Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karen Stollznow 2.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:Karen Stollznow 2.jpg

[edit]

I am the person in the image and did not provide my consent for this photo to be taken for this purpose. Pyewhackett (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Private individual, image is not used on any Wikimedia projects, identity claim should be taken in good faith at face value. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In scope. en:Karen Stollznow George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:Karen Stollznow 2.jpg

[edit]

This has been closed "keep" on two occasions, but incorrectly. COM:IDENT#Consent requires that "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." There is no indication on the page that anybody ever thought about whether the subject had asserted the necessary consent; and it seems the subject actually asserted the opposite. This file should be deleted, and this should be an easy call, since it is not in use on any Wikimedia projects. Pete F (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No this file will be kept because the person in question posed for the image = permission. Any other claims, especially those by the initial nominator above, should have gone through OTRS.--Denniss (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy quoted above states that the uploader needs to consider whether the photo is "appropriate for uploading to Commons." So even granting that the subject consented to being photographed -- how do we know she consented to anything more than taking a photo to send to her parents? We don't know if this photo was taken in a public or private place, or for what purpose. OTRS would be an excellent tool for asserting that there is consent; but absent anything stated in OTRS, we should err on the side of caution and delete. -Pete F (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page. After I uploaded it she wrote to me saying she did like the image and wanted all that I had uploaded taken down. She had a cold that day and did not like the puffiness under her eyes. I tried to have them deleted but obviously can not make that happen166.137.191.19 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two separate issues: is consent, once given, irrevocable; and did she give it in the first place? The first is a legal question we can't answer. As for the second, she says she didn't, and in the absence of something equivalent to a signed contract, we can only go by her word, which is the ethical thing to do anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I don't think that consent (to publish the file) was ever given -- or at least, we can't be confident it was. Powers, I think the comment from 166.137 was in response to a question I asked of the uploader, Susan Gerbic (it was made about an hour after my talk page note). There seems to be a grammatical problem above, and of course the uploader did not log in, so it's difficult to communicate with them. But my guess is that she left out the word "not" -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "she did like the image and wanted all … taken down." If both were true, the word "but" would typically be used, not "and." To me it seems the most likely explanation is that she meant to say "she did not like the image." (And even if she did like the image, liking it is not the same as consenting to publication.) We are of course now parsing text that is very far from ideal, so I accept that others might interpret it differently. But on the whole, I am not seeing any compelling reason to think the subject of the photo ever consented to publication of the image, and policy tells us that kind of consent is required. -Pete F (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I assumed "did not" was what was meant. But the first sentence: "I took the photo for use on her newly written WP page" implies that the photographer made the purpose of the photograph clear. Perhaps that is not the case. Powers (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok -- then, sorry for going off on that tangent. To sum up, then, now that I understand your question better:
  • I agree with what Denniss said, that Ms. Stollznow consented to having her photo taken -- that much does seem apparent from the relaxed pose.
  • Mere consent to have one's photo taken, though, is not sufficient: the policy says the uploader should consider what is appropriate for uploading to Commons.
  • We don't know what understanding there might or might not have been between Ms. Stollznow or Ms. Gerber; we might infer from the IP's statement that Ms. Gerber's intent was to publish the photo here, but we have nothing to suggest it was clearly communicated to (much less agreed to by) Ms. Stollznow.
It seems to me this new comment does nothing to change the need to delete the photo. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. I agree this brings up some really interesting general questions about kinds of consent, and whether they are revokable -- and I'm eager to discuss those, but probably not here, because in this particular case I'm mainly concerned about whether sufficient consent was granted to begin with. Seems better to keep it simple. -Pete F (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Goodness! I was responding on my phone and guess I wasn't signed in. What does it take to get a picture once uploaded taken down? These are real human beings we are dealing with and not just policies. The subject and the photographer (uploader) have requested that the image be deleted, this isn't a Rembrandt, but a photo. I take many many photos, which I upload. In this case this person did not like the image. Can we please just take down the image?Sgerbic (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly trending in that direction. But to understand why it's not a simple process, you have to understand what kind of repository we are. Since we're trying to make available images that anyone can use, for any purpose, deciding to revoke access to one of those images has many "downstream" implications. In addition to usage on Wikimedia projects, the files might be in use on other non-Wikimedia wikis (through mw:InstantCommons), or in art projects, or in advertising, or any number of other things. And in most of those cases, we don't know (nor have any way to know) about them. So removing media that is legitimately licensed with a free license causes many problems for re-users of that media. That's not a reason to keep the file, mind you -- but it is a reason to be very reluctant to delete a file just because the uploader changed his/her mind. Powers (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sgerbic, did Ms. Stollznow ever initially explicitly agree to broad publication of this photo? It seems from what you've said that she probably didn't, but it might help to move things forward if you could state clearly one way or the other. -Pete F (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She knew I was taking the image for WP. She did not see it before I uploaded it. Once she saw it she did not like it and asked for it to be removed. I tried to do that but did not understand how. I tried to do it right after uploading it.70.39.176.20 19:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. In my view this strengthens the case for deletion: it seems there was never strong consent for the upload to begin with (i.e., consent that was grounded in knowing what the image looked like). -Pete F (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Consent issue, good alternative available, not in use. INeverCry 01:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg&oldid=124124790"