User talk:Abd/Bystander photos/Bystander selfies

Basis for this page:

• Law review article, covering, in massive detail, the issue of "author" as used in copyright law.
• WMF legal opinion, exactly on point. From that page:

If someone wanted to take a picture of himself at a particular time and place, posed in a certain manner, but did not have a timer or tripod, and asked someone else to take the photo for him, most likely the person asking someone else to take his photo would be considered the sole author. This is because the person whose photograph is being taken had sole control over how the photo was taken – they chose the place, pose, etc., and likely the angle and lighting as well. As the sole author, the subject of the photo would be the sole copyright holder and could then license or display his work however he preferred. This scenario probably covers most situations where a friend or stranger is asked to take a picture of the subject without advance planning.

In discussion of this, a user pointed to "most likely" and "probably," as if this were a weakness. In fact, there is no case law on the exact point, and it is "likely" that there won't be, because a case would have to be created by action of the bystander, and (1) people just don't do that, and (2) it is "most likely" that the bystander would lose, incurring legal expenses, and gaining nothing but opprobrium. So the lawyer was merely being lawyerly.

• And, then, there are Commons deletion discussions where the fact that the uploader was in the photo was used to claim copyright violation. Where there was wide participation, Keep decisions have been common. Delete decisions also exist, but generally seem to have involved complications or lower participation.

The purpose of this proposed policy is to resolve the issue, to avoid future disruption. "Bystander selfie" is a reasonably clear category, easily defined, and bystander selfies are very common. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)