File talk:Índios Isolados 4.jpg

 

Re-nominate for deletion?

• Comment HAdG (留言) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A discussion on deletion of this image was settled in 2018 with a decision to keep the image. The discussion raised questions of Brazilian law as well as questions of morality, including the following arguments: The Wikimedia country-specific consent requirements for Brazil state that consent is required both for taking and for publishing the picture. The persons photographed probably do not understand photography, which would mean they are unable to give such consent. The raised weapon in the photograph can be interpreted as an objection. The use of this picture in other media, and particularly its publication by the Brazilian government, suggests (but does not prove) that the use of this type of picture is culturally and legally acceptable in Brazil. The picture may be covered by journalistic fair use, which is however not allowed here on Wikimedia Commons. If this picture is deleted for reasons relating to consent and morality, then a potentially large number of Wikimedia Commons pictures from Brazil may similarly be at risk of deletion.

The discussion in 2018 was largely settled on the point of Brazilian law and current practice, with the following final decision: "The above discussion didn't show that personality rights current practice in Brazil are violated in this picture. If the government of Brazil itself has published the picture, it probably means that the application of the law is quite different to what some people claim to be." This decision fails completely to take into account the moral dimension (personality rights). It also contains an argument that "if the government does it, then it must be legal", which is a fallacy.

Brazil has a right-wing populist government that is evidently restrictive in its interpretation of the rights of native peoples. Government practice may not be an adequate basis on which to decide this issue. It is very unlikely that the persons photographed were even aware of having any rights under Brazilian law, or that they would have had access to legal counsel.

I feel very uncomfortable about the use of non-consenting photographs of native persons – human beings – in the same way as a picture of a rare mushroom or poisonous toad. As a global community, Wikimedia Commons should decide this issue not only on the basis of current practice in Brazil, but also on the basis of internationally accepted standards of consent and personality rights.

Policy page Commons:Photographs of identifiable people contains a discussion of moral issues, including a reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." The policy page states: "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law. The extent to which an image might be regarded as ‘unfairly obtained’ or to be ‘intrusive’, for example, is a matter of degree and may depend on the nature of the shot, the location, and the notability of the subject."

This is clearly a photograph of identifiable people: a friend or relative of the persons photographed could easily recognise the subjects. It is evident that consent is lacking. It is highly probable that the persons photographed do not understand photography and do not understand the internet. It is probable that if they did, then they would experience the exposure of their image to millions of viewers as intrusive and discomforting. There seems to be a very strong moral argument for removing this image. That argument is not weakened by the fact that this image is used by the Brazilian government and elsewhere on the internet, nor by the fact that it may prompt the deletion of other images.

The 2018 decision appears to have been based on arguments of law and current practice in Brazil, and not on the question of morality.

For these reasons, I respectfully suggest that we re-open the discussion on deletion. --HAdG (留言) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)