Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg
Per COM:IDENT, no indication that the subject of the photo consented to broad publication under a free license. Pete F (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep This image is clearly of a posing model in a photographic studio, as can be seen in her set in flickr where it says "A beautiful and patient girl.", and as can be seen by the photographer, this images were taken with time and with the consent of the model by a a professional so there is a implied consent to the photographer take her image and published it and per the profile of the photographer it says "All photos licensed CC-BY-SA in my photostream are also available as CC-BY-NC.", so there inst any concern with a free license. Tm (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see the set you mention, and while it seems plausible that it was professionally done, what makes you so confidint it was? As a general rule, we are not quick to make assumptions about photographers' intent, requiring them to state what license they are using very explicitly. Why is the intent of the model not held to a standard anything close to that? COM:IDENT requires that the model consent to something more than merely being photographed. There are many different agreements a model could have even with a professional photographer -- broad publication is only one of many things she might or might not have agreed to. Why should we make assumptions on her behalf? I am happy to ask the photographer on his Flickr account, but unless he provides some strong assurances that she consented to broad publication, I believe the image should be deleted. The license he chose relates only to his rights as the copyright holder -- not to her personality rights. -Pete F (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Peteforsyth -- I'm really not too sure what your original deletion nomination comment was supposed to mean, because people have rights to be protected from intrusions into their privacy, and rights to not have their likeness be used to sell stuff without their consent, but the subject of a photograph does not ordinarily have powers to determine the license that the photograph will be released under (this is the first that I've heard of of any such alleged "right"). What prevents misuse of such a photograph are the non-copyright restrictions I mentioned, not tightening up on the copyright licensing terms... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to be concise, but can see now how my phrasing was confusing. Thanks for asking. Of course the model has no authority over how the photographer chooses to license his own creative work. The issue is what kind of use the model did or didn't consent to; the most relevant passage of COM:IDENT is, I think, this one:
- Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image. An image on Commons will have greater potential exposure than one in a photo album, on a personal Facebook, or part of a user's Flickr stream. A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the internet. The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons.
- What is our basis for believing that the
photographer obtainedmodel granted sufficient consent to upload it to this site? -Pete F (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete I am the photographer for this image. A release was signed by her for all uses for this image and the others in that set, but it is in possession of my estranged business partner. Even were I to unambiguously have her model rights released to me, I would not at this time be comfortable releasing them to Wikimedia Commons. I do provide a CC license for my copyright in this and the related photos, but am providing no release of her rights. It would appear, under COM:IDENT, that this photo is thus not appropriate for the commons. Sparr (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Sparr is indeed the photographer, he left the note above after I contacted him privately through his Flickr user account. -Pete F (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment Now that we have a clear assertion from the photographer that consent was properly obtained, I'm less confident that the file should be deleted. I believe his mere assertion is enough to comply with policy, but think a case could be made that this file, minimally used in our projects (one article on Wikipedia), should be deleted out of respect for the photographer's wishes. I have no strong opinion either way at this point. -Pete F (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a non-obligatory "courtesy deletion", which is rather different from a policy-motivated deletion. As far as I can tell, there are is no real basis for a policy-motivated deletion at this time... AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am not saying I wish it to be deleted. My vote above was for it to be deleted because that appears to be what policy dictates. 209.6.197.32 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept. My original nomination is now outdated; the photographer has clearly asserted that the model consented to broad publication. I will add notification of this consent to the image page. -Pete F (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
