Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Can you print a persons phototograph onto a shirt and walk around with it?[edit]

Question above is one of the concerns a possible subject of mine has. - Tobias "ToMar" Maier 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Varies wildly with what country. It wouldn't raise any special copyright issues. The special issues would mainly be personality rights, and there are (to my knowledge) no international treaties on personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The country in question is Austria. Perhaps Germany and Switzerland too.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Law and jurisdiction in Germany is rather strong on personality rights. The situation in Austria and Switzerland might be similar. For details about Austria, see Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Austria. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Photos of children exempted?[edit]

A recent DR I started has been closed a kept because, according to Taivo's explanation on his talkpage, the identification section of this official guideline does not apply for children's photos multiple years after photographing and the photo has been in Commons for many years and the subject is not identifiable any more. If there is indeed such an exception, I think that the guideline should somehow mention it – or has the DR been closed erroneously?    FDMS  4    00:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why a straightforward photograph of a 6-year-old requires explicit consent? The description/filename focus on the teeth, but these are no more unusual than if the photo focused on brown eyes -- hardly a private medical complaint. Aside from this, I agree the subject is identifiable. The cropped version fails to hide the identity, for reasons explained in the guideline and amply demonstrated by links. The idea that because the file is old, or the subject has grown up a bit, somehow makes the subject no longer identifiable or that we should no longer care if the law might have been broken, is ludicrous. Two comments in particular are utterly false: "Maybe the person can be identified outside of Commons, but this is not problem of Commons." and "multiple years after photographing. The photo has been in Commons for many years and the subject is not identifiable any more". Taivo needs to go back to admin-school if he's closing DR's on those misunderstandings. But why was it sent to DR? Looking at David's wiki page, and comparing date-time, it looks like the same girl as in File:Diner by David Shankbone.jpg, taken in Colorado. That looks like a public space to me. You could try asking David. -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Because a) consent is generally required in private places and b) often (depending on national/local legislation) required in public places. You are right that the girl appears to be same girl as in the diner, but the lighting looks considerably different and the date and time of data generation is missing (I doubt any of the photos have been created after midnight local time, so that value must be something else). The DR was a way of asking David; I did however not expect a response since he isn't active anymore.    FDMS  4    18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If the photo is of Shankbone's own child, then consent is presumed. If someone registered a complaint that the photo was of someone else's child, then we'd probably act on it, and maybe if it was obvious the child was unrelated to the photographer. These laws are far more tangled and complicated and not clear-cut than even copyright, which is messy enough itself. In general, I'm not sure we should be proactively policing this type of photo unless the lack of consent is obvious (private place, with unsuspecting or unrelated photographic subjects). Being widely available for 7 years on the internet could actually affect its privacy status, to be honest. If they are uploaded by family / acquaintances I'm not sure we should be deleting on these grounds without an actual complaint. COM:PRP is a copyright-related policy; in this case I think there needs to be a very strong probability of lack of permission before we proactively delete (in the face of a complaint by the subject, the threshold probably goes the other way though). We can use more common sense on these than with the COM:PRP as it relates to copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)