Commons:Model license/Case studies

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Home
house
Case studies
book with magnifying glass
Talk
person talking

Model license

consent from models in photos and video


Release of personality rights

[edit]
Billy talks with his doctor about his embarrassing health issues, private diseases, and criminal addiction to illegal substances

We need a declaration of release of personality rights for health issues which protects the participants, because we need photos that can be used for things which can bring discrimination. Imagine a photo captioned, "Sally knows that she needs to talk with her doctor about sexually transmitted infections" depicting a person in a culture where these things are not discussed, and yet where pictures of good patients would be valuable in creating educational materials. At the photoshoot, we might need legal coaching to tell the volunteer models what risks they will experience just by being photographed.

Medical stock photography is more expensive than typical stock photography because it is more risky to participants and doing this kind of photoshoot is an odd and problematic proposal of a sort that I have never seen done before. I am hoping that Wikipedians are more empowered to give consent to appear in these kinds of photos than typical other populations. I am thinking about this now and will be talking with others. Sometime in the near future I need to come up with a "personality rights release" form. I asked about this on English Wikipedia and on Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existing photos

[edit]
[edit]

David Horvitz

[edit]
File:Mooddisorder.jpg
this photo was of Horvitz acting as if in despair and was an illustration in en:mood disorder

en:David Horvitz is an artist who between 2011-2014 sought to include photos of himself in Wikipedia articles, including in articles about medical conditions. This case is interesting because the Wikimedia community could have benefited from getting a volunteer who would give informed consent to model for medical illustrations. The strange and unfortunate part of this story is that Horvitz inexplicably avoided conversation with the Wikimedia community and consumed a huge amount of volunteer labor by disrupting Wikimedia with vandalism and bad behavior. He promoted his vandalism as an art project. This person does not seem conscious of what he did, but from a Wikimedia community perspective, this "art" was analogous to any artist vandal creating a mess in a public place like a park then saying that the volunteers who clean the mess are the art performance.

Among many other problems Horvitz created some photos of himself as a model for medical problems. Wikimedia projects need medical models, so this could have been beneficial. However, part of this art project seems to have included a lack of willingness to conform with Wikipedia community guidelines. The Wikipedia community noted that it could be insulting to communicate that a recognizable person has a medical condition like a mental disorder and did not want to show the pictures without the artist agreeing to depict themselves in this way. While Horvitz seemed to be sharing such pictures, images from this user came from perhaps 20 accounts which a Wikimedia investigation determined to be part of a disruption project.

At this point collaboration with this artist is probably a dead end because they fail to comply with Wikimedia community rules which protect everyone's time and safety. Still this is an example of when Wikimedia content reviews consider consent from models as a factor in illustrations.

user account investigation
beach vandalism project
Mood disorder project



  • Great photo, but problem with personality rights not being released.
    Great photo, but problem with personality rights not being released.
  • Many contemporary photos on Commons promote government actions
    Many contemporary photos on Commons promote government actions
  • Most Commons photos are too dramatic
    Most Commons photos are too dramatic
  • This is a contemporary photo which is low quality and shows no face.
    This is a contemporary photo which is low quality and shows no face.
  • We already have lots of historical images
    We already have lots of historical images
  • We already have lots of historical photos
    We already have lots of historical photos

It is my opinion that these photos are representative of some common types of patient photos on Commons. This project would seek to mostly produce simple pictures of someone in a patient role talking to someone in a doctor role, where what they are discussing could be anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples in Wikimedia projects where model release is used or requested

[edit]

Example of stock photo starting on-wiki then being reused everywhere

[edit]

DIS Magazine submitted to Wikipedia by a photographer who wanted his image reused.

I would like these kinds of high-quality photos to be available on as many of Wikipedia's health articles as possible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I signaled this at English WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is archived at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_67#Wikipedia_to_promote_stock_health_photography. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is more complicated than I previously realized. Presently a "specialtoyoutoyou" account was under investigation.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example of attempt at model release agreement

[edit]
The model for this picture agreed that this photo could be shared on Wikimedia Commons.

In File:Buccal_exostosis.jpg Matthew Ferguson 57 attempted to create a patient consent form. This is a great start. Problems with this form include the following -

  • Not reviewed or endorsed by any legal authority
  • Perhaps the agreement overemphasizes Creative Commons licenses to give legitimacy. Creative Commons addressed copyright, and personality or model rights are something unrelated.
  • The agreement promises that the model will not be personally identifiable. The promise is shaky in this case - what if, for example, the model self-discloses to brag on Facebook? Does that void the agreement and mean that the picture should thereafter be removed from Commons?
  • Wikimedia Commons itself only has a few removal policies unrelated to copyright. It is uncertain what happens if the model wants the image removed later.
  • There is no way to verify that the model agreed to anything. Commons usually uses OTRS to verify, but that may not be appropriate for model releases. Not sure.

More discussion would be useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they tell their friends it is actually them in this image then this is their choice, I do not think there is a legal issue with that. Such "clauses" were placed in the consent form incase anyone would be worried about privacy etc. to an extent that they would otherwise refuse to have the picture taken. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are not sure if I would also have to also send a copy of the consent form as an OTRS ticket or whatever? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Ferguson 57 When the uploader says they have another party's permission for copyright, the practice here is to send proof to OTRS. In my view permission for personality rights would be analogous to permission for copyright, so I think having a policy to request proof to OTRS would match an established best practice in a similar situation. There are reasons to not do this - I actually am not sure.
In clinical research there is something called an "informed consent document". It is an agreement between the researcher and research participant. A standard promise that the researcher makes is confidentiality for the research participant, typically modeled after the kind of confidentiality that doctors offer to patients. There is currently debate and chaos in the field of clinical research because of the disruption caused by social media. The researchers do not want to control the participants' personal lives, but when participants disclose their research participation publicly such as by announcing their research participation in social media, then some research participants may incur social problems they did not anticipate. When self-disclosure results in a negative experience for a research participant, it is not certain how much responsibility the researcher has to get them out of these difficulties. The problem is that the researcher is supposed to be savvy and the participant is naive, so whenever the researcher can protect the participant, they ought to do so. I think the same situation applies here. If someone came to trouble because they modeled for Wikipedia, then I would feel bad. With the mouth picture you shared this is unlikely, but just the same, I want to be sure that we adequately disclose the risk of being published and being identified. I do not think it is best to crowdsource trust for identity protection to the general Wikimedia community, so I am unsure that we can make promises to keep confidentiality. At the same time - I am not sure you even need a model release for the kind of picture you shared, so it may be best to not make any promises at all.
I have a lot of uncertainty about many aspects of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely NOT require people send the names of subjects in photographs to volunteers at OTRS. While I get signed consents from identifiable subjects I do not get consent to associated their picture with there real names. OTRS is not set up to handle this nor should they be.
That we have editors on Wikipedia who are happy to launch legal attacks against fellow editors to supposedly verify that the editor has appropriate signed consent is the unfortunate bit. The last thing we should be doing is assisting people in doing this.
The teeth are not identifiable so no signed model release is needed. At least verbal consent is definitely needed though.
When one publishes patient images in journals the author needs to sign a form agreeing that they have appropriate consent. They do not however need to send these forms to the publisher. The publisher and peer reviewers do not need to know the patients name. We should follow this practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debate about how to give consent - story from 2008

[edit]
Cesarian section

This image of a caesarian section being performed has been judged to be among the finest images offered by Wikimedia Commons. If it is appropriate for Commons to host the image, then it is a great image to provide. There is consensus that the image is appropriate for Commons.

Dissenting opinions question whether the mother giving birth gave consent for the image. It seems likely that she did, but proof of this consent came from her husband who spoke on her behalf through his Wikipedia account. Some people questioned the legitimacy of that Wikipedia account - was that account really operated by the mother's husband? did the mother actually give consent to model? was process followed? In 2008 when this picture was submitted the decision was made ad hoc with discussion and not with a formal process.

Read the discussion's arguments at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Moment of Birth. If there were a process for model release perhaps the decision would have been more clear with less arguing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about deleting medical photo because it is personal

[edit]

A photo used at en:suprapubic cystostomy was discussed for deletion. The copyright status was questioned, but also the personality rights of the model were considered in this discussion. A user suggested that because the photo included a nude person that there should be a model release.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't just one of model release, but one of 'consent'. Developing appropriate procedures of ethical/medical consent, might be beyond the WMF's scope, given that even the professionals can make bad calls. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS administrators discuss photo of people on subway

[edit]

OTRS administrators with special permission to access private email to Wikimedia projects may see the following discussion -

The issue was rather common - a photo of the interior of typical subway car with typical passengers, none of whom are looking at the camera in this candid shot. In conversation the case was reduced to a question of whether model permission or consent is needed to photograph people in public places. Various issues are raised.

In the end, it is apparent that more clarity on this routine case would be useful. Under what circumstances can Wikimedia projects host images of people taken in public places but without their permission? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The picture at issue

At Lane's request I am posting a link to this deletion discussion at Commons as it may be relevant to this issue.

Short version: I took the accompanying photo of two women with their children after a long day for me (and, I would guess, them) at Kew Gardens in London on the day Wikimania 2014 started. We were in a public area (tables alongside a walkway); I shot without their knowledge, much less consent, in order to get as natural a picture as possible (note that you can't see the children's faces in full). I liked that the boy whose face you can see in part is wearing a New York Yankees cap, not typically seen in London. Plus, these women and their children looked like the sort of ideal of Englishness upscale American clothing retailers like to suggest they can help their customers aspire to.

I nominated it for Quality image and that's where this all began. Some other editors thought that European law required consent of the children's parents. See the deletion discussion for how that was resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Thanks for sharing. The deletion discussion presents many of the common doubts and uncertainties that Wikimedia Commons contributors have about taking photos of people in people. I think Wikimedia Commons would do well to develop clearer guidelines to remove uncertainty about when it is and is not appropriate to share candid public photos of people on Commons. This is a great discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually the ultimate conclusion, that the table here was nowhere near adequate as a guide for editors and needs more work. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patient with Marfan syndrome, image taken from academic medical journal

[edit]
patient with Marfan syndrome

In August 2015 Wikiproject Medicine participants discussed this image of a patient with en:Marfan syndrome. The image has an appropriate copyright release. It came from an academic medical journal and presumably was taken by a research physician in the context of publishing a case study in the scientific literature.

It has been common for decades for physicians to take such photos and publish them in order to discuss health issues in academic publications. What is new in the context of Wikipedia is that these images are being circulated to a public which previously would never have consulted academic publication on medicine. There was discussion in WikiProject Medicine about whether Wikipedia should seek patient consent in cases like this, when the patient might be identifiable. Presumably, the doctor got consent, and the medical journal got consent, and all readers of the medical journal accept photography like this as a standard practice.

It would be nice if in the medical community there could be some consent documents reviewed by community stakeholders and legal counsel which could explain to models how their photos might be used. No one could expect that such model releases would be used in all cases, but no kind of release is available in this sector now, and it would be nice to develop one.

A standard practice might be to accept such images when there is reason to believe that the photographer collected consent which both meets contemporary medical ethics guidelines and which can be confirmed somehow to exist. Proof of existence might be documentation of the name of the physician who took the photograph and the name of the hospital or research institute where the physician worked, in addition to a citation to the source of original publication if any. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a Wiki-community release process for erotic nude imagery

[edit]

See the image discussed if you choose to do so.

At Commons:Commons:Picture of the day for 1 February 2016 the picture of this day was a nude woman. It is a bit strange to showcase original art in the "Picture of the Day" channel, and I am sure this will be questioned. Leaving this aside, there is a model release used for this photo.

Erotic photography is another kind of photography which needs to have model releases in order. This photo was curated at de:Wikipedia:10. Fotoworkshop, which was an event supported by Wikimedia Österreich. Wikimedia Österreich is a Wikimedia chapter. It is a "featured picture", which is the highest designation of value which the Wikimedia community puts on images, and furthermore, it is in another category for "featured pictures" gathered through the efforts of Wikimedia Österreich.

The model release for this photo has been managed by mailing it in to en:WP:OTRS at ticket:2012031910003139. Probably the model release is orderly as everything about this photo's upload and curation seems orderly, but still, the Wikimedia community is given no information about what an erotic art model release is supposed to be. Also this model release is in German and there is no translation.

There probably is nothing wrong with the model release used for this image. The problem is that the community has no information about model releases in general, cannot read this one unless they have OTRS access and know German, do not know if this model release was reviewed by a lawyer, and do not know how the copyright holder collected this model release. What I would like instead is for some one to publish an acceptable process and if someone questioned a model release, then I would like for uploaders to confirm that their process is at least equal to the acceptable process. I want minimum standards put in place for guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a general problem with the entire OTRS process. If you use a file and think that the file is licensed but that the copyright holder states that the file is unlicensed (or licensed under a different licence), then it is essentially up to you to prove that the file is licensed. You might say that it says that the file is licensed on Commons, but the rightsholder might respond by stating that he hasn't approved any licence and that the permission statement is fake. I assume that some OTRS tickets are forged, so this argument won't necessarily be wrong. If you think that the rightsholder is lying, then it is up to you to prove this, but the OTRS ticket is confidential information, so it won't be easy. You might be able to appoint an OTRS agent as your witness, but the OTRS agent might not be able to provide the necessary information without violating the OTRS privacy policy.
One example: I often move free files from English Wikipedia to Commons. However, if the file has an OTRS ticket, then I don't dare to move the file to Commons because I don't know what legal risks moving it to Commons would involve. I can't tell if the permission is valid and even if it is valid, I don't know if I would be able to prove that the permission is valid if a court requires me to do this. If someone grants a permission (for personality rights, copyright or any other right), then it seems that a potential user of the material has to treat the permission as if it was never granted if evidence that it was granted is unavailable or confidential.
If the permission is in a language which you do not understand, then you may need to find a translator. This problem is unavoidable since there is no language which is understood by everyone in the entire world. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that many parts of the OTRS process that are private ought not be private. In many cases, OTRS keeps things private that uploader, reviewer, and content users want public, and it is especially troublesome for hiding things that people want to share. There ought to be OTRS reform for the reasons you describe.
The model release issue is different for a few ways. One way is that there is no agreement that OTRS even should manage model releases. In the case of that upload, the person could have said "I have a model release. I cannot share it." and by current policy, the outcome on Commons would have been the same.
A difference with model releases and copyright release is that with copyright release, all uploaders are required to say that they release the content with a license compatible with CC-By-SA. With model releases, we require no particular characteristics of the release. Regardless of whether a model release might be required by law, useful or not useful, there is no particular way that we tell people to make them and no particular criteria for judging whether anyone has made an appropriate model release.
At least when people release copyright by OTRS, the community can assume good faith that the process is handled by community rules. When someone does a model release by OTRS (or in any method) that conveys no particular information. I think that a model release should convey some minimal information, or that there should be some standard minimal criteria which we say "all model releases have to at least meet this minimum". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A model release is a permission, and OTRS handles permissions, so in that sense there is no difference between a model release and a copyright licence. Since the rule is that OTRS handles permissions, I suppose that the rule is that OTRS handles model releases.
Your other point is that the conditions stated in the model release are unclear to file information page readers. That seems correct. The file information page contains two copyright tags and one OTRS tag, but it doesn't say why the OTRS tag appears on the file information page in the first place. Has someone submitted a model release which is documented in the OTRS ticket? Or does the OTRS ticket contain evidence that the copyright tags are valid? Oh, right, if the Commons reuser finds this page (listed at Special:GlobalUsage/12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-32.jpg), then he will find your statement above that the ticket contains a model release. Not very intuitive.
When an OTRS ticket is used for verifying a copyright licence, the OTRS agent adds a copyright tag to the file information page. However, we do not seem to have any model release tags which can be added when a model release is given, so the terms of the model release are secret to Commons reusers. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

At en:WP:OTRS ticket:2016012110003934 a user was asked to return a copyright release as described in Commons:Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_inquiries. This is routine.

There was a misunderstanding. They seem to have assumed that because they were the subject of photos, that they were also the copyright holders. See emails 14, 15, and 16 in this chain - three people stated that they modeled for a photo, and seem to have confusion that this gives them the right to make a copyright release. This demonstrates some amount of confusion between a model release and a copyright release.

Thanks to Jameslwoodward for managing this ticket. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we received CC licenses from several of the subjects of the images, I certainly did not request them. However, t is not at all uncommon for people to believe that because they are the subject of an image, or one of them, that they have the right to license the use of the image. A significant fraction of all Undeletion requests are those cases.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I experienced a lot of that confusion when trying to make a living as a professional photographer. I had to explain to people that in the United States, the photographer automatically owns the copyright on any photos they take unless they explicitly sign those rights away. When I did paid shoots I made it clear in my contracts that I was not doing "work for hire". (We were having a related discussion in a recent ...) Funcrunch (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward, Bluerasberry, Funcrunch : How should a picture be handled of a politician, taken with his/her camera by a personal assistant, acting on his/her instruction? or for that matter taken by that personal assistant and handed over to the politician ? can the politician be the only person who gives submits a realease to OTRS? --DerekvG Please respond on my talk page (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, which might now be irrelevant; I haven't been monitoring my Meta watchlist as I'm active primarily on the English Wikipedia. So IANAL, but in the USA, if the politician's assistant were taking the photo in the course of performing their regular work duties, then likely their employer would own the copyright to the photo. But this would depend on the work contract the assistant signed. Also, if the politician and their assistant were federal employees, the photo might fall under public domain. Either way, it seems that the politician should be able to authorize their assistant to work on their behalf for matters such as uploading photo releases, but I'm not familiar with the details of the OTRS system in that regard.
It's also important to understand that, at least in the USA, copyright is a separate issue from model releases. Regardless of who takes the photo or who owns the copyright to the photo, if the photo contains one or more human subjects, each of those subjects needs to sign a model release in order for the photo to be used for commercial purposes. For the purposes of displaying the photos on Wikipedia, such a release would not normally be needed (from my understanding), as this would be considered editorial use, though there might be privacy-related exceptions. But if someone were to download the photo from Wikipedia and include it in an advertisement for a product or political campaign in a way that implied that the photo subjects endorsed that product or position, they would need to secure a model release from the subject(s). Normally the photographer secures the releases (as model releases are often required by stock agencies, for example), but legally, it is up to the end user of the photo to do so. Note that this is just a very simplistic explanation; for more exhaustive information on model releases I recommend photographer Dan Heller. Funcrunch (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DerekvG There is no established Wikimedia process for submitting a model release to OTRS. Despite there being no established process, individuals regularly draft their own model releases and submit those to OTRS. At OTRS these releases are processed and categorized as copyright releases, if at all. Sometimes individuals post model releases with files. There is no Wikimedia guideline about what is and is not an acceptable model release, or any Wikimedia discussion about what implications there are to using model releases.
I agree with what Funcrunch says, including endorsing that Dan Heller is the Internet's most popular and only comprehensive discussion of the matter. I can add to his statement "I'm not familiar with the details of the OTRS system in that regard" by saying that there is no consensus in OTRS. There is a history of practice that anyone can post any kind of supplementary data to Commons files so long as the copyright is in order, but that is not the same as having community endorsement that any practice is meaningful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US Military publishes humanitarian aid photos

[edit]
US solider giving water to a girl

Everything that is published by a US government employee is in the public domain. The US military publishes a lot of photos. Many US military photos are shared in Wikimedia Commons, and many show humanitarian aid.

The picture here of the US soldier giving water to a girl was nominated for deletion for violating Wikimedia Commons policy on photos of identifiable people. In 2007 this photo was granted "featured picture" status, which is the highest recognition given to Commons photos.

The US military publishes lots of photos of US soldiers giving humanitarian aid, so this practice is common enough. Commons has lots of these sorts of pictures in Commons:Category:Humanitarian aid by country. Are such pictures acceptable? Did the girl featured in the photo need to give a model release or be better informed about the photograph's publication and use? Should her parents have been involved? I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"An obese man, second from right"

[edit]
Is this a good image to illustrate a health condition?

In February 2016 in en:Obesity in the United Kingdom this "four people" image was added to the article and captioned as "Visitors outside the British Museum, London. An obese man, second from right." User Aw1805 added this image to the article. CGP Grey is the copyright holder of the image and had posted it to flickr in 2006 with the user-added tags, "fat", "obese", and "obesity".

Wikimedia projects currently give unclear guidance on the best practice to use model photographs to illustrate health conditions.

Other news publications had previously used this image to illustrate obesity. This image seems to be used in 20 or more different articles by different publications, all discussing obesity and since 2013.

I suppose it is not unusual to use images in this way but I wonder if Wikipedia might address model rights issues. I see no supporting evidence that the model featured here had a desire to become a model for depicting obesity issues.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erotica, model release confirmed privately off-wiki

[edit]

see "File:Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg" if you like. It is an erotic image of a woman in her underwear.

The photo was nominated for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg on the basis of lack of model release. There is some discussion, including of the model's acknowledgement of the camera in many such photos taken over time.

The photographer joins the discussion and says that they had a model release, but they lost it. The fact of the model release having existed is enough evidence in this case for respondents to keep the image. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nude photos, no model release

[edit]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Violet Sparks 2586.jpg A series of photos of nude models is considered for deletion.

Various users request proof of a model release. The photos are high quality and seem professionally produced, as the models are in various locations and production quality is high. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly selected photo of older person used to illustrate a medical condition

[edit]
urinary incontinence?

Sometimes people in a demographic which has a higher prevalence of having a medical condition are used to illustrate that medical condition, as English Wikipedia's en:urinary incontinence.

At en:Talk:Urinary_incontinence#Image a discussion said that without more information about the individual and situation, it is not appropriate to use a photo in this way.

Model release did not come up in this case, but rather, this is a discussion of how to show respect to individuals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various comments

[edit]

I need to migrate all this off this grant page and make a casebook. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nude model with release featured on Commons main page 8 June 2018

[edit]

thumb|right|from Commons main page

There is no talk of consent that I see.

This has a simple template release form Template:consent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2018/06#Why_is_it_OK_to_have_a_picture_of_a_nude_woman_on_the_home_page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polio from the CDC

[edit]
man with polio

The CDC provides various photos. This one, "Young man with a withered leg due to polio", is on the English Wikipedia article.

The CDC asks anyone reusing these photos to "Please credit the appropriate source". Noting any information about the model is not a consideration here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse anatomy

[edit]

series from User:Anatomist90

[edit]

http://authors.bmj.com/policies/patient-consent-and-confidentiality/

Suicide + published album cover

[edit]

The music album cover of The Dawn of the Black Hearts presents the photograph of a person after suicide.

A third party requests removal for various reasons by email at ticket:2020121910000163. By default emails are private, but in my opinion, one of the reasons for requesting removal is lack of consent from the individual or family to show this person. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visible underwear

[edit]

Photographs incidentally make underwear visible.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government distributes photos of children showering at school

[edit]

Someone complained at private ticket:2020102410002155 about File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0609-302, Köritz, Duschraum des Kindergartens.jpg, which was used to illustrate a Wikipedia article related to hygiene. The Wikimedia Foundation legal team or the Wikimedia Foundation Support and Safety Team considered the complaint and declined to comment, which is their most common response to everything.

The general situation with the photograph is that in 1987 some government official went into a kindergarten class and took pictures of the kids showering to demonstrate a plumbing renovation. The en:German Federal Archives owns the copy of the photograph and distributed it for public reuse. Different cultures in different times might have different opinions of appropriateness and consent for this sort of activity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CC license confusion with model release

[edit]

ticket:2019060410005361 Subject applies CC-license to well-known photograph featuring them.

They later object to revoke the CC license when the photo is used to misrepresent them, their identity, and their views. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stock photos of patients receiving healthcare

[edit]

Images are essential to health communication. Social trends change over time, but since the advent of online publishing there came to be a genre of consumer health publishing which requires stock medical imagery to be effective. The desirable image pool is the all variations of a diverse group of people as patients and doctors engaging in the activities of health care. These photos are great for that. I would support the inclusion of any of these photos into any general interest Wikipedia article featuring information about the en:doctor–patient relationship. Lots of medical articles are challenging to illustrate and having a single photo of this sort is a benefit in a Wikipedia article which is relevant and otherwise does not have a picture.

The relevance of this to the consent process is that we have models who agreed to participate in a magazine photo shoot, in partnership with Creative Commons as a free and open media licensing organization, and for the purpose of associating themselves with an activist campaign for health care messaging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Model_license/Case_studies&oldid=551032069"