Commons:Deletion requests/File:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).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.

File:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg

Parental release/OTRS lacking. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by the parents. The public scene does not justify publication, as this one child has been fokussed out alone. --Martina Nolte (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. ^{is evil} 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete Parental consent needed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep An unexceptional image that would never have been put up for deletion if it were not for the photographer. Commons has never required subject releases for all portraits, which is what those voting to delete would seem to want. We accept even images of minors unless in a private place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  I don't agree that we should consider a swimming pool a public place. We don't know the status of this one, and even for "public" swimming-pools, there's a recent discussion somewhere (can't remember where, should be the talk page of a policy page) in which arguments have been advanced saying that people at a swimming-pool can reasonably expect not to be photographed. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  I agree here with MichaelMaggs. Public swimming pools are almost all places where I would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy (it may interest people to know that I actually am a lifeguard - this is something I know about). See Talk:Nudity for the discussion referred to above. However, I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one goes to the pool with a photographer and their camera. Of course one can concoct scenarios where that would not be the case, however I think some small amount of good faith can be assumed here. The image should be kept since on balance, in this situation, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Still don't agree, what makes you think, by looking at the pictures, that the parents went to the swimming pool with their child (I don't see them here, the children may be with somebody else), and that they allowed somebody to take pictures and publish them? Plus, we don't know whether it is a public swimming-pool, but I think that's less relevant. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I used the word "public" in the technical/jargon sense, not the COM:PEOPLE sense. Regardless who the child is with, they are the child's legal guardian for that time & for this entirely non-harmful picture by a (semi-)professional photographer, can give consent as far as I'm concerned.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Megapixie (talk) 12:58, 26 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. Adambro (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep this DR is a joke, isn't it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep A high quality image by a notable artist. A subject release is unnecessary. Prolog (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So all we need is that some people/newspapers/... consider us an artist and the rules for normal people like FOP, personality right, model release, trademarks, ... will not apply for us anymore? Then I will be allowed to photograph minors witout permission of their parents? -- Cecil (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral The flickr picture has been deleted. Why? We don't know. But *if* a party didn't want their child to be photographed, this would exactly be what could happen (that they ask that the picture will at least be taken off flickr). BTW, just in general: The quality of the picture does never constitute a reason for keeping an image that might infringe on privacy rights. It sounds frightening how some of you argue with the picture quality!!! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. There are good arguments on both sides. Since our policy is somewhat fuzzy, I am closing this as keep on the basis of consensus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)