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