Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Update 2013/Moral issues

• Click on the 'Project page' tab, above to see the current policy/guideline wording that is under discussion on this page.
• To make a specific proposal, please start a new subsection and use the code below to put it in its own box. You can sign underneath the resultant box, but for technical reasons you can't use "~~~~" within it. Please number your proposal for ease of reference.

{{divbox|amber|Proposal number and title|Introduction
*text
*more text}}

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

Proposal 1

• I do not think the current formulation is sufficient/adequate. Our policy regarding moral issues concerning photographs of idenfiable people has to implement and refer to the moral issues stated in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution:Images of identifiable people. More specifically, we need to implement and formulate a policy, which complies with the last point in the resolution
  • Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
• I do not think this is properly addressed in the current moral issues section. Moreover, this part of the resolution speaks of 'images', whereas other sections speaks of photographs and videos. I am not a native English speaker, and I am not sure whether "images" as a term is equivalent with (photographs or videos). Actually, I perceive it myself as a broader term covering also other kinds of depictions of an identifiable person. That is, a derivative work like a painting of a photograph of an identifiable person is also an "image" in my opinion. (Do others agree?) If so, the title of the policy should probably be broadened in its scope and title to "Images of identifiable people" or "Images and videos of identifiable people"? If the scope of the policy is also intended to cover derivative works (I think it should), then a derivative work of a perfectly acceptable photo, which a person complains about shall be subject to the "patience, kindness and respect", which the resolution talks about. The question is how to do this? --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here I fully agree with you. Photographs was may be used just as a legendary term; it (policy) should cover all media files (photographs, videos, graphics, illustrations, animated graphics, or whatever new technology arrives) which contains an image of an identifiable person. (Just a quick feedback as you suggested on my page.) JKadavoor Jee 06:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is clear from the discussions here that changing this policy could result in losing not merely part but most of the Commons collection, based on shadows and daydreams. The existing policy has survived a decade of challenge and supports a useful archive. If we break from this policy, the other viable option is to deliberately accept and promulgate as the sole option for image distribution, the established feudalistic option of transferring our copyrights to corporations able and willing to defend our work, occasionally with the bonus of small and transient economic incentives. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If that part of the collection lost is not used, immoral, and possibly illegal, then I think it would be for the best to lose it. Merely having things to have things isn't a strong objective. We aren't hoarders. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No progress can be made regarding scope or people-photo or licence issues if the argument "we may lose (future) pictures" has any merit whatsoever - yet it keeps being raised. It is time to kill that argument off for good. Our judgement about the best licence, the project scope and handling images of people must not be concerned with the loss of (future) images at all. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wnt, whether you like it or not, we simply do not have the option to leave it as it is, as it does not properly implement the aforementioned WMF resolution. And we cannot just pretend that resolution does not exist. They prevail over project poilicies, and we have the obligation to make sure they are implemented in our policies. --Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • To the contrary, that resolution "urges" Commons to "strengthen and enforce" policy with the "goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline". Their complaint seems more that the existing guideline isn't being enforced than anything else. It is not a clear mandate to change any wording, let alone to change anything about media for which we do not presently require consent, which they explicitly exclude from their comment! Their resolution sounds like a call for more editors to review photos in accordance with the present policy, that is all. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The resolution is badly worded, though Wnts interpretation ignores the "strengthen" and leaving only "enforces". Since the WMF seem incapable of taking a moral stance above that required by law, it is up to the community to decide what it regards as acceptable and "take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy". There are a number of aspects where human dignity is devalued when editors currently claim no consent is required. Colin (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Strengthen" may well mean other things besides massively changing the rules - for instance, marking it as policy rather than guideline, or increasing the likelihood or length of blocks (if "enforce" is interpreted in the narrower sense of increasing the probability and speed of detection of violations). The opposite interpretation - that WMF has instructed us to "just ban something, we don't care what" is not sensible. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Portraits of people

I didn't follow the discussion about sexual issues. Just one possible idea to limit them. Only allow uploads which are to be integrated in an article of a project, in short term (say 2 weeks) otherwise they are deleted and that the picture shows an aspect without illustration yet, where that would be useful (how to define useful?).

The real reason for my post are all those photographs of unknown people which are uncategorized. Usually, I just categorize something else (there is plenty of work). Sometimes I categorize, when I know the name of the person and there is no objection to be seen at first view. But sometimes you have to look up exif to discover a copyvio. But a majority of the portraits are just of nice young men and women. I don't know where the educational aspect could be. Often the the description is very poor, saying things like my teacher / friend / me etc) without any guaranty the person photographed knows about the upload. I think, some volunteers regularly treat these issues, how? I often think, the best would be to delete all uploads of unidentified people made by uploaders without any other uploads or other contributions. (I am able to translate this to French and German if needed.) Traumrune (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Only allow uploads which are to be integrated in an article of a project" Articles are not allowed on this project. They are actually deleted on sight. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When Traumrune says "an article of a project", (s)he means any Wikimedia project, not limited to Commons. --99of9 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

When doing recent-upload patroling I cope with this problem by putting such images (of course, not the ones which are highly problematic per se) into Category:Personal images, which I use as a sort of "might be trash"-dump. This provides the uploader enough time to eventually use them on their userpage, while keeping them still on the radar for later deletion, if they remain unused. Of course, this approach requires to regularly scan Category:Personal images for still unused images, which may then deleted as evidently being out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well point is may be the image has some educational purpose but it will be used on a wiki outside of wikimedia wikis... In fact, all mediawiki wiki could use commons. I'm not sure, in this case that the image appeared as used. May be we need to fill a bug for having the other wikis to report image usage to commons. - Zil (d) 12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Traumrune 100%. You couldn't have stated it better. We are ignoring the "use" policy far too much and not upholding our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern is on the moral issues and this is the recent example coming in my mind. JKadavoor Jee 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is actually already something about this in COM:SCOPE: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: * Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on." I don't think any new policy is desirable on this, but the existing policy here tends to be forgotten, especially, oddly enough, where so-called "porn" is involved. It clearly could be over-enforced, if people were so minded - what we want when we say we want pictures to be educational is really more a matter of text than pictures. A collection of holiday snaps can be educational if that's your girlfriend standing next to the redwood to illustrate the size of the tree ... especially if you say how tall she is in the description. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Taking the painting of a known artist for example of moral issues is not really helpful, because adding two problems a) what is art, b) moral issues concerning portraits on commons - portraits understood as in the first place documentary. I agree with Wnt that a holiday snap can be documentary. Sometimes the documentary aspect is only seen after some years when a cloth that seemed very "dull" because in use, p. ex. in 2006, becomes a document of the time in 2020. This does not make the question easier. Maybe the most important point is the guarantee the pictured person (photo) knows about and excepts the consequences of the publication. Traumrune (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't violate Article 12 for the sake of Artistic freedom; Personal rights is above any other rights. JKadavoor Jee 04:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This nonsense has been making the rounds recently, but it is utterly bogus. The UDHR is directed at governments - it is talking about governments that single out individual dissidents for community-wide ostracism and abuse. It is not making some kind of "right to censorship", as is evidenced by the absurdity of what censorship that prevented any "attack on honor or reputation" would look like. (Even as it is, its emphasis there is haphazard because it was unable to properly assert positive rights to food, shelter, medical care, employment, so it had to resort to telling governments not to single out people to have those denied) Wnt (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So only governments can't harass people; notable people can do any thing if supported by a crat and many similar minded admins? I'm glad if we have many no-nonsense people. JKadavoor Jee 04:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people: "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same." whereas w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_135#NSFW_-_Wikimedia_Commons_video: "I encourage people to go to commons and work to explain to the community there some of the concepts behind Hostile environment sexual harassment. I encourage everyone to seriously consider whether it is appropriate behavior to upload a clearly non-notable film of someone using his penis to paint a picture of a Wikipedia volunteer. It is harassment, it is trolling, and I am deeply disappointed to have to point this out to some people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)" JKadavoor Jee 12:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the UDHR seems out of place here. A declaration aimed at governments is not a good guide for volunteer photographers. It makes the policy weaker by suggesting (at least to me) that the writer was grasping at straws to make their point. --Avenue (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this focus on UHDR as if mentioning it is illogical. The principles we direct and demand of governments is no less applicable to us as individuals. It is irrlevant as to whom the declaration was directed when the morality of it is applicable to us all. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Saffron. The UDHR has been mentioned by this guideline since its creation by Michael Maggs. I don't know where this idea that it is a "declaration aimed at governments" comes from. It covers rights of all people towards all people. It has influence on the behaviour of government, employers, the press, the armed forces, teachers, parents... everyone towards everyone else including Commons photographers and those who reuse our material. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Photography of people should be kept only if they are useful right now and if there is explicit consent from all the portrayed people. (Except, off course, for notable people in public notable appearances) In a time where photography storing them is quite common it is extremely unlikely that in 20 (or 200) years we can not find plenty reports of something that is common today. We already have too much disrespect for privacy to have WMF/WP/Commons to push it even further (i.e., the fact that there are aleady plenty violations of privacy out there should make us more careful, not less) - Nabla (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What does "useful right now" mean concretely? And would this extreme policy mean removal of every photo of something unrelated where a person happens to also be in the image (as a kind of non-copyright "de minimis")? Personally I do not care a lot about the identifiable people policy, but I just do not want it to get in my way of doing urban photography where there are almost always some people present somewhere in the image, even though they are by no means the main subject. darkweasel94 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

    This idea is patently ridiculous. Public spaces are fair game for photography imo unless someone in it asks for it to be removed, in which case we will consider it. The idea that we can't have any pictures of people unless the picture is in use is, first of all, against the idea that we exist for more than just wikimedia projects, and is also stupid. By that logic we can't have photos of Obama unless they're actively in use? Oh come on... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    Taking pictures of people in public places is a legal activity in some jurisdictions, but that doesn't address whether it is moral to do so. Moreover, defamation would trump the legality of the act. Allowing any image of an identifiable person to be uploaded to Commons without explicit consent of that individual where it would be reasonable to assume the person might object is just wrong. If an image is uploaded and an individual then objects on the grounds it defames or is embarrassing we should delete it as a matter of courtesy and policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

    Please answer my question: would this apply to merely incidental presence of some people in a photo? darkweasel94 05:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    You mean like an image of a group of people in Taksim Sqaure during a protest? Or do you mean a picture of a beautiful sunny beach that has a lone girl sunbathing topless? Whether or not the people are readily identifiable is the test not how much of the image space they take up. This is true even if only by those that would know them would be one the ones making the identification. Howver, I don't want to overstate the issue and do not think we need consent releases for every image with an identifiable person in it. Just those where being identified in a picture could lead to defamation of the person or where it would be reasonable to consider that it would casue embarassment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

    I mean images such as File:Linie 68 Troststrasse.JPG or File:Linie 66 Wiedner Hauptstrasse Hst Resselgasse.JPG. If you view the images at full resolution, you can identify several of the people on the sidewalk/tram platform, and on the first one possibly also the tram conductor. Do you think this should require consent from those random people? darkweasel94 12:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for the examples. A photo agency like Getty images would say that for commercial use both would require model release except when used in an editorial context. I think that standard would be too stringent for Commons. Here a reasonableness test should be applied and I think it would be unreasonable to assume these would cause anyone embarrassment. However once accepted to Commons and one of the people were to contact us and say that they request the removal for a valid reason we should accept that. It is not like the either image is notably unique and/or non-reproducible. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    These particular images are in a way unique and non-reproducible, because they document tram lines that were in service only for one summer. But that's just a side note. I do not agree we should remove those images even if one of those people should ever complain - it is clear that they are not intended to be photos of people, they most likely will not cause anybody embarassment, and, even though this sounds extremely provocative and polemic: if you make a photo worse by distracting from its main subject by standing in the camera's view, then you lose any right to complain about having the result published. darkweasel94 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

    As a photographer I can empathise with your disdain for people that walk into a perfectly good scene and ruin it. However that doesn't mean my lack of patience should be an excuse to override their right to privacy and/or personality rights. With that said, I agree those images should stay precicely because they are not of a sort that would likely cause defamation or embarassment. If in fact someone did complain I would hope we take their concern into consideration. The fact is the people in the images could easily be digitally removed, or sufficiently altered to protect their identity, without affecting the autheticity of the image at all. 09:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    I do think we can consider it in different ways whether the identifiable person is the main subject of the image, or located on it only incidentally. The latter case (which is what I care most about) should almost never raise consent issues. I have no strong opinion about other cases. darkweasel94 22:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  Agree with Nabla 100%. This should be common sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Holding up "uncensored" as an ideal that trumps human dignity is morally bankrupt. Images of identifiable people should only be accepted if the person depicted has consented. It is a high standard but one that could be managed through the OTRS system. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Holding up "morality" as an ideal that trumps other moral issues is also bankrupt. The freedom of photographers to record an ordinary street scene or an important event is also a vital moral issue. The right to know by ordinary people, not just an elite or those in authority, is a moral position that the Wikipedias have worked for. In the Cold War liberal opinion condemned those societies that violated these rights and freedoms (while covertly collecting as much information in state hands as possible). Now, just as the scale of state surveillance has been glimpsed (legal/illegal they just do it), liberal moralizers are saying we should join a clamp-down on citizen journalists and photographers. --Simonxag (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Street photography and candid shots (of non-famous people) are controversial. I'm not talking about shots where the subject is a crowd or happens to have people in it. I mean shots where individuals are the subject. The old man waiting at the bus stop. The beautiful girl crossing the street. The old ladies and their walking sticks. Photography has a long tradition of such shots and many of these images are celebrated. But many people find this photography uncomfortable and strongly disapprove of it. They wouldn't dream of taking such pictures let alone publishing them. It is valid for people to express their views on this issue here: it helps to know that not everyone thinks like you do. Please do not describe other's views as "patently ridiculous". Some people's opinions, if expressed as policy, would involve the deletion of thousands of images. That doesn't mean such opinions should be shot down in mocking flames or can't be expressed here. Nobody should feel pressure that they can only express opinions which conform to some kind of lowest-common-denominator consensus. Indeed, doing so will get us nowhere.

The standards photo agencies use are rather extreme: they have a surplus of potential images to choose from and only want those that will give them and their customers no trouble at all. And their images must generally be usable not just commercially but for promotional purposes too (hence the need for a model release in nearly all cases where someone is in the picture).

As for the "censored" card. This card is given too much power and is a cheap trick to play. It's a "Godwin's law". If one's only argument for keeping a picture is "not censored" then you have no argument at all. So let's not play that card as its use simply means that the other person's editorial judgement is different from your own, and rather than argue on the merits of the picture, or agree to respect each other's different views, you are playing games. Colin (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Simonxag, I am not sanctioning censorship. I am saying that the goal of having access to quality editorial content does not mean we need to accept every image, especially if that image is likely to cause an individual harm in the way of defamation or embarrassment. Do we really need to accept hundreds of photos of young people doing potentially embarrassing things while drunk on Spring Break vacations in order to ensure we can upload the image of a politician snorting cocaine at a party? I think we are rational enough to manage those differences, but we need policy that supports it too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be too restrictive. For example at sports events there is a presumption that the athletes have put themselves in the public gaze, and I doubt many sports fans would object that they will sometimes appear in the background. Equally what about people marching in a parade or a brass band performing. Though generally its best to have uncluttered photos and not have identifiable people unless there is reason for them to be in shot. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Public" doesn't necessarily guarantee a right to photograph, and many countries and locations push back on the notion (see the Google Street View issue). Additionally, many sporting events don't allow certain photographs to be released without permission under various legal justifications. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of sports events from the fans perspective not the commercial organisers - I appreciate that some sports events will restrict photography for commercial reasons. But the images that we don't get because people aren't allowed to take them are not really our concern in this debate. Where you are not barred from taking a photograph I doubt many fans would object to finding that they appear in a picture. Of course some such pictures would actually be improved by making the crowd in the backdrop out of focus, perhaps that would be preferable in some scenarios? If so maybe we could get the WMF to invest in a blur this area bot WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the CC-BY licensing allowing commercial use of our images might cause a lot of problems related to things like the NFL, who is heavily litigious when it comes to their images. I really don't know to be honest, which is why I mentioned it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The CC-BY (or other) license is a license by the copyright holder, and it concerns copyright and nothing else, not even implied. It prevents the copyright holder from suing reusers, but it does not prevent anybody else from suing reusers. darkweasel94 18:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside: It prevents the copyright holder from suing reusers who comply with the license. If, for example, they reuse without attribution, they are infringing, just as much as if the license didn't exist. (Off topic for this page, which is why this is just an aside.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We can still be sued for hosting with claims that the licensing actively encourages others or misleads others into violating their rights. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

While I am not a lawyer, I doubt that - all we are claiming is that there is a copyright license, and that is true. We often even put personality rights warnings on description pages. Every reuser has to know for themself what other risks may be involved. For example, using photos of an identifiable politician in a newspaper is probably ok, but using them in advertising probably isn't (though both are "commercial use"). darkweasel94 10:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Not a lawyer either, but....) As I understand it, least in the U.S., use in an an ad is "promotional use," which is considerably more restricted with reference to personality rights than commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright licences can be used to restrict reuse in a way that helps the photographer/uploader from getting sued by his subject. If the photograph was taken under a contract that disallows commercial use of any photographs taken (e.g., many sporting venues and your local zoo) then the photographer cannot release the picture for commercial use, even if he doesn't personally charge for it. He can't upload it to Commons at all. He could upload it to Flickr and stick a CC BY-NC licence on it which will prevent commercial use because of copyright-infringement. And if his contract said "photographs only for personal use" then he'd have to prevent even non-commercial re-use of the image and so if he published it on Flickr he could use full copyright protection to make that clear.

Now, typically Commons doesn't concern itself with non-copyright issues like these contractual terms but that is because Commons doesn't care about uploaders getting sued by third-parties. That's their lookout. If such a picture is used commercially, the photographer could possibly be sued. The re-user didn't do anything wrong. That's my interpretation; I'm no lawyer. Colin (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the non-lawyers here have come up with a standard that makes Flickr illegal/immoral/unworkable, and countless other such sites. Why is it wrong for people here to do the same thing they do, only with a free license? Is there something inherently immoral about free-licensing content that doesn't apply if you display it on Flickr with a "For Sale By Getty Images" sign? Wnt (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic of considerable community interest/importance. Please see Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2 to discuss how we should proceed from here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

It's funny how the WMF changes the upload form in order to make it easier, yet the deletion process wasn't changed much at all. The Main Page and the file pages don't contain links to the deletion process. Finding out how to delete images is difficult for those who aren't familiar with wikis, navigation on a wiki, and templates. Requesting deletion is ten times more difficult than uploading via the upload wizard. Perhaps the WMF should develop a deletion wizard, and perhaps file pages should contain a clear, visible link to such a wizard. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" is clearly there in the toolbox, so I don't see the problem. darkweasel94 19:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe a link in a sidebar (away from the content) is the best solution in terms of usability. The useful stuff ("Edit", "View history", "Search") are on the other side of the page, and information about the file are below the preview / thumbnail. The sidebar is perhaps the last place a newcomer will search for "Nominate for deletion". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessarily bad; if we make it too visible, we'll likely have a larger number of pointless deletion requests (with reasons like "explicit nudity", or even mere keyboard tests) than we have now. Nominating for deletion doesn't need to be one of the most basic tasks one can do with an image. darkweasel94 23:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm with darkweasel here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion is not always the best solution, even if someone has a valid complaint, and our deletion processes are not really geared towards demonstrating "patience, kindness and respect" (for good reasons). Instead of making "Nominate for deletion" more prominent, how about adding a general "Complaints" button? This could lead people through a wizard which directs them to an existing forum suitable for the main issue in their complaint (e.g. accuracy, copyright, etc) or, for images of themselves, lets them submit their complaint for consideration as outlined by Slaunger above. --Avenue (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean something similar to Options > Report in Facebook where people can complain "I don't like this photo of me" which result an immediate deletion? JKadavoor Jee 15:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting any particular or immediate result of making a complaint, let alone deletion (although acknowledging the complaint would be polite). I'm simply suggesting a way that I think we could provide for people to easily make such complaints, and for them to be directed to the appropriate venue or process. --Avenue (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems a good suggestion. Moreover, the person in the photo (if he is not a Wikimedian) may not be familiar with procedures and formalities for a DR here. So it is good if we provide a simple facility like a "Report/Complain"" button/link which guides the guest how he/she can register a complaint. Further the complaint should be processed by a proper forum without demanding much efforts from them. Chances that the initial response from the victim is in an angry manner; we should handle and respond in a polite manner. JKadavoor Jee 03:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with you Avenue. That is exactly what I had in mind. It should not be have anything to do with the formal deletion request, which is alienating for any non-regular. And as you said even a valid complaint does not have to lead to deletion. It could lead to, e.g., a cropped version or a version where the face of an identifiable person is blurred.--Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3

• People on a nudist beach are not necessarily agreeing to pose for the Internet. We don't know which beaches have "no camera" signs, but there is a difference between being nude in front of someone in the same state and having nude photos of you bandied around the Internet. People going through the latest airport scanners might be argued to have agreed to have some security people look at an effectively nude image of them, but they are highly unlikely to have agreed to have that posted on the Internet. There is also a difference between a bit of drunken exhibitionism at a Mardi Gras and a permanent record on the Internet. A premeditated political demonstration or an artwork is different, as would be posing nude for a painter. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said. Nice to see common sense be applied on the Commons. Every image of an identifiable person will require a judgment call to determine whether it might be defamatory or embarrassing. If the uploader doesn't supply that judgment we need to have policy to do it for them. However, it doesn't need to be a strictly prescriptive policy. Perhaps common sense and common decency will be given a chance. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I think we need to build commonsense and so forth into the actual policy. With a global site and every culture and language involved we need clear rules. For example we currently allow photos taken on nudist beaches even where you could in theory identify the person if you knew them. My proposal would be to change that assumption and assume that a nudist beach is actually a private place and what come of there is only off there unless by mutual agreement. That seems like commonsense to me, but it won't to everyone, and it would as I understand it be a change in policy. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WereSpielChequers, I think your first bullet-point above is more useful for our purposes (establishing opinions/consensus) than the proposal text. I keep saying this whole review of scope/people policy structure is wrongheaded and not leading anywhere useful. We need to first try to establish people's opinions on this matter before proposing text. And IMO guidance text works best if it guides rather than has lots of rules. So we explain which circumstances require greater care (e.g., nudity) and which circumstances make consent less likely to be safely assumed (not posing for the camera) and also that even posing for the camera doesn't actually safely imply consent for Commons. People can combine this guidance together for the particular circumstances of the photograph. It works better than an "if x and not y then delete" approach which fails on too many cases. The latter two points are already in the guideline but the idea that nudity makes any difference is one that isn't in the guideline. I don't think we have a generally agreed method for when OTRS is required for consent or even if OTRS is the way to do it at all.

There are two aspects: do we need consent and do we have consent. It is clear from deletion discussions that many on Commons will oppose any consent requirements above those required by law, or think they can avoid consent requirements by blurring the face of the subject of a photograph. That shouldn't be interpreted as indicating Commons consensus more widespread than that of the sort of people who hang around deletion discussions of nude images.

First, does nudity affect how we determine if consent was given and whether it is sufficient for commons? Some of our existing guidance applies equally here. Perhaps we can establish that nudity makes it less likely that consent for global publication was given. Secondly, does nudity affect whether consent is required or the quality of evidence of consent required? It would be good to get more opinions on this. Depressingly, the first thing Commons:Nudity says is "Commons is not censored". I'm not sure I share Saffron's optimism. This site lacks the sort of editorial restraint of any professional photography library. -- Colin (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Colin is certainly on the right track here. I would offer that indeed nudity and many other situations give rise to requirement for consent that border on a model release. If the person in the image would reasonably object to the image being featured on the front page of Commons then I won't upload it regardless of the legality of when, where or why it was taken. Now if the image had some important historical significance this might trump someone's concern but the value of that image would have to be pretty high. Images involving nudity, or where embarrassment is likely, simply need confirmed consent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of things wrong with this proposal but let's start with the "100 years" bit. You're saying that a perfectly good published nude photo in an old Playboy that lapsed to PD and was scanned as part of an ordinary library upload is going to require somebody track down the model or surviving family for a release? Wnt (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Taking old magazines in general as I don't know whether Playboy employed paparazzi. If someone has clearly posed nude for a magazine then I would count that as "deliberately going nude or topless and seeking camera attention". If the magazine is showing some long lens work of someone sunbathing topless then I would treat that differently. Does that reassure you a little? WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic of considerable community interest/importance. Please see Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2 to discuss how we should proceed from here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)