Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Requests for comment/images of identifiable people

< Commons:Requests for comment
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion in 2012 helped to draft the COM:IDENT guideline as of 2014. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Comment on images of identifiable people, launched 30 November 2012

Problems edit

Uploaders do not know of (or understand) consent requirements edit

Far too often uploaders are simply unaware of COM:PEOPLE and its consent requirements. When they are, they often don't respect it fully, making unwarranted assumptions, or applying US standards to photographs taken in other countries or in unknown locations. (US law does not require subject consent when the photograph is taken in a public place; in many other countries, this is not true, or depends on circumstances.) Rd232 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is with sexual images or images that could have a sexual interpretation. Some people are fervent collectors of this type of image, and should not be allowed to use (or abuse) Commons guidelines to do it. Abusing Flickr licenses is one of the standard ways of doing this, and some people seem to have their heads stuck in the sand over this issue.--Ianmacm (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr edit

A lot of problems seem to involve Flickr. The typical situations are

  1. someone uploads their own content to Flickr without fully understanding the implications of the free license they apply. Files get imported to Commons because the license is OK, but consent isn't systematically reviewed. And the author didn't really want the world and his dog to use their photos for any purpose. Where is consent here - especially when third party subjects are involved?
  2. Flickrwashing.

So the question is whether, beyond adding a bit of guidance for Flickr importers, we shouldn't restrict Flickr imports to trusted users, or provide a specific process for reviewing COM:PEOPLE issue on imports from new users, etc. Rd232 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem for the list: A picture from Flickr gets uploaded and reviewed, and the Flickr account gets deleted some time after that. Accounts most often get deleted for copyright violations, but there's no way to know for sure. There is no way for us to recheck the account for suspicious uploads or contact anyone for permissions. What do we do in such situations? --Conti|✉ 21:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least tell whether it was deleted at the user's request, or at Flickr's discretion? Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, unfortunately we can't. All it says is "This member is no longer active on Flickr". --Conti|✉ 22:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very helpful... I guess they don't care about reusers! Well, where does that leave us? One argument would be that per COM:PRP, all disappearing Flickr sources be treated as dubious sources, and deleted if there's no positive evidence from other sources that the files are OK. Rd232 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, files from Flickr are already "reviewed", so the common argument in deletion discussions is that the files are okay regardless of the status of the Flickr-account. But, of course, if an account is being deleted for copyright violations, that account would obviously have bogus sourcing and licensing information, and that bogus information would be accepted by our review-process. Especially when it comes to BLP issues, I'd rather be cautious and distrust deleted accounts, but that opinion is not universally shared. --Conti|✉ 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of Flickr transfers being restricted to experienced users who are familiar with policy. Many of the recent controversies have been the result of inexperienced users hoovering up large quantities of images from Flickr indiscriminately, resulting in issues such as COM:SCOPE and COM:PEOPLE that take a long time to sort out. Commons is not a mirror of Flickr, and if a newbie wants to transfer a particular image, they could ask a more experienced user to do it for them.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked with a group on flickr dedicated to helping people not get deleted from flickr. There are a few reasons why people, especially those posting adult content get booted from flickr. 1) copyright violations, or in flickr terms "accounts that simply hoover up web porn"; 2) are the accounts that insist on having a pornographic user avatar - flickr deletes on a repeat offence; 3) posting content that it banned on all yahoo properties these will be using household items as sex aids (cucumbers, bottles etc), watersports, extreme BDSM images (no blood), scat; 4) revenge accounts where someone posts images of their ex; 5) taking part in discussions that are illegal prime incest talk is banned across yahoo, irrespective of age; 6) generally being an arsehole by making lewd comments on photos of kids, or collecting photos of kids in swimwear along with pornographic images (these accounts don't usually post anything publicly anyway). Most of the dedicated genuine adult posters know the rules, or soon do, there are some however that have been through the flickr deletion process 10s of times. John lilburne (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression of people genuinely posting CC licensed images to flickr is that they do not delete their own account. They may abandon it, but why delete it when it costs nothing to leave the account in place? John lilburne (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support some restrictions on Flickr uploads. I do wonder however if it would be worth employing a finer gradation than just the dichotomy of (a) sufficiently experienced users can upload from Flickr without restriction, while (b) users who are not so experienced can't upload anything from Flickr at all. For one thing, how are people supposed to gain experience? See my suggestion below at #Restrict Flickr uploads from inexperienced users for an alternative. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is possible, if you have technically an on/off switch, to say "but you can only upload 5 images per week until...", with the threat of loss of the upload ability making people self-enforce. Making technical rate restrictions is an extra complication that may or may not be worth it. But your point about gaining experience is entirely fair. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a self-enforced (and community-enforced) limit would be almost as good, and less tricky to set up. We could start with that and see how it goes. --Avenue (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question. There's bot-assisted flickr transfer, but few newbies will be using that. They'll be downloading then uploading. Is there an automated way to count the number of images they upload that come from flickr? FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see no limit unless and until users are seen to be running into problems; such as loading large numbers of worrying duplicates or probable copyvios that they are failing to tidy up themselves, within a reasonable time-frame. This would be a good alternative to a block, and the user can be prompted to ask to be de-throttled by demonstrating they can do a better job by uploading a small number of images per week without any problems, along with encouraging them to ask for help and to understand policy. If I had to start out as a new user, but with such a harsh throttle limit, I would have taken this as an assumption of bad faith and doubt I would have bothered, and Commons would have missed thousands of in-scope, educational and some rare discoveries I have uploaded from Flickr over the last year. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements about meaning of "identifiable" edit

Currently the "guidance" section of COM:PEOPLE states (Commons:BLP#Avoiding_problems) states It may sometimes be possible to avoid the legal and moral issues mentioned here, for example by: [...] Anonymizing the image (e.g., by pixellating the subject's face or by cropping it out),... Although this is a careful "sometimes" statement, this is taken by many users as a general claim that any image can be made acceptable simply by blurring/pixellating the face of the subject. Recent example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barceloneta Girl.jpg, where the unpixellated Flickr source remains linked from the file page. As I said there, the spirit of COM:IDENT is that it concerns identifiable people. That is not restricted to "identifiable from the Commons visual image data alone, no further info counts". Rd232 (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the link to the unpixellated Flickr image, this is still clearly identifiable. The advice about pixellating the subject's face has been removed. --Avenue (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions edit

Educate uploaders edit

As with Freedom of panorama, it is virtually impossible to have a policy that would take into account the laws in all different countries. However, bot processes should discourage users from transferring identifiable images to Commons from sites such as Flickr unless some attempt has been made to obtain consent.--Ianmacm (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually easier than freedom of panorama, I think, because (AFAIK) there is no conflict-of-laws here. It's just Commons' decision to respect the laws of the country the photo was taken in. Even where those laws on consent are tangled up with copyright, international enforceability is very speculative. So although we need to document different countries' laws and decide which to apply, we don't have the FOP issues of having to reconcile multiple countries' laws. Rd232 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also problems with the guidance for transferring files across from other WM projects, such as en:Template:NowCommons which mentions copyright/licensing but not COM:PEOPLE issues. For instance, the info page for en:File:Muffintop.jpg transcludes this template, explaining only that the file's copyright/licensing and attribution needs to be checked before transfer. But the photo could present a problem under COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues for Commons uploads, especially with that filename. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: that's another place to improve education efforts. Rd232 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any metrics on how many people actually pay attention to our attempts at educating uploaders? The constant stream of unambiguous copyright violations suggests that some people just ingore what we tell them. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine some people do ignore what we tell them about copyright, and that's where we need strong action to enforce our policies. But I also believe many people do respond well to education and documentation about what they should do. I don't know of any relevant analysis results. I'd be interested to know whether the proportion of problematic uploads correlates with how long an uploader has been active here, whether the proportion of problematic uploads by an uploader tends to drop after they have been notified of a problem, and whether some forms of notification show a stronger relationship than others. --Avenue (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict Flickr uploads from inexperienced users edit

  • How about having inexperienced users request permission to upload images from Flickr via a bot, and throttling their Flickr upload rate at maybe 5 images a week to start with? Their uploads could be tagged for review by experienced users, and their maximum upload rate could be incrementally raised (or lowered) according to the number and/or proportion of their uploads that pass review. Eventually they could graduate to having no restriction.
Such a system would take some work to administer, but I think it could be worthwhile. As well as likely lowering the numbers of problematic uploads, it would encourage more systematic review of inexperienced users' Flickr uploads, so more of the problematic uploads should be caught early. It could also contribute to educating uploaders, particularly if we ask reviewers to bring non-fatal flaws (e.g. lack of a FoP tag) to the uploader's attention, instead of silently fixing them. One disadvantage is that it might push some people into uploading images from Flickr manually, although we could also suggest they ask an experienced user to do it for them. --Avenue (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of proposing this myself. I think it's worth taking seriously to have perhaps some AWB-like access control mechanism for use of mass Flickr import tools. As long as a clear means is provided for inexperienced users to ask others to import from Flickr for them (with appropriate review by those others, taking responsibility for the imports), there's not too much downside. It may not even net out at being more work, because of the problems prevented; but even if it did, it ought to be worth it. Rd232 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a better option. For an inexperienced user, five Flickr uploads per week would be a worthwhile limit. This would allow time for other users to check the uploads without putting an unnecessary strain on other users if the uploads were not of high quality.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Andreas JN466 16:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as there is a way for admins to disable this limitation for particular users. But remember this requires code changes in some tools and can be bypassed using a desktop-application like flickr-ripper. -- Rillke(q?) 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Upload Wizard is now supporting uploads of entire Flickr sets, albeit being limited to admins at the moment and up to 50 images from the set, once this is opened up to general usage, if any such thing is implemented as suggested above do we want to limit the use of this tool, which is obviously being provided for a reason? In my opinion, we don't, and shouldn't. Most uploads using the Flickr upload bot are not problematic, and when there are problematic uploads, we educate the user and take steps to have them fix the problems; one recent case shows how we should do it. russavia (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of time that has been spent sorting out the misuse of the Flickr upload tools by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe is unacceptable. There is a strong case for a probationary period before allowing multiple uploads.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject edit

It may help, longer term, to have a WikiProject to help organise these issues. At any rate it can't hurt, so: Commons:WikiProject Identifiable People. Rd232 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Commons:Photographs of identifiable people to policy status edit

Whilst largely symbolic, raising Commons:Photographs of identifiable people from guideline to policy status would help send a message about the importance of these issues. It is often called "policy" anyway, so we may consider changing the tag on the page just a reflection of its actual status. And looking at {{Commons policies and guidelines}}, there is a fair amount of arbitrariness about what is guideline and what is policy, so we needn't worry about upsetting a well-planned existing scheme... Rd232 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree raising it to policy status would reflect its importance, my initial reaction is that it's not yet well enough developed for that status. If I'm right, that in itself is a big issue. --Avenue (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. It needs to be developed further to be clearer. Rd232 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First attempt to redraft: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/2013. Rd232 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. What about the Guidance section at the end of the present guideline? Andreas JN466 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that could be split off into a separate page. It would still be worth referring to it here. --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good start, I think. A few thoughts:
Some sort of preamble or initial summary is needed, but perhaps that should wait until the rest is settled.
The definition of "identifiable" is not in the existing guideline, but seems good to me.
I think we need to add a caveat or two to the bit about "all media" being covered. Drawings of identifiable people, e.g. caricatures of political figures, present different issues from photographs. Consent may be less of an issue, defamation maybe more.
The definition of "public place" and "private place" used in COM:PEOPLE is quite different from the usual meaning, so that should be made more prominent. I think it would be better to avoid redefining them altogether, really.
I've never been very comfortable with the "Legality" section, so I'd prefer that it be redrafted instead of just copied-and-pasted across. Why would we worry about the uploader's location here, when we don't in other policies? What does it mean for an image to be "illegal", when the applicability of many laws depends on how an image is being used? Is this clause mainly meant to prohibit material that is illegal regardless of use, e.g. child porn?
A new passage has been added saying that "the {{Personality rights}} template can only be used for countries other than that in which the image was taken. If such issues apply in that country, the image should be deleted." Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the rationale for this? Don't we label lots of pictures of US celebrities with this template (e.g. File:PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg, File:Laurabush.jpeg, File:Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg), with the intent that the warning applies to reuse within the US too? --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. preamble/intro will be needed, yes, but better later. 2. caricatures etc - yes, I suppose a distinction needs to be drawn, but it's not easy to do - eg a drawing of a privacy-invading photograph isn't necessarily OK. I'm open to suggestions on wording. But leaving it for possible later amendment based on experience is also an option. 3. legality: well I'm not sure about country of upload; this may be intended to protect the uploader, in a way that isn't felt generally necessary elsewhere. I believe the section is about legal issues surrounding the mere taking or possession of the image, not its use - so child porn would be a major and obvious example, but it's not the only possible issue. 4. definition of "public place" and "private place" used are in line with what most jurisdictions use in this context, AFAIK. It's not the context people are most familiar with, so it's important to be clear. 5. personality rights: what I meant was that if in the country the image was taken permission is required for any commercial use, then putting {{Personality rights}} on the file doesn't make it OK. Whereas if permission is only required for some commercial use (eg implying endorsement), then it's OK. This area of the policy needs improving - the whole "commercial use" thing is not very well defined, given the range of possibilities and often varying requirements for consent. Rd232 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specialised noticeboard edit

We have Commons:Village pump/Copyright for copyright issues; there's something to be said for having Commons:Village pump/Identifiable people issues. There's always a danger that noticeboards have too little traffic to sustain themselves; new ones can fall flat on their face and old ones can die off. The reason I'm thinking of a new one here is that if we're raising the profile of COM:PEOPLE issues in different ways, we could really benefit from a central location to direct questions to. There's always DR for specific problems identified, but for broader issues, for people asking questions about their own uploads (people don't like nominating their own uploads for deletion, but may ask questions) and for asking questions before uploading (which we should encourage!), such a place could be useful. Rd232 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this has been partially implemented in the form of Commons:Upload help, which is linked from upload locations. Commons:Upload has {{Upload warning notice}} which mentions COM:PEOPLE issues and points there if help is needed. Rd232 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amend Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to explicitly refer to COM:PEOPLE issues edit

Currently Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is about the copyright status only. It could be expanded to explicitly cover COM:PEOPLE issues, notably consent. Rd232 (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. The precautionary principle should also contain "The person won't mind their photo being on Commons" as an example of how not to do it. An image on Commons could be used in a Wikipedia article and be seen by millions of people. This is a completely different kettle of fish from a Flickr photostream which may have been intended for a limited audience.--Ianmacm (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Could you please go ahead and do it? Andreas JN466 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp up use of the Consent template edit

Right now we only have the {{Consent}} template on about 300 images. This template can be used to indicate the consent status for any photograph that includes identifiable people. Right now the guidelines say you "can" use this template, but it "is not required for compliance with these guidelines or other Commons policies." Perhaps we should change this to say that its use is "recommended". Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, with an exception for photos etc of people no longer living. --Avenue (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, but would propose we make a new template and make the wording a little clearer, to indicate that identifiable people depicted have consented to publication under an open licence and have waived any rights including personality rights. I am sure reusers would appreciate that extra clarity. (Note that identifiable does not just mean that the person's face is shown! For example, if the photograph is one of a series by the same photographer showing the same subject, the person may be easily identifiable just by going to Flickr and viewing the image in context there, even if their face is not shown here.) Use of the existing template should then be deprecated. Andreas JN466 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a bot notify Flickrstream owners that their images are being batch uploaded edit

See Commons:Bots/Work requests#Request for a Flickr notification bot for Flickr2Commons and other batch upload methods. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify meaning of "identifiable" edit

See proposed COM:PEOPLE redraft at Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/2013#Scope. Rd232 (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion edit

When in doubt, require consent edit

  • Duh. This should really be the standard way to go. If there's any reasonable doubt about whether consent was given, we need to request it from the uploader/photographer or delete the image. --Conti|✉ 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a "solution", it's a general principle. Are you suggesting amending COM:PEOPLE to say this? And are you aware that probably 99% of images of people don't have any claim of consent? We also don't really have nailed down what sort of evidence of consent is reasonable. Rd232 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 99% of the images do not show any form of consent, so it can't be the general principle, right? For the vast majority of the images, we don't need explicit consent, because it's given implicitly through various means. My point is that "We do not have written consent from the person in question" when there is doubt about such consent should be a valid argument for a deletion debate (or even a valid reason for speedy deletion), which is not the case yet, guessing from the various deletion discussions I've looked at. People have been regularly brushing away such concerns. As for what evidence is reasonable, I think we need to work on case-by-case basis here, much like with the general principle. Again, the vast majority of the pictures don't need such evidence in the first place. When a trusted user or admin uploads a picture and says that he has the rights, we should believe them. When a throwaway account uploads various porn images of identifiable people with no further information than a PD-tag.. no. We should not assume good faith. Depending on the case, the evidence could be anything from "I have permission" to requiring an OTRS ticket. --Conti|✉ 21:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • a general principle, as opposed to a practical solution. But anyway, we need to unpack the issue of when there is reasonable doubt about consent, as well as clarify when and how COM:PRP applies (should apply) in this area. I think COM:PEOPLE, despite my improvements a while back, is still not clear enough. The intro I looked at this evening and it's not good enough. We could also consider bumping COM:PEOPLE to policy status; it would be mostly symbolic (the guideline/policy distinction is mostly ignored on Commons), but it can't hurt. Rd232 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That certainly wouldn't hurt indeed. We could add another item to COM:PRP: "The person depicted surely doesn't mind having his picture on commons." would be a nice fit. Generally speaking, though, getting people (and admins) around here to actually comply with policies and guidelines instead of brushing them aside in deletion discussions would be a big step forward. No idea how we could achieve that, though. I came here thinking that the policies simply do not take any of the existing concerns into consideration, but that doesn't really seem to be the main problem. --Conti|✉ 22:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a lack of clarity in policy which doesn't help. But yes, there is also some ignorance of policy, as well as widely diverging opinions on how to weigh different issues. Rd232 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current policy makes it relatively easy to delete images if there are doubts about the copyright status, but much less so with COM:PEOPLE. This has led to unsuitable images being transferred from Flickr, even when a quick look at the image should suggest that caution was required. All uploaders should be aware of COM:PEOPLE issues at the time of uploading an image. At the moment, the bot processes for transfers from Flickr make a big fuss over copyright, but say little or nothing about COM:PEOPLE. It is little wonder that some people are confused, and transfer private images out of ignorance rather than bad faith.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also have guides like Commons:Flickr files and Commons:Flickr files/Guide. While admittedly these are focussed on the issues involved in copyright/license review of Flickr uploads, they do not mention COM:PEOPLE at all. (That's not entirely surprising, since they haven't been edited much in the last couple of years.) I think they should at least link to COM:PEOPLE and mention that it also applies to these uploads. --Avenue (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The default position should be to assume that anyone who is new to Commons or Flickr is not an expert on licenses and may make mistakes. For example, a person may not know that a CC license could result in family holiday photographs being transferred to Commons, even though this was never intended. This is why COM:PEOPLE should have a clearly stated precautionary principle: If in doubt, get consent before the upload. At the moment, there is insufficiently clear guidance in this area.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duration an image has been on Flickr? edit

How long does it usually take Flickr to figure out that an uploader is lying about being the copyright holder for the images they upload, and release under a CC licence? It would be good to see some data on this. For example, if uploaders who are blatantly lying about copyright (and, by implication, therefore do not have subject consent) generally get caught within x amount of time, the problems could be alleviated by requiring that an image should have been on Flickr x+1 amount of time before it can be transferred to Commons. So people who upload a stolen picture to Flickr on Tuesday, transfer it to Commons on Wednesday, and have their Flickr account deleted on Thursday would no longer be able to compromise the Commons' integrity further. Andreas JN466 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that the results would vary wildly depending on various factors. Obvious copyright violations surely will be deleted within hours, since they're easy to detect. What we are dealing with, though, are not at all obvious cases, and I'd say they only get deleted on Flickr when someone actually complains to them or when the Flickr account starts uploading more obvious copyright violations. I doubt we'll get any data from Flickr about this in any case. Only allowing our users to upload pictures that are on Flickr for x amount of time just adds a false sense of security, in my opinion. It can be used as an indication for the reviewer, but that's about it. Generally speaking, the review process is too lax in my opinion, and for the most part just seems to consist of looking for a CC-tag and nothing else. The review should consist of a closer look at the Flickr account, the image and the account's history, etc. --Conti|✉ 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I imagine account closure on Flickr will only affect a subset (and probably quite a small subset) of the images that would violate COM:PEOPLE. We could start collecting some data on this ourselves, but I think data on our own processes and their outcomes would be more useful. For example, what proportion of deletion requests (DRs) have involved COM:PEOPLE issues, how do deletion rates for those DRs compare to others, and do particular sources (e.g. Flickr) account for a high proportion of those DRs? How has all this varied over time? --Avenue (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this. At Wikinews, we often rely on images that have been released by a variety of organisations including governments. Putting a "it has to have been on Flickr for x amount of time" policy in place means that such images wouldn't be able to be uploaded to Commons rapidly, thus hindering reuse by Wikinews for the purpose of reporting news... —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think a more useful metric would be how long the Flickr account has existed, not how long a specific image has been there. That wouldn't affect Wikinews then. Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'd probably be okay. I'd suggest also a "common sense test". If, say, a government like the US (which has PD-USGov) or the UK (with the Open Government License; see Department for International Development, for instance) opens a Flickr account and links to it from an official government website, or a university of cultural institution decides to release a bunch of obvious imagery using an official account, we should be able to exempt any of those kinds of rules. Basically, official accounts are often more trustable than just random accounts on Flickr, if we can find some verification from a link from the official website. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Andreas JN466 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr does not go looking for copyright violations. Those will need to be reported by the community for example if they have watermarks. Or by the copyright holders. Flickr are a lot more relaxed about copyright violations that are non-adult themed. Accounts that have simply hoovered up web porn will be deleted on report. Non-ero copyright violations tend to have the individual violations removed, only serial offenders will get deleted. John lilburne (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/2013 edit

I had started a discussion at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/2013 because I hadn't found this RFC page. I'd be inclined to move that discussion here and have that Talk page simply redirect to this page, but I'm not sure there would be consensus to do that. If no one objects in the next 24 hours or so, I will do precisely that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/2013 close to incomprehensible, and potentially extremely restrictive edit

Moved from Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/2013

I find the following close to incomprehensible:

Even if subject consent is not legally required to take or publish a photograph, the commercial use of images may still be problematic if the depicted person does not agree. Even if the copyright license allows for commercial use (which is required for an image to be in the scope of Commons), the permission of the photographed person may still be needed in some countries. On the file page, the {{Personality rights}} template should be used to convey this information.

Note that the {{Personality rights}} template can only be used for countries other than that in which the image was taken. If such issues apply in that country, the image should be deleted.

For starters, what does it mean to say "the {{Personality rights}} template can only be used for countries other than that in which the image was taken"? I can't imagine what this phrase means at all. How do we use a template in one country and not in another when our content is the same in all countries? But, further, we seem to suggest that if any personality rights issues exist in the country of origin, then the picture cannot be used at all. If this means that if there are any personality rights issues in the country of origin, then no identifiable photo taken of a person in the U.S. could be on Commons, because such pictures may not be used in the context of an advertisement without subject consent. I hope this is not the intent here, but it is very hard to fathom what else it might mean. - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it follows logically
  1. Commons wants to respect subject consent laws in the country the photo was taken
  2. Commons requires media to be usable commercially
Ergo for photos without consent, if the photos are not usable commercially in the country they were taken, they should be deleted. Now, that probably is too sweeping to be practical, given that it's very normal that consent is needed for commercial use. But this contradiction exists in the Commons policies, and this is the logical outcome. Something needs to be changed, and I don't think just removing or clarifying the statement is the answer. Personally, I would drop the second policy altogether. Rd232 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "{{Personality rights}} template can only be used for countries other than that in which the image was taken" is still incomprehensible, and nothing you have written has clarified it. Again: how can the template be used in one country and not another? Don't we all see the same Commons?
  2. Yes, Commons policy is that commercial use must be allowed, but that is "commercial" in the sense of use in (for example) a book or newspaper that is for sale, not use in an advertisement. Similarly, reworking of the image must be permitted, but laws in virtually every country prevent misleading reuse to defame the subject of the photo. These are moral rights, not copyright issues. They are non-copyright restrictions, just like a trademark is a non-copyright restriction. Even where someone gives explicit consent to have their image used, they are never going to sign away these moral rights, at least not if they are in their right mind. I wouldn't sign away those rights on a photo I took of myself, nor does my placement of such image on Commons with my copyright mean a waiving of moral rights. If the policy you are expressing here is adopted, I do not believe it is by any means a clearer restatement of current policy. It is a change that would effectively mean the removal of every identifiable image of a living human being from Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well I'm sure I could have been clearer, but... Well let's try again: obviously all users see the same page. The concept is simply that if consent is not required in the country the photo was taken, the template can be used to warn reusers in other countries. On the other hand if it is, then the template can't be used, and the photo must be deleted instead.
  2. I'm well aware these are non-copyright restrictions; to my knowledge none of the laws underpinning COM:IDENT affect copyright. Nonetheless, Commons wants to respect subject consent laws in the country the photo was taken, yet also allow media to be usable commercially. Now different meanings of "commercial" may be fruitful to explore. Or maybe we simply say that "Commercial use of the work must be allowed." (as COM:L says without elaboration) only applies to the copyright, and against the spirit of COM:IDENT, it's up to reusers to decide whether to violate the subject's non-copyright rights. Rd232 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End moved discussion

COM:IDENT outlines a baseline set of circumstances in which we should require subject consent, regardless of the laws in the country where the photo is taken. It does not say that Commons requires subject consent when the law of the source country would require their consent for publication or for various commercial uses. Instead the guideline explains the implications of such laws for the use of such photos in those countries. This does not support the idea that "Commons wants to respect subject consent laws in the country the photo was taken"; instead it seems to reflect a desire to help (re)users respect the laws that apply to them. Applying {{Personality rights}} to images that could present such issues in their source country seems entirely consistent with this. COM:IDENT#Legality does say that Commons should not host an image that is illegal in its source country, which could include images that are illegal to take without subject consent, but that section says nothing about the legality of any use of an image.
The WMF resolution also provides a baseline, although it's unclear about many issues. For instance, while it talks about getting "subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project", it does not address which commercial uses are in line with our mission.
I don't think we should require identifiable photo subjects to give consent for all potential uses of their image (commercial, political, defamatory, etc), any more than we would require blanket permission from a company for all possible uses of their logo before hosting it. We do want to host free educational content, but if it is free enough for our use and similar educational uses by others, that should be enough. (We should also tag such content with suitable warnings about reusing it in other ways.) "Similar educational uses" is very vague, of course, and we should flesh out the sorts of uses for which we should seek consent.
I'm not convinced that we have a clear consensus about the spirit of COM:IDENT; the vaguer parts of the guideline may have papered over some big cracks. Hopefully the community's views will become better defined as we discuss and apply the guideline. --Avenue (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two proposed limits on required reusabilty edit

I certainly agree with Avenue's paragraph that begins "I don't think we should require identifiable photo subjects to give consent for all potential uses of their image...". I think there are several problems with the passage I quoted above and said I "find close to incomprehensible." So maybe we can move toward some clarity.

  1. Can we agree that the fact that, for non-copyright reasons, a particular image cannot be freely used in advertisements is not a reason for exclusion of that image from Commons? Otherwise we basically cannot have images of living people.
    • In particular, it is my understanding that the requirement of licenses that "allow commercial use" means that it's OK to use the images in media that are themselves sold, etc., and has nothing to do with non-copyright restrictions that might make certain images unsuitable for use in advertisements.
  2. Similarly, can we agree that the fact that, for non-copyright reasons, a particular image of a person cannot be freely used in defamatory ways is not a reason for exclusion of that image from Commons? Otherwise we basically cannot have images of living people, with the possible exception of certain very well-known public figures (and in some countries even they would not constitute an exception).

- Jmabel ! talk 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general idea here, but I would be happier if "for non-copyright reasons" was replaced with "due to personality rights", and "a particular image" became "a particular image of an identifiable person". As it stands, I think it might cover situations well beyond the scope of this RFC. --Avenue (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Looking at it again, I think this is the intention of the footnote at Commons:Country specific consent requirements/table. This area needs clarifying, and it makes sense to go in that general direction. Clearly defining different types of "commercial use" would be part of that. This means that other policies need tightening up for consistency and clarity: eg COM:SCOPE says To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which: ... Permits free reuse for any purpose (including commercial). It should be clarified that licensing a file in this way does not normally involve a claim that the file is actually usable for any purpose - "non-copyright restrictions" should be mentioned here. Rd232 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this trying to say? edit

Note that the {{Personality rights}} template can only be used for countries other than that in which the image was taken. If such issues apply in that country, the image should be deleted.

I still cannot work out with any confidence what this means to say. What exactly is the scope of the issues referred to by "such issues"? There is no obvious antecedent that it refers back to. Would it be correct to paraphrase the first sentence as "Note that the {{Personality rights}} template be used only to indicate issues that arise in countries other than that in which the image was taken," in which case there is an antecedent for issues?

But if that is a correct understanding of what it says, then I believe what it says is simply wrong. For example, it would be entirely reasonable to put {{Personality rights}} on a photo taken of a person walking naked down a public street in the Fremont Solstice Parade, as a reminder that the moral rights of the subject might limit the reuse of that photo. That would be as true in the country where the photo was taken (the U.S.) as it would be in another country, but I don't think it would be a reason to exclude the photo from Commons.

Could someone tell me: (1) Have I understood the proposed passage correctly? (2) Is it the intent of this passage to exclude such photos, or is it believed that such a case would not be appropriate use of the {{Personality rights}} tag, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already said above The concept is simply that if consent is not required in the country the photo was taken, the template can be used to warn reusers in other countries. On the other hand if it is, then the template can't be used, and the photo must be deleted instead. I don't know why this is so confusing, it's simply a restatement of Commons:PEOPLE#Can_an_image_be_made_allowable_by_adding_the_.7B.7BPersonality_rights.7D.7D_template.3F. Rd232 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the consensus for that Rd232? Especially as we state that needing consent for commercial use is not reason enough for deletion. In fact, I am vehemently against that. As are many other editors that I know of. russavia (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the one hand, the template issue has been part of COM:PEOPLE without any change in wording since it was added in May 2009. And on the other hand the issue of the definition of "commercial use" is the one that really needs clarifying, which is in the section above (#Two_proposed_limits_on_required_reusabilty). Anyway, I've removed the wording, because it's clearly not helping. Rd232 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not simply a restatement of that section. That section says that the {{Personality rights}} template has nothing to do with the allowability of an image, that it is just a warning tag, and that adding the tag is not sufficient reason for any image to be kept. It says nothing more. In particular, it does not say that issues that would be covered by the {{Personality rights}} template and that apply in the country a photo is taken necessarily mean that the photo would violate the COM:PEOPLE guideline and should thus be deleted. --Avenue (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a photograph fails the rules on this page it must be deleted, and it is never a valid argument that adding a {{Personality rights}} template will allow it to be kept. I intended my statement to be equivalent to that, but more explicit. Rd232 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that was your intent, but that sentence is not equivalent to your statement: "If such issues [personality rights] apply in that country, the image should be deleted." There are many situations where {{Personality rights}} could apply to a photo but it would not violate COM:PEOPLE rules. For example, a public figure (or their agent) may have contributed a photo, freely licensed with respect to copyright and with consent at least implied for use in Wikipedia, but without any consent for advertising or endorsement uses. (Here's one example I've come across; no doubt there are many more.) --Avenue (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another redraft edit

New draft: User:Colin/People

Please can folk read and comment on my proposed redrafting of this guideline. I think it is a significant improvement. Please read my comments at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#Another redraft and respond there. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Identifiable People

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/images_of_identifiable_people&oldid=145067487"