Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Update 2013/Lead

• Click on the 'Project page' tab, above to see the current policy/guideline wording that is under discussion on this page.
• To make a specific proposal, please start a new subsection and use the code below to put it in its own box. You can sign underneath the resultant box, but for technical reasons you can't use "~~~~" within it. Please number your proposal for ease of reference.

{{divbox|amber|Proposal number and title|Introduction
*text
*more text}}

Scope Review 2013 links: Discuss stage 2 of this review Translation Help your community by translating the review Background Main review page: Background and process FAQ Links to current rules Project Scope Photographs of identifiable people Discussion: Introductory Scope wording Aim of Wikimedia Commons Excluded educational content Discussion: Files Must be a media file Must be an allowable free file format Must be freely licensed or public domain Licensing terms Evidence Precautionary principle 'Realistically useful for an educational purpose' PDF and DjVu formats Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories General pages, galleries and categories User pages, galleries and categories Discussion: Areas of particular concern Censorship "Neutral point of view" Discussion: Identifiable people Lead Legal issues Consent Moral issues Identification Examples Removal requests Other image sources Other proposals Other proposals

Proposal 1

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please discuss the above proposal here
• Yes this is a good idea. I'm not sure there is much technical difference but respect for our subjects should have as much weight as respect for photographer's licences. Colin (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sure, why not. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely. --Conti|✉ 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• No, that's too much of a blank cheque for me. Developing a policy is certainly a good goal, but I think there are enough grey areas here that we might better served by a guideline (or by some mixture of policies and guidelines) than by a policy. --Avenue (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Consent issues are too much of a gray area that constantly needs interpretation and application of common sense, I don't think that this needs to be a policy. I also disagree with Colin that consent issues are as important as copyright issues; copyright issues are important because of the very reason Commons exists (to provide free media), while consent issues aren't (though they are an important moral issue - I am not disagreeing with that). darkweasel94 13:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This topic appears to be of lesser interest/priority to the community than some of the others in this review, and I propose that we should close it down now. That will allow us in part 2 of the review to focus our full attention on the most important and/or contentious issues. This issue may well come up again later, though. Please comment at Commons talk:Project scope/Update 2013/Stage 2. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Please discuss the above proposal here