Template talk:Personality rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

suggestion

• This work contains material which may portray an identifiable person who is alive or deceased recently.
  • A photo always shows a famous person.
• Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use.
  • Fair use is no problem, but it's not allowed to abuse this photo, e.g. for advertising.
• You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights.
  • Derogatory and insulting modifications are restricted by personality rights.
  • --84.137.65.98 08:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is a bad idea: it amounts to giving legal advice. All we should do is warn people that they need to consult with qualified counsel and let THEM decide what they may or may not do. Kelly Martin 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I've made a category to be added to images when this tag is added to one. It is Category:Personality rights warning. Can an admin edit the template to make the category added to images with this tag? Yung6 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done MECU≈talk 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Every living person's photo

Do we have to place this tag on every photo of a living person, like U.S. politicians? That would be sweeping and tedious work. Wooyi 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have to, but it should be done on some of the more famous celebrity types to help prevent abuse. MECU≈talk 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And what about photographs of ordinary people like those in this category? There are tons of pictures like that on commons. --Botev 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't see the word identifiable. Now I understand. --Botev 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the Category Tag

This template is protected. Please add {{PAGENAME}} as follows in order to be categorized correctly.--SantaClaus 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Restriction tags|{{PAGENAME}}]]

disclaimer

Needs to be made clear that for the purposes of the GFDL this is not a disclaimer. user:Geni

Do you have any suggestions for a new wording? Or what exactly are you asking for? --Steinninn ♨ 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL requires that all disclaimers be preserved so something along the lines of "For the purpose of the GFDL this is not considered a disclaimer" might be helpful.Geni 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble

Please change:

"This work contains material which may portray an identifiable person who is alive or deceased recently." to

"This work contains material which may portray one or more identifiable persons alive or deceased recently."

Or similar. Many uses show multiple people. Ingolfson 09:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted permissions template

Is there a template to use to indicate that permissions to use an image have been granted by the appropriate party? If so, there should be a link to that template from this template's page. — Loadmaster 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is {{Consent}}. --LPfi (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

lang:DE version

I recently found out that actual DE version of the template seems to have been edited by some kid which tried to explain the whole problem within the template. My proposal, as-of-now, ist at Template talk:Personality rights/de/Improving Personality rights-DE -- I'll be watching the subpage for ~3 days. Improve, or use, or delete. On improving, I'd suggest to try to rather cut down than to expand. [w.] 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"deceased recently"

Just for my sake, can someone give a quick and basic definition of "deceased recently"? Of course any answer is just meant as a guidepost, since in the end a court would have to decided if a "deceased persons" rights were violated, but I would like to know where it would be appropriate to use this template. It's easy to know if the "persons alive", but about where dose the "Recently" end? A few day, months, weeks, years? --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevant time depends on jurisdiction. It turned out that also people who died long ago are protected in some jurisdictions; the wording was changed. --LPfi (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Recently deceased" or "deceased"?

I have recently found California Celebrities Rights Act. Should the word "recently" be removed to favor any personality who is deceased in any way? --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Also, this website discusses the rights of dead people under state statutes: http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea: change "alive or deceased recently" to "alive recently or deceased". --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See more at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Taken from Commons:Village pump/Proposals: --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing a single word here and there is obviously not working very well. How about this reworded version: "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons may be restricted by laws regarding personality rights. The extent of these restrictions depends on jurisdiction. Personality rights restrictions apply independently of copyright. Before using this content, please ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws." Hopefully, that's both easier to read and more to the point.

—  —LX 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Define "identifiable"

What exactly does "identifiable" mean? All this time I have been assuming it means that the subject(s) in the photo can be recognized by the viewer as people. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Autocategorization for categories with this template

{{Editrequest}} The autocategorization for categories with this template into "non-copyright restrictions" makes no sense. Cats should also go into "Personality rights warning". --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done by Multichill MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not solved. Category:Stephen Colbert is still categorized in Category:Non-copyright restrictions. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This template relies on {{Non-copyright restriction}}, and that's what's doing that autocategorisation. It needs amending to allow a calling template to override it. Rd232 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Rillke^(q?) 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Template as is is alienating for image use

As per my comments and another user's helpful reply here I strongly feel the template needs to be more encouraging. As unclear (mainly negative) as it is now, I believe it scares people away from using many perfectly free images, and that seems to contradict our main purpose here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we can address the above concern by splitting this template into different types. I think part of the problem is that the template is not clear enough. As documented in COM:IDENT, what we call (at Wikimedia Commons at least) personality rights involves a range of issues:

1. Right of privacy - this usually applies when the photo is deemed to be taken in non-public places and the subjects are not public figures.
2. Right of publicity - this typically applies to celebrities.
3. Right to be protected from defamation - this applies (IMO) all the photos that depict living persons.

Some users may think that tagging with {{Personality rights}} as warning about possible lack of consent (thus possible privacy violation), while some users (including me) intend to warn reusers to not make derogatory derivative works even if it is ok in regard to copyright thanks to our licenses. Tailored templates for privacy/publicity/defamation could make the intention clearer.

In the meantime, I propose to add into the document a line saying "do not use this template to indicate possible privacy violation". I think if there is really such a concern, that should be treated with deletion (possibly at Commons:Contact us), not tagging with this template. whym (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make these excellent changes asap! Comments: #1. Spell that out cleary on the template please! #2. Please clarify that even celebrities have no publicity rights when photographed in public, unless they were performing at a public event when it had been made clear to the audience that photography was not allowed as a condition for being admitted to the audience. #3. This should be worded e.g. "do not use this image in a way that could defame any recognizeable person" and could be added to #1. - it is law enforcement's, not Wikimedia's, business to "protect from defamation" - here we can only ask that no defamation take place. And anyone photographed in public can hardly expect Wikimedia to help protect h against defamation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

PS How about just rewording the template already in use, and making it a lot less scary? Suggested text:

• This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. If the photo was not taken in public, a person seen in it may have personality rights to it. Legislation (which varies in different jurisdictions) may then restrict its use because of a recognizeable person's right of privacy or (for a celebrity) right of publicity. Whether it was created in public or not, do not use this image in any way that could defame any recognizeable person!

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Personality rights not waived in all countries even if the photo is taken in public space. So better wordings per How are publicity, privacy, and personality rights affected when I apply a CC license? is "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. If they may have publicity, privacy, or personality rights that apply, those rights are not affected by the application of license granted here, and a reuser must seek permission from relevant persons."

See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Creators/Marking_third_party_content too. Jee 15:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying I doubt you, but please name a country or two where personality rights apply even if the photo is taken in public space. I'm asking because I've heard that called an Internet myth. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Country_specific; most of the countries demand permission from the subject for a commercial use. A few countries demand permission for publishing too. Jee 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Very informative, thank you!

• Shouldn't Wikimedia Commons warn all us contributors then very clearly, already when we go to try to upload photos, that we cannot feel safe in uploading any photo of any identifiable person taken anywhere?
• And shouldn't thousands and thousands and thousands of potentially privacy-invading photos be deleted from Commons and from Wikipedia articles, since they obviously never should have been uploaded in the first place?
• And how can we trust someone photographed in public or private who may have verbally said OK then, but might say no no no in writing tomorrow (are even written release forms valid)?
• And how is it that this man wasn't able to get his portrait deleted, though every photo uploaded to Commons spreads like wildfire (i.e. is published) all over the world through Google and other such searce sites?
• And why is Wikimedia Commons letting us upload thousands and thousands and thousands of photographs which no one can ever feel safe about using for anything at all?

This is all getting more and more confusing to me, and discomforting and alienating and I would even go as far as saying repulsive. I'm 67 years old and have dealt with photography, in public and private, in 6 countries (2 of which, Sweden & U.K., we have no guideline for whatsoever), since I was 12, and apparently I know nothing, absolutely nothing!!! Sincerely --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; I don't know Commons decided to allow hosting of media of identifiable people even though they don't fall under the free definition. "No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. A work may make use of existing legal exemptions to copyright (in order to cite copyrighted works), though only the portions of it which are unambiguously free constitute a free work."

It may probably because WM projects need lot of such pictures to describe their articles; and such uses (editorial use) are allowed without consent in most countries.

But the problem starts when we host such contents under Commons where media is supposed to be "fully free" which is not true for these media files. So the practical thing we can do is to identify such works and label them with a fare warning that we do now. But the wording should be perfect and efficient to educate the re-users.

I'm not happy with the {{Consent}}; especially with the parameter, "full". It is misleading and should be removed/corrected. Jee 06:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons just basically ignored the industry standard of gaining subject consent, particularly for commercial use, and offered up such notions as "looking at the camera is implied consent". We fell on the side of Free Culturists and Fair Use advocates and offered that people in public have no right to privacy ignoring completely that this isn't the case in many countries in the world. A by-product of this approach resulted in Commons coming to be known as a porn repository. A safe place to store images where consent is dubious. While I doubt we can do anything about the legacy wrongs we certainly should strengthen our policies wrt images of identifiable people. CC 4.0 has made this even more of an issue with its explicit waiving of the author's own personality rights. Frankly I think any upload without an explicit statement of consent obtained should be deleted as they are certainly not free for commercial use without subjecting reusers to considerable legal risk. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Saffron Blaze, I'll say again something I've said before: we can't make all images conform to all laws of all countries, or we wouldn't be able to take pictures of modern buildings even in countries that allow freedom of panorama, and pretty much couldn't publish images of most parts of most human bodies (including women's faces) even with consent of the subject because of what is illegal to publish in Saudi Arabia. Taking pictures of identifiable people in public places raises no legal issues in the U.S. where I live and where Commons is hosted. Why on earth would I want to limit my work to what would be allowable under French law? - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I find two problems with your premise. One, you imply the only users of images on Commons are those from the US. We routinely delete images that violate FoP provisions in other countries even though it would pose no issues in the US. Two, even in the US, if you use an image of a person for commercial purposes without consent you can be sued civilly for damages. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, I've no problem for Wikimedia hosting as many contents as possible as far as we are not running out of space. But we should respect our basic policy and are committed to guide our reusers from troubles. Some users (specially people coming here from Wikipedia projects) has a misunderstanding that Commons is only a back-end of other Wikimedia projects. It is not true, and we are responsible to arrange/categorize our works properly so that a reuser can easily find the suitable works for their re-use.

Please read this entire page. "CC licenses are designed to let others know how they may use a work without infringing copyright. Sometimes, it may be helpful for a licensor to offer users guidance beyond the terms of the license. CC licensors can use notices and marking to inform users of any limitations on the application of the CC license to their work. Typically, creators give either a notice visually next to the relevant content, or at the beginning or end of a work, as appropriate for the medium, or both." "CC licenses are designed to let others know how they may use a work without infringing copyright. Sometimes, it may be helpful for a licensor to offer users guidance beyond the terms of the license. CC licensors can use notices and marking to inform users of any limitations on the application of the CC license to their work. Users should carefully observe any notices or marking by the licensor." Identify any parts of the work to which the license does not apply "Here the licensor should describe all of the elements of the work (as defined in the first step) to which the license does not apply, and thus are not available for use under the license terms. You may list reserved elements in the general notice, or you can describe and implement a marking procedure such as watermarking or text notices that you will use to denote those elements of the work that are not licensed. Licensors should inform users about any portions of the work to which the license cannot apply because the licensor does not have the necessary rights, and any places where the licensor has opted not to apply the license as a strategic matter." Jee 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with it if someone can come up with a good system of informing our users of limitations on reuse in their particular countries. That said, I have an problem if I can't upload an image photographed in the United States because it cannot be used in France, or because it cannot be used in Saudi Arabia, and even more of a problem if I can't upload an image because we could not use an analogous image photographed/published in France, or in Saudi Arabia. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel Your concerns are unfounded as that is not how the law works, but I have a sense you understand that. What is at issue is even in the US, if you upload an image of someone else and license it for commercial use (as is required on Commons) and the people in that image haven't consented to it, they might object to re-uses and sue you, or re-users are placed at risks that could cause them trouble (and money). We do a good job of telling people what they can do with a licensed image but not so good about telling them what they can not or should not do. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, you misunderstood the real issue here. Is it possible for an NGO to use this picture in their AIDS awareness campaign without their permission, even though it will be a non-commercial use? Such an incident happened in India where an NGO used the picture of a mother and child in such a campaign. Their villagers identify them from the picture, which ended in a lot of controversies, and finally some human rights activists presented that matter in court. :(

I've no problem if such images are published with some formal warnings, explaining the limitations as such work contains third party rights which can't be waived by the photographer. Jee 05:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we block a user for being against everything that Wikimedia and Wikipedia stand for and spreading extremely destructive vibes to eveyone else who's acting in good faith? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you want the freedom to use images of people that have not consented to such, but you want to deny people the freedom to complain about the same? Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, are you making a personal attack to close the mouths of people against your opinion? Then I prefer to ignore it. Or, you don't know how self criticism helps to strengthen us? Then have a look at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg. Jee 03:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Serge, I don't see anyone here doing that. Jkadavoor, I have no idea why you are presuming you are the target of that remark; it could as easily be me, since no one here is doing anything of the sort. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think I was the target; just trying to discourage him, as I hate such personal attack in a healthy discussion. Jee 05:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above, I think this is getting absolutely repulsive to anyone who wants to be a valuable good faith contributor to this project. I'm not going to single anyone out, but in my permissible (?) opinion there are "extremely destructive vibes to everyone else who's acting in good faith" being spread in this discussion (along with hardly anything constructive). If no one other than I can see that, I simply don't belong here. Maybe I'll block myself? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing: Hmm; I didn't get you. I can only look into my comments to see anything I did wrong. BTW, I will be away for one or two days; you can read this (several pages) and try to lean what law demands. Jee 11:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me try again to state my position. I think it is fine if someone can come up with a way to provide appropriate, reasonably general warnings on photos about their reuse in various contexts and various countries. However, I don't think it is possible to do this in a comprehensive way. Are we really going to, for example:

• Tag every picture that appears to show a same-sex couple warning that it might not be OK to publish in Russia, Jamaica, Uganda, and certain other countries?
• Tag every picture that shows an identifiable human being (including those take with consent for what most people would consider normal usage) with a statement explaining exactly the limits on using photos of identifiable people in each country of the world? E.g. explaining issues about implication of a product endorsement, defamation of the person in the photo, etc.?
• Tag every picture that shows a female face to indicate issues there might be about publishing this in certain Muslim countries?
• Tag every picture showing nudity or sexuality indicating exactly in which countries in the world or would not be OK to publish this photo?

Etc. I, for one, cannot imagine how we could do this exhaustively. At some point it is incumbent upon reusers of material from Commons to have a general understanding of the laws on what may be published in their country. We are not their lawyer, and should not be giving detailed legal advice.

• Not sure what that tirade has to do with COM:IDENT and the principle of consent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

After this continues a post from User:Jmabel which was visually interrupted by Saffron Blaze's remark.

Note that no reasonable consent form would solve most of these problems. Many have to do with subject matter rather than consent. Also, no one consents to being defamed, it it would not be reasonable to ask anyone to sign away such a right.

If we want to do anything along these lines, it seems to me that the appropriate thing would be to place a personality rights template on all images that show identifiable people, and have that template lead to an article that has a good, general discussion of these issues, with some country-by-country examples. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Very good idea! And have that article be as brief and to the point as possible, as well as mainly constructuve and encouraging. Though I still think the main warning should take place already in the upload process not after images already have been uploaded.

Perhaps I have been commenting here under a misunderstanding of one detail? If I upload an identifiable person photographed in public, do I need to worry about reuse in difficult countries (if you'll padron the adjective), or would it only be a reuser who added it to an article on a WP in that country (or another publication in that country) who would be in the red zone? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You take a picture of someone and it gets used commercially without their consent then you and the re-user can have issues. I suggest reading this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you suggest something constructive. The rest of us have done so. Your turn. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have on numerous occasions. I have suggested that the personality rights template is not sufficient to inform re-users about the risks associated with use of images with identifiable people. I have also suggested the template sounds too much like legalese. I have also suggested that not only should we inform them of the personality rights issue but what level of consent was obtained. The more intimate the image the higher the degree of consent should be ensured not only to accept on Commons but re-use. I too have suggested some of this could be resolved through the upload wizard. I have taken a stand on numerous occasions that we should delete on sight any embarrassing image of an identifiable person when published without explicit consent. So, you see I am concerned about the dignity of the people that populate these images more than I care about your desire to freely use them. If that makes me the bad guy then so be it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewording 1

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is often called personality rights. The license issued with this work does not necessarily waive these personality rights. To re-use this work you may need the consent of the individual(s) depicted. If consent was already obtained it may have been indicated by adding one these templates to the file page. This consent requirement varies by use (such as editorial or commercial) and by jurisdiction. Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use. Even where consent is obtained, this does not free a re-user to defame the depicted person(s). See our general disclaimer for additional information about content usage. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would consider that a good rewording of the template.
• Since Saffron Blaze asks (above): the point of my remarks vis a vis consent is that even "full consent" does not obviate most personality rights issues. This relates to things several people including Jkadavoor wrote, and Saffron Blaze's own tendentious description of Commons as "a porn repository... A safe place to store images where consent is dubious." - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this wording is much better, except for the 2nd to the last sentence which I feel is still unneccesarily alieniating. How about You are responsible not to use this content in a way that could infringe someone else's personality rights. See our general disclaimer. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How about: Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I reworked the whole wording to simplify and create a logical sequence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Support the wordings except "If consent was already obtained it may have been indicated by adding one these templates to the file page." That "consent" is only a declaration from the author which has no legal value as we are not recording any consents from the subjects. Moreover, I doubt the purpose of that template and thing to make a DR of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jee 08:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So Jee, let's have a wording you could support and then let's get the change made! Seems to me it's a good idea to mention something about the possibility that consent of people in the images already may have been obtained. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Jee, I think the answer to this issue would be to create a consent template that indicated OTRS subject release was obtained (in effect model released). Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Commons has a difficulty to record consents from the subjects due to several reasons:

Most of the photographers here have hidden identities. They can't provide information about their subjects without revealing their own identity in most cases.

It is difficult to identify a non notable person and so it is difficult to contact them. Note that OTRS generally not accept mails from gmail, yahoomail, etc. They need mail from trusted domains like <yourname.com>

I agree with Saffron Blaze that a picture depicting an identifiable is not much useful without formal model release. It can be implemented for "possible cases"; so that we can have a collection of at least a few fully reusable photos. Jee 02:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the model release is a high standard and one that Commons would find a challenge to implement. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be the standard though. Look at the high standard we apply for copyright. There is no valid reason why we shouldn't protect personality rights just as well. Moreover, the risks to re-users in using images of identifiable people for commercial purposes are very real. At least with the amended template they will be better informed about those risks and they can make the decision to use or not for themselves instead of folks here on Commons making it for them. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewording 2

Or this:
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is often called personality rights. The license issued with this work does not necessarily waive these personality rights. To re-use this work you may need the consent of the individual(s) depicted. This consent requirement varies by use (such as editorial or commercial) and by jurisdiction. Where consent is required you may check for additional consent template information on the file page. Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use. For commercial use the industry standard is to ensure the image has been model released. Even where consent is obtained, this does not free a re-user to defame the depicted person(s). See our general disclaimer for additional information about content usage. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. -- Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Jeee 02:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is terrible, misleading and just plain wrong. The industry standard for commercial use is not a model release. News is commercial. TV is commercial. Educational books are commercial. Charity websites are commercial. None of these require or typically use a model release for their material. Saffron is confusing the issue by conflating "commercial use" which we require of our copyright licences with "promotional use" which an advertiser or similar work is involved in. Commons is not an agent. The {{Consent}} template is not a substitute for legal contract between publisher, photographer and subject. Let's not go there. The existing wording could be improved I'm sure but ultimately the issue is the publisher's and theirs alone. We do not and cannot offer legal advice that it is safe to use an image for any purpose. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Colin makes a valid point. The industry does draw a distinction between editorial and commercial use; promotional use is a subset of commercial. Perhaps Colin could suggest wording that would be more suitable. I would note that some of what he offers as not promotional use is wrong. It is irrelevant who uses the image and it is the actual use that makes the distinction between editorial and commercial. A commercial entity could make editorial use of an image. Similarly a charity could use an image that would be deemed commercial. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't offer that list as "non promotional" and agree that those publication types could carry promotional material that requires a release. Also I agree that the commercial/non-commercial status of the organisation is yet another issue. Indeed the whole issue of what "commercial use" means varies, which is why I say it is ambiguous and unhelpful in a template. For example, Creative Commons refuse to define it and when they surveyed what people thought the term meant, they got varied answers. So their response: if you have any doubt, require images that allow commercial use and contact your lawyer and the rightsholder. iStockphoto list plenty "editorial use" (i.e. unreleased, whether a human or a building or a lego part or a coke bottle cap) images they will sell you and can be used by a commercial organisation in a commercial publication (e.g., a newspaper article) but can't be used in an advert, a corporate brochure, a menu, a travel agent poster, etc. Most photographers use -NC to prevent "people who could pay" from using their images, which includes any commercial publisher. Whereas iStockphoto clearly have images for "people who could pay" but that cannot be used to sell things. The ref you give has some confusing things in it. Merely taking an image doesn't foul publicity rights and the "for your own use or benefit" distinction is wrong, as iStockphoto demonstrates: both the photographer and the agent make money, as does the publisher who sell the magazine. The whole "model release" thing isn't the photographer's responsibility. Merely he is the one best placed to get it and he (and his agent) have a commercial interest in getting one as it gives a better chance of selling the photo as it has more uses. That's all. As your source says: "Take my advice; get professional help". We should steer well away from claiming there is any contractual model release on our images, or giving legal advice that they are safe to use. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Although Commons:Licensing disallows a "non commercial" restriction this is with regard to copyright licensing. The rights of the subject (if human) or owner of the subject (if a building or product, say) are separate. In this regard, Commons' definition of "commercial" differs from stock photo agencies which are concerned with publicity rights, not copyright rights (as those are absolutely all-rights-reserved). Some examples. We can host File:Microsoft wordmark.svg yet can't use it to sell something. We can host File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg yet you'd never get him to sign a model release, as his endorsement is worth $$$$. We can host File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg but she probably has an exclusive contract with some company for promotion. I think that given how confusing and ambiguous the term "commercial use" is, we should be very careful of using it without clarification. We should be wary of relying on our uploaders to do much more than release their own rights appropriately, and to not invade rights of privacy. The rights of publicity should not be our concern, beyond pointing out they exist and must be respected by the re-user. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The intent of this template is to inform people of the issues you are pointing out. Given you and I agree that most people don't know the implications of commercial re-use of images, especially those with publicity rights added in, I think Commons has a moral obligation to inform them. The license template doesn't do that, the deed doesn't do so either, and it is a far cry to say even the full license text does that. Saying "not our concern" seems inappropriate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You've truncated what I said. I said we point out the rights issues and request they be respected. Beyond that is not our concern. We aren't agents. The two parties here (publisher and subject) will have to negotiate for themselves (possibly by contacting the photographer/uploader) but certainly not via Commons templates and image description pages. We can't prove an image has appropriate release so we shouldn't claim it does with some consent template. This is a major difference between us and a stock photo agency. This thread is very long and hard to fathom. The original poster seems to think publicity rights only affect celebrities, and that we should be encouraging easy reuse of people pictures. Far from it. Our re-users need to get clued up about personality rights before using images of identifiable people. And if they don't want to do that, then use an agency who will do it for you. Slapping a couple of templates on an image may not be the solution if it makes the re-user feel secure when they shouldn't. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Colin: Sorry we didn't hear from you earlier. Do you feel there should be a template at all, and if so, will you please suggest a specific appropriate wording for it without further ado? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to see some clarified wording on the relation between the (copyright) licenses and personality rights, and on what kind of things users might have to do, presented in a balanced and concise way. I think Saffron Blaze's rewording did a good job doing that. However, I can also see Colin's concerns on the vagueness of "commercial" and "industrial standard" as well as possibility of presenting the consent template as the ultimate assurance that users can rely on. Can we remoe the parts talking about "commercial use" and "industrial standard" from Saffron Blaze's rewording? As for the consent template, can we say something like: "You are sorely responsible for obtaining consent from the depicted individual depending on your intended use and applicable law. You might get some clues from what the contributor claims using the consent template shown on the file page (although the contributor cannot be an agent between them and you)." If this is not going to work, I'd be happy to remove this part as well, keeping the rest as in Saffron Blaze's version. whym (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be vague with lay people but it isn't in the industry. Commercial use is the term used and when identifiable people are present a model release is required to protect the client. However, for the sake a clarity perhaps wording like "Some commercial uses may require a model release, which may be sought by contacting the copyright holder. A link to an article like the one linked above discussing commercial and editorial use might be useful to the re-users.131.137.245.209 15:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed to see Colin's last minute strong oppose, probably without reading the entire discussion. I see some merits in Colin's argument that commercial and editorial uses overlap in many places, so we can say all commercial uses need model release. But in my knowledge, "commercial use" is the standard term to distinguish some uses from others (as the IP commented above); and the confusion can be easily fixed by saying "some commercial use" / "commercial uses other than mere editorial use" or something like that.

But I didn't agree with the argument that Commons has no responsibility to alert the reusers. If it is true, then why we are wasting a lot of time for deleting copyvios and out of scope contents. In fact, CC clearly states at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Creators/Marking_third_party_content "Tips for a clear and informative notice" "3. Identify the rights licensed that you have in the work (as far as you know) and any rights that are not licensed because you do not have them." "When licensors are the owners of, or are authorized to exercise, all rights related to their creative works, including copyright and publicity/privacy rights, marking a work is not problematic. However, some licensors do not own all rights related to their works... Licensors should attempt to alert users of any rights held by others that may impact their ability to reuse the work." I think this is an attempt for that advice.

I agree with whym on removing the link to {{Consent}} part ("Where consent is required you may check for additional consent template information on the file page.") because I have little confidence on the legal value of that template as that statement comes only from the author; not from the subject(s). Jee 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It is frustrating to have to correct every remark I make from the mistakes in those replying. Where have I said "Commons has no responsibility to alert the reusers"? I'm all for making re-users fully alert and terrified. What I'm not keen on is reusers feeling their concerns have been satisfied because some anonymous uploader has slapped a Consent template on it and everything is hunky dory. Especially when the uploader's concept of "commercial use" wrt his copyright is completely different to a stock agency's concept. I don't really care if the stock image agencies use the term "commercial use" to mean "promotional and advertising". Because that's not what the term means on Commons, it isn't what the term means wrt copyright licences, isn't what the general public mean by the term (they think of commercial businesses, when in fact a non-profit, a church group and a school fair may all count as commercial use), or what English language means by the term [we have other words, you know] and so it can mean at least three different things. If some re-users think "commercial use" = "advertising" and look at our copyright licences and say "this is good for commercial use" and look at our personality rights templates and say "good for [some] commercial use" then they will get very much the wrong impression. If a term is ambiguous then we can't use it. Period. It doesn't help to say "some commercial use" if the whole concept of "commercial use" varies and some people think it is "advertising". So that just ends up saying "some use in advertising is allowed" to some readers. You have to remember that stock photo agencies have no concept of "non-commercial use" because, hey, they sell photos to businesses!!!! So they can overload the term in whatever way they like. What we need to make clear is that the "commercial use" that a copyright licence talks about says absolutely nothing about the usage wrt personality rights [same goes for property rights and trademarks btw]. Probably some simple advice that nearly all images on Commons that contain identifiable people are unsuitable for use in advertising or promotional purposes. Anyone wanting to use such an image for this purpose needs to get legal and contractual clarification from the subject of the photograph. Commons is not an agency. Something along these lines. As for my comments being last minute, well I only just noticed this conversation. It isn't as though many people have these templates on their watchlists. You really need a big Village Pump discussion on this, in order to get some good input and suggested texts. -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"I'm all for making re-users ... terrified." (and that is a direct quote!). OK, that's it for me. It's just another power game, then? I'm out of this discussion and will discuss with my contributors whether or not we should stop supporting Commons at all (with images and with money). This defeats the very purpose of my point in starting this discussion, and terrifying users is something I definitely want no part of. I won't even participate in any discussion where an element like that could factor in. I've asked that we try to find a way not to alienate users - a better text. Some of us have tried. I've also asked Colin "Do you feel there should be a template at all, and if so, will you please suggest a specific appropriate wording for it without further ado?" Looks to me like negativity will probably prevail (and a very long-winded one at that) plus continued alienation (not to say terror), so why try to do anything constructive with this? Very disappointed, and very tired of reading though decimeters of repetitious text. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what Colin tried to say is that reusers being terrified and scared away from Commons is better than them feeling cosy and safe that an image has the proper licences for their intended use when it hasn't. Of course those using Commons images in a way that does not conflict with personality rights should not be scared away, neither those who understand the issues and take the necessary steps to get model releases where needed.

The important group is those who might use images for promotion, without understanding the issues involved - perhaps non-commercially, as the commercial ones probably know the issues. They are better served by "don't use the images without talking to a lawyer" than by language that can be misinterpreted. With careful wording we can minimize those being scared away, but better to err to the safe side.

--LPfi (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: , reading Saffron's Model Release link below plus Commons General Disclaimer link, I think photographers, uploaders and reusers should all be terrified when it comes to images of identifiable people, especially where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Commons is really not geared up to adequately deal with such images on a professional basis. We should be very careful not to overstate our confidence wrt consent. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Colin, if I overreacted. In fact, I had made a request at VP; but not attracted many people to here. I had made two comments at Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F and one at User_talk:99of9#Personality_rights_and_Consent; but failed to get any response there too. Probably we may contact the legal for help if we can't make a "legal proof" wording based on our limited knowledge. Glad to see all people participated so far, including Colin, have an interest to protect the rights of the subjects from misuse. Hope we can arrive into a practical solution.

I would like to bring your attention to a practical example that I interfered recently. Those pictures survived several DRs and it is difficult to identify the person(s) from those pictures. But the name of the person is specified in file names and in descriptions that are removed; but still visible in discussions. This time the photographer try to re add it that is rev deleted on my request. He had stated that those are private photos. Although I respect Commons' policy that no subject consent is needed for editorial uses and so we can "keep" such files, we MUST mark such files about the consent requirements for most reuses.

Hope the participants in this discussion will understand the concerns I'm raising and cooperate to strengthen our policies and guidelines. Otherwise Commons will end up as just another unstable site where anonymous contributors can make any false claims (photo of my wife, ex-wife, etc.) and even use Commons for their personal agendas to harass their ex girl/boyfriends. Jee 06:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Colin. Commercial use and advertising are two different things. Our consent is for the former, not the later. Advertising includes endorsement of a product or an idea, and it may not even be necessarily commercial: using a portrait for a political leaftlet would not be acceptable without further approval from the subject, while publishing on a postcard or a book would be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• No Yann they are not. Advertising is just a subset of Commercial. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rewording 3

Despite the burden on the translators this will represent I offer this in way of broadening the consensus:

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is often called personality rights. The license issued with this work does not necessarily waive these personality rights. To re-use this work you may need the consent of the individual(s) depicted. This consent requirement varies by use (such as editorial or commercial) and by jurisdiction. When consent is required you may check with the copyright holder if it is available. Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use. Even where consent is obtained, this does not free a re-user to defame the depicted person(s). See our general disclaimer for additional information about content usage.

Colin and Jee, I agree the consent template is essentially useless and misleading. However this Personality Rights template is useful and needs amending. Hopefully this latest draft resolves some of your concerns. I would still like to include some reference material to help people understand when consent is required. I have had almost 50 email requests for use of images I have uploaded and most were for what I would consider commercial use. Most were quite ignorant of the implications of the license and in particular consent.
SergeWoodzing, your continued participation is sincerely appreciated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest folks have a read of this simple guide about model releases I the US: http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Saffron for your continued efforts. It looks good but I think "Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have all the permission(s) necessary for the intended use" is better than "Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use" because some use doesn't need consent. It should be the responsibility of the reuser to check whether consent is required and collect it if required.

The wording on our general disclaimer is also very good. What about adding a link to it at a prominent place near the license tag or adding a template containing the essence of that message ("Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the Wikimedia Commons are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikimedia Commons media under the specified licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikimedia Commons can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.")? I already added it under the subheads "Exceptions:" and "Disclaimer:" in my custom license tag. Jee 07:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Edit request}}

I think we should not keep changing the template with every new suggested wording, but wait until we have consensus here.

There are still issues.

• The license issued with this work does not necessarily waive these personality rights.

  Perhaps "The licence issued with this work does not deal with personality rights, but only copyright matters. Users of this content are responsible to ensure they have the consent necessary for the intended use."

• This consent requirement varies by use (such as editorial or commercial)

  Do we have to use the word "commercial"? It will be interpreted by many non-profits not to include their promotional uses. Could we not use "such as editorial or promotional"?

• When consent is required ...

  The link from required to Model release is misleading. Why not "When consent (e.g. a Model release) is required"

• check with the copyright holder

  There may be no contact address on Commons to the copyright holder. Perhaps "with the copyright holder or uploader"?

• Even where consent is obtained, this does not free a re-user to defame

  Perhaps "Make sure the consent covers the intended use. Use which can be regarded as defamatory is probably disallowed regardless of any general content statement."

--LPfi (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestions, LPfi.

CC nowadays stated that personality rights are waived in self portraits; even thought not all agree with it.

It is an issue because words like "commercial", "editorial", etc. overlap each other in many cases. That may be a reason why our general disclaimer uses "other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikimedia Commons media" :(

I agree with you on the other suggestions. Jee 07:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LPfi's comments about the proposed text. Like Jee, I wish CC hadn't muddied their copyright licence with issues of personality rights. And since such details are buried in the small print, there's a good bet most people slapping a CC licence on a selfie did not think "I'm fine with UKIP using this on a "Go Home" immigration poster" or "I'd love to be a TENA lady". So I think we can safely assume that despite what any copyright licence might say, our reusers should not assume the subject has waived their rights.

I appreciate the proposed text is trying to help but the added wording still has problems and isn't that clear -- because it is a complex and confusing subject. I'm quite keen on the original text's "You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights". In other words, we're not going to try to help you work out if you've got enough consent [we don't give legal advice]. I think we need a general discussion about what kind of consent-for-publication Commons expects. We're reasonably clear when it comes to copyright licences but not really when it comes to personality rights. It is only really professional models who will sign a full model release that removes all rights for any publication for any duration. And they get paid to do so, so their work is very unlikely to appear for free here. I know from my study of patient-consent forms that most such forms would not be acceptable for Commons/Wikipedia as they are too restrictive (e.g., can only appear in a medical journal). But between these two, where does Commons lie? I don't think we really know. Clearly it isn't as wide as our copyright licence permits. The current template text isn't wrong, so I think we can take our time to consider this, rather than rushing to replace it. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Am I correct in deducing that about 90% of all photos used on Wikidia's articles about living persons should be deleted by Commons, even though it is not possible for the people shown in those photos to get them deleted themselves by asking for it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Colin with regards to the current template. It isn't wrong per se but it isn't informative either and written in a kind of legalese that may not be helpful. I also hold that commercial is the correct term to be used when a release is required. Here is alink that describes the issue in detail: http://www.photosandthelaw.com/2009/07/14/what-is-the-deal-with-model-release-forms-when-are-they-needed-and-why/

This is version 4.
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is often called personality rights. The license issued with this work does not necessarily waive these personality rights. Re-users of this work are solely responsible for ensuring they do not infringe someone else's personality rights. To re-use this work you may need the consent of the individual(s) depicted. This consent requirement varies by use and by jurisdiction. Where consent is required you may check with the copyright holder or uploader if it is available (e.g. a Model Release). Consent does not free a re-user to defame the depicted person(s). See our general disclaimer for additional information about content usage.

I think this version walks people through the issues and provides suitable resources to make reasoned assessments about consent and re-use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is not professional to give link to a third party site in our template (even though it is very informative); all other seems fine to me. Consider linking to Commons:Non-copyright restrictions instead; hope it will help to educate people that there are some "non-copyright restrictions" which can't be waived by a free license and it is the reusers responsibility to contact the respective right holders to get them waved. Jee 03:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jee, while an external link may not be ideal, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is useless in providing real information. I won't be available for the next while. Feel free to do what you all see fit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. @Yann: , SergeWoodzing, LPfi, Colin, Whym, Jmabel... any further suggestions or corrections? When the template is OK; I think we can ask to automatically include it in all people photographs in the Upload Wizard level to reduce our maintenance tasks. Jee 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Once again, much better than it was when we stared this talk. Not very alienating now. Hope this will do. If so: thank you to all involved! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Anyone who wants change again, please submit new full template text Version 5 etc. rather than continuyng already very lengthy talk. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it raises too many questions. It tries to be a mini encyclopaedia article on personality rights and ultimately fails at that because it doesn't answer all the questions it raises. Why even suggest the copyright licence might say personality rights might be waived when (a) 99% of images are of a subject different to the copyright holder and (b) 99.999% of self-portraits with a CC licence will be unaware of this clause in the CC licence. Let's keep personality rights separate from copyright licensing as it should be. CC can take a running jump. The bit about defamation is unnecessary. It suggests contacting the copyright holder and/or uploader for consent but in fact consent is required from the subject. The opinion of User:Anon that "Yes I got consent" is legally and commercially worthless. I can't repeat enough that we are not an agent. Neither WMF, Commons nor individual users can advise reusers on whether an image is safe for reuse. The take home message: Be afraid. You are on your own. We will not help you. Which part of the General Disclaimer is not clear? -- Colin (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't express it myself better than Colin did. The message should be clear and simple: if you need this picture for advertising purpose, contact the subject. We should not try to give any sort of legal advise, this is a minefield. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Colin: and Yann Our general disclaimer is perfect; but it is not prominently visible on a file page. Further it is generic; so we have separate templates for "personality rights" and "trademarks". So either we have to improve them or decide to make a generic template and paste on all files as I do in all my uploads. ;) Jee 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion AGAIN: Anyone who wants change again, please submit new full template text, rather than continuing already very lengthy talk. PLEASE!!!!! I am really running our of patience, but I have been asked to stay in here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Version 5

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is called personality rights. To re-use this work you may need those depicted to waive their personality rights (also called granting consent). Whether consent is required varies by use and by jurisdiction. It is your responsibility to determine whether consent is required. If consent is required only those depicted may grant it; however, the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release. See our general disclaimer for additional information about content usage.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hope fine. (did some corrections) ;) Jee 03:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Was doing some of that at the same time apparently. :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine tuning, a bit too. :) Jee 05:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The previous version looked ok to me, but this version is even clearer in what actions reusers can take (and what Commons contributors cannot). whym (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Whym. Hope we can make another {{Edit request}} if no oppose or suggestion within 48 hrs. Pinging other participants: @Yann: , SergeWoodzing, LPfi, Colin, Jmabel, Peteforsyth ... :) Jee 13:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does this use full internet links rather than internal links? The second sentence is better done in the original. It is less of an lesson are more a statement of fact. Though I'd replace the "may" in the original with "is". We've lost the "Personality rights restrictions apply independently of copyright" which I think is important because our copyright licences can be misleading in the impression they give that "commercial use" is fine. We've also lost "Before using this content, please ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws." Many uses will not infringe those rights and won't need consent. So this is the first step someone must do. The jurisdiction bit is fine and the link useful. The "your responsibility" bit should be more then just determination but also obtaining consent prior to use. So that would be "It is your responsibility to obtain sufficient proof of consent where required." The "If consent is required" bit could be removed as unnecessary, leaving "Only those depicted may grant consent' ..." The General Disclaimer covers more than just content usage but also limitations. How about

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons is restricted by laws regarding personality rights, which apply independently of copyright and the terms of any copyright licences. These restrictions vary by use and jurisdiction. Before using this content, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws and obtain any necessary consent. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone's personality rights and have sufficient proof of consent. Where consent is required only those depicted may grant it; however the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release. See our general disclaimer for more information and limitations.

Oppose We're lecturing again in an uneccessarily alienating manner, talking down to good faith contributors and acting as (pseudo-)agents responsible to enforce things. No good! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Looks like we are coming back to legalese, which is what I had hoped to avoid. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I remain puzzled why we are rushing this and setting 48 hour deadlines on responses. This is a widely used template. -- Colin (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I remain puzzled as to why all of us cannot try to come up with a text that is not dictorial and alienating. I cannot participate in behaving like this toward my fellow contributors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand your "dictorial and alienating" comment. The law is what it is. And it is scary. Re-users aren't "fellow contributors". The people who should be most concerned about personality rights are the ones using someone's image to sell or promote something. A person's image/endorsement is their property and doesn't belong to the photographer nor to Commons. I don't know why we should be helpful and welcoming for such purposes. Neither we nor the subject is getting paid and there are no signed contracts on Commons. Ultimately, this really isn't something Commons is about. And there are plenty good and cheap alternatives. -- Colin (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: , please cool down. Heated arguments are part of any discussions and we need only to be about the outcome; not about the stress it develops. ;)

@Colin: Your suggestions make sense to me. I didn't noticed the "external link style" used by Saffron. Internal links are preferred for in wiki links. Further, your language seems better (A proof reading by an English major is a must as suggested by the IP earlier. I'm not a native English speaker.)

There is no hurry; my attempt was to trigger the lazy people. :)

Interested people may refer Wikipedia:General disclaimer too as it seems frequenly updated than our disclaimer. Further, it has a "personality rights" subhead inline with their BLP policy. I tried to reword it (Colin's suggestion above); merging with the one available at EN. Feel free to fine tune it again, if necessary. :) Jee 05:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I probably agree with Colin's suggestions above. I also thing the unsigned wording above is quite good; I do not see any lecturing or legalese in it, except changing "It is your responsibility" to "You are solely responsible", which was unnecessary. The wording by Saffron Blaze sounds like a model release, totally waiving personality rights, would be necessary, although consent to specific use is usually enough. In both wordings "obtain a release" should be changed to "obtain consent, e.g. by a model release" or similar. --LPfi (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Version 6

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of images of living or recently deceased individuals is, in some most jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights, independent from their copyright status. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights. Where consent is required only those depicted may grant it; however the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release. See our general disclaimer and reuse guide for more information.

•  Oppose I won't be supporting this. It is right back to being a bunch of legal jargon and convoluted sentences. I went ahead and made my own license template out of version 5. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, I protected the rights of my plants and bugs yesterday. Still no confidence to upload my people candids in Commons. ;( Jee 06:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Seems to be OK for me. Wording needs to be checked by a native English speaker. Do we need asking WMF legal department for a validation? Yann (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems good; will ask LuisV (WMF). Jee 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

done. Jee 07:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. How many weeks or months has it been since you asked for clarification on removal of watermarks and CMI? Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That's why I asked Luis; he is much faster and helpful. :) Jee 07:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Oppose}} This seems to reintroduce many problems I though we where done with. I do not understand why "recently deceased" and "in some jurisdictions" are there. --LPfi (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@LPfi: Because use of very old images seems not a big issue; but can be avoided to make our wording brief. I think "most" or "many" is more suitable than "some". Feel free to edit it directly than "oppose". Abandoning this proposal will bring us back to the old wordings. If people prefer "version 5"; I've no problem though. Jee 13:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I just did not think this version was any improvement to the previous suggestions (and though it ignored some of the comments above). I do not oppose finding a new wording. --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Don't see this as an improvement on 7, though it isn't very different. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Version 7

So version 7; quoting the exact wordings by Colin:

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons is restricted by laws regarding personality rights, which apply independently of copyright and the terms of any copyright licenses. These restrictions vary by use and jurisdiction. Before using this content, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws and obtain any necessary consent. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone's personality rights and have sufficient proof of consent. Where consent is required only those depicted may grant it; however the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release. See our general disclaimer for more information and limitations.

Oppose My candid impression, if I may be permitted to state it frankly, is that what Colin writes, both in h comments and in this suggested template text, is alienating to any uploader who will have to ly awake at night and worry about h (Colin's and Commons's) warning that an image may be used on Moldavian or Tonganese Wikipedia though it may be against the law there. Colin suggests that there are "cheap alternatives" to Commons, in a way that honestly makes me suspect (again) that h/s is against the whole concept of this project, maybe even an agent for commercial interests which obviously suffer from it. "Before using this content, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws" is worded as a requirement - an impossible one - on the part of Commons, something that should effectively turn anyone off to reusing any photos of living persons or even uploading them. Why not come right out and say it: Do not upload or reuse any photos with identifiable living perons in them! People should buy them instead!? (Right, Colin?) That will be the effect anyway of a turn-off wording like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Use version 5, but use the "obtain consent, e.g. model release or similar" suggestion by LPfi. That might strike a middle ground upon which consensus can be built. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the sentence "Before using this content, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws and obtain any necessary consent." It is not our business to tell them what to ensure. It is one thing to tell them that we take no responsibility for clearing personality rights. It is entirely another to tell them that they are obligated to be cautious. - Jmabel ! talk 06:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I mildly oppose the sentence "You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone's personality rights and have sufficient proof of consent." This appears to be a statement about lay, and I doubt it is always correct. For example, if the photographer-uploader actively misrepresented the circumstance under which a photo was taken, we are in no position to assert that the photographer-uploader would have no liability for a resulting infringement of rights. All we can do is say that Wikimedia Commons takes no such responsibility for reuse, and perhaps that the photographer any uploader only take responsibility if they have made specific assertions about consent.

I don't understand why "recently deceased" was dropped. For example, I can think of no circumstance where an image of a person who died over 100 years ago would raise personality rights issues. The only issues even vaguely of this sort I could imagine are in countries with very harsh restrictions (e.g. no negative depictions of members of their military) which aren't exactly personality restrictions. I would imagine that most people working in countries with harsh censorship regimes are perfectly aware that they are working in countries with harsh censorship regimes. - Jmabel ! talk 06:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Jmabel, it absolutely is our business to warn people of some things they should worry about. Otherwise there no point to this template and we can rest easy that the general disclaimer is sufficient. It isn't our business to warn people of all the things they should worry about. But we aren't. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Jmabel, the sentence "mildly oppose" is in the original text (all I added was the consent bit). The statement is absolutely always correct. The issue is whether it is sufficient. And your example, of misrepresenting the facts, would be yet another one for a reuser to worry about. But we aren't responsible for detailing all the legal hoops they need to jump though. We can warn about the most pertinent ones, hence the existence of this template, but we can't give legal advice about what steps are sufficient to safely publish. I didn't drop "recently deceased", it was added in 6 which was written chronologically after mine. Let's worry about adding "recently" in a completely separate discussion and stick to making necessary changes to the existing template. -- Colin (talk)
• SergeWoodzing, there's too much bad faith an accusations of evil-doing in your comments. Please desist or find another hobby. -- Colin (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my wording doesn't suit you. Same to you. You don't seem like the kind of person who would be easily offended, but if you were, I apologize. Now let's stick to the subject, i.e. if I write anything you don't like about this topic, feel free to comment on that. That's all I've done to you. Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin, the issue here isn't whether my objections are specifically to text you introduced. I didn't concern myself at all with who said what. I looked at what appeared to be the current proposal and made my comments on it. It isn't about who wrote what sentence.

It may be our responsibility to warn people, but it is not our place to tell them in the imperative mode to "ensure" something. This is just like we avoid the wording that tells someone to "note" something in particular in a photo description, we simply mention a given aspect of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For the "recently deceased", see this change and the thread (Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01#Adjustment proposals for .7B.7BPersonality rights.7D.7D) that motivated it. I thought there was some country given as example (France?), not only states, but I may be mistaken --LPfi (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Localisation

Hi all. I’m going to use this occasion to enable the Translate extension on this template. This will have the effect of invalidating all the former translations − which would be a good thing in this case, as the all point is to substantially reword the template :).

Please see Template:Personality rights/i18n and check if that is indeed what you were expecting, before I switch the old system for this new one .

This is a very high usage template, and I am not happy with the idea to suddenly cut down 30 translations or so. We should ping the various translators and ask them to translate the new text.

Thoughts? Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, translation before update is a good idea. I will note that when the text is displayed there appears to be some missing spaces at the end of sentences. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation done for Japanese. whym (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Whym − and for fixing the spacing issue too!

I advertised it in WatchlistNotice − hopefully it will get us a lot of translations. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, it worked! ;) --Indeedous (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Jean-Fred (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I misdid it a bit the first time − did not realise there was also the “title” to get translated too − so I just revamped the i18n subpage. No translation was hurt during the making of this template ;-þ. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Discouraged for now, considering the ongoing debate above. Please ping me (or another translation sysop) once this is ready to fly. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Optional aspect

I have tried to follow everything written above but it is a bit long and mind-boggling. Given the level of concern expressed by some above about the potential for violation of individual rights, why is the tag even optional? I only discovered it recently and have been using it but I am sure many others do not. I still don't put it on every single image and in some such cases it is questionable whether or not someone in the image is identifiable. Surely this should be part of our standard image licence/disclaimer? HelenOnline 12:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: Sure; but we have some technical difficulties as we have several upload tools (even custom made), so no control on them. One possibility is to implement it in Upload wizard as Peteforsyth suggested in a related discussion.

Another possibility is to create a general template to handle all concerns and add it in the permission field of all of our images. Jee 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more from the reuser's perspective than the uploader's. Unless the uploader chooses to add the tag, the only restriction that is immediately obvious to the reuser is the copyright licensing. Given that the tag is optional, I think the debate above is pretty pointless. If an uploader chooses not to add the tag, none of this discussion is relevant anyway. If it was that important, it should be a default. I hope I am making sense. HelenOnline 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, not every picture uploaded on Commons has people on it, so adding on every picture would be a clear overkill − it would be a bit weird to have {{Personality rights}} displayed below the picture of a horse, bridge, flower, etc. I do not know if we have any figures on the number of such « photographs of identifiable people » − my guess would be that it is sizeable, but not close enough to warrant it slapped on every single upload. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the template in its current form would not work as a default. A general one as suggested by Jee would cover non-copyright restrictions. As there probably isn't any way to automatically detect whether there are identifiable people in an image uploaded, the general template should cover this possibility for all images uploaded. HelenOnline 14:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

“ As there probably isn't any way to automatically detect whether there are identifiable people in an image uploaded” → well, there actually is :) See the experimental work of User:DrTrigon to use ComputerVision to detect (among other things) faces − Template:FileContentsByBot/Faces. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected :) HelenOnline 15:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If we can determine all existing photos having "identifiable people"; then we can think about a mass attempt by a bot to add it in them. Otherwise, we can make a generic template and try to add it in all photos including horses and cats. ;)

Any way, it is better we finalize the "wording" of {{Personality rights}} first.

Regarding HelenOnline's concern on if uploader choose not to use this template: Legally we are (Commons and volunteers like admins) safe as Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act gives much protection to us. But an author is responsible to mark his works properly and we are responsible to provide enough tools to them. (Personally I don't need any generic templates as I can make my own templates for my use. Sorry Jean-Fred; I've as many templates as my uploads nowadays. ). Jee 15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• The personality right template should be mandatory, as should any of the other non-copyright rights templates, when it is appropriate. Obviously enabling this in the upload tools will help. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• See this too. :) Jee 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• i agree with the rewording, increased use enabling. some best practices would go some way to a safe harbor. might want to have some best practices of taking photos of living people. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is good, (but smiling = consent, ugh; did not talk about religious objections; or about famous person versus private person, or public space versus private space) but some advice from WMF legal would clarify. general notice at events with opt out; always inform photo being taken; option to delete if subject objects to photo. i've had wikimania speakers object to photo, writers at public readings on stage object. with the rise of phone cameras these rights will get swamped. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 01:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Break

The above discussion is impossible to follow. The so-called "version 5" was edited after I commented on it. The so-called "version 6" was written after "version 7". We all appear to want different things. The original poster wants less "alienating" language but I think everyone else wants to ensure reusers of this content are properly concerned about the things they should be concerned about. Saffron's text is a lesson and patronising and misses some important points. We aren't writing a Wikipedia article. The warning on an aerosol says "Do not dispose of in fire". It doesn't say "This aerosol contains things called propellants. Some propellants are flammable. The word flammable means it can catch fire..." You get the point. The existing text is not not horrendous. This is a widely used template. I suggest we take a break for some weeks and come back with fresh eyes. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My wording (version 6) was copied from Wikipedia:General disclaimer; so I did some search and find some interesting info. That edit was done by Howcheng who is an admin in both EN and here. Further, it is in response to the endorsed deletion decision of the "Personality rights" template in EN (mostly per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. So I assume a redundant template is confusing and useless; we only need to showcase our Commons:General disclaimer in a prominent location. Jee 11:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That was nearly six years ago, I don't really remember any of the details anymore. —howcheng {chat} 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See the CC deeds; they all well explaining the limitations, "No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material." So please add it to our Commons:Copyright tags to instead of highlighting only the positive parts as we do now. :) Jee 12:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there is merit in having the particular rights template in appropriate image pages, rather than assume people read the general disclaimer. However, since the text is so similar for each of these rights sections, there should really be some way that the common text is transcluded and translated as one. I agree with you that the CC licence template can be misleading if one assumes that is all one needs for commercial use. Hence the CC disclaimer.

Actually, I'm wondering if this is yet another area where really the WMF should write the blurb rather than expect the community to do it. None of us here are lawyers, we are all trying our best with our limited understanding and differing POVs. I do sometimes fail to understand why WMF can't be more professional about this. There are some things the community are good for, but legal/copyright/licence/rights/terms are all things for the experts really. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Separate templates have some disadvantages. We have millions of files and it is difficult to identify which need {{Personality rights}}, which needs {{Trademarked}}, etc.

I see Philippe (WMF) and Mdennis (WMF) edited that EN disclaimer and even commented like "per our general Counsel". May be we haven't much interaction with them. Jee 12:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the Commons:General disclaimer should be more prominent (via each image). I agree WMF should take care of such legal disclaimers. I agree a separate template is problematic, especially when it is optional and/or not automated. Expecting uploaders to automatically know about such templates and be responsible for adding the correct templates without any prompting is not realistic. I cannot take the above discussion seriously in light of this. HelenOnline 14:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes; I'm leaving this discussion as these fragmented templates (personality rights, trademarked and consent) are no longer useful to me. I came to understand that these are designed to protect WMF from any responsibilities (in Wikipedia); but not practically useful at all for Commons. In Wikipedia, they only need to bothered about the contents they are using; but here are so many files and new entries everyday. So adding them by volunteers other than uploaders is a tedious task. The best solution is to strengthen the disclaimer and showcase is it more prominently.

These templates are not designed to help the contributors (to protect them from legal liabilities) or reusers (to help them from being sewed). Those purposes can be easily achieved by strengthening the Commons:Copyright tags. Unfortunately our volunteers are not showing any interest in that part (just a self criticism).

Beware of using the {{Consent}}. It makes you responsible if a subject sue a reuser who blindly follow your word of consent.

What can I do is to improve my custom templates, that is good now. Thanks all for your wise words and suggestions that educate me a lot. Jee 17:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Trying to be helpful to re-users is not the same thing as patronizing them. My intent was to amend the template into simple language yet provide linkages to detailed information. The aim was to end up with a template that was a logical process that stepped people through a mini decision model. Version 7 seems to heading in that direction but I don't think anyone would argue it is simple language. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The re-use of such depictions is controlled by laws regarding personality rights, which are rights separate from the copyright and license of this work. Personality rights vary by use and jurisdiction. Where consent is required only those depicted may grant it; however the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release. It is your responsibility to ensure you obtain the necessary consent for the intended use. See our general disclaimer for more information on content usage and potential limitations.

• I don't see what's wrong with the current version. To me, it doesn't seem either hard to understand or unwelcoming. Anyway, here's another look at version 7 above: This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons is restricted by laws regarding personality rights, which apply independently of copyright and the terms of any copyright licenses license (and even if the work is in the public domain). These restrictions vary by use and jurisdiction. Before using this content work, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws and obtain any necessary consent. You are solely The republisher of an image is responsible for ensuring that you do such republication does not infringe someone's personality rights and have for possession of sufficient proof of consent. Where consent is required only those depicted may grant it. ; however the Although the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain a release, neither is obliged to provide any assistance. See our general disclaimer for more information and limitations. Gimpy (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good attempt, but with two major faults (pardon my repeating myself!): "Before using this work, ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws and obtain any necessary consent. [my bolds]" - that is so unrealistic in my opinion that I cannot believe anyone working with this project actually would expect Wikimedia Commons to demand it. Nobody (statistically speaking) will have the means and resources to ensure and obtain - so how can Commons demand it? Is that Commons's business, to demand such things? We can't order people around in matters like this. So what's the point? Wouldn't suggesting it be enough? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I read it isn't commons but rather the law that demands it. Commons has a very low threshold of consent for hosting content. This low level of consent is insufficient for any re-use in all but pure editorial situations. That places re-users at considerable risk and a risk Commons should do something about highlighting. This template would be a good first step. Unfortunately, as is typical in situations like these, people get fatigued by the unwillingness of some to abide with consensus building. There are at least 8 versions of this template under review. Any one of them would be better at highlighting the risk and giving re-users more resources to understand that risk and how to mitigate it. 131.137.245.209 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Version 9

Commons receives, and can then provide, free images intended for the public domain. The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of such work even if the work is in the public domain. If you use this image as the republisher of it, you are hereby advised by Commons not to infringe on anyone's personality rights and that you should have sufficient proof of consent by persons depicted, if you use it for anything other than editorial material. Although the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain such consent, neither is obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information and limitations.

Anything wrong with that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, SergeWoodzing, the term public domain has a very specific meaning that is not applicable here. A "free license" does not mean something is in the public domain. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you accept a "friendly amendment" of turning "in the public domain" into "free-licensed or in the public domain"? & if so, should we link "free-licensed" to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses? - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of this work even though it is provided with a free license or in the public domain. Where consent is required, you should obtain proof of consent (e.g. model release) from those depicted. Although the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain such consent, neither is obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information on content use and potential limitations. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of this work even though it is provided with a free license or in the public domain. Where consent is required, it can be important for you to obtain proof of consent (e.g. model release) from those depicted, and we advise you to do that. Although the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain such consent, neither is obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information on content use and potential limitations. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of this work even though it is provided with a free license or in the public domain. Where consent is required, it is recommended you obtain proof of consent (e.g. model release) from those depicted, as a means to protect yourself from claims of infringement. Although the copyright holder or uploader may help you to obtain such consent, neither is obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information on content use and potential limitations.

Delicious with chocolate milk.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, Saffron! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is getting better, but I'm concerned about the third sentence. It seems ambiguous to me; are we suggesting that reusers should contact the depicted people? I'm not sure we should be recommending anything with legal consequences, even using the passive "it is recommended" phrasing. I also think the wording could be made clearer and tighter (e.g. it's not obvious to me what "potential limitations" refers to, and "copyright holder or uploader" seems clumsier than it's worth). How about the following version? --Avenue (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of this work even though it is freely licensed or in the public domain. Where consent from those depicted is required for your intended use, proof of their consent (e.g. a model release) could help protect you from legal problems. The uploader may help you to obtain such consent, although they are not obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more caveats and conditions regarding content reuse.

Happy with that approach. Just made it a bit tighter:

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons. Laws regarding personality rights, which vary by use and jurisdiction, may restrict the use of this work even though it is freely licensed or in the public domain. Where consent is required for your intended use, proof of consent (e.g. a model release) would help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. The uploader may help you to obtain such consent, although they are not obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information regarding content reuse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Better and better. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I can make it any more concise without making run on sentences or losing important concepts.

The work on this page depicts one or more identifiable persons whose personality rights may restrict the use of this work even when freely licensed or in the public domain. Laws regarding personality rights vary by use and jurisdiction. Where consent is required for your intended use, proof of consent (e.g. a model release) would help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. The uploader may help you to obtain such consent, although they are not obliged to do so. See our general disclaimer for more information regarding content reuse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I like that. One very minor suggestion: "even though it is" => "even though this work is". The sentence structure is complex enough to make it a bit hard to understand at first read which of several nouns "it" refers to. But I hope we are approaching consensus here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. It gave me an idea. Did that change do the trick? I would like to avoid work three times in the same sentence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And remember CC replaced the word "Works" with "Licensed Material" to make it more professional according to the copyright laws. We need a lot of update in all our copyright and non copyright restriction tags. Jee 03:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've lost interest and respect for CC. They really dropped that ball with 4.0. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point; the widely used term is still "work". Jee 05:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "work" is generally better than "Licensed Material". We could add a parameter to let people choose from a list of suitable words:, e.g. "work", "image", "photo", "video", or "Licensed Material". I'm not sure it's worth the extra complexity and translation work though. --Avenue (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• In re-reading that first sentence it does seem a bit awkward. Any takers at a c/e? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Version 10

I've taken version 9 and tried to shorten it and simplify the language a bit. Now 78 words as opposed to the previous 91:

Even though the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the identifiable person(s) shown may have personality rights. Those rights vary by country and might limit your ability to re-use the work. In some cases you may need the consent of the person shown. The uploader may be able to help you obtain such consent (e.g. with a model release), although they do not have to. See our general disclaimer for more information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is better again IMO. One thing that this doesn't explicitly cover is that consent requirements vary not just by country but by the use made of the work. Is that worth including? --Avenue (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered that and deliberately omitted it. "...might limit your ability to re-use the work" seems to cover everything succinctly. Best to keep things snappy and resist the temptation to add just a few more words, and a few more, and a few more .... --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

--MichaelMaggs, I would suggest changing "limit" to "restrict" and "In some cases" to "For some uses". Identifiable persons sounds a bit awkward in that sentence. You could remove identifiable but leave person(s) linking to the article. The logic is that "may" covers off the requirement they be identifiable. Comments aside, nice work smoothing that out. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Like this? Yes, that would work for me. Have also unbolded "general disclaimer":

Even though the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have personality rights. Those rights vary by country and might restrict your ability to re-use the work. For some uses you may need the consent of the person shown. The uploader may be able to help you obtain such consent (e.g. with a model release), although they do not have to. See our general disclaimer for more information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Me no like. Now we're moving backwards and getting close to lecturing again, telling people about their "ability" and what they "may need". Why is that neccessary when we had such good wording recently that only advised or recommended, but did not talk about "ability" and possible needs? Let's inform and recommend, not lecture, please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Though the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have personality rights. Those rights vary by use and jurisdiction. Where consent is required for your intended use, proof of consent (e.g. a model release) would help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may help you to obtain such consent. See our general disclaimer for more information regarding content reuse. (my bold - I especially like that wording) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How about a blended approach?

Though the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the personality rights of the person(s) shown may restrict re-use unless consent is obtained. The need for consent varies by use and jurisdiction. Where consent is required, proof of consent (e.g. a model release) would help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may help you obtain such consent. See our general disclaimer for more information regarding content reuse. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Some unnecessary verbiage has crept back. I would: (1) use the simple English word 'country' rather than the legalistic 'use and jurisdiction' (yes I know that laws may vary inside countries as well, and there may be regional laws, but 'country' is correct and we are not writing a legal treatise here); (2) say "may be able to help" rather than "may help" as the latter suggests the uploader would in fact be able to do so, if willing, which mostly will not be the case; (3) unbold as suggested above; and (4) get rid of the unhelpful words "regarding content reuse". This would be better, although back up to 86 words:

Although the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have personality rights which restrict re-use in some countries. The consent of the person shown may be legally required for some uses and, where required, a model release or other evidence of consent might help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's a win. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty good. The second sentence seems a bit long and involved to me, though, and splitting it up only takes one more word:

Although the work on this page is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have personality rights which restrict re-use in some countries. The consent of the person(s) shown may be legally required for some uses. Where consent is required, a model release or other evidence of consent might help protect you from claims of personality rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

I've also changed "person" to "person(s)" in the second sentence. --Avenue (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, more than happy with that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammatically, I think may be a legal requirement would be better than may be legally required. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The wording "consent ... may be legally required" seems entirely grammatical correct. I can't see a reason for suggesting otherwise, but perhaps you could explain? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As being just a bit more presumptuous, may be legally required may lead one unneccessarily to wonder by whom?, which has already been covered. The other wording goes better with what has already been mentioned about possible requirements. Grammatically, the former leads one on for no apparent reason, so to speak, the latter does not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I slightly prefer the shorter version, though I don't feel strongly about this. It's semantics not grammar, though :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Any limit to the time we spend on this and to the amount of editors (like me) who want to try to get their 2 cents in re: grammar and semantics and which is either or both and millimeters of length etc etc etc etc etc etc? We've had about 3-4 versions that were real good. I don't see a need for several more weeks of nit-picking, mine or anyone else's. How many more folks do we need to chime in here? Estimate? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We seem to move backwards a bit every other day to a more alienating, not a less alienating version. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no deadline. I think we are getting close to reaching a consensus, but if I'm wrong and someone new arrives with some valid objections, then we should take as long as we need to address them. And while I agree we should try not to phrase things in an unnecessarily alienating way, I believe it is much more important for this template to avoid misleading people than to avoid alienating them. --Avenue (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to juxtapose one against the other, when the objective of this entire thread is to avoid alienation? I believe both are equally important, in a project that depends on voluntary work and donations, and I hope everyone else (but you?) does too. Is it misleading now? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mainly in response to your complaint (just above my post) that we are moving backwards to a more alienating version. I could equally compare avoiding alienating language with other criteria that I think are at least as important, e.g. that the text be concise, clear, and accurate. But we don't need to agree on criteria, just on the text. --Avenue (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this get us past the minor differences? Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights which restrict certain re-uses without the specific consent of those depicted. In such cases, a model release or other evidence of consent might help protect you from claims of rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think shortening it is good, but this still seems a bit rough. I'm not wedded to the "in some countries" phrase, but without it I don't think the link to Commons:Country specific consent requirements makes much sense. I would also stick with "personality rights"; just saying "rights" makes the later mention of "personality rights infringement" a bit confusing. --Avenue (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In general people won't understand personality rights unless they read the link anyway so I removed personality from both places. The restriction is both on use and country. it is important for them to read that link as well. Make sense? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing for clarity:

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from claims of rights infringement. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

BTW, would a grammar guru confirm "which" or "that" usage in the first sentence. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think either which or that is fine here, especially now that "personality" has been removed. Here's a slightly shortened version:

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

--Avenue (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Now we're talkin'! That is smoother than which here. Good work, you guys. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur, best version yet. Succinct and to the point while offering re-users access to good information about risk and how to mitigate it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope time for another edit request. :) Jee 05:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I re-enabled the translation feature. I would like to thank you all for the time you spent since late January. Hopefully we can make this the published version of the template soon, after getting a good set of translations done. whym (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'd be happy to review the Swedish version. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to link. Here is the translation page: Template:Personality rights/i18n. whym (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reenabled a watchlist notice to get more translations. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I do not like this version. The "evidence of consent could protect you" is like we only care about the reusers ass, not about the depicted person's rights. The former can use independent legal advice, the latter should not have to worry. I changed "legally required" to "required", reverted to the original v10 wording about consent/evidence, changed the linked words for Country specific consent requirements (it does very little to specify what "certain re-uses" are included in different countries) and changed "certain" to "some" (as the uses affected are not clearly defined):

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown have rights that may require consent for some re-uses. The uploader may be able to help you obtain such consent (e.g. with a model release), although they do not have to. See our general disclaimer for more information.

--LPfi (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better IMO. --Avenue (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, "the identifiable person(s) shown may have rights" seems more accurate to me. Or are we really to tell people that Commons knows for a fact that they all have rights? Can we refrain from acting like legitimate lawyers or judges here? Please? I much prefer an angle where we courteously warn users, rather than acting as some sort of pseudo-legal counsel for photographed people. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I no longer care. Three days from now someone else will come along and fuck with the wording by some insignificant amount. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you mean me. I was asked to stay close and I too have been disappointed in what you are complaining about. Getting weary too now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we humiliating our translators? I can live with my own single license tag which cover everything. For others, what about giving an option like {{Personality rights|x}} where x can be 1 to 10 according to their preferred wordings. ;) Jee 02:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that may require consent for some re-uses. The uploader may be able to help you obtain such consent (e.g. with a model release), although they do not have to. See our general disclaimer for more information.

I see nothing wrong with this wording. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I do. It is grammatically awkward and only delays things for no real gain in clarity or information. We will be on version 20 if we keep this up. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"although they do not have to" What is it? Jee 12:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Although the uploader does not have to (is not obliged to) help you obtain... --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

My point is the version that stood stable for days has already gone to the translators. Accepting new versions now, espcially when they achive little in the way of improvements and in some aspects worsen the situation is not something anyone should support. If we do we will never achieve anything, as it will happen again and again as it has all along. At some point one has to shit or get off the pot. :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

For God's sakes - I only reinstated one single word! How did that make the text "grammatically awkward"???

I started this discussion. At your request and due to my own continued (though waning) interest, I have not given up yet. I check the discussion every day since January 29th. I only object when I see anything that flies in the face of the whole objective of the discussion as I started it and see it. My latest complaint is exactly such a reaction. I do not know why the word "may" was removed, but it makes the whole text considerably more alienating. Either you'll have to put up with my continuing to react like that, or you can change your mind about my sticking aroiund and ask me to go away. I'm getting ready to do so anyway.

What happens here, as I see it, is that as soon as we have a really good text, which I have celebrated several times in comments above, somebody who wants Commons to continue to talk down to users and alienate them comes along and sneaks something in that damages the effort we are trying to make.

In this last case, I can't see how it could be that difficult for translators to reinstate one singe word - "may" - if that's the only problem.

Saffron Blaze! Which text do you want? The one that LPfi put in, where Commons tells people that (all) depicted persons have rights? Why don't you copy in the text you want, that the translators have. Is it one that I liked? Is it Avenue's which I think we all liked? I'm so confused I just don't know what's going on here anymore --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the "may" just to have one less of those (people do have rights, so I thought it was superfluous). If it makes the text less alienating, please put it back. --LPfi (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus attempt

Proposal: let's clearly support or oppose this text submitted by Avenue, and in two weeks adopt it if OK:

Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.

• Support as above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as it already forwarded for translation. Minor tweaking is unnecessary as every people have slight difference in tastes. Can tweak later (after 6 or 12 months) if necessary. Jee 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Jee. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Not implying anything but covers everything. Just need a bot to load this to the millions of images missing it.Flickrworker (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Jee (or more precisely because substantial work has already gone into translation). --Avenue (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Implementation

Time to go live? Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@User:Whym s.v.p. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd move the current template (and its subpages) to Template:Personality rights/old and then Template:Personality rights/i18n to Template:Personality rights. @Jean-Frédéric: , is that what you had in your mind? Or, do we want to try history merging, which would be substantially cumbersome? whym (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving to /old is not necessary and would break a few things − the /layout page is expected by the new system (though this could easily be fixed). I think the current /en, /fr etc. pages can be left alone, or deleted.

/i18n must not be moved − in the Translate setup, the marked template cannot be the transcluded one, this breaks everything for some reason. So the solution is actually simpler − just to use {{autotranslate|base=Personality rights/i18n}} and it works :)

Jean-Fred (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:history merging: I agree, would be too cumbersome − not even sure it’s possible considering how translated subpages cannot be deleted & stuff. Probably not worth it anyway. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing and Saffron Blaze: Now it's (finally) done. [1] Jean-Frédéric, that is cleverer. Thank you for preventing my stupid attempt. :) whym (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It was bit of a process to say the least and not one I'd like to do again anytime soon :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

+1. Thanks all. Jee 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Here's what I wrote first when I started all this, not even imagining what an amount of hard work we'd all be doing on it:

• Template as is is alienating for image use - As per my comments and another user's helpful reply here I strongly feel the template needs to be more encouraging. As unclear (mainly negative) as it is now, I believe it scares people away from using many perfectly free images, and that seems to contradict our main purpose here.

Thank you all so very much! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)