Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happy Dutch beauty.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.
no model release, personal rights, individual portrait, no public place smial (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Looks like a park to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- How am I disrespecting them? She clearly knows the photograph is being taken - she's posing. It looks like a public place, therefore personality rights do not apply. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- you proof as a male in an excellent manner how much you respect a female's personality rights and human dignity. --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. is evil 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how that is relevant here? Although the subject is identifiable, she is posing for the camera, so she clearly knows that a photograph is being taken of her. Furthermore, it seems to be in a public location such as a park. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete A park doesn't mean public scene (like a concert, and even there you are not allowed to publish a photo were you picked out a single person). Nobody is allowed to publish a private photo of a person even she or he is posing for him wihthout his or her consent. So without release.. --Martina Nolte (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- From the much-loved COM:PEOPLE: In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), assent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. 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. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- US laws don't rule the world. Or is that a proof how little human right count in that county? --Eva K. is evil 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they do. But are there specific local laws here whereby personal consent WOULD be required in a public place? It seems to me you just want to delete all klashorst images, and you are trying anything you can think of to justify it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
Comment Now getting personal and suspecting ad personam in lack of arguments? This photo and all others in this range have not been taken in the USA so that US-law is not applicable. Foundation-Servers standing there does only mean that lawsuit would be nessessary there, but again not that US-law aplies. I'm well aware that demanding releases like, indeed, is done here would cause additional work to the support team. But that should not be a reason for violating personality rights. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it seems I'm getting personal, but in the past few hours I've been accused of being a racist, sexist, and a party to the slave trade just because I voiced a differing opinion. It's rather got on my nerves. This photo was apparently taken in Holland, where EU law would apply. The woman is clearly not underage, so that's not an issue, and as far as I know EU law is common with US law on this matter, and so there are no specific local laws to be observed about photographing people in a public place. If there are any, I would ask that they be cited. If there are no such local laws, and I would assume there are not, then that is not a rationale for deletion, it's merely a smokescreen. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying they do. But are there specific local laws here whereby personal consent WOULD be required in a public place? It seems to me you just want to delete all klashorst images, and you are trying anything you can think of to justify it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- US laws don't rule the world. Or is that a proof how little human right count in that county? --Eva K. is evil 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be acceptable under the laws of both the US and Holland. Photos should not be deleted just because some users find them offensive, or there will be no end to it. Virtually everything can offend somebody. Please read COM:PS#Censorship carefully. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Personality rights are an entirely different concern. Megapixie (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Appears to be - what a juristical definiton is that?! Personality rights include a so called "right on someone's own picture". Here is the proof that the Netherlands also know a "right on somebodies own picture" (and they do extend this even to pictures where the face can not be seen) --Martina Nolte (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Is it really too much to request a model release? See COM:PEOPLE --KS aus F (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why a model release is needed here? Although the subject is identifiable, she is posing for the camera, so she clearly knows that a photograph is being taken of her. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:56, 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. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simply a low-quality snapshoter and dauber, AFAICS for some blokes the only notable with him seems to be his porn photos, isn't it? All that blah about art and freedom of information is only subterfuge for them to satisfy their voyeurism and misogyny. They claim respect and human/personality rights for themselves, but deny other's claim for human/personality rights and respect. IMO such people harm the project in an intolerable manner. --Eva K. is evil 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is ridiculous! This has nothing to do with COM:PEOPLE. This DR is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy and the absence of objectivity of many people who hate Klashorst! Be neutral please! Judge the pictures, not Klashorst (who I agree seems to be a "bad person"...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Adambro & TwoWings... All pictures of known authors are valuable to keep and can be used to show history of art. Especially that we have no many photos with modern arts because of copyrigts. It is silly to get rid of that few which are free only because some people are obscurant... Electron (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep no comprehensible reason for deleting this image. --High Contrast (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me --Yamavu (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
Without explicit permission by the person shown, this image violates the "right on one’s own picture"" in the origin country’s law nl:Portretrecht (see also [1]) - and is therefore not according to COM:PEOPLE#Legal_issues. An OTRS ticket is needed or the image has to be deleted. The previous keep decision has missed this imperative aspect that does not allow any open space for decision. -- Martina Nolte (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The person portrayed here is clearly aware of being photographed. She could have known the photo might possibly be published. So I don't think nl:Portretrecht has been violated here. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No OTRS ticket is needed as it is a public space, and as was said the person is clearly aware she is being photographed. Tagged with personality rights anyway, so there is no issue. Do NOT reopen DRs simply because you don't like the result.
