Commons:Deletion requests/File:Young mother (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:Young mother (Klashorst).jpg

Release/OTRS lacking. Distribution under a free licence for any purpose is not acceptable without proove of consent by this person.--Martina Nolte (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply

Keep, added {{Personality rights}} to the photo. --Martin H. (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment The personality rights tag only means that users have to take care for i.e. not defamatory usage, consent of the person to any publication is still needed. Model releases regulate all details of contented or not-contented usage. Again, i am strongly astonished about how few juristical knowledge is spread here. Free information and free content is NOT meaning to take people all their rights away by highway robbery. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete COM:PEOPLE --Eva K. ^{is evil} 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you please explain to me why COM:PEOPLE applies - it appears to me that this is taken in an outdoor courtyard (ie a public place where there is little to no reasonable expectation of privary). In addition, the photograph is taken from only a few feet away and the subject is looking at the camera (so there is no unreasonable intrusion). Thanks for explaining your thinking. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)reply
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. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Personality rights are not an issue here. Megapixie (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
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. 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 seems to be a dislike of the photograph involved. This photo seems likely to have been taken in public place so personality rights are unlikely to be an issue. Adambro (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a joke, right? The COM:PEOPLE argument is irrelevant here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep doesn't look like the work of a Paparazzi to me. Model is posing. --Yamavu (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply

Kept. Mike.lifeguard is right.ChristianBier (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply