Personality rights

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Personality rights

Andreas Kolbe-2
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:


---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

  • Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
  • Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
  • Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.


Approved 10-0.

---o0o---

Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.
Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. 
According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.
Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? 
I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. 
Andreas

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Dereckson
Good morning,

We have just received this morning on the Bistro (ie the French village pump) a
deletion request for personality rights.

The photo has been taken in Caffé Florian at Venice.

That helped me to understand your confusion between first, the WMF
resolution, and secondly  the Wikimedia Commons application.

The resolution seems to be related to pictures taken in private, not
in the public space:

"The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from
the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required
from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private
place."

"Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in
private situations. "

I so think:
i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
> Resolution:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
> biographies of living persons.
>
> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
> verify.
>
> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>
> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
> applied consistently.
> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
> do the same.
>
>
> Approved 10-0.
> ---o0o---
>
> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
> account.
> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
> bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
> communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>



--
Sébastien Santoro aka Dereckson
http://www.dereckson.be/

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Ryan Kaldari


On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:


---o0o---

The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.

However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.

In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:

  • Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
  • Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
  • Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.


Approved 10-0.

---o0o---

Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.
Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. 
According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.
Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? 
I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. 
Andreas
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Rama Neko
With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
  -- Rama

On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
> identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is
> required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
> required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification
> for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
> On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
> Resolution:
>
>
> ---o0o---
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
> biographies of living persons.
>
> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
> verify.
>
> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>
> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
> applied consistently.
> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
> do the same.
>
>
> Approved 10-0.
> ---o0o---
>
> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
> account.
> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
> bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
> communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Cary Bass-5
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here.
The photographer has asked us to remove it.  We have no reason to doubt
the subject wants it removed.  It's not actually very complementary of
her.  We have ample other pictures of her.  I see absolutely no reason
not to honor this request.

Cary Bass



On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:

> With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
> subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
> opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
> supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
>    -- Rama
>
> On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
>> identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is
>> required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
>> required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification
>> for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
>> Resolution:
>>
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content,
>> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
>> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our
>> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit
>> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into
>> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
>> biographies of living persons.
>>
>> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
>> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free
>> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place
>> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to
>> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special
>> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent
>> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
>> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr,
>> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
>> verify.
>>
>> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>>
>> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
>> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the
>> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under
>> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
>> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually
>> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a
>> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been
>> applied consistently.
>> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding
>> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations.
>> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on
>> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to
>> do the same.
>>
>>
>> Approved 10-0.
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
>> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor
>> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
>> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
>> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said
>> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on
>> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
>> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
>> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
>> account.
>> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion
>> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
>> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
>> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
>> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
>> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these
>> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
>> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these
>> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
>> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons
>> bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS
>> communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Ryan Kaldari-2
On 4/5/12 10:39 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here.
> The photographer has asked us to remove it.  We have no reason to
> doubt the subject wants it removed.  It's not actually very
> complementary of her.  We have ample other pictures of her.  I see
> absolutely no reason not to honor this request.
>
> Cary Bass

Of course I agree with you. I was just trying to pick the easier fight
since Andreas had said that the photos had been taken in "a private
situation". Respecting uploader wishes is often discretionary, but
adhering to official guidelines is expected unless you have a compelling
reason not to. Either way, I would probably support deleting it, but
since I don't know the specific situation, I can't comment further.

Ryan Kaldari

>
> On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:
>> With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the
>> subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as
>> opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a
>> supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game.
>>    -- Rama
>>
>> On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of
>>> identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place,
>>> consent is
>>> required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not
>>> required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the
>>> justification
>>> for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
>>>
>>> Ryan Kaldari
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>>
>>> Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
>>> Resolution:
>>>
>>>
>>> ---o0o---
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
>>> content,
>>> and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also
>>> value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as
>>> on our
>>> projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects
>>> to limit
>>> unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to
>>> take into
>>> account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing
>>> biographies of living persons.
>>>
>>> However, these concerns are not always taken into account with
>>> regards to
>>> media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under
>>> a free
>>> license although they portray identifiable living persons in a
>>> private place
>>> or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and
>>> ethical to
>>> obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our
>>> special
>>> mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking
>>> consent
>>> from an image's subject is especially important in light of the
>>> proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as
>>> Flickr,
>>> where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to
>>> verify.
>>>
>>> In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>>> Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
>>>
>>> Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of
>>> identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent
>>> from the
>>> subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required
>>> under
>>> the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an
>>> affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would
>>> usually
>>> be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video
>>> taken in a
>>> private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has
>>> not been
>>> applied consistently.
>>> Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
>>> regarding
>>> the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private
>>> situations.
>>> Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves
>>> hosted on
>>> our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage
>>> others to
>>> do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Approved 10-0.
>>> ---o0o---
>>>
>>> Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken
>>> in a
>>> private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous
>>> contributor
>>> and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
>>> having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has
>>> requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images.
>>> He said
>>> that the subjects could not understand how these images of them
>>> ended up on
>>> Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant
>>> to be
>>> released publicly.  According to the deletion discussions, OTRS
>>> verified
>>> that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
>>> account.
>>> Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen
>>> deletion
>>> discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the
>>> objections of
>>> isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear
>>> absence of
>>> subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has
>>> been
>>> that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
>>> Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting
>>> these
>>> images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
>>> images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why
>>> are these
>>> images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
>>> I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or
>>> Commons
>>> bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests
>>> and OTRS
>>> communications, and remove the images permanently.  Andreas
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Commons-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Commons-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

metasj
In reply to this post by Dereckson
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I so think:
> i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
> ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
> iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
> working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
> personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
> society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.

Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.

Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question?  SJ

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Maarten Dammers
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Hi Ryan,

Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg . If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.

Maarten

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Gnangarra
Its a balancing we need the images but we also the goodwill that the removal of images creates, what we dont need are court battles or media battles with high profile people the loss of a couple of images every now and then shouldnt be a big deal thats the way I treated such requests when I was on OTRS. I'd review the image its usage and then decide if there was a critical necessity for the image if there wasnt I'd delete it. When the image is sourced through flickr like sources that doesnt stop another person copying it back to Commons at a later date anyway.

On 8 April 2012 20:01, Maarten Dammers <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ryan,

Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg . If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.

Maarten

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by metasj
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.

Andreas

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I so think:
> i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions
> ii. we should delete picture taken in private space
> iii. we should  communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way,
> working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public
> personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic
> society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.

Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.

Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question?  SJ

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

David Gerard-2
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.


In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of
bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae,
coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given
this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise
on any subject at good-faith face value.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Andreas Kolbe-2
Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.

Andreas

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.


In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of
bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae,
coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given
this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise
on any subject at good-faith face value.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

metasj
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Bencmq wrote:
> I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those
> images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Yes.  Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may
not have such consent.  If the uploader did not upload directly to
Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later
to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that
they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it
is hard to gainsay them.

In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request,
unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after
reasonably verifying their identity.

Ryan Kaldari writes:
> What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Maarten Dammers writes:
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images
> deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg
> If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented.

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?

If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked
for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had
gotten consent.  If not, again -- would we not take the photo down?
If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Emanuela Capizzi


Da: Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
A: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[hidden email]>; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Inviato: Domenica 8 Aprile 2012 17:45
Oggetto: Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Bencmq wrote:
> I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those
> images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Yes.  Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may
not have such consent.  If the uploader did not upload directly to
Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later
to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that
they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it
is hard to gainsay them.

In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request,
unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after
reasonably verifying their identity.

Ryan Kaldari writes:
> What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Maarten Dammers writes:
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images
> deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg
> If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented.

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?

If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked
for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had
gotten consent.  If not, again -- would we not take the photo down?
If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by metasj
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?


This is exactly what happened. The photographer showed up. He had his identity verified. He said he did not have model consent, and both he and the models badly wanted the images taken down. He asked six times. He was refused six times. You voted in favour of taking the images down, but were outvoted.

So no, Commons would not take the image down, even though Commons policy says it should be taken down.


Andreas

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Thomas Morton
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.

For example tonight I came across this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.

But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no investigation.

Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore it).

Tom

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Ryan Kaldari-2
Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.

Ryan Kaldari

On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.

For example tonight I came across this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbaugh.jpg Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.

But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no investigation.

Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore it).

Tom
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Gnangarra
maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion requires the photographer to establish permission.


--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Craig Franklin-2
I don't think that more policies and guidelines are the answer; we already have official policies like this one that are routinely ignored because people concentrate on licencing at deletion discussions to the exclusion of all other issues.  The correct answer is more effective use of existing guidelines and policies, both through better education and awareness that there are important issues beyond copyright on one hand, and if that doesn't work, thinking about some heavier consequences for users and admins who persistently ignore such policies.

Cheers,
Craig

On 9 April 2012 12:06, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion requires the photographer to establish permission.



-- 
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Personality rights

Fae-6
Part of the answer might be to encourage a succession of popular and
well proposed Commons RFCs moving beyond the polarization of "OMG
porn" vs. "OMG censorship".

Topics such as the OTRS discussion
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/OTRS_2012>
are reasonable and may result in useful changes in policy, not just on
Commons either. Perhaps we should create handy shortcuts for these
(like [[com:RFC6]] or somesuch) and keep plugging them in all related
more visible disputes and wonky inflammatory deletion review
discussions.

Sensible discussions might draw in more "stable" folks to consider
going for commons RFA too.

Cheers,
Fae

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
123