Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expirimental.jpg
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.
Minor. No release by the parents. And now, let's see what excuses you find for keeping it. Cecil (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Of all the images in category:Children, Cecil requires parental release for this one. Because it is a featured picture? Or because of the person of the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Your problems you claim are about sexual poses. How is this sexual? It's just a child playing with paint, as almost every child in the world has done at some point. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As soon, as you treat others with respect I will do that. But since you have no problems violating the personality rights of children, the most defenceless people on earth, I can't respect you. But as we can see from the category:Children there are a lot of people like you who have no problem releasing children pics for commercial use (even so unlinke you most of them probably did not know what they were doing). -- Cecil (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please remember that one of the founding principles of Commons is that you be civil and mellow. Treat others with respect. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, where do you live. I want to take images of your children and then use them without your permission for commercial use. But why am I still writing? I did not expect better from you two. -- Cecil (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleteinnocent or not, there has to be a release by the parents. We are talking here about a photo which we give out under a free licence for any purpose Did the parents know this when they allowed taking this picture? Did they even allow that or was it a playing scene beside a prescool taken from the street? So if you are not 100 percent sure, delete. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete There seems to be no model release signed by the parents and so the image has to been deleted. --ST ○ 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar, oder kann mir mal einer erklären wo das eingebaut werden könnte? --Ra Boe (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Changing my vote, I am a relative commons newbie can someone please provide a link to the policy on minors, thanks. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given above.--Prodigynet (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Martina Nolte, basically: 1) doesn't look at all like a public place; 2) it is illegal to publish pictures of minors without the consent of their parents (and of the subject, if he's above a certain age varying from country to country), and this is especially problematic on Commons since we allow and encourage republication. Yes, I think all the "Children" category is potentially problematic and dangerous for Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The can with paint seems to have some lettering in a non-Western script. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- At least you're more at ease than me with legal issues. Actually I thought the source country could be the Netherlands. About news and so on, I think there are some kinds of exceptions for informational purpose, but I'm not sure about it (some newspapers are frequently sued on privacy basis, but usually by famous people: I guess most people don't care/don't bother to take actions). --Eusebius (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are obviously wrong about one thing: I am not a specialist. As to law, you are quoting European courts, and I do not think it applies to the country of origin or to the Wikimedia foundation. Even in Europe, I would think this is not general - I see photos of preschool classes in the local newspaper and filmed items in the TV news. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- About the public space: you think a preschool is a public place? I think it is reasonable for parents to expect that pictures of their children will not be taken there and then published, so I don't agree with you at all. About the legal references: I'm not a specialist like you, so please allow me to rely on the resources I'm able to reach. I was able to find references applicable in France, so maybe not specifically to this picture. Court decisions about pictures and privacy usually rely on the very generic article 9 of the Code Civil and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which talk about privacy but are not precise enough to answer your question. Details seem to be found in case law instead. The European Court of HR based itself on art. 8 to say that parental consent was necessary, in a case that cannot be compared to this one though. In France, the 3e chambre du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (29 may 2002, SA SPPI / Fox Media) re-stated that even for a (non minor) hired model, any publication or re-publication had to be covered by the contract or by an "autorisation expresse". I'm confident enough that you will not demand a law reference if I say that minors of age cannot sign contracts without the consent of their parents. If the picture was taken in a private space without consent, recording, keeping and publication of pictures are specifically punished by law, but of course we all know that. To conclude on my comment: I suggest we base our decision on the privacy of the place. It is not obvious that it is a public space (people disagree on that on the basis of mere appearances); in the case it is a private space, we absolutely need consent, otherwise we're at risk. Therefore, it seems dangerous for Commons to keep this photograph. This is why I suggest we take the same kind of precautions as the ones we take with "probable copyvios". --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is the law that you are referring to? As to public place, this looks like a porch or something, maybe of a preschool. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Eusebius. The fact that the picture is featured is of course not relevant to this discussion. Lycaon (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)--KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep My reading of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is that model release is usually required if somebody reuses the image commercially, (added after posting:)or in a country with strong moral rights and privacy laws. It is not required to use it in a non-commercial Wikimedia project. If it were my child, provided the principal of the school had given the photographer permission to take photographs, I would be delighted the picture was released into the Creative Commons: it is visually striking and I am sure it helps encyclopedia articles to communicate with their readers. However, I would not miss it: judging by its usage according to the checkusage tool, it is quite easily replaceable at Wikimedia. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- In scope as of possible documentary value related to the life and work of a (minor) notable artist. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- The projects are indeed non-commercial - WMF is a 501c3 not-for-profit afaik. See COM:SOSUMI.
- That the CC-NC license are not accepted is true but unrelated to this discussion. Commons is non-commercial as far as personality rights go.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: The Wikimedia-projects are NOT non-commercial, they were never and they most probably will never be non-commercial. The usage of the non-commercial-CC-licence is not accepted on Commons. Each file which is contributed here has to be cleared for commercial use. And this means: model release or in this case much more important: parent permission. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as it appears to that there is a certain agenda afoot to equate nudity with pornography. I don't believe that's the case. And isn't the subject actually wearing a nappy? As for "private versus public" - this appears to be in a classroom type setting, and the image is not derogatory. Megapixie (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I write something about pornography in my deletion request? Those requests were done by Smial. -- Cecil (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete What is COM:PEOPLE for anyway when most users are not willing to respect it! --KS aus F (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're not answering my comment, but I maintain that on this picture, nothing allow us to infer that it is a place with "no reasonable expectation of privacy". Since I would not allow my child to play like that in the street, it looks to me that this place is more like a homeplace or a school (in which I'd sue anyone taking pictures of my children without my consent, and in my country at least, I'd win, against the photographer and against Commons, this is why I think this picture is "dangerous" and should be removed). --Eusebius (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It applies to works where there is an identifiable person in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and/or there is some other manner of inappropriate intrusion into their privacy (ie a zoom lens looking into their back yard). Please explain why COM:PEOPLE applies to this photograph. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. The personality rights tag seems more than enough. It also slightly irritates me that the nominator didn't bother to group together their similar deletion requests and so make it easier to discuss. The motivation here seems to be a dislike of the photographer. Adambro (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry about my mistake in assuming this was the same nominator. I would suggest that the user who nominated so many of the images by this photographer individually making it difficult to comment on them without resorting to copy and pasting is partly responsible for this though. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cecil, please don't be so aggressive towards other contributors. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Different nominators. Read the nominations a little bit more carefully (but ok, that's work; too much to ask for probably). -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Marcusmax & Adambro... Electron (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to see any problem. It's a child playing with paint! Keep immediately! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. It's a work of art under a free license, even by a notable creator. --Yamavu (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A high quality (and featured) image by a notable artist. No valid reason for deletion. Prolog (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Innocent picture from two years ago with which one can harm no rights: by the time this discussion is over, the baby has grown a beard. --Foroa (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per discussion Abigor talk 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
