Commons talk:Model license

About this page

I started developing this page in October 2014 at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video.

At that time there was something called "idea lab" in Meta-Wiki where if someone had an idea they could post it. Idea lab overlapped with a grant program at that time and now the idea lab is ended and only the grant program is there. For some ideas anyone can post to meta:Learning patterns, meta:Wikimedia Resource Center, or post to the most relevant Wikimedia project. Since the model license practices most closely affect media files in Wikimedia Commons I am migrating the content from that meta discussion to here.

There was good discussion and a history of development at that page. I do not want to lose that and intend to signal everyone who posted there to this page in 3 months at the latest when I have this project page set organized a little more.

Other people merit credit for the development of this content. I sorted content and had tried to collect ideas but I need to review the precedent and thank people also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Storyteller legal release

Commons:Storyteller legal release

A related issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Attribution notice

This is a template intended to communicate permission for the the photographer to take photos in a place or circumstance where there is a restriction on taking photos or videos. {{OTRS accreditation}}

On English Wikipedia I developed a policy which is similar at en:Wikipedia:Press pass. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Model Release template

@Bluerasberry: I was looking at Template:Aktstudien 10. Fotoworkshop Nürnberg and the OTRS ticket which has model release forms from few dozen models for a big photoshoot. {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{OTRS accreditation}} seemed like poor matches for model release forms. Do we have any templates like that. If not I think we should create one. --Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: No none exists. Yes one should exist because people already try to use them. I have a list of model releases from off-wiki somewhere, but I never sorted the documentation here.

There is more text at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video. I think I had more text on wiki somewhere and that list of model templates that I found.

Yes, I think I will need a license for 2021 because I am also planning a photoshoot. Yes I am interested in collaborating on producing one.

What is your idea? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a quite narrow focus on a template to properly label OTRS links to model release forms, so they do not use {{PermissionOTRS}} which does something else. I was not planning on checking the format of the release form on file in OTRS database or coming up with policies for future handling of those. I would just fork {{PermissionOTRS}} and replace the text with a text explaining better what is the link pointing to. --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I hesitate to encourage a process so heavily reliant on OTRS permission. This is about modeling, which is much more public and personal, and I feel like we need some on-wiki minimal standards. If we do this in OTRS only, there is no minimal standard except the fact of someone saying that their process is good enough. The process I imagine is that we have some CC-like template on Commons, then OTRS verifies that. Here are sample templates -

template:Consent

The uploader asserts the following regarding consent of identifiable persons: I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video.

User:Bluerasberry/model release for editorial purposes

The model featured in this image has agreed to the Fashion Law Institute Model Release version 1.0 with the copyright holder of this photograph. For further information contact the copyright holder. Yes The model has consented to editorial use of this photo. No The model has not consented to any release of personality rights

(template broken somehow, cannot stop it) Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: , You are looking forward and I am looking back. We do have model release documents in OTRS and right now, the files use {{PermissionOTRS}} to connect to those. I was trying to fix that. I was thinking about something along the line of :

I do not have much of an opinion about what is the best way to handle release forms in the future, but in case we actually want to have some signed documents on file with real names, then the only legal place to store them would be OTRS. At the same time creating OTRS based model release template might become a default, so if you would like to have some alternative templates we should create them at the same time. I can help with the template and I18n businesses. --Jarekt (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Okay, if I understand correctly, you see two parts: one part is the release itself, and the other part is connecting the release from OTRS to Commons. You want that connection part only for now, right?

The part that I do not like about your proposed template is that it links to the English Wikipedia article for model release and not a Commons-specific definition. Whatever happens, I think we should like to a Commons definition. I know we may not have consensus for anything, but at least we could like to an explanation like "there is a model release, it is only available to OTRS agents, Commons has no definition for model release and cannot say anything about the one on file, please contact the uploader for details". I think everyone would agree with that much. Do you think there is consensus to say more than this?

You say "We do have model release documents in OTRS" - I know we have documents sent into OTRS claimed to be model releases, but we have no definition of "model release", right? If a file has a model release in OTRS, then we know nothing about that, right? Like for example, in the current system having a model release does not mean that the person in the photo consented to anything, or that they know about an upload to Wikimedia or anywhere else, or that they allow reuse of the sort Commons expects?

My view of the current system is that people send in mysterious model release forms which have no standard and which could say anything, and which no one can see except OTRS agents. No information about these forms comes to public view. Your idea for an OTRS template would be one necessary part of the system and would be an improvement. Can I help just focusing on that OTRS template, or is there more to do here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I was searching for information about how do we currently deal with model releases, and what templates (pages in template namespace) do we usually use for linking from Commons to OTRS. I guess the answer is that we do not have much of agreed on system at the moment and we do not have any specific templates. I can not evaluate the model releases I found in in OTRS. I run into them when investigating why many different photographers used the same OTRS number in files related to Category:10. Fotoworkshop Nürnberg and what I can figure out is that they do have OTRS with some paperwork of official agreements with professional models hired by "Fotoworkshop". I do not speak German so I do not know the details. I would like to replace {{PermissionOTRS}} in files like this one with a template which informs the user that it links to information models and not photographers copyrights as it does now.

• I do not mind changing the link to commons if we have some page related to it, but model release (Q479251) does not link to any pages on Commons.
• I agree that hiding stuff in OTRS is not ideal especially since OTRS agents do not deal with them much so they can not evaluate them. However if there is any paperwork on file with real names etc. than it can not be in the open forum. I do not like your plan about contact[ing] the uploader for details, since people come and go, but the images remain. In case of a lot of images on Commons the uploders are no longer active. OTRS agents should not give you any names but they should be allowed to mention what was send or that the model agreed to, the way they are answering questions about copyright releases at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard.

But yes lets just focus on the OTRS template for now. template:OTRS model release? --Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Okay, we can focus on that template, because there are multiple parts to this and we cannot do them all at once. Also regardless of whether all the parts are in place, we already have an established practice of accepting model releases, so we could at least document that better.

Here are the specifications that I imagine for the template:

1. it is a template
2. its primary function is to link a Wikimedia Commons file to an OTRS ticket
3. the template will report that the OTRS ticket claims the existence of a model release.
4. the template should link to our current standard for model releases, which I think is "'model release' has no particular meaning, use this file at your own risk, all available info is on the Commons page for the file". I favor linking to something we can develop, however short.
5. the template will state that neither the OTRS team nor wiki community identify who made the model release, whether it is the copyright holder, model, or some third party

For example, suppose that a copyright holder uploads a photo and says that they want the model release template on their file. The best practice is that they message OTRS saying that they have a model release. The copyright holder does not have to identify themselves, the photographer, or the model, nor do they need to share the model release or describe it in any way. If they do this much, then they are eligible to get this model release template.

Later if we want a higher standard then we can make more rules. To what extent is this what you are expecting? There are many parts to this, and I am looking for the shortest path to any progress without having to address all these things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: , I am with you for the first 4 points, but I do not understand the rest. According to en:Model release article "A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another." such document is then scanned or photographed and the scan is send to OTRS, for long term safekeeping. That is what we have now and anybody can ask OTRS agents questions about the document on file. The issue is that the template linking to the ticket misleads the user about what the ticket holds. An approach where someone emails OTRS to inform them that they have a document they are not going to show does not provide assurance to reusers 20 years latter that such document ever existed. --Jarekt (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Okay, we can do this. How does this look:

• The template has a field for "model name". Anyone seeing the file in Wikimedia Commons can see the name of the model on the template.
• The template marks itself as invalid if a field for "model name" is left blank.
• OTRS agents in processing the ticket match the model name on Commons with the name in the email ticket.

Is this what you are expecting? I agree that the problems you identify are serious. I do not have simple answers for them because there are so many interdependent pieces to this which lack documented procedure. I still think we can make some progress by publishing something and identifying the gaps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: , I hate to be shooting down all your ideas, but the actual names of models would be sensitive and be the main part of OTRS ticket protected from the public. For example, this indoor photo probably should have a model release. However, in most cases the model might not want this image to show up as the top item during google search of her name. I was thinking about just having a template like the one I have shown, which says that a model release for this image was send to OTRS and you can ask for non-sensitive details of this release. Having such template does not prevent us from having other related templates. I do not see the issue you are trying to solve. --Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: The issue that I am trying to solve is to identify the non-sensitive details that OTRS agents can share and put those in the template. There are only a few points of data here. I would like for a template to identify them, then either report what we know or otherwise say that the information is not for public access. As you say, Commons is an archive and asking for clarification 20 years after upload is not ideal. I do not have strong feelings about what we share and what we withhold, but I would like the information collection and disclosure practice to be public. Let me try again:

1. claim of the existence of model release: required for user to submit; OTRS publicly confirms that uploader made the claim
2. model release: not required for user to submit; OTRS publicly reports that it does not keep this info
3. identity of model: not required for user to submit; OTRS publicly reports that it does not keep this info
4. identity of the holder of the model release: user required to submit; OTRS publicly reports this identity
5. identity of copyright holder: user required to submit; OTRS does not publicly report (current practice)

Feel free to change any of this, but is this where we are?

Alternatively, you have a proposal for an OTRS template above adapted for model release. If you want to go with that one with the text as is, then I can support it. In that template the only information given is a claim of the existence of a model release, and directions for anyone to ask OTRS agents for more details. The process in that case would be that individual OTRS agents can share information with individuals at their discretion. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: OK I am beginning to understand where are you coming from. Sorry it took a while. I think that perhaps we should have two templates:

1. one for model release with OTRS: there we would have to a field for OTRS number, and perhaps some fields for describing content of the release, like are there any restrictions? Does model wishes to be identified by name? etc.
2. a separate template for cases where model release is held by the photographer. I read [1] and sounds like, lack of model release could harm the reuses if they use the photographs in adds, etc. So having one could help reuses but not having one just means they can not use some images from Commons. This template can cover wide range of scenarios.

--Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Yes, I think there should be two templates.

Yes, the first template should be an OTRS template. The most important part of this template is that the OTRS agent confirms the connection between the file, the email, and the license information on the file page. You suggest having more parameters, which we could, but I fear that this would get complicated quickly and OTRS confirmations are already complicated.

For the second template - I think this should be the license or permission statement. At its simplest, perhaps this should not even be a template, but rather just freeform text for whatever permission a person cares to write. I do not want to greatly burden the OTRS agents to learn some new system, but hopefully the OTRS agent can at least confirm that permission on the file page matches permission in the email.

If instead of free text permission we could have standard permission templates, then I prefer that, because otherwise there will be needless diversity and ambiguity. I want to find some kind of consensus for progress, and maybe all this starts with just a process for accepting any kind of permission.

I need to admit that even though I am talking this through I have trouble imagining the workflows and consequences. I roughly imagine that we should have a process comparable to confirming copyright licenses. Thoughts? How would you feel about just this template -

and along with that, a blank box where anyone can write any sort of permission where we accept anything as valid?

If we do have requirements, then what would those be? Like for example, should we list either or both specific permissions or specific restrictions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 consent checkbox proposal

• Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#From_en.wiki_-_adding_a_"have_consent"_checkbox_to_the_uploaders

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)