Commons:Deletion requests/File:Violet Sparks 2586.jpg

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.

File:Violet Sparks 2586.jpg[edit]

An identifiable figure at a private place. Should be deleted per COM:PEOPLE as no consent is available. Affected:

Note: Several of the files above were added to the nomination after discussion had already been started. I see no problem with most of the additions, but four of them are significantly different: they depict people in outdoor settings, and therefore any discussion of expectation of privacy should treat these four differently. I'd suggest these be removed from the current DR, and if appropriate, a separate DR should be started for these four. -Pete F (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein talk 13:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • All these photos are publicly available under a free licesne and taken with the consent of the model. This is obviously a request for censorship. Shall Commons accept it? The Yeti 13:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the first two lines of our most related guideline says: "When dealing with photographs of people, we are required to consider the legal rights of the subject and the ethics of publishing the photo in addition to the concerns of the photographer and owner of the image." Absolutely has nothing to do with censoring. Shall Commons accept violation of "legal rights of the subject"? --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the servers of Commons were located in the United States of America. Now I start to suspect that they have relocated in some other country. The Yeti 13:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Yeti, consent to have one's photo taken and consent to have one's photo broadly published are two very different things. Surely you realize this. -Pete F (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Here is a very good explanation in a similar case by Pete F: «This is not a copyright issue (there is no problem with the CC BY copyright license), but a personality rights issue. COM:IDENT says, "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a #private place."» That has got nothing to do with "censorship", @32RB17|The Yeti: please invite me to your next private party, I'll take some photos of you when you're in a really "private" setting and then gonna publish them here, so anyone can print and sell T-shirts including your name, ... and then I'll scream "CENSORSHIP!!!!!1!eleven" when you ask them deleted, OK? --SI 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: Considering that the depicted women are modeling and these photos has been taken by professional photographers, is very unlikely that they didn't given consent to publish these pictures to Flickr (at least more than a month ago, and some of them several years ago) under a free license. As COM:IDENT is not a Copyright restriction, no valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relying on modeling and speculating based on likeliness or unlikeliness is not a good motivation to violate one's right here. There are similar cases regarding models which has led to deletion (such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman in orgasm.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:MarfanWholeImage.jpg). We don't act based on speculation. Buy the way, I invite you to take another look at COM:DR which says at Dr you can talk based on:"the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, for example Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope or Commons:Photographs of identifiable people." --Mhhossein talk 15:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9 and Kaldari: Pinging involved and informed admins. . --Mhhossein talk 15:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if we suppose that the mentioned subjects are models, the photos deserve deletion because per COM:PEOPLE, " 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 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. And in this case there is no reason to doubt that the models consented this photo session to be posted online. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per guideline, when you say "there is no reason to doubt that the models consented this photo session to be posted online" it means that there is a consent letter or anything from the depicted subject proving this. It can be sent for example via OTRS. As I said, we don't act based on speculations. Refer to similar DR discussions. --Mhhossein talk 19:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, very clear cases; there is no effort made whatsoever to address the wishes of the subjects of the photos. In the absence of any assertion whatsoever by the photographer or the uploader or the subject, we must assume that the subjects of the photos would exercise their legal rights, and do not wish the photos to be distributed without restriction. We routinely make this assumption on behalf of photographers and copyright holders (that unless they have explicitly adopted a free license, their works are copyright-protected); for some reason, may Commons users are reluctant to treat the subjects of photos in the same way. COM:IDENT gives all the reasons. (But ideally, it should be written up more clearly, and should be promoted to policy.) -Pete F (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about the picture available in Flickr since 2009? If is still there, nobody requested its removal. Whm... --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What reason do you have to believe that:
  • The subject of the photo is aware the picture is on Flickr
  • The subject of the photo considers it a worthwhile use of their time to contest the photo's presence
  • Flickr has processes that are fair to the subject of a photo, up to whatever standards we might hold at Commons
  • The consent to have the photo on Flickr is equivalent to consent to have it published on Commons and elsewhere
In order to reach the conclusion that the subject of each photo consents to have the photo published here, you have to believe all of those things. I don't see reason for confidence in any of them. -Pete F (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - The fact that this image was taken with her consent does not automatically implies that the photographer has the legal right to freely publish it without her consent. It would be unwise for us to assume that because the image was taken by a professional photographers, she is consented to publishing it here. I think this is one of those images we need to delete per our precautionary principle. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It appears these are models taking place in planned professional photoshoots. In the U.S., it's only a problem if there was an expectation of privacy -- and in that particular situation, there would be none. The subject would have to expect that the photos would be published somewhere. Thus, explicit consent is not required from the model to upload here -- unless using of course using commercially (publicity rights), but that is not grounds for deletion. Since these photos appear to be from the United States and they do not appear to be violating any privacy laws, i.e. these would be a "public place" per U.S. law, there is no reason to delete, per COM:PEOPLE. If a model asked for deletion here, that would of course be considered as a courtesy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg: Can you tell us how your comment is not in contradiction with this part of our guideline which says :"Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image ... A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet."?
Anyway, let's analyze your comment:
  • "...and in that particular situation, there would be none. The subject would have to expect that the photos would be published somewhere.": Yes, but per guideline, we really don't know if the subject would have to excpect that the photos be published on the internet! Do we? How?
  • "Thus, explicit consent is not required from the model to upload here.": Clearly in contradiction with the guideline as said some lines above. consent is required in almost every photographs of identifiable people taken in private.
  • "If a model asked for deletion here, that would of course be considered as a courtesy deletion.": How about if the model charges Commons for publishing her photo without her consent?
  • "Since these photos appear to be from the United States... ": As far as I know, the law regarding photos in private are almost the same! They differ when it comes to public photos.
Per guideline, by default we assume that the subject of the private photo has not given consent to have his/her photo published on the internet or elsewhere, unless proven otherwise. Don't forget that the consent to take photo does not mean the consent to use photo! --Mhhossein talk 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These files appear to have been published on Flickr. This photographer publishes lots of images on Flickr; if they had permission then there is no more expectation of privacy, if it existed in the first place in a session like that. Consent is only required in a situation where the model had an expectation of privacy. While laws can be different around the world, and the statement is more a general one which can cover more countries, I don't think there are any such cases in the U.S. While a photo taken by say a former boyfriend would be different, I don't think this is anywhere near that case. If the model consented to publication on Flickr, then publication on Wikipedia is also fine. If you notice, the "United States" portion of the graph does not require consent for any pictures taken in a public place -- so if there was no expectation of privacy, then the middle column applies. If you can cite a court case which upheld privacy rights like this with a session with a professional photographer, that would be relevant. Outside of that, then my opinion is that there was no expectation of privacy here (validated by the publication on Flickr; the photographer clearly feels they have permission to do that, which should be enough to satisfy us). As such, the policy states: In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in #public places and publish those photos. 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. That is the situation here. By privacy law, the photos were basically taken in a public place. As the policy makes clear, the term "public place" is not related to whether the site is public or private property -- it relates solely to if there was an expectation of privacy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, your comment is based on number of "if"s which may not be true. "If the model consented to publication on Flickr, then publication on Wikipedia is also fine." How are you such sure that the model had consented to publish the photo on Flickr? As you said, you believed that the model had expectation of privacy and you have based your belief on the publication the photos on Flickr which we are not sure to have been done by prior coordination with the model. You did not tell us how you were sure the images were not taken only for a "personal portfolio," and were set for publication on the Internet? To me (just to me), you are twisting things! It's simple, we really don't know if the model is consent with her nude photos taken in private, yes in private, on the net. By the way, the pics are certainly taken in privacy and I know what we mean by "private place". Per Pete F, "COM:IDENT gives all the reasons." --Mhhossein talk 18:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is "expectation of privacy" for the U.S., and that's it. The COM:PEOPLE page has lots of guidance which ranges over different countries (with very, very different laws), and a lot of guidance is more targeted to the photographer rather than the uploader (not an issue here, and those are the crux of your argument), and guidance targeted at publicity rights (which are not a subject to for deletion). You are also taking that as deletion policy if we don't have a consent form for basically any photo of a person -- that is not the case. You are trying to argue that a model, posing for a photographer who puts stuff up on Flickr with a free license, has some sort of expectation of privacy -- that is bordering on ridiculous. I don't believe that someone's privacy rights gets to dictate where such photos are published -- just copyright does that. If it's a photo taken in a setting where there was an expectation of privacy (i.e. not being photographed at all), those rights basically control whether it's published at all -- not where. The page offers no citations at all for its claims, which may be more EU privacy law. U.S. privacy law, while it can vary by state, as far as cases posted here that I recall, has never come anywhere near claiming this sort of situation violates privacy rights. You are stretching the law way, way beyond where it has ruled. This page is a *guideline* -- not *policy* -- which are things to consider if you are the photographer, and in some cases the uploader. It is not "delete if these things are not satisfied", but it's more of a guideline to avoid possible future problems. The deletion part of the policy is that Commons cannot violate privacy law -- so anything which likely violates privacy law, we should delete. That is *likely* -- not remotely this case. The photographer would be the one violating privacy law -- and the photos have been published on Flickr for years (and it would hard to claim the models did not know). It is virtually certain that there is no expectation of privacy on any part of these, which means there is no privacy law issue, and there is no reason to delete. This page covers so much material, that it has confused even admins about which parts of it are meant as part of deletion policy, and which is just a general primer on potential issues around the world even though much of it does not relate to deletion. It seems we are making that mistake here again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the uploader needs to be careful about the subject's privacy issues. You seem to be discrediting the guideline which is the result of the consensus built among the community users. FYI, there are plenty of deletion requests led to deletion on a similar grounds as ours. I have to repeat them some of them for you here:
Like before, you are relying on your own speculations such as when you said:" I don't believe that someone's privacy rights gets to dictate where such photos are published," which is contradiction with the our guideline. As you are repeating your own speculations in your own words, I have to reshape the guideline; We really don't know if the photo were meant for a magazine, personal archive, internet, personal portfolio or etc. That the photos are on Flickr for some years proves nothing per questions mentioned here. By the way, per guideline, the uploader is violating the privacy law because "there are three aspects: taking, uploading and using a photograph. At the most basic level, a subject looking at the camera and smiling might normally be assumed to have given their consent to have their photograph taken." But we are not sure about the next two steps, i.e uploading and using the photos. Even if we think the the photographer is violating the law, the photo is illegal anyway and needs to be deleted. When it comes to privacy issues, don't rely on your own speculations. If there's a way to show that the subject is consent (via link, letter, message or etc) do it, otherwise your attempt is just like those who use protected works alleging that the owner is consent because the photo is every where on the net! --Mhhossein talk 10:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline's wording is likely flat-out wrong for the U.S., if it's concerning privacy rights. If it's talking about publicity rights, that may be more relevant, or maybe it's referring to a ruling in another country. Again, COM:PEOPLE covers a lot of ground, and only a portion of it is actually related to deletion. That particular portion is more about if you are the photographer -- in this case, the photographer clearly thinks the photos are OK to publish. You would have to show that the models had an expectation of privacy in order to delete -- and given case law that I've seen, that's basically impossible. Please cite a court case -- not this guideline. Yes, this guideline has been vaguely enough worded that many incorrect deletions have happened as a result. If the photographer or models requested deletion, that can be a very different circumstance -- those may not be mandated by law, but as a general policy, uploaded works are not intended to cause additional distress on the people involved, so such requests are often upheld and the images deleted. Some of your links are more along those lines. But if the requestor is not the photographer nor the model, it's purely a privacy rights decision. The line you are taking as applicable everywhere is not really an aspect of U.S. privacy law, so far as I know. That comes down to an "expectation of privacy" -- if the model expected the photos to be published on Flickr, that's the end of privacy rights for those photos. You have not provided any evidence to show that it is. Nor is the sentence in the guideline sourced in any way. You can see cites on some existing cases in this paper -- one case, for example, was where a photo of a couple embracing near an ice cream stand -- and while they may not have expected a photo of that moment to end up in magazines, it did, and they lost when they sued on privacy grounds. The author of that book is arguing for a more nuanced version of privacy rights than currently exists -- but that is the point, that such does not exist, at least yet. There is apparently a quote from the Restatement of Torts which says: There is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff which is already public. Thus there is no liability for giving publicity to facts about the plaintiff's life which are matters of public record. That is a direct contradiction to the guideline, at least for the U.S. Once published on Flickr, there is no further privacy issue for publishing them here. There have been some "voyeurism" laws coming about, such that surreptitious photos of a voyeuristic nature even taken in public may also violate the law -- so that could be grounds. But not when a model is knowingly being photographed -- there is no w:expectation of privacy at that point. Frankly, this sort of thing seems more shaky on scope grounds -- not sure why photos of nude models are any more of educational use than general personal photos, unless the model is notable separately. But this isn't (or shouldn't be) remotely a privacy issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the long explanation. A model who is photographed knowingly may simply is not consent with her photo on the net. Plus, we don't know "if the model expected the photos to be published on Flickr," do we? So, when we have not put the first step, i.e. legal publication on Flickr, we can't conclude that "there is no further privacy issue for publishing them here." Any way, if you think the nude photos of these unknown models are out of our scope, why do you insist on "keep"ing the files. --Mhhossein talk 19:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"They may not consent with her photo on the net". That is not relevant -- once they expect to be photographed at all, there is no more expectation of privacy. Privacy rights no longer govern where the photo can go. It is not likely that Michael Phelps had a legal recourse when he was photographed at a party with a bong (other than attempting to sue, of course, and dragging the other party through court). The nudity/voyeurism laws, on the other hand, are typically about when photographed without the person's knowledge -- so this wouldn't violate those laws either. If you want to see the details of many states' privacy laws, you can look here. If she had a contract with the photographer to not allow the photo on the net, that is a contractual issue between the model and the photographer. We don't have to know the details -- that is not part of policy. So long as there was no expectation of privacy, we do not need the model's consent to publish here, by the law and policy. The part of COM:PEOPLE regarding publishing in a wider context is only if that is included in the local law's privacy rights -- and it is not in the U.S., so that is not relevant here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The part of COM:PEOPLE regarding publishing in a wider context is only if that is included in the local law's privacy rights -- and it is not in the U.S." is in clear contradiction with our guideline which says "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it." Also, expectation of privacy is not removed automatically by the time the photo is taken. We assume that she's consent with the photo being taken, but we don't know how she meant to publish the photo and/or if she meant to publish the photo. This is what the guideline says. --Mhhossein talk 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, this was not taken in a private place. That is the fundamental part you seem to be missing. As the policy says, In many countries (especially English-speaking ones) the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place. This is a public place, per privacy law, so consent is not required. Second, we are not publishing it for the first time -- that guidance you quote is for the photographer, if you are first uploading here. This photo has already been published -- the consent was required of the photographer, which by the fact it's still online was given to them. We do not need anything further. You would have to show that we are violating privacy law by further publishing the work for it to be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except those four disputed pics, the others are clearly taken in a private place. I don't know how you call, for example, a bathroom a public place! Said that, per privacy law it should not have been uploaded without consent. See this pic taken in private. Also, we don't care if others do a wrong action of violating personal rights of the subject, just like how we don't care if a photo's copy right is already violated on the net and avoid uploading without a free license. Commons does his job correctly even if others don't. --Mhhossein talk 09:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the definition of "private place" as it pertains to privacy law. It's in the COM:PEOPLE guideline. The photographer did not do a wrong thing, and there isn't anywhere even close to a privacy issue here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please read my previous comment; I said that "uploading" was wrong, not taking the photo. Btw, I'm aware of the right meaning for "private place" and our situation is really a private place. --Mhhossein talk 06:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I´am feed up with this bullshit and hypocrisy of users claiming to this kind of images being copyright violations or not having permission to publish, when they were clearly taken by professional photographers and depict professional models. We are not talking of revenge porn or images taken without the permission of the depicted persons. To equate this images to the kind of imagery taken in revenge porn is naive at best and hypocrate at worst and can be taken as liable and attack on the right to one's good name of the photographers and models, attacked in their character and intents without proofs and only smear and hearsay.
For starters we have the user that openened this DR that claims that this images are violating personality rights. What double standards that this user has, when the only image by him were there is an identifiable person taken during the shia muslim Arba'een Pilgrimage somewhere between Najaf to Karbala (Iraq), the only person identifiable is a very young girl, so a child depicted in an image were she could not have given her informed consent to have her portrait taken and shown on the internet, to the contrary of this women who are all adults. So the uploader is claiming that this images violate personality rights when himself takes images of identifiable persons that cannot, do to age, give their informed and explicit consent to be photographed?
About consent to be photographed and its images being published, for starters and to show how sloppy this dr was opened and claimed to merit deletion, i will show that five images have explicit and informed consent, contrary to the claims of the censors.
First, File:United We Stand by Charlie Marshall.jpg, this not even a private place. See the description on flickr that says "From a workshop organised by Photo Classic this Easter, which consisted of three amazing days of photography in the Scottish Highlands with three amazing models and some rather challenging weather conditions.". So this image was taken in the open of the Scotish Highlands, was a photograpic workshop organized by an and for photographers.
Second File:Ffriskyfriday tattoo.jpg who the authorship is [www.suicidegirls.com SuicideGirls] as established by 2008110310027958.
Third File:Lulu self harm.jpg that can be seen on this photographer webpage, where it could be seen that he works with dozens of models in this kind of imagery, freely publishing them.
Fourth File:Late Afternoon Sun and a Bare Matress.jpg and five File:The bathroom in heaven by Charlie Marshall.jpg that depicts model Lizzie Bayliss. In her own website is a "professional model (...) to covering many different styles and genres including fashion, commercial, lingerie, beauty and portrait, glamour, vintage pin-up and artistic nude." and that she done "well over a thousand paid shoots, and I am widely published throughout the world. I have done shoots all over the UK, and in many other countries. Tm (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your anger (probably originated from my nomination of your files this and this ) did not let you understand that we were not talking about copy right issues and that I've uploaded plenty of other images and that this image is taken in public and does not need consent from the subject and that .... --Mhhossein talk 15:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, obviously. Mhhossein’s agenda is as abhorrent as it is transparent. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I'm assuming the nominator is pro-boobs/porn and everything that contains boobs must be deleted? ....., Anywho these people are modelling and probably would've consented to these being uploaded, I see no valid reason to delete however I do see a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT (Yes it links back to EN because it doesn't exist here!). –Davey2010Talk 15:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep on any consent-based grounds, the model rather obviously had no expectation of privacy. This is a photo shoot, not amateur porn, and the same photographer has other albums of the same woman, in explicit poses, taken in outdoor situations on other dates. Reventtalk 02:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Carl L. and others. Professional modeling. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Violet_Sparks_2586.jpg&oldid=224406468"