Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)


Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

 

Symbols-Logo contest: draft proposal[edit]

I want to propose for a rapid grant for a Wikimedia Commons Symbols contest. Read the draft proposal below. I kindly ask you for:

  • Discussion whether the symbol contest should be a logo-contest for Wikimedia Commons’ symbols? So that the winner symbol will be used to mark symbols at Wikimedia Commons and also at the Category:Symbols category page and subcategory pages.
  • If you oppose the logo-contest, what other symbol specific content should the winner symbol be used for? What should the symbols specific focus be and how could the symbol be used?
  • Discussion whether the symbol contest should be announced at the Category:Symbols category page aand subcategory pages?
  • Jury participation and organizational help

Draft Proposal:

What content will the contest focus on, and why is it important to your community?

Current situation regarding access to symbols/icons:

  • There is no central repository that allows free access to symbols/icons.
  • There is a high demand for icons.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-place-online-to-sell-icons “Iconfinder.com has 1.3 million unique monthly visitors. [...] I do know that GraphicRiver boasts several millions. [...] iStockPhoto and Shutterstock have been around for at least 2 decades so they have tens-of-millions of monthly users, if not more.”

  • The demand for icons is met by icon online market places that resell icons with high commission rates (30-70%)
  • Wikimedia Commons has already a lot of icons and contributing designers (over 1 000 registered vector graphics editors).
  • The number of icons on Wikimedia Commons is insuffiecient though. The number of icons is also small compared to icon online market places.
  • Wikimedia Commons already has Category:Symbols.
  • Category:Symbols could be better presented to attract more designers of vector graphics.

The contest will therefore focus on symbols/icons. The symbols/icons-contest is important to the Wikimedia Commons community as it will:

  • increase the number of symbols/icons
  • attract already active designers of vector graphics to contribute
  • attract designers who have not yet contributed to Category:Symbols
  • increase the identification with Category:Symbols

How will you let people know about the contest?

The contest will be announced at the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump, at the Wikimedia Forum, via Wikimedia-I mailing list, on the Category:Symbols category site and subcategory sites.

How will you judge the contest and award prizes?

An international Jury will choose the winners. Rules:

  • Be self created: All entries must be original symbols uploaded by their authors. Symbols uploaded by anyone else than author (even with permission) are not accepted.
  • Be self uploaded during the contest period (1st December 2016 - 28th February 2017): You are also welcome to submit symbols you may have taken in the past. What matters is that the symbols must be uploaded during the contest period.
  • Be under a free license;
  • Contain a logo for Wikimedia Commons symbols.
  • Have the format .svg
  • A participant should have an activated e-mail address via Preferences of his/her account.

For photo contests, what is the strategy to get images used on projects?

The symbol contest is a logo-contest for Wikimedia Commons’ symbols? So that the winner symbol will be used to mark symbols at Wikimedia Commons and also at the Category:Symbols category page and subcategory pages.

Is there anything else you want to tell us about this project?

  1. Prize: 300 $ and the logo being used for Wikimedia Commons symbols
  2. Prize: 150 $
  3. Prize: 75 $
—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.47.243.233 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Edited by GabrielVogel — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielVogel (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request[edit]

I think we should convert the Undeletion Requests to a one page per request format for several reasons:

  • Ability to link to a particular request. Currently you would have to guess in which archive the request will end up in to link to it. Of course that link is invalid at the moment you add it and will only (hopefully) become correct later one.
  • Similar to this, I think Undeletion Requests should be documented on a file's talk page so that the undeletion rationale can easily be identified in case of successive DRs.
  • Most importantly, when closing an UnDR, I often give hints to the requester on how to proceed (for example by using the OTRS process) using {{ping}}. They will receive a notification, but this notification will be invalid after 8 hours when the UnDR gets archived. That is why I often do not close clear "not done" UnDRs immediately to give the pinged persons a chance to see a comment I leave for them. That increases the workload for everyone, because UnDRs that should be marked as "done" will stay on the page for longer than necessary.

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks a good idea to me. Yann (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's the only way to provide a fine-grained tracking of undeletion requests. --Discasto talk 22:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm leaning neutral at the moment, since I think most of the above is either addressable with or mitigated by Permalinks/Special:Diff (and in the case of pings, the button to "View changes"); but while I do think it's probably a small net positive, I think we should explicitly ping @Jameslwoodward:, who is the most active admin on COM:REFUND, in case he doesn't have VPP on his watchlist. Storkk (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Please remember that most of the people who need pings are new users. I don't think we can rely on View changes. Thanks for pinging Jim! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to agree, but if I am closing an UnDR request from an OTRS member, I tend to assume they know how to view the ping... if I am closing an UnDR from a new user or someone who I don't recognize, I will generally try to bring the file to full compliance myself, and I don't think relying on them to spot a ping in the first place is a great idea. Storkk (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the ping, Storkk. I think it would be a good thing for all the reasons mentioned above. But, and this is a big "but", before I take a stand one way or the other, I think we need to discuss actual implementation. Opening a separate page for DRs is made easy by the "Nominate for Deletion" button in the left column and VFC for mass DRs. Going the other way, those don't work, because the file doesn't exist in public space. I assume that in order to start an UnDR under the proposed system, a user would have to create a new page in Commons space (i.e. "Commons:Undeletion requests/some filename") and then transclude the new page at the bottom of the current UnDR page. That's easy enough for us, but a significant fraction of UnDRs are requested by newbies. (The word "unsigned" appears 24 times on the 116 UnDRs in the current archive and that's not all the newbies.) How many of them are going to have trouble with the process?
I think this could work only if we start by getting a tool to do the work -- so that users can go to Commons:Undeletion requests, click on a button there, and have a form pop up that will allow them to fill in one or more file names and a reason and then have the page and transclusion created with the signature added automatically, much as "Nominate for Deletion" works. Then a tool like DelReqHandler could handle closing them, including removing the {{Delete}} or {{Speedy}} tags and adding a link to the file talk page(s) if the closing is an undelete. If we could have that, I would strongly support it. If not, I think we'd have a lot of frustrated newbies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree totally. Requesting an undeletion should basically work the same way it does now with the transclusion either happening automatically or by a periodically running bot. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It occurs to me that there is something we can easily change that will make it easier to cite an UnDR. If we always archived into the month in which the UnDR was opened, rather than the one in which it iwas closed, then for any given UnDR you would know that it was either still active or in a specific month. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Another item I would add to my wish list for the tool is that it show the user a list of his deleted files. We often see incorrect file names in UnDRs because the user cannot see his deleted files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Tuválkin 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but with support for newbies (as elaborated by Jameslwoodward). I think this could be simplified by adding a link to a tool for undeletions in the notifications about possible deletions that are posted on the users' talk page. This would be easy to find and would avoid the difficulty of remembering the correct file names. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Implementation[edit]

@Yann, Discasto, Storkk, Jameslwoodward, Tuvalkin: @AFBorchert: Since this idea seems to have general approval, let's think about implementation, which I think consists of three parts:

  1. Replace the current Undeletion Box on Commons:Undeletion requests with a form to create a new subpage, like on Commons:Requests for checkuser. The template should include a category like Category:Undeletion requests to be listed.
  2. A bot should regularly check that category and add any pages listed there to the proposal page using transclusion and remove the subpage from the category.
  3. The archival bot must be changed to archive transclusions instead of sections.

Does this plan sound reasonable? Did I forget something? @Steinsplitter: Since your bot is currently on archival duty: Could/would you change the way archiving works? Also, would you add the listing duty (point 2), or should I look for another bot? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Would require a re-write, i don't plan to do that. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Bonus: I now created {{Undeleted}} for inclusion on restored talk pages. After this is implemented, we should change the UnDR gadget to automatically add this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at File talk:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg, which now gives a nice history of deletion/undeletion if properly maintained. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Just so no one is confused by the slightly different appearance: I have removed the deprecated langbars (i18n now happens automatically) and made all three templates use the unified tmbox.    FDMS  4    11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And another note: Jim had a lot of good suggestions for further improvements above. While this implementation so far does not address most of them, I think it is overall an improvement to the current situation and a basis to build on later. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Your proposal looks good to me. Yann (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we assume?[edit]

If a professional photo of a model in a private place is released on the net and there's no documented consent available, can we assume that the subject (the model) is consent with his/her photo on the net and hence upload the photo here? Do we need to add this to the guideline? --Mhhossein talk 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is now at least the fourth (or fifth?) place you brought this up. Every single time you were refuted. If you really have a suggestion on how to improve the wording of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, bring it up there, but stop spamming the project. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out the reasoning behind this comment. I have brought here, to "improve the wording of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people" by adding statement showing assumption is allowed on some occasions, if the consensus is on that. "spamming the project"? What a bizarre comment. This board is exactly devised "for proposals relating to the ... and policies of Wikimedia Commons," what I'm exactly trying to do. Simply keep out, if you don't wish to participate. --Mhhossein talk 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I can only second Sebari here. Your refusal to accept what you were told is in issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's because that situation ceases to qualify as a "private place" -- so your statement is nonsensical. Wherever a professional photo is being taken, cannot be a private place. Therefore, there is generally no such thing as a "professional photo of a model in a private place". At that point, whether the photograph is allowed to be published is more of a contractual issue between the model and the photographer -- not a privacy issue. That contractual issue is not part of the policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the civil response Carl Lindberg. However, apparently the guideline does not support your claim, i.e. "Wherever a professional photo is being taken, cannot be a private place." How about adding it to the guideline to remove further doubts? By the way, could you please explain how your claim is not in contradiction with "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet?" ِDoes it need to be modified? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 08:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The guideline does say that. A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy while a public place is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation – the terms are unrelated to whether the land is privately or publicly owned. A model standing in front of a camera with lighting etc. does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is. Thus, it is not a private place. The examples there also state how a place which may normally be private (a hospital ward) can become public in a different situation (public tour without patients). It then says, In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places.[2] Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. Thus, in many jurisdictions, that (simply being a public place) is the end of the privacy issue. The quote you mention is only in places where local law differs in that respect (i.e. further consent is needed), and even then is usually more an issue for the photographer than the uploader (unless the upload is the first publication). Certainly, we would consider all aspects if the model requested the photo be removed. But you would need to point to an actual local law which covers the photo's situation for it to be deleted based on requests from others -- and that would be exceedingly unlikely for a professional photo (the model and photographer would normally have already have a contract, or at least understanding, before the shoot). Since contractual issues are beyond the scope of this guideline, it would usually take one of the principals (photographer or model) requesting a deletion for us to delete on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
But which part of the guideline says that quotation "is only in places where local law differs in that respect"? The current form appears to be a general statement applicable in all the states. --Mhhossein talk 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The part that I quoted. If it's a public place, in the U.S. the entire "consent" section is moot. It's there if you read carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding public places, yes you're right. But you are assuming that when it comes to professional shots, automatically the model has no expectation for privacy and the place of photography, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered a public place. You assumption is faulty in my opinion, because you are taking the model's satisfactory with being photographed equal to his/her zero expectation of privacy. Yes the model is certainly consent with being photographed and you mentioned this by saying "...[the model] does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is," but that does not necessarily mean that the model is consent with the photos on the net. The point is to determine if the model is consent with his/her photo on the net or any other places. Simply, "consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image." That's why the guideline correctly says "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet." This means that the model clearly expected the professional photographer make photos out of him/her but that does not allow the photographer to publish it where ever he wants. You're saying that when we have models and professional shots, private place is meaningless. If so, the part of the guideline, i.e "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet," is completely meaningless because it's talking about models. --Mhhossein talk 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I may not be able to convince you of that at this point. But no. There is no expectation of privacy at a professional shoot. If it is announced that a public tour will be coming through a bathroom, that bathroom ceases to be a private place. Likewise, when a professional photographer sets up, that ceases to be a private place. The model's particular desires do not enter into it whatsoever, other than the contract with the photographer, at least in the U.S. The model cannot use privacy law to limit the distribution of the photograph. Commercial use would be regulated by publicity rights, but that would be it. That entire "consent" section you are quoting is possible examples of laws which may exist elsewhere, but not the U.S. The U.S. standard is strictly based on whether a "reasonable person" would have an expectation of privacy (basically, would expect they would not be photographed) -- not what one specific person wanted out of the situation. There is simply no way that a reasonable person would not expect to be photographed -- and yes, that is the "private place" standard in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you are arguing based on your won info or may be based on some documented law regrading privacy right in US, while I'm just speaking based on clear sentences existing in our guideline. Well, if there are documents showing that "private place standard in the U.S." is whether some one "expect[s] to be photographed" or not, presenting them would be beneficial. One more thing, if those parts of "consent" section I quoted, i.e. "consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to..." and "model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio...", are "possible examples of laws which may exist elsewhere, but not the U.S." then the guideline should be modified in these parts, too. --Mhhossein talk 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount of other material for the type of legal issues which affect photos on Commons over the years, yes, so some of that probably colors my understanding. However, the policy does say: In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Thus, once it is deemed a public place, consent is a non-issue in the U.S., so the entire "Consent" section is not relevant. And the policy does make clear what a "public place" is -- it is entirely based on if a reasonable person has an expectation of privacy in that situation. If a friend took a photo of you at a party, and later published it against your consent -- you are typically out of luck, legally. I think much of the material in the "consent" section used to be titled "moral issues" to separate it from actual privacy law, since in the U.S. it is unrelated. Still, many of the concerns there (while not illegal) can affect people in unwanted ways, and so they are valid issues for involved people (photographer or pictured person) to bring up if they want a photo deleted -- we should take those concerns seriously, as the point of the site is to be educational, not cause harm to people's lives. They are also something for photographers to consider before uploading. But for deletion out of hand, they generally do not apply: the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. That is the operative guideline. Laws typically differ quite a bit between countries, so those elements in some jurisdictions may be part of laws or court rulings. But to delete anything in that situation from Commons, you would need to point out an actual law which applies and prevents publication -- the simple listing of the possibility in the "consent" section is not a policy to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: Could you please read my comment carefully once again? pay attention to the part of my comment which says "But you are assuming that when it comes to professional shots, automatically the model has no expectation for privacy and the place of photography, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered a public place." This is considered a self-made comment unless you can show us that this claim is supported by legal documents regarding document. You are placing your whole argument on the slippery assumption that "Professional shot = Public place". Please, show us that this claim has legal basis in the real world. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
On the basis of the existing guideline I agree with Carl Lindberg. I've long thought that the guideline needs substantial review, though, and and I'd be receptive to suggestions for future improvement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs: Carl Lindberg is saying that when we have models and professional shots, the concept of private place is meaningless only because the model already expects to be photographed. If so, the part of the guideline, i.e "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet," is completely meaningless because it's talking about models. Read my full comment please. --Mhhossein talk 11:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the guideline can definitely be improved, but that will not be an easy or quick process as we know from experience that different editors have very strongly-held but mutually incompatible ideas of what the guidelines ought to say. Some would require virtually no subject consents, whereas other would require them all the time. Local laws and practice vary hugely between countries. I still do have in mind attempting a comprehensive re-write of these guidelines, with an associated RFC, but not just at the moment as the time committment will be large. For now, we have to work with the wording we have. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Professional shot = Public place?[edit]

  • @Krd, Jameslwoodward, Nick, Peteforsyth, Christian Ferrer: & @Jcb, Jmabel, Wikicology: We discussed an issue with COM:PEOPLE. As far as I understood, Carl Lindberg believes that "a model standing in front of a camera with lighting etc. does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is. Thus, it is not a private place." This means that when it comes to professional shots, the place, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered public. Is it true based on US laws? If this is true, i.e. professional shots means that the place is public, is it not in contradiction with the part of the guideline saying "a model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet?" --Mhhossein talk 07:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant issue under US law, when photographing a person, is if the person has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' at the time.... a person who is posing for the photograph can clearly have no reasonable expectation that they will not be photographed. The discussion of 'private' and 'public' places is related to when a reasonable expectation of privacy can be assumed to exist, and it becomes a moot point when the person consents to be photographed.
The second point is if the person has given consent for the image to be published... this becomes a matter of 'personality rights'. We generally accept the assertion of the photographer or uploader that the subject has given consent for publication, unless it either seems clear that such consent was unlikely (revenge porn) or a person who would have personal knowledge of the situation claims otherwise. In the case of the particular images that started this discussion, the photographer had previously published photos of the same model, and many others (including nudes) on Flickr well before the particular photos appear to have been taken. That consent was given for publication seems obvious. - Reventtalk 09:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is also a difference between a lay person "accepting to be photographed" and a professional model posing or a public figure being photographed in a public place. There may be an expectation of privacy in the first case, but there cannot be any in the second. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Revent: Yes, we know that "the photographer had previously published photos of the same model, and many others (including nudes) on Flickr well before the particular photos appear to have been taken," but how can it be showing they were consensual? Before answering, could you please consider these four questions by Peteforsyth? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I do not disagree that the guideline is vague. I seriously think that the works of this photographer are the wrong case to be trying to use to make the point. The (many) women shown clearly consented to being photographed, and to claim they were unaware that they would be published seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. - Reventtalk 13:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I see two problems with this line of reasoning. First, I understand that in the case described above, it is a reasonable assumption that the subject is a model (although whether paid or not is unknown), but in the general case how do we know that the person shown actually fits Carl's description? Professional models don't have signs on their chests telling us their occupation. Second, I'm not sure that we can make any assumptions about expectations of privacy. Privacy is not invaded if a person agrees with the photographer that the photographs are only for the use of the subject. A professional model having portfolio photos made has a perfect right to assume that those that he or she does not like will never be seen by anyone but the model and the photographer. Revent correctly draws the line at revenge porn, but I would draw it much more broadly. While there are obvious cases (fashion model on a runway, model with product), Carl's assumption must be applied with care..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary cases call for extraordinary evidence, but ordinary cases do not. For a photo like the one we've been discussing, the most likely scenario is a photo with consent, and we'd need at least a modicum of evidence to the contrary. Professional photographers do not routinely release photos without sufficient consent. As I've said before, if we raised the standard here to requiring explicit consent from the subject, we would have to do so for every single portrait photo on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this "photo we've been discussing"? I've skimmed through the discussion above, and don't see a reference to a specific photo. Jmabel? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Peteforsyth: Sorry, this has sprawled over a bunch of forums. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/12#What_do_we_need_this_guideline_for.3F might be the best place to look for context. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Consenting to be photographed is not the same as consenting to the publication of the image (s). A model may sue for personality right's violation if her image is published without her permission regardless of weather she was consented to the taken of the image (s) or not, especially if it's used in an unflattering manner and/or for commercial gain. Imagine how a model would feel, if her image (s) published here under a free-license end up being used for the cover of a porno? The model won't sue in this case? The fact that the photographer has previously published similar photos of the same model on Flicks is not enough reason to believe the model consented to the publication of all her images on Wikimedia Common or any other platform but if all the images were previously published on Flicks, that's fine. Looking at the photo that led to this discussion, it appears to have been shot in a private place which means the photographer would be liable for any misuse of the photo (s) and if the photographer release it here under a free license as "Own work", they risk been sued for any misuse of the photo. In general, I think OTRS should be required in cases like this. Wikicology (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)