Template talk:Personality rights/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Use in categories

As discussed briefly last year at the Village pump, this template is being used on several category pages (now roughly twice as many as back then), where the reference to "this work" doesn't seem quite appropriate. I propose the creation of a category-specific version of this template — perhaps at {{Personality rights category}} — with the only change being the substitution of the phrase "these works are" in place of "this work is" in the first sentence. - dcljr (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that in my opinion. "This work" can just as easily mean a number of images as a single one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org

Why does this template exist at commons.wikipedia.org while it was deleted from en.wikipedia.org after this discussion? This photo of Running With Scissors producer Mike Jaret, for example, is public domain and is not tagged with {{Personality rights}}. Do the commons and en sister projects have different policies and guidelines? --82.136.210.153 15:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct access to help for depicted persons

It seems, that depicted people sometimes have a hard time getting unauthorized pictures deleted discretely, especially in situations, where the privacy is a security issue. Regular deletion requests even can bring more attention to the image (see Streisand effect). Therefore I propose adding a direct link to Commons:Contact us/Problems to the template, in order to help affected persons more easily and discretely. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree, it's helpful indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know how careful we are to determine that someone requesting removal of an image of themselves actually are themselves? Potential problem there? If not, I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is challenging. My guess would be that in more than 95% of requests we do not do the deletion because the content is correctly a part of Wikimedia Commons collection. Most deletion requests need to be public. I recognize that there are cases when private discussion needs to happen but making the button more prominent to call for special attention will lead to negative experiences in almost all cases, because the response will usually be to not delete the file and also to direct the person back to public forums to raise their issue. Offering someone privacy then directing them to public spaces sets them up for a disappointing experience and extra steps.
I think that most people who want privacy find their way to special private service queues to make their request. My guess is that a new link will hardly increase the number of private requests that we want, but would greatly increase the number of requests which should be public. I could support a link to the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team who have the labor and insight to distinguish what is a safety concern versus what should go in public.
What reasons are there to think that the current process is insufficient? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the CC4.0 statements inherently unsuitable for pictures of living persons?

IMO, it's bad for a "rights" declaration to announce that there are no usage restrictions whatsoever on a piece of media, and that people are free to use an image "for any purpose, even commercially" ... and only later to acknowledge that, actually, there may well be restrictions after all. A reader, having read as far as the statement saying that they can do what they like with an image, may feel that they have the information they wanted, and feel entitled not to read any further. "For any purpose" is unambiguous.

I would be happier if the CC statements started with some indicator of context, such as "For the purposes of copyright ...", or "'As far as copyrights are concerned ..." before announcing the complete absence of legal restrictions on reuse.

If the CC statements are supposed to be only about copyright, then it's a bit of an omission that they don't actually say this, and that the word "copyright" doesn't currently appear anywhere on the statement pages.

As a general rule, legal statements shouldn't introduce universal rules with no exceptions, and then later introduce exceptions (which have been previously stated not to exist!). It results in different parts of the text contradicting each other. What one is supposed to do when a rule is nearly universal, and when (for clarity) the exceptions have to be dealt with later in a footnote or endnote, is to either qualify the initial statement ("... for almost any purpose ..."), or to include some sort of linking symbol such as an asterisk that connects the first occurrence of the universal rule to the text outlining its exceptions ("... for any purpose * ... Blah ..." ... ...
"(*) Except where this violates other rights, such as ...").

Or maybe the CC statement pages could include a piece of small box-header text saying something like "The following statements only refer to copyrights. Some media may be affected by other restrictive rights, such as ..." ErkDemon (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ErkDemon: Hi,
The issue is using the picture of a person is not a copyright issue, that's why it is a separate template. How can legally a picture be used depends from country to country, even more so than copyright. So yes, you are free to use these images, even commercial, as long as you respect the person's image, which also depends on her/his notability, and where the picture was taken. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't get to reword Creative Commons' licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in a few cases myself, b now, I wonder (1) how often we delete images due to personality rights concerns, and (2) how often (could we estimate?) users might refrain from using Commons images because of the presence of a personality rights box on the page? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For 1/, some cases are in the subcats of Category:Privacy-related deletion requests (not many though). Jean-Fred (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of deletions for personality rights are handled as speedy deletions shortly after upload, or are handled through OTRS, etc., or are variously handled on a courtesy basis, and there probably won't be any easily found public written record for all of these. When the issue is to protect someone's privacy, obviously the discussion of that cannot always be fully public. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is particularly the case when the solution is a Gaussian blur over someone's face, license plate, etc., and deletion of an earlier version of the same file. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could administrators involved in these deletions tell us if there is a small, very small, large or very large amount done? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: I have been compiling a collection of case studies for these situations at Commons:Model license and Commons:Model license/Case studies. It needs to be cleaned up. I can think of no way to get data of the sort you request for how many requests are made or what percentage of requests results in a deletion. I would like to be able to count that because this issue comes up often enough to merit research and a more coordinated response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's bad practice to state that users have the right to use the content for any purposes whatsoever, without limitation ... and then say in the small print, "Okay, that's not actually true, there may well be restrictions after all ...". At the very least, the "exception" small print should be linked to by an asterisk or other mark. It would also be somewhat sensible if a notice giving users unlimited rights under copyright had some sort of indication that copyright was the relevant context for the statements. I suppose that the people who drafted the text felt that it was obvious that the statements were specifically about copyright and that it didn't need to be said. Not so. Especially if people without a technical background in these things are arriving at the CC statements via a link from somewhere like the Commons. ErkDemon (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Personality_rights/Archive_2&oldid=573436040"