Comment It is for sure the best image in scope. The file page should be geocoded though. If the exact location should not be published due to privacy reasons, please indicate the approximate location. Has Jelle been asked for consent to publish this photo under commercial reuse terms? Assuming the photo was taken in Holland, I do not know the rules about consent there as it is not listed in Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Any other reviewer know about this? --Slaunger (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me, this is a non-place-related photo, and so geocoding is not required, though some location description would be nice, and it seems necessary to know at least the nation where it was taken so we can determine what the consent requirement might be. cmadler (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI've added the geocode. Personality rights in the Netherlands (that's something other than Holland btw) is quite leaneant. Photographs of prominent members of society can't be used to advertise without their consent. People who make their living with their image (pop idols, soccer players) can make objections when you start printing their face on t-shirts. But he is a journalist. --Vera (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands is (confusingly) called "Holland" in Danish, and I am a Dane, so that somehow slipped through, sorry. I guess the journalist is a "prominent member of society"? If so, there may be a problem as the image is (as all images on Commons) licensed in a manner which allows commercial reuse (and can thereby be used for advertising I guess). So without being terribly knowledgable about the rules for consent (COM:PEOPLE has not had so much focus previously on Commons), I would be inclined to think that Jelle should have been asked for consent not only to take the image (which I implicitly think can be assumed, as he is evidently posing for the camera), but also that it would be published under a license, which allowed commercial resuse. I would like the opinion of reviewers more knowledgable in this area though to do a sanity check on that line of thought. --Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've freaking out because of that picture of Colin Goldner getting deleted, I did too. But this picture was taken in the Netherlands, not Germany. There isn't a requirement to get permission when your commercial publication, only rare cases it is. When the work you're producing can be considered merchandise about an idol. And he isn't an idol, it's a journalist and tv presenter--Vera (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI am actually not familiar with the Colin Goldner case you are referring to. I was just not sure I understood correctly the rules for the Netherlands, so that was what I was trying to understand. I am sorry if it appeared that I was freaking out - I perceived it as better safe than sorry. For reviewers, it would be much easier is more country specific rules were spelled out in Commons:Country specific consent requirements, also the "easy" countries, just as in COM:FOP. --Slaunger (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
