Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veteran at Belgian National Day. Brussels, 2012.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 12:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Veteran at Belgian National Day
 Comment How is he a "public figure"? There is a difference between this and being a private individual in a public place. The focus of this image is clearly not the event, but the person, so unless he has given consent to being individually photographed (rather than having photos taken of many people where he is one of them), I see an issue with privacy here.--Peulle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be mistaken, but I think soldiers in some sort of uniform, as well as other public servants/officials in uniform, count as public figures. In US military at least, the beret is considered a distinctive part of the uniform, signaling that you are considered an active or veteran military. [1], [2]. There is also this from the UK. And nobody complained about privacy issues in this soldier nom. --cart-Talk 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment He is a former soldier, standing in the ranks of the same former soldiers, in military headgear and with awards on the chest, and in a few minutes they will solemnly pass through the square in front of the Palais de Bruxelles. They will be greeted by the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators. Be sure that on this day the veterans are very public figures. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Exactly. I was going to say that, and you express it even better. Charles: You are playing on words... Regards, Yann (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:IDENT#Belgium: "Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event." Game, set and match as far as we all should be concerned.

I mean, really, Charles, some day PETA or some such successor organization will start arguing for all your wildlife images to be defeatured and deleted because there's no evidence you got the animal's consent, or that it's humiliating and degrading for the animal to be photographed unknowingly in the middle of a public wilderness in what it thought was going to be a private moment for it to have some emotional catharsis. Do you really want to follow this to its logical conclusion? Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't interrupt this otherwise interesting exchange with reductio ad absurdum arguments - personality rights is a real thing that should be discussed from time to time when specific cases pop up. In this case, I want to point out something you got wrong in your "game, set, match" analysis. The word "incidentally" is critical in the sentence you quoted. It does not apply to this image, since the man is not "incidentally" depicted in the photo as part of a larger setting, rather he is the main subject of the photo. There is a difference between being the only thing shown in a photo and being depicted as standing in the background as part of scene with lots of people and things going on around. In this case, we have a photo specifically taken of one person, not a photo of a big event with that person being incidentally included.--Peulle (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle: Reductio it may be, but not ab absurdum ... do remember that PETA did file suit against the photographer who claims copyright over the monkey selfie, on the grounds that the macaque was entitled to it. In any event, you are making a purely moral case for this image as non-featurable, not a legal one. You and Charles are entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest that in the future you do what I do when people nominate cosplay images or lighting-display images where I do not believe local FoP covers it: just !vote oppose, state your reasons, and don't engage anyone else unless they engage you directly over this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Daniel. --cart-Talk 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great portrait, although I would have like a bit more space around. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Being a veteran in uniform and participating in a public manifestation makes him a public figure. Zero expectation of privacy in public event. MZaplotnik(talk) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I'd like to support, as this is a good portrait. Can someone explain why anyone in public in Belgium would have the reasonable expectation not to be photographed? Of course I realize that a woman in Saudi Arabia would not expect to be photographed in public, so there is no universal rule on this and I don't want to inappropriately apply American standards to a Western European country, but is there really an expectation of not being photographed on the street in Belgium, especially at a highly visible public event? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue for me is the close up intrusion of grief being paraded here for soemone else's reward. I say again, what might the veteran and his friends think about this? Charles (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As Charles says, the issue is not whether you should be able to avoid being photographed completely when in a public space, but when a photographer makes you his sole subject, that's another thing. On the one hand, there are famous cases like Migrant Mother, on the other hand I'd like to have heard the person's view on the matter.--Peulle (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) You don't think that his showing up and being part of this event, parading in front of all the spectators ("the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators"), is proof enough that he is honouring his comrades and their memory in a very public way? --cart-Talk 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Good portrait of a solemn veteran in uniform -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Veteran_at_Belgian_National_Day._Brussels,_2012.jpg&oldid=288495267"