Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people

This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Denmark needs to change so main rule is "No consent with exceptions"Edit

The info on Denmark should be changed to: "No consent (with exceptions)". The main rule is clearly that only if the intent is to publish a portrait of a specific person do you need consent. This will actually be very seldom. Non-commercial situational photos taken in public and in most cases also in private surroundings and private property do not need any consent - even if you can easily recognize the person. Thus a picture of people in Copenhagen, swimming in Denmark, city life in Aarhus, women enjoying coffee beer at an outdoor Cafe, jogging in the park etc. etc. needs no consent. Ref:

Specific examples of pictures from Datatilsynets published guidelines that do not need consent for internet publication: - guests at a rock concert - playing children in a schoolyard - people visiting a zoo - pictures taken during klub activities - pictures of children and young people at school including private schools - pictures taken at a school x-mas holiday event

Exceptions: - People during their work - Customers inside a shop - Visitors inside a bar, discotheque etc. - Pictures that show people in compromising situations

These limitations are also only valid for internet publication. All other media can freely publish.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposalEdit

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality rights and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at meta:Grants_talk:PEG/Wikimedia_New_York_City/Development_of_a_model_release_process_for_photos_and_video.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be careful to specify privacy rights in particular, and not be vague with "personality rights". Generally, we have always used the term "personality rights" to be synonymous with "publicity rights" -- that is what the {{personality rights}} template refers to. However, I see this page is drifting into using it to encompass both (and the en-wiki page does a little, though focuses on publicity rights). Publicity rights are not violated by hosting an image here and do not require a model release. In fact, that type of model release for freely-resuable content would be a very bad idea for most people -- that would be allowing any product company to use that image to promote their product, so the person would lose all control over the context they are used in. I really would not recommend that Commons become a stock image repository of that nature -- we are focused on educational uses, where publicity rights rarely come into play. For images which don't involve people (or are not identifiable), then the simple copyright license is usually enough. For medical images, I assume you are more talking about a release for a specific image for privacy rights, where simply hosting it on Commons can violate such rights without getting the publication OKed. Those would be helpful since those images are generally needed for educational uses -- though again I would try to make sure that such releases do not also encompass publicity rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we get to say we are focused on "educational uses" then insist on images being "totally free". The Pricasso incident highlighted that point rather clearly. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"Free" is a term defined around the copyright -- yes we insist on that as well, but that's a side issue to both model releases and this page. Wikimedia's goal is around "free educational content" -- so yes, the focus is educational uses of material which is "free" per its copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What you espouse and the reality are quite different. My experience is 95% of the re-uses of my images were for non-educational use, in particular commercial use, and never once was I asked about consent despite identifiable people being in a few of those images. We, as in Commons, contribute to this directly with the constant beating of the "free" drum because when people read free they think of it in the absolute and no consideration is given to consent, trademark, etc. CC furthers this by putting clauses in their licenses that extend beyond copyright into the issue of consent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We can't stop people from being ignorant enough to not know the difference between free as in freedom and free as in beer. We should nonetheless not deny that the difference exists. I fully support Carl Lindberg here and would support the proposal once his concerns have been adequately addressed - including focusing more on educational content and privacy rights. Any changes being made to address them, Blue?--Elvey (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Elvey I think the problem here is semantics and not intent. From my perspective, the original proposal always included what Carl was saying, except that I do believe we should go further and allow a way to do traditional model releases beyond that. Full model releases are the norm in industry, and half-releases of the kind that Carl is describing and that I also want are a novelty with little precedent. The wording problem is that these terms are not defined - "personality rights release", "model release", "editorial release", "privacy release". Some of those might be the same, or they might be degrees of releases with some being a mere acknowledgement that a photo is taken and others being some kind of consent to do anything. So far as I can tell, major photography agencies do not keep multiple kinds of releases, but rather typically ask that the models only agree to one kind. In any case - yes, one kind of release is educational (as for patient photos) and another is for privacy acknowledgement (as in intimate settings where someone may not understand why they are being photographed). Perhaps other kinds of consent ought to be developed. I am not sure what lawyers already do or what industry already does - this is why I want expert opinions. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. It's clear to me that the proposal does NOT include what Carl was saying. I'd support a proposal along these lines led by Carl, because of his expertise in this area. Supporting only a full model release of the kind that Carl indicates would be a bad idea for most people seems deaf to his and my concerns, IMO. Semantics matter. Fuller response here: (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a useful proposal. Provided that community agreement can be obtained, particularly here on Commons, this should provide a good opportunity to rationalise some of the difficult issues of consent that have dogged Wikimedia projects for the last 10 years. It won't solve everything - medical images in particular may perhaps be out of scope - but providing a generally-agreed consent form could help cut through some of the ad hoc arguments and admin decisions that remain too often the norm. As a secondary issue, it would be good to make this an a integral part of the community discussions around improving the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people guideline which has needed significant work for some time. I have started on a re-write at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Draft 2015-16, but haven't got very far with it yet. Discussions with the community will be key, as an externally-imposed legal document is unlikely to gain much traction. But Bluerasberry has been making very significant efforts to involve others and to answer questions, and I'm sure he is well aware of that. I've said to Bluerasberry that if I can be of help (via Commons/OTRS/WMUK or legal), I'd be pleased to become involved. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of the suggestions/concerns here?--Elvey (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Is "Category:Hipsters" defamatory?Edit

Raised this at the village pump without much response. Is it defamatory to include photos of identifiable people in Category:Hipsters, given that the term "hipster" is largely pejorative and none of the people appear to be self-identifying as such? --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we assume?Edit

If a professional photo of a model in a private place is released on the net and there's no documented consent available, can we assume that the subject (the model) is consent with his/her photo on the net and hence upload the photo here? --Mhhossein talk 19:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


If a famous person dies (such as Prince and Tom Petty), are we required to remove any "personality rights" templates on every image of that person? 00:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, in some jurisdictions such rights can last a while after death (sometimes long after)[1]. (In Tom Petty's case, California's lasts a very long time.) Still a valid tag -- just not universally applicable anymore. It's up to re-users to figure out if their use is a problem or not (true if the tag is there or not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: So that tag is meaningless?   — Jeff G. ツ 07:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. We should remove it if it doesn't apply at all, but all warning tags are a courtesy reminder -- I'm sure there are a boatload of images which could have the tag but do not. Commons:General disclaimer always applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Photographs of identifiable people".