Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos by jammmick

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of an identifiable non-public figure, possibly a minor, taken in a private place and uploaded without obtaining the subject's consent.

Rrburke (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The EXIF data looks in order, the photos are knowingly posed so the model would be giving tacit consent for the photographer, I cannot find the photos anywhere else on the internet that might challenge their originality, and the photographs were (apparently) taken in more than one shoot. This would indicate that the model is well known to the photographer. I have sent a Flickrmail to jammmick (5 Dec 12 @4.22PM GMT) asking for more information about this series of shots, the nature of consent from the model and confirmation that the model was not a minor at the time the photos were taken. If I get a reply, I'll repost or summarize here so a decision can be based on facts provided by the photographer. Thanks -- (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. Agreeing to pose for pics in an intimate setting can hardly be equated with giving your consent to have them uploaded to the web and transferred to the Commons. I'd like to hear from the subject rather than the photographer. Rrburke (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree there is an important difference. Let's see if the photographer gets back to me within 7 days and then, depending on the situation, I could ask if the (currently pseudonymous) photographer would be prepared to email via OTRS, to ensure their verifiable name and address is confidentially on the record; so that the photographer is legally responsible for claims made about these photographs rather than anyone else. The photos have been public and available on this license for more than 18 months since they were taken, and Flickr would have quickly removed them had there been any complaint from the model. Nevertheless, If we hear nothing from the photographer, then I would support deleting as a precaution as we can always undelete if the situation is made clear with a few credible facts. As neither the photographer nor model has made any complaint, the photographs are not distressing, appear to be of an adult model (to my eyes anyway) and do not feature nudity, but just fringe on being (very mild compared to this photo by the same photographer) homoerotic glamour photography, this is hard to imagine as needing a speedy deletion, rather than waiting for a couple of days for the Flickrstream owner to notice a Flickrmail (they often get ignored). Thanks -- (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Unused personal images with no educational use, clearly outside the scope of the Commons. And publication might be a violation of the subjects privacy. (However I fail to see the sex, nudity or intimacy that people are busy arguing about.) --Simonxag (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless we have more information about permission from the subject. --Conti| 02:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Morning (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have a Flickrmail back from the photographer (dated 28 December 2012) confirming that the model was not a minor. However the photographer prefers these to not be published on Commons, so there seems good reason to leave these deleted. I have recommended they review the licence on Flickr and consider a more restrictive one that better suits their expectation of limiting re-use. Thanks -- (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]