File talk:Arnnon Geshuri - January 2016 by Myleen Hollero.jpg
跳转到导航
跳转到搜索
Rights, rights, rights[编辑]
I don't like not being able to re-use this photo because this person somehow has rights preventing this. What is the point of having the image on Wikimedia Commons, so? It's useless...--MisterSanderson (留言) 03:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I think you misunderstand what the template says. You can reuse this image according to privacy law of your country, which usually means that you need the person's consent for use in advertising and such (see en:Personality rights for more information). No consent should be needed for simply illustrating Arnnon Geshuri as an ex-member of the WMF Board of Trustees. Regards, Yann (留言) 09:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- More, {{Personality rights}} is simply a notice that can be placed on an image of a person. It is in no way specific to Wikimedia employees or to Arnnon Geshuri. MKFI (留言) 11:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The article you linked says "Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission." OK, the right to publicity is what you said, and I understand it. But and what about the right to privacy?--MisterSanderson (留言) 12:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- In the USA (and many other countries) there is a legally enforceable interpretation of whether a photograph was "intrusive" and this is normally what we, on Commons, take as the difference between having a distinct right to privacy and when that does not realistically exist. At http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privacy you can see an easy to understand example of "photographers may take pictures of movie stars in public places". In this case, the photograph was an official portrait taken by a WMF employee/contractor in order to promote the WMF and the appointment of a new member of its board. Trustees or directors of significant boards may not be movie stars, but it is commonly accepted that they are public figures. Given these circumstances there can be no expectation of privacy for the photograph. Had the photograph been an unofficial shot, say of Geshuri at home drinking in his back garden or even eating with friends in a small restaurant, then there might have been grounds to consider the issue of whether there was an expectation of privacy and whether the photograph was in a "public place" and this might be sufficient doubt for deletion even though Geshuri is a public figure. --Fæ (留言) 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, I will check this text in a near future.--MisterSanderson (留言) 14:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- In the USA (and many other countries) there is a legally enforceable interpretation of whether a photograph was "intrusive" and this is normally what we, on Commons, take as the difference between having a distinct right to privacy and when that does not realistically exist. At http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privacy you can see an easy to understand example of "photographers may take pictures of movie stars in public places". In this case, the photograph was an official portrait taken by a WMF employee/contractor in order to promote the WMF and the appointment of a new member of its board. Trustees or directors of significant boards may not be movie stars, but it is commonly accepted that they are public figures. Given these circumstances there can be no expectation of privacy for the photograph. Had the photograph been an unofficial shot, say of Geshuri at home drinking in his back garden or even eating with friends in a small restaurant, then there might have been grounds to consider the issue of whether there was an expectation of privacy and whether the photograph was in a "public place" and this might be sufficient doubt for deletion even though Geshuri is a public figure. --Fæ (留言) 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
