
• Should the consent templates be made policy and mentioned in upload instructions. They may need and edit as to consent to upload does not mean allowing use as personality rights.
• How do we deal with existing images.
• Can we had a speedy delete email address for people who didn't give consent to the templates.

No need for this one. We already have COM:OTRS. --99of9 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of people that come across a picture of themselves that they did not give consent to upload. They may not be familiar with OTRS and other methods of asking for removal. Either an email address or 'click here to have image removed' right on the image page and easy to see. It would be nice if there was a way to have it deleted within minutes, but I doubt that is possible. There may be abuse of this feature, but isn't it better to have the images removed and then restored if it was a false positive? A block/warning list could be made of IP, email, and user names that do abuse the system. This may satisfy the 3rd point made by the OP. Treat them with respect, type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Are there points from the Talk:Consent templates that should be mentioned here. Just some thoughts that may move the discussion forward.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• A standalone RFC might be a more flexible way to organise this wideranging discussion. Rd232 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Identifiable people

There is a useful discussion from last year on this page, including two possible definitions of identifiable and the suggestion that different images might require different definitions. Please read and continue the discussion here.

If we allow the less inclusive definition of identifiable to apply to uncontroversial images, it will simplify the process and make more images available from 3rd-party sources. For examples where this could make a difference, please see File:Moose on the playground.jpg, File:Working an oyster net.jpg, File:ATVs in the woods, Alaska 2010.jpg; none of these locations is unambiguously public, none of the photos would let a stranger spot the subject on the street, but I think all would be recognizable to friends, family and co-workers. Dankarl (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the weaker definition of identifiability should apply in most cases, i.e. where there are no overriding moral or legal concerns. The man on the ATV looks identifiable by a stranger at full resolution. For images like that, a {{3rd party consent}} template could help us record when consent can be established for images from 3rd parties (e.g. through comments by their uploaders on Flickr). --Avenue (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I now see the "hosted" argument for {{Consent}} does the trick. --Avenue (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it in this case? If so only because there is enough information in the photostream to surmise a relationship with the photographer/poster. That is a different kind of identifiability. Do we consider it? Dankarl (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Consent}} - further cases

Please feel free to respond to the individual bullet points directly.

• To prevent a lot of unnecessary DRs, I suggest adding a deceased parameter to the set. In that regard, how many years would we hold off posting images of deceased persons? Dankarl (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, I'm pretty sure the right to privacy expires upon death. Although, photos of a death scene may be different -- California ruled that the family had some privacy rights for those.[8] Pretty sure I remember a similar French case on death scene photos; they noted that European privacy rights also expire on death but there was some sort of human dignity protection granted to the family on such photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would also suggest an unidentifiable parameter reflecting whatever consensus we reach about what constitutes identifiability. Dankarl (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• In response to User:Avenue's comment under Identifiable People (directly above) for the case Consent:Hosted what do we mean by evidence? Do we mean an explicit statement, or can we also infer permission because (for instance) the Flickr photostream provides evidence of a family relationship relationship between the photographer/poster, and the fact that the photograph has been posted for some reasonable period? (I am thinking here only of uncontroversial cases, i.e. cases that do not appear to raise moral issues of intrusiveness and where we have received no objection from the subject.) Dankarl (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Evidence would normally be an assertion" ... but I guess if there's good evidence of other types, it would be accepted in a DR. I don't regard longevity as good evidence - subjects don't always scour Flickr, and it can take years for them to notice themselves, if ever. --99of9 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the case of Consent:Published, what do we mean by "Professional editorial standards"? do we mean modern standards? And how do we evaluate? Does this mean an automatic pass to "mainstream" sources? to Federal websites? Dankarl (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the standards are disputed, it can be discussed in a deletion review. I don't think it would be possible to write a watertight definition that dealt with all edge cases well. How do you define mainstream? (I suggest that asking about examples might be easier) --99of9 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of "which sources?" was part of what I was asking. It is not at all clear to me what we mean by this case or how we would evaluate, and with this degree of ambiguity waiting for the deletion review process to reach some overall consensus would not be efficient. Dankarl (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So, for example, if you find a picture in a book published by a publishing company which uses professional editors, then for our purposes it's ok to assume that the subject of that picture consented to the publication of their picture. Same with most newspapers with professional editors. Blogs - no. Self-published - no. There are some in-between cases, but unless you can name a big category of publications that are ambiguous, I don't think it's worth trying to guess in advance. --99of9 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Does anyone no the local laws in Israel? There is concern about this image right now: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman outside Sepulchre-2.jpg. I may just email my embassy there. I could also ask my foreign affairs dept. To check the laws in all countries that we have embassies in, gov.ca.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've shooted a lot of photo during the general assembly (in France it's a private event where only members can join) of the french chapter Wikimedia France and posted it on our local wiki. The president asked me if I could put the pictures of him on Commons therefore I used {{Consent}} with full agrument (he knows it can be used commercially), I hope it's ok with what is being discussed here, I'm not sure to understand everything. An example here: File:Rémi Mathis - AG WMFR 2012-05-26.jpg. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)