Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duoro Valley-27 (8605910271).jpg

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:Duoro Valley-27 (8605910271).jpg

No educational use, looks like a personal snapshot Danrok (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Why didnt you (Danrok) contacted me (the uploader), asking to what this image showed before nominating this image claiming that wasnt any "educational use"? Well if you did a little research, you would understand that this is a tour guide to the Quinta da Pacheca, a portuguese farm that is famous for producing wine and that accept tourists and as a hotel (Wine House Hotel). This is part of a gallery of 4 images (the gallery below) that are in scope of Tourism in Portugal, tour guides and Quinta da Pacheca (and its related categories of wine production, agriculture, etc).

• 
• 
• 
• 

So ask, now, if Danrok is still thinking that this image as no scope? Tm (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The photo nominated for deletion is a photo of the backs of people's heads. I still cannot see what the educational objective is. Also, photos of people in private places require permissions, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Danrok (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, see the table entry for Spain which shows the applicable laws for consent: Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements. Danrok (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Danrok, as someone who usually cleans up after Tm’s catastrastic categorization of hundereds of images from Flickr, I’m usually predisposed to using of zero-tolerance and paranoid suspicion against anything he might be arguing for. In this here case, though, I stopped reasing at exactly this point and I’m going to add:  Keep. Yes, this subject you unwillingly blundered about is very sensitive and makes Portuguese people lose their wits; by mixing up Portugal with Spain, you have gained 10 million potential “enemies”. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Spain? Spain? Spain? Spain? DO YOU EVEN KNOW IN WHAT COUNTRY IS THIS FARM? IT IS IN PORTUGAL, NOT SPAIN? AND THAT PORTUGAL EVEN IF PART OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA (as Andorra, Spain and Gibraltar) IS NOT PART OF SPAIN?

Did you read Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Portugal? Because it is the only image that clearly shows the person giving the tour guide and that clearly shows that it belongs to said farm (the apron reads "Quinta da Pacheca". Also you could read yourself Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, especially the part about Portugal in Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements (i wrote a part about the Portuguese law): 1 - They are not on a private place as this is a public place open to the public, in an area visitable by public tourist groups and as you, contradicting yourself, said it only shows the "the backs of people's heads", so in this image no one is identifiable, except the tour guide. 2 - Well the portuguese law demands that to someone anonymous not have its portrait taken, if in a public place, must show an active refusal to have its portrait taken. Even in another case she is in its public functions so the portuguese law that in that case "consent of the person concerned shall not be required where the reproduction of the image is justified by their notoriety or public functions performed". Also this is image is important as it shows a part of the contemporary uses to an Portuguese Cultural Heritage Monument (link in portuguese)Tm (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a private place according to your monumentos.pt link. Public places, are places such as streets. Museums, and the like, are private places because they are privately owned. Government ownership is still private ownership. Danrok (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you read portuguese? it seems that no as you made confusion between a privately owned place with a private place (as in privacy). Most importantly to the portugues law, that you probably are still ignoring, what it counts to the consent being or not necessery is not ownership (private or public), but if it is in public areas or areas in private owned buldings that are readibly accesible to the general public (be it a mall, a hotel, a cefe, a farm, etc) as in this case, as this is a part of the tourist tour to the farm asnd is situated in the wine productions facilities. So this is an area that is public (as it is acessibly to the general public) and not in private area of this farm (as the bedrooms of the hotel). Ãlso you ignored that you cited the WRONG LAW OF THE WRONG COUNTRY, and still hadnt stated why you fell (based on what) that this is a private place according to the portuguese law. Tm (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The only limitation to photography in a private place but publicaly acessible place is if the owner clearly marks that in this places it is proibited to photograph. Tm (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Quinta da Pacheca is a privately owned vineyard estate, and no amount of caps-lock ranting will alter that. Danrok (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nopes, Tm’s right about this, or so it seems to me. The relevant law is about access, not ownership. Most restaurants, hotals, malls, etc. are privately owned; a few museums, schools, stadia, even roads are so. Yet the are open to the public and must follow a lot of regulations one’s living room would not. These photos are such a case. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Which law is that? It's not a case of what type of building the photo was taken in. Here is a case which involves a restaurant: Von Hannover v Germany "The Court noted at the outset that certain photographs of the applicant with her children or in the company of an actor at the far end of a restaurant courtyard were no longer the subject of the application, as the Federal Court of Justice had prohibited any further publication of them on the ground that they infringed the applicant's right to respect for her private life." Danrok (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, i known that Portugal is under financial assistance, but as far as i know in its territory the law that applies is the portuguese law, not the spanish one and specialy the german law that you cite a case (the European Court of Human Rights decided citing the the German" Federal Court of Justice" that used the german law not a portuguese law). Well if there is this decision in Germany, there are several decisions of the Portuguese courts that shows what i tried to show you before that it doesnt matter if it is public property or private property.

For example a courthouse is a public building but it is forbidden to capture images or sound of processual acts, specially court hearings, except in the case that a judge permits it, but even it that case it is still forbidden, to film or capture her voice of a person if that person activally oposes it (as this case shows, if this law mentions this particular case, in general cases it is permissible to make images of publicly acessible places). The DR nominator confuses what are private and public property with public and private areas. Even in a case of private properties there are areas the portuguese courts define as "public acessible locals". A case decide by the "tribunal da Relação de Lisboa said that:

"A photograph of a minor, taken in a college patio, in a festivity day and with the presence of many peoples,doesnt need of consent to be reproduced in posters.

II - The reproduction made in the Portuguese Comunist Party posters, of one of this pictures doesnt ofend the right to image, because it is a fact that accurs publicaly."

Citing this same decision the "Tribunal da Relação do Porto",about a case of photos, taken in the weeding ocorred in publicaly acessible garden being used in a divorce case said:

"In first place, when the image is squared in public places or in facts of public interest or have ocorred publicaly.That is, when the image of the person is undoubtbly integrated in the image of those places or events and dissolves in it.b) Secondly, when it is relevant to 'notoriety or position (job) performed ». A decision from the same tribunal, dated 16/03/1993, even if it verses about a crime of other kind,it applie , mutatis mutandis, to the case in apreccition,where it says “Does not commits the crime of interference with private life, per Article 179 º of Criminal Code of 1982, who shoots,from a street or a house for turned to it, a discussion or a disorder, or an exchange of insults, occurring within a workshop whose door is open so that such situations are easily visible from said street or house, "or, on the contrary, if the garden where are the assistant and the lady with the newlyweds, whose image was captured,corresponds to a private residence of the bride or groom, their parents, or any garden or farm reserved specifically for the wedding in the assistant participated as a guest, or the garden of a hotel, with forbidden acess to other users of this hotel and other persons accessing this same hotel and thus unlikely to the wedding party be viewed by people outside the group / circle of people invited by the couple.

The same can be said about the other images: in the first, where once again the assistant appears photographed in a garden, the same considerations apply here about this site; and in the second, where we see a banquet/lunch where there is many people, it is unknown whether the place where lunch, corresponds to a private residence or farm reserved specifically for the wedding party and therefore inaccessible to the general public, or whether on the contrary, that room represents a dinning room in a hotel or restaurant, with several other dining rooms, where that lunch (or not, as so often happens) just the bride and groom and their guests have lunch but the other users of the hotel and other people that are in that hotel are lunching, with a possiblity moving to said weeeding, with ability to view (as is the case so often in the daily life of all), the room where they celebrate the wedding breakfast and the people participating in it.

By the way, and about the penal protection of the spoken word, to wich it is applicable the rules avaible to pictures and movies, its worth mentioning, with the necessary adaptations, the considerations made by Prof. Manuel da Costa Andrade, saying that, are public the words said in public organs (minucipal townhouses, courts, etc), even if there isnt any aaistance (…) Also are public the words made in political rallies (even with sparse assistance) (…) in realizations as conferences, even if the presence of persons are limited by the previous acquisition of a entrance ticket. And that even if the number of admissions is very limited, if this same events are accessible to any person. Also the decision, in process nº 239/06.5GAVNC.G, of “Tribunal da Relação de Guimarãe, dated, 28/9/2009, says “Does not constitutes proof obtained by intromission in private life, so being admissible as proof in court, the photo taken to the arguido, when he, in a coffee terrace, induced a minor of seven years to touch is pennies. Being the arguido in public place, in the company of other persons (..) he cant invoke the reserve of private life, not even, in casu, the right to image.”

So this image is perfectly legal as this image shows a public acessible place, even if within a private property, this shows (as the nominator admits) the heads of the majority of the persons depicted, and the only person identified is clearly part of the staff of Quinta da Pacheca, so she is in work, making a guided tour, so the expectation of privacy is even lower then the inexistence of expection of privacy in this space.

By last i ask the nominator to respond with portuguese legal cases if he still thinks that this image must be deleted, as this image is in scope, have educational scope as depicts the Quinta da Pacheca, tour guides, a farm in Alto Douro Vinhateiro (Unesco World Heritage), wine tourism and tourism in Portugal and as no privacy concerns, also because there is an implied consent on this image. Tm (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Kept: FASTILY 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)