Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boy with water gun.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boy with water gun.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:PEOPLE, this is similar to recent deletions: private location (see others in Flickr set), identifiable, no evidence of subject/guardian's consent to publish. 99of9 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The girl holding the water gun appears to be the photographer's daughter. The boy behind the girl appears to be the photographer's son. Therefore, the photographer (the father) does not need permission to photograph his own children, nor does he need permission to publish the photos; the licence they have chosen is clearly his choice, and he chosen to make it available under CC-BY. The image is in scope, as it could be used to illustrate en:Water gun. russavia (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the relevant question here is whether we need permission to publish the photos. Russavia may well be correct that these are the photographer's children, but lacking some kind of positive indication that this is the case and that they consent to have the images here, I don't think we should make any assumptions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, Commons is not a publisher, so we don't publish material. We are a repository. We need to make that distinction. As to us requiring permission, this is also not required, as the photos have been published by the photographer under a free licence, and the person able to abide by requirements under COM:IDENT. We need to be reasonable in such situations. Perhaps someone, such as Fae, would like to contact the photographer concerned. russavia (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you explain the distinction between a "publisher" and a "repository" or point me to the relevant explanation here. I do not understand how German law is relevant in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that Commons is a repository (and not a publisher nor producer of content) is the reason we are not required to submit to relevant US law on age-keeping requirements (which is not relevant at all in the current case, of course) -- {{2257}} -- information on meta is linked from the template. We also have meta:Wikilegal/Removal of photos of minors which indicates we will be mindful of requests from those involved; I'm not seeing any such request. Let's see if someone will contact the photographer, because if they intended to licence under CC, this can be used as a litmus test example for COM:IDENT russavia (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have read [meta:Wikilegal/Age Record Requirement] and I don't think it actually says what you claim, but I'm not sure that it matters because I wasn't attempting to make a legal argument when I used the word "publish". I think it is really a question of policy (COM:IDENT) not law in this case. Thank you for removing your confusing reference to German law. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - While common sense likely tells us that the two children in the photograph are the photographer's kids I would argue that it doesn't mean they are consenting to having their picture hosted on commons. Per COM:IDENT: the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place - I simply don't think this requirement has been met. Tiptoety talk 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Rather than making the delete/keep decision on speculation, I have sent a Flickrmail as below. I will post any reply I get here, should I get one. --Fæ (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flickrmail from Fae, 2 December 2012
To: qwrrty, Tim Pierce

Subject: Question about a photo of yours on Wikimedia Commons

Hi Tim,

This photo of yours <http://flickr.com/photos/48439369@N00/5784399831> has been uploaded
using the same licence as on Flickr to Wikimedia Commons at 
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Girl_with_water_gun.jpg>.

It's a fun photo, but questions have been raised as to the permissions from the models 
for appropriate re-use of the image. It would be great if you could confirm that you took 
and put this image on Flickr, either as the parent, or guardian of the minors in the photograph 
and are happy for it to be re-used on the same licence.

Should you have any concerns, let me know and I'll pass them on in the current review. You 
may want to check out the alternative licences on Flickr if you would prefer some photos not 
to be re-used or modified.

Thanks in advance for any help you would like to offer.
Fae (Wikimedia Commons trusted user)
  •  Comment I am the photographer and the parent of the children in the picture, and I am happy for this photo to appear on Commons. For the record, though, both children are boys. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Keep Thanks for the feedback Tim, that is very helpful. My opinion is to keep, based on this information. Should anyone doubt that Tim's account here has been created by the same Flickrstream owner, I can confirm that I independently received a Flickrmail from Tim about 15 minutes ago before reading the message here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Photographer wants it on commons Funfood ␌ 17:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Boy_with_water_gun.jpg&oldid=709354931"