Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2

Scope Review 2013 links: Discuss stage 2 of this review Translation Help your community by translating the review Background Main review page: Background and process FAQ Links to current rules Project Scope Photographs of identifiable people Discussion: Introductory Scope wording Aim of Wikimedia Commons Excluded educational content Discussion: Files Must be a media file Must be an allowable free file format Must be freely licensed or public domain Licensing terms Evidence Precautionary principle 'Realistically useful for an educational purpose' PDF and DjVu formats Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories General pages, galleries and categories User pages, galleries and categories Discussion: Areas of particular concern Censorship "Neutral point of view" Discussion: Identifiable people Lead Legal issues Consent Moral issues Identification Examples Removal requests Other image sources Other proposals Other proposals

This review has been running for a little over a month now, and some interesting ideas and threads have already emerged. To take the discussions to the next stage, stage 2, I propose (as quite a few users have already suggested) that we now move away from a section-by-section analysis of our existing policies, and bring the most active discussions together under some broader headings. To ensure that we don't get distracted from the most important issues I would like now to close down those sections of the review relating to policies that seem to be OK as they are, or at least have a lower priority for further community discussion.

Comments are welcome below. As usual in this review, please study the review guidelines and help keep this a friendly and non-judgmental place.

I'll be out of Wiki contact until about Sunday 28th July, but can pick this up again after that, assuming there is some community consensus on the way forward. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for part 2 of this review

I propose that we open individual sections for continued review, as follows, and based on the previous discussions seek to agree general principles for each before moving on to the drafting of detailed wording:

1. Need for consent of the subject, when the subject is identifiable

* Different rules for sexual images?

* Different rules for images of children?

2. Possible clarification of "Realistically useful for an educational purpose"

* Different rules for sexual images?

3. How the community should handle removal requests

* From a subject of an image

* From the uploader or photographer

Note: Discussion on this topic continues at Commons:Courtesy deletions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

4. In the Precautionary Principle, does the "significant doubt" test need to be changed or made more specific?

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

OTRS consent required when image could reasonably be considered to cause embarrassment or defamation

• For me it is simple. These images that we host on Commons are generally available for any use and while many of the licenses do have provisions that are designed to protect the dignity of identifiable persons they can do nothing if the image in and of itself defames or embarrasses the subject of the image. Yes there may be a conflict from time to time between the need to educate and the need to protect the rights of the individual; however, I think these can be dealt with on a case by case basis. As such I think we should make it a basic requirement that consent is proven through OTRS when the image could reasonably be considered to cause embarrassment or defamation of an individual that is the subject of an image on Commons. COM:IDENT should be amended to make the consent requirement more explicit in these cases than a simple assertion by the uploader. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OTRS requires the subject to identify themselves, which can in some cases make matters even worse. darkweasel94 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't see the issue. If identifying the subject is an issue for the subject then the image does not get uploaded. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree with Saffron. The right of the subject is important than the Common’s requirement for so many such contents. Each content in Commons should not be harmful for the subject, in every respect. I’m not demanding that every media containing a person or private property need to be OTRSed. But if a dispute occurs (a DR or so); it should be immediately deleted and only be undeleted if the consent is proven through OTRS or any other mechanism. JKadavoor Jee 05:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
        • It's more complicated. If I were the subject of a Commons file, I might nominate it for deletion anonymously but wouldn't want to send my real name to a mailing list of volunteers where I don't know how trustworthy they are, because if one of them publishes the information who the depicted person is, that will be more problematic than it already is. But that's actually a side issue, my real questions are the following: Should a well-known public person be able to use this so that their WP article can't be illustrated anymore? Should people who simply happened to stand on the sidewalk while I took a photo of a tram be able to use this? Or the tram driver? I'm not talking about non-public people who are clearly the main subject of an image; I don't have a strong opinion on that. darkweasel94 06:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Commons:Deletion requests/File:P1080449 - Elena LENINA.jpg is an example of a public figure attempting to have images deleted, and we should be mindful to separate public figures from non-public figures in such things. russavia (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
            • CC or any other license “do not waive or otherwise affect rights of privacy or publicity to the extent they apply. If you have created a work or wish to use a work that might in some way implicate these rights, you may need to obtain permission from the individuals whose rights may be affected.” In my knowledge, any commercial use except editorial use needs explicit permission from the individual. So I think we have to move such media (if the depicted person already made a complaint) to local wikis or other projects where they are used (for their use only); if they fall under editorial use. Hosting of such media in Commons may problematic since Commons is a repository for free media (so boost so many reuses); not just a user or reuser. Just my quick comment; need to study well. JKadavoor Jee 08:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Our free licenses only affect copyright; I don't think we should require that files also be usable for all purposes in regards to personality rights, trademarks, and so on, because there's probably almost no file that couldn't potentially be used for an illegal purpose apart from copyright. We put personality rights warnings on the description pages and every reuser needs to know for themself (themselves? native speakers, help me! :[) if a copyright license is sufficient for their use case. It is clear in all licenses that they are only copyright licenses, not model releases. There are at least three dimensions here: public/non-public person, taken in public/private space and primary/incidental presence in the photo. I'm concerned mostly about cases where the presence is just incidental - these shouldn't ever require consent. darkweasel94 09:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
              • {{Personality}} has never been a reason for deletion on this project, and it should never be a reason. It is up to re-users to ascertain whether they are infringing on personality rights. russavia (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                • I’m not talking about pictures that contain an identifiable person. I’m talking about pictures where that depicted person already raised a complaint. See the last point at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people JKadavoor Jee 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                • As a side note, what about adding one more line at {{Personality}}:"Any commercial use other than editorial use of this work may be illegal without the consent of the depicted persons here." JKadavoor Jee 09:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • "Treating with patience, kindness and respect" doesn't necessarily imply deletion. Please answer my question: on File:Linie 68 Troststrasse.JPG, how many people do you think should have the right to get the image removed from Commons? The tram driver? The bearded man with the handbag on the left edge? The man with the green-black striped t-shirt who seems to be staring at the camera? Any of the two people carrying the plastic bags right beside the tram? Any of the people that have just crossed the street behind the tram? I'd say none of them. darkweasel94 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • I checked that picture in full resolution. I don’t think it is no way comparable to File:P1080449_-_Elena_LENINA.jpg. In your case, I can’t see any logic for getting a complaint from those people. And if got, Commons offer other tricks like blurring etc. A portrait and mere presence in a street documentary are different. We’re making rules for intelligent humans who can use their own wisdom and experience to make wise judgments; not for robots or mentally retarded people who have no other ability so can only follow the mere words. JKadavoor Jee 09:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                      • Yes, that's exactly my point - consent isn't required for such cases. If you agree with me that those images should definitely stay, then it seems like we agree. darkweasel94 10:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
                        • Yes: I agree. (And, sorry; I removed the offensive part/tone of my comment.) JKadavoor Jee 10:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Do we really need the subjects' consent to host unflattering cartoons of public figures like Rick Perry, Kim Jong-un, and Rush Limbaugh?

Defamation also strikes me as a problematic criterion, because it puts us in the position of judging whether a claim is true or not. (Defamation is making false statements than harm someone's reputation.) That will often be difficult to decide, and public discussions about it could upset the subject further. --Avenue (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: we are discussing the case where "the image could reasonably be considered to cause embarrassment or defamation of an individual that is the subject of an image". Whether a person is the subject of the image or not is a key factor that I think the guideline should cover better. If the person is incidental to the subject (which may be a building say) or is a minor component (part of a large group or a crowd) this reduces the risk of causing upset, makes consent much less likely to be required, etc. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. If you agree that the above subject areas look sensible, I can set up separate pages for discussion of each. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don’t prefer separate pages; because of the difficulty to follow. But you may split it into separate headings like notable people, cartoons of public figures, etc. (per below) JKadavoor Jee 07:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what absolutely failed last time was loads of fragmented discussions with overlapping concerns on different pages nobody watched. Can I suggest the sub-section heading above be changed to focus e.g. "OTRS consent required when image could reasonably be considered to cause embarrassment or defamation". Let's focus on this for a while. Colin (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur with separation as I think the issue as re-stated by Colin will be less contentious than many of the others if people would just focus on it instead of constantly dragging in the entirety of {personality rights}. It was NOT reasonable that that actress wanted her image deleted. How anyone could construe it as defaming or embarrassing is beyond me. Same with darkweasels concerns over incidental appearance of individuals in public places. It would be very rare anyone would have a reasonable concern. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think defaming or embarrassing is simply a matter of taste for some people ("I see absolutely NO problem with either the painting or the video, given that they have been done by a notable artist, and they are freely licensed. The video is especially interesting…") which makes the situation difficult to make a decision. JKadavoor Jee 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

True, there are those that would find any and all images interesting, but they might not be reasonable in that assertion just as we do not accept the opinions of pedophiles with respect to sexual images of children. Moreover, that video and image would have been perfectly fine if the consent of the subject was obtained. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, some people argue Pricasso is the only subject; Jimmy is not. (Gladly, we've a recent development on Inappropriate images of children). JKadavoor Jee 14:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't accept sexual images of children because they are illegal in the US; whether the person who contributes to a discussion about them, on any side, is a pedophile, shouldn't concern us?! darkweasel94 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

From a wider perspective they are illegal mainly because we don't accept the opinions of pedophiles on them. I'll take my leave of this discussion as I have no desire to argue absurdities. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Case by case basis" is absolutely the worst thing you can use to determine policy, because while it may appear to simply allow laziness on the part of the people setting policy ("we'll figure it out later"), in practice it means that you are openly encouraging individual prejudices about the subject matter to settle the issue, while aggressively denying logic and consistency any possible relevance in decision making. Needless to say, the en.wikipedia ArbCom figures out just about everything on a case by case basis, and even with editing at a seven-year low and the project as the butt of internet humor, the phrase is fondly invoked by even run of the mill admins whenever possible. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me you are no different than darkweasel. You read into what is said so that you can generate your own argument that has little or nothing to do with the issue under discussion. The policy would be clear... get consent when the subject could reasonably consider it defamation or embarrassing. However, no policy covers 100% of the cases unless you are some lame bureaucrat that sees the world only in black and white. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for, as you see it, derailing the conversation, I did not mean to do so - I only wanted to make sure that nobody actually thinks my example should require consent, because by the wording above that had not been entirely clear. That has now been cleared up, so there's no more problem. And yes - my country's law is to require consent "when the subject's legitimate interests could be affected by publication", which seems like a good starting point. darkweasel94 09:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is no small technical issue. To "make it a basic requirement that consent is proven through OTRS when the image could reasonably be considered to cause embarrassment or defamation of an individual that is the subject of an image on Commons." means that you outlaw a picture of Putin getting a pie in the face, Guantanamo Bay detainee abuse, a "perp walk", or shots of the homeless part of town. You're saying this is like the Soviet Union and we should have a "minder" beside us making sure we're only taking pictures of the beautiful new stadium. With the caveat that, well, on a "case by case basis" you'll allow through a few token things that satisfy your notion of common sense, your political sensitivity, or at least that of whoever has managed to dominate that particular AFD, and that should make it a compromise and all right. Well it isn't! Wnt (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "You're saying this is like the Soviet Union and we should have a "minder" beside us making sure we're only taking pictures of the beautiful new stadium." You do realise that in the Soviet Union there was no freedom of panorama, and hence photos of that beautiful new stadium would be deleted on Commons? russavia (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Putin is not identifiable he is identified as a public figure. I am sure you cans see the difference and how that can be incorporated in policy. Several countries have case law that addresses this very issue in a rational way. Similarly in special cases where the editorial content is of significant value there may be other ways to protect the dignity of the individual. Publishing a rape of detainee is not good journalism as the risk to the victim outweighs the exposition of the crime. It is in these rare instances where "case by case" would be a rational approach to weighing the merits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, publishing images of rape would not be a good thing in my mind, one need only look at Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse -- should we or should we not host these images on Commons? I opine that we absolutely should. But the lines could be blurred when we come to images such as File:Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg -- the victim is clearly identifiable, and he is in a private place with an expectation of privacy -- that the US military (or it's "agents") disregarded these rights is where we should look at the moral issues -- but is that outweighed by the public's right to know what occurred at Abu Ghraib? Forget irrelevancies that some others wish to make a mountain out of; these types of photos are the really sticky situations that we face on Commons. russavia (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur, these images were important in providing clear evidence and historical record of the abuses. They are educative on several fronts and thus are in scope... and efforts were made to protect the identity of the individuals. An acceptable balance seems to me to have been achieved. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not keen on a rules based policy/guideline that says effectively "causes embarrassment => OTRS ticket". It is nearly impossible to get agreement on such rules as we all have differences in what we regard as acceptable, which would be difficult to combine in a way that works for all images. What I prefer is for the guideline to indicate (above the lowest threshold of public/private) which scenarios make it more likely we'll require consent and/or what strength of evidence of consent we require. Note that the guideline already says "In the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test to doubtful images, the degree to which an image meets our educational project scope may also be considered." Perhaps we should include a "public interest" test and also "whether the subject is a public figure or private individual" as a factor. So how best could we word something regarding embarrassment/defamation noting that we (not necessarily in the same sentence/paragraph) can balance that against public interest and public/private figure concerns too? Colin (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

"causes embarrassment => OTRS ticket" would be problematic indeed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Colin that we can and should treat public and non-public people differently, and that we should weigh the subject's interests against our interests of educating the public. I could imagine some kind of replaceability test: if the image is of high educational value (one of the ways to determine that would be usage on Wikimedia projects, but it shouldn't be the only one) and we will not trivially be able to replace it with an image of another person who has either consented or is a far more public figure (such as historical images), then we should tend to keep it. I'm not sure if it's even possible to make a policy that covers all borderline cases; some case-by-case decision-making is necessary with every policy, even with every law (especially when it comes to human rights). darkweasel94 21:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I can support what you are saying but in practice I think the protections should focus on being in place during the upload. Here is a thought process, not necessarily the policy:

• Is the image you are about to upload of an identifiable individual?
• If yes, do you have informed consent of the individual to use the image in the manner you intend?
• If no, is the individual a public figure?
• If no, does the image involve embarrassing or illegal situations, demean the subject, contain nudity, include children?
• If yes, will you consent to a review of your image before it being made publicly available?
• If no, your image will be accepted but may be subject to a deletion request should anyone complain of its content.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kat Walsh commented on a discussion: "...But what Commons does as a matter of policy should not rely on any effect or non-effect of the copyright law definition of "moral rights"--Commons should do the "right thing". I do think that as a community Commons should take much more care with being sure that subjects of photos are fully consenting (and I say that despite the fact that my opinion diverges from Jimmy's on the proper scope of Commons; I am fully in favor of having educationally-relevant images of the full range of topics covered, where subjects have given their informed consent, though I also think that this only works if we are not stupid about exercising editorial judgment--that we aim to inform readers as fully as they wish to be informed, but avoid being gratuituously shocking.)" JKadavoor Jee 06:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The camera is not a weapon, the subjects are not victims

• 
  Cop responds to photographer. Clearly the subject is non-consenting. Are his rights are being violated? Which side are you on? Which side is the moral highground?
• 
  The same uploader, a brave photographer and citizen journalist has uploaded a self-censored version of this image, in case the original cannot be used. It angers me that they believed they needed to do this. It angers me more that they will need to do this.
• 
  And none of these "good citizens" should be embarrassed?
• 
  Ordinary street photography by me, a week ago, in full view of CCTV (state and commercial), but they're children (horror! kiddiporn!), somebody lost, everybody fell over and it was funny. So that's deleted then?

The proponents of censorship claim that they are moral. Amazingly they cite the "moral rights" of authors, which the Berne Convention says includes the right to have your work treated with respect, as they treat photographers and illustrators as criminals and propose destroying their work. As the genuine right of privacy, to not be hounded or placed under surveillance is ever more violated by the likes of News International and the state, it is used as a pretext to crush other rights:- the right to free speech and the right to know. --Simonxag (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I will just assume the concept of editorial judgement was lost on you throughout this discussion. Moreover, one individual misspoke about moral rights being in reference to the subject vice the author. This minor error was even corrected earlier by a WMF member. Now, shall I go and find a handful of images where the need for consent trumps your concerns of censorship? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Editorial judgement is for editors in Wikimedia projects and elsewhere. The Commons is a backdoor whereby all of these can be censored. Nationalists try to delete neighbouring countries' illegal maps. The moral cleanup squad demonstrated this when they censored all (not just a "handful") illustrated sex ed pages on all projects. --Simonxag (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Morality only means "manner, character, proper behaviour, goodness or rightness". It is you who see “sex” in everything. JKadavoor Jee 12:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sex in everything"? Well the cleanup squad tried to censor all sex. Catholic priests and the like have successfully used censorship to cover up their sexual "morality". (And I bet Jimmy Saville would have approved of our new privacy campaign.) But it doesn't end with sex:- all "objectionable" content is covered up by the blanket of "goodness" and "rightness". Some nurses in the UK exposed the abuse of elderly patients - their employers got them struck off the nursing register for violating the patients' (ie. the victims!!) right to privacy--Simonxag (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

Does that have anything to do with the present discussion? darkweasel94 19:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the nursing example does, at least in a general sense, as it gives an example of how putting too much weight on respecting privacy can be problematic, and how one needs to consider the broader context. I don't know if images played a role there though (as they did with Abu Ghraib); if not, perhaps we could find a more relevant example. --Avenue (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

They reported the abuse to the official watchdog, were ignored then videoed what was going on for the main BBC investigative journalism TV series. Massive public anger caused their sentence to be reduced, but only reduced. Always, always always this privacy stuff is just a moralistic cover for censorship and repression. --Simonxag (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if they had secured consent of those they filmed the result would have been much different. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I can also imagine reasons why it mightn't have been safe or even possible to do so. --Avenue (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I understand the concern you raised; seconded by Avenue. The right to know and the right for privacy are two basic rights; but unfortunately walking in opposite directions. So the best compromise is to give equal priority to both; instead of neglecting on for the sake of other. I don’t think the rights of us to see the private parts of a boy is more important than his rights for privacy. JKadavoor Jee 06:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The subjects in my example had no right to privacy. They had the right to not be victims of crime, but failing that they had the right to have the truth of their situation known. Let the truth be known though the heavens fall. Privacy and its moralizing cant are just a cloak for hidden agendas. --Simonxag (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You may right in the example you quoted; but an act on spirit to reveal the truth and a controlled act considering all facts are different. See this example. "Delhi police registered a criminal case against the editor of a Delhi-based tabloid, Mail Today, for disclosing the female victim's identity, as such disclosure is an offence under section 228(A) of Indian Penal Code."

Further, "In the 33-page charge sheet, the Delhi Police described the juvenile as the most brutal of the six accused. The accused was declared as 17 years and six months old on the day of the crime by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which relied on his birth certificate and school documents. The JJB rejected a police request for a bone ossification (age determination) test for a positive documentation of his age. On 28 January, the juvenile was declared to be a juvenile by the JJB. The minor was tried separately in a juvenile court, facing a maximum sentence of three years at a correctional facility." According to Indian law, publishing the name or photograph of a juvenile accuser is also prohibited.

Yes; law gives some protection to the victims and the accusers to protect their privacy. JKadavoor Jee 02:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the law does back the suppression of the truth. Edward Snowden, is the worlds most wanted "criminal", hated by all "right thinking", "moral" people. (Obama's rage seems genuine!) Only conflict between some of "the great and the good" has enabled Snowden to escape "justice". I am on the opposing side. --Simonxag (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS and the subject of a photograph

Several times in the life of the COM:IDENT policy, it has been suggested that OTRS could be used to handle confirmation of subject-consent where we have the greatest degree of concerns. Commons:OTRS says "The main use of OTRS in relation to Commons is to verify and archive licensing permissions." This latter link is a proposed guideline. A related is the {{Consent}} template. I'm not familiar much with OTRS. Could people describe in what ways OTRS is currently used (if any) for subject-consent issues? Could these existing cases be used to formulate guidance? Or is this something not currently done (or very rarely) in which we are breaking new ground. In what ways would OTRS be better than the consent template and what ways would it be worse? -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To start this off, I'll mention that I've discussed COM:IDENT and Commons:Patient images with User talk:Jmh649 aka Dr James Heilman. James has upload a great many self-made patient images, for which he gets appropriate consent. However, James has indicated that he feels OTRS is entirely unsuitable as a means to verify this consent. The patients' identities cannot be disclosed to random internet volunteers, no matter how highly the Commons community thinks of them. We have here a position where we simply have to trust that James has got the consent he claims. The only way I could see us getting more formal than user-trust is if the WMF had paid staff who were bound by professional standards of ethics and confidentiality (similar to what exists on medical journals). That's not going to happen. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Role of MichaelMaggs

This entire cluster of RFCs seems to be MichaelMaggs' doing - he is the one who started the sections, he is the one proposing "phase 2" here, and he is the one determining which discussions to close and which to keep open.

Note that Commons_talk:Project_scope/Update_2013/Must_be_an_allowable_free_file_format#Proposal 2, one of the best ideas in this RFC, with discussion by five people, was closed by MichaelMaggs with the message that "This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others".

By contrast, Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Update_2013/Consent#Proposal 2, proposed by MichaelMaggs, with discussion from four people, gets the close that "This is a topic of considerable community interest/importance".

With one person framing the debate, making proposals, and choosing which to examine further, I feel like this is strictly his train and it will go to wherever his destination is, so I think it would be best if he simply writes up all the changes he wants to Commons and puts them to a vote without further ado. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose this section be closed and, if required, the issue taken elsewhere. We're discussing commons policy and scope/moral/people issues. Colin (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur w/close. Non issue IMO. In the first instance it was a month without discussion before the close proposal. In the second it was a proposal to carry the discussion elsewhere. Hardly framing anything. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Without having any real knowledge of the situation, I do feel I should point out the humour in Colin's response to Wnt. I do feel the discussion should likely be taken elsewhere, but a mention on here would be useful. Zellfaze (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual consent images

Could we accept images like File:Visual consent image.jpg? They could upload an image with a consent release showing first and then overwrite the file with the actual image. I also made one that can solve our 'own work' self portraits: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal requests / Courtesy deletions

Discussion on this topic continues at Commons:Courtesy deletions.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy deletions are a way to fix an issue of consent after the fact. I hope that we get to the point where consent must be explicit as opposed to implicit on upload. I really don't think any WMF project is in desperate need of images of identifiable people where consent isn't explicit. However, I accept that managing that would be problematic for all such images. As such focus should be applied to those images categories that are most likely to cause someone emotional or reputational harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Blaze (talk • contribs) 12 August 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Someone commits a crime, has a sporting failure or bungles a public performance:- I'm sure they're going to be happier if the truth of the matter is "fixed". I don't think such fixing is a good thing. --Simonxag (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of editorial judgement do you not understand? This proposal is not about opening the door to deletions for any cause but ensuring a process is in place to allow for deletions with good cause. There are many conceivable good causes not the least of which is images that did not have the consent of the subject and where privacy rights were violated. Every deletion will be subject to admin review and one of the main things they will be looking for is whether the deletion would impact the project in a material way. No admin worth his or her salt would delete a newsworthy image because the subject objected. These cases would require additional scrutiny. Even if an admin goes rogue and deleted notable images they can be un-deleted. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Real events give the lie to your claims. Even before the cleanup squad, sexuality images would be quietly deleted, with project editors left assuming copyright problems. Now the stream of sexuality deletion requests, backed by bogus claims, is patrolled by a few admins, who make sure they are opened up to the real consensus. But these few brave people have been identified and are the subject of a hate campaign on Jimbo's talk page, often trying to label them as pedos (Ho ho, how ethical we are!). This same page uses sexuality pictures, out of context, as Encyclopedia Dramatica style shock images (Ho ho, what good editorial judgement we have!). I have backed off from activity at times, because, though they've not targeted me so far, I know I've just got to become a problem. Much of the force of this privacy campaign is centred around this very same page. It's not surprising to see "anit-porn" being a spearhead for wider censorship. --Simonxag (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not lying; I gave an opinion. The new process would hopefully prevent instances of an event like you claim. Besides, just how many pictures of young topless girls do we need need? I am sure you would counter that point with something like they were really educational illustrations. If that were the case the admins should have been sanctioned. Moreover, all those young topless girls have just as much right not to be put on WP without their consent as you do to have those sex images. The trick is finding a process that will balance those needs and that's what we are trying to do. Perhaps you have an opinion on how we could do that? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Give the lie to" is an assertion of falsehood not dishonesty. We may well have too many (otherwise pointless) pictures of pretty young women. I do not know what to do about this, but if you wander round in public, topless or dressed any other way, then you have no right to complain about being portrayed in that way. --Simonxag (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In many countries you'd be wrong. Moreover, it should be immaterial whether they were dressed or not. I fail to see the need to accept any image of an individual they personally object to having available in such a public way, particularly if they were unaware their image was taken in the first place. Consent is not that hard to obtain and it should be the standard we expect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is true that many countries have created such rights in their laws. The subject an artwork has the legal right to censor and destroy it: this is directly contrary to the moral rights of artists (as recorded in the Berne Convention) and I see that supporters of this "right" on the Commons quickly ditched reference to artists' rights when they noticed this. Fortunately this legal right is mostly confined to photography and a few countries, but it is spreading and growing, with celebrities being granted intellectual property rights to their weddings (public events!) and effectively getting a right to photoshop their image and hide their actual appearance. (The Wikipedia has a policy that the the photo of an article's subject is there to show what they actually look like. One artist's management tried to change her article image to this.) Though I support the Commons' existing policy against invading the privacy of private individuals I do not support giving anybody the right to censor an image just because they're in it. And frankly, for ordinary street photography, consent is almost impossible to get. --Simonxag (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)