Notification about possible deletionEdit
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Question on public photograpy in South KoreaEdit
Hi again Explicit, I have added this file, File:Burning Sun protest9.jpg, and am comfortable that the protester is covered up and not recognizable. However, I did not get consent from the protestor, nor MBC's cameraman. Are the laws so strict that I would need their permission, do you think? Or is this photo legally within guidelines? Thanks, as always.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The current legislature requires consent if they are identifiable, strictly applied to Press as well. See also my draft at Commons:Country specific consent requirements. (Commented out in Japan section)
- Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see exceptions below)
- Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
- Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
Like Japan, there is no formal legal definition of "right of publicity", "right of portrait", or other related rights. However, there are several case regarding the "Right of publicity" citing the "privacy" clause and "human dignity and value" of the Constitution.
- Court has ruled that "Even if published, using portraits on commercial books without permission is violating right of publicity".
- 이재진, 동세호 (2015-04). "방송 관련 초상권 침해 소송에서 나타난 ‘동의’의 적용 법리에 대한 연구". 언론과 법 14 (1): 111.
- 서울민사지방법원 1982년 7월 21일 선고 82카19263 결정
- — regards, Revi 01:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Depends. The point is if the subject is identifiable it should require consent. If not, generally no. I find the photo quite hard to identify but it might differ. — regards, Revi 01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Revi, aside from the person, I was concerned with photographing the MBC camera (and TV trucks, other equipment, etc.). Those are OK, then? Thanks for your help.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bonnielou2013: I find myself in agreement with revi. I don't see any possibility of the protestor being identified, so it doesn't seem like it violates Korean law. All the other things you've listed serve utilitarian function and can not possibly be copyrighted. The MCB News logo falls below the threshold of originality and its inclusion is fine, and would likely be de minimis even if it were a complex logo because the main subject is the protestor, not the logo. ℯxplicit 07:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much Explicit, each step is a learning process for me, first with "no buildings", now "no people without consent"....you made me feel better about this one. I am so grateful we have helpful hands like you and Revi on board!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:Libraries in the United States photographed in 2012 closeEdit
Do you mind removing the notices from other categories like Category:Religious buildings by year of photographing about the deletion discussion? If not, I can do it myself but I think it's better for the closer to do it. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
File:(직캠)(4K 60P) 폴킴 - 좋은사람 (180415 2018 H.A.N.D 페스티벌) by.JAS.webm has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.