Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naomi Campbell and Anatoly Evdokimov (Evdokimov show).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:Naomi Campbell and Anatoly Evdokimov (Evdokimov show).jpg

In photographs of identifiable people "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photo taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

“The most important such restrictions are personality/privacy laws which do not allow photographs of identifiable people which were made in a private place, unless the depicted person gives permission.” https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions

"The subject of a picture must give permission for the pics use on Commons if the pic was taken in a public place. In a private place the assumption is that of course permission is needed." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

In addition, there is a child depicted in the photo, who certainly did not give permission for use on Wikipedia. DaniellaJ13E (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Keep. This is bad-faith nomination. The user nominated the image at first for speedy deletion, which I declined. After that (s)he asked to explain reason for declining in File talk:Naomi Campbell and Anatoly Evdokimov (Evdokimov show).jpg; I answered. All depicted people are posing here, they are looking into camera and smiling, this is clear evidence of giving consent. The child is de minimis, I did not notice her at all, before the nominator said, that she is on photo. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Consent to the taking of the photo is not necessarily content to its posting on Commons, as Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Consent explains. --bjh21 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is in such situations, where privacy is expected, like in hospital. This is not the case here. Taivo (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Delete this and the derivative unless the uploader (inactive for six years) can demonstrate they are Evdokimov, the performer, who has a verified website about themselves at evdokimov-show.com/about/, where this photo can be seen. If the uploader is the same person, then there is no problem. Note that I disagree with the nomination rationale. The photo is on the performers own website, and the people in the photo are quite aware of the performer (having invited them to their party), and of the possibility publication. The child is very de minimis, and as with Taivo, I only noticed her afterwards. Green Giant (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: As for demonstrating who the user is: couldn't an admin just check if the registration mail address happens to match the domain of that website or the mail address (mail.ru) listed on that site? As for the child, de minimis is about copyright. Not moral rights. I also see a hand in front of the child. I'm not sure it's hers, but it looks like she might have tried to put her hand in front of her face for the camera. Even if that's not the case, I agree the adults were fully aware this photo which seems to be taken at a party could be published. I'm not convinced the child was fully aware of this, so I blurred her. - Alexis Jazz 18:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Admins don’t have access to users email addresses or any registration details. The only thing that any of us can do is email the user (if they’ve set an email address) or to email the performer directly and ask them to contact OTRS or put a note on their website confirming the license. Feel free to do so. Green Giant (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: There is absolutely nobody here who can see registration details? Only Jimmy Wales? If I mail the user and get a reply from the domain or the listed mail address, will that be sufficient? After all, that also proves the user is who they say they are. I don't really expect them to bother going through the OTRS procedure, not 6 years after uploading. If I were the rights holder and was presented with some OTRS form 6 years after uploading, I would say "Screw you. I gave you the picture. If you don't like it, delete it. I don't care.". In this case we are not questioning if the user has given us permission to use the file, we are only asking if the user is who they say they are. We don't need OTRS permission to verify that. - Alexis Jazz 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Yes, shockingly, even sysadmins (WMF employees with access to the actual servers) would need a really good reason to retrieve such information. Verifying a user on a one wiki is not a good reason for them. Evdokimov doesn't have to go through OTRS. A note on their website would suffice. However, having you confirm their identity is not sufficient, because a long time ago we used to take people's word for such things but this proved too easy a method for people to get away with copyright violation. Let me ask you a question, which I always use to explain this issue. Would you belive me if I told you that I am The Green Giant of frozen food fame? What would it take for you to believe me? An email from the company? A note on their official website saying "Wikimedia User:Green Giant" is confirmed as The Green Giant. Would you believe someone if they said they received an email from the company confirming me as their mascot? Commons rules are stricter for a reason - if the user is not confirmed as Evdokimov, then the file must be deleted. If they don't want to publicise this, then OTRS is the way to go - emails sent in confidence, accessible to a small number of trusted users (and not just an email in one person's inbox). I don't mind leaving this deletion request open for a few more weeks if necessary. Green Giant (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I understand your concern. If I get the mail and tell you I got it, it's not good enough as proof. I don't know if it would help if I forwarded it to OTRS. But if the same mail (just stating "Hi, I am Evdokimov and yes I uploaded an image to commons some years ago") was sent to OTRS and originating from that domain or the mail address listed on the site, that should be enough. We do trust OTRS and such a mail proves the user is who they say they are. They don't need to release the rights again because that has already been done. So the real issue here is that I don't think it's possible to ask OTRS to send a mail to Evdokimov (or is it?) and I am not OTRS. - Alexis Jazz 20:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I am an OTRS volunteer (in case it isn't clear from my userpage). If Evdokimov sends an email directly to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, with just one line saying "Yes I am User:Evdokimov" or words to that effect, it would be more than sufficient for verifying the license. They do not have to re-issue the license or even need to ever contact OTRS again about this image (unless they want to). OTRS cannot initiate the email chain because that is not its purpose and because it might give the impressio that the WMF are contacting them. In fact, every email sent by OTRS clearly states that it is sent by volunteers on behalf of the community but not on behalf of the WMF. The initial contact can be made by any user but per COM:EVID the onus is on users who support keeping the image to provide evidence for keeping it, so neither Daniella, nor Taivo nor I are under any obligation to contact Evdokimov. I will hoever be happy to read and reply to any such email at OTRS and to close this deletion request if necessary. Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Evdokimov-show has mail. I don't check user pages for everybody, so I had no idea. - Alexis Jazz 07:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sorry if it wasn’t clear from my comments but you can email the user from their userpage. Green Giant (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete I have several questions and comments. Firstly, I dont know why Taivo said my nomination was "bad faith." I truly believe that this picture is an invasion of the privacy of at least two of the subjects in the picture, if not all four, and I do not understand why this issue is not a concern of the editors on Wiki Commons. The little girl was blurred out so I guess that makes it a non-issue now, but the photo has been on Commons for 6 years. You might think her presence was de minimus, but I think it wasn't, and that should be a question for a lawyer, not a Wiki editor. Then we have Naomi Campbell and Vladislav Doronin. I have no idea why the editors believe this picture was taken in a public place. It is either a selfie, or a photo taken by an independent photographer, with no indication whatsoever that this is a public space. Public spaces are stages, podiums, streets, etc, and not private parties or casual evenings spent together, which this picture clearly is. And just because the couple is posing and smiling does not mean that they dont mind that the picture found its way onto a Wikipedia website and on several articles therein. As @Bjh21: stated above, "Consent to the taking of the photo is not necessarily consent to its posting on Commons, as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people explains." It seems extraordinarily clear that all three ([[1]] [[2]] [[3]]) of the Wikipedia Commons principles I cited above and on the deletion page apply here. I really dont understand how these principles can be dismissed so casually. Lastly is the principle that is being discussed now, if I understand correctly, that there is an assumption Wiki Commons is making that the user that posted the picture is indeed the photographer of the picture. It seems that until you know for certain that the photographer and poster are one and the same, the picture should come down until you've figured it out. My understanding of the rules of Wiki Commons is that we always ere on the side of caution. Which brings me to another question, which is sincere. Why are the editors here so protective of this picture? I nominated it for deletion in November, and the only reason there is discussion now, three months later, is because I put a request on the Noticeboard to examine the issue. This photograph should not be circulating in the public domain of Wikipedia Commons without the explicit consent of not only the true photographer, but also of the subjects of the photo, in an explicit, documented, way, and not through assumptions about intentions at the time the photo was taken. Thank-you for your attention. DaniellaJ13E (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@DaniellaJ13E: IANAL but I will try to answer some of your questions. De minimis is wrong. If you can see someone naked in a picture (and this was not the intention), hidden in the background and only taking up 1% of the image but despite this they are recognizable, it means the picture is violating their privacy. De minimis is for copyright. If there is a playboy cover (with nudity) hidden in the background and it only takes up 1% of the image, that's de minimis.

You gave a list of public places. And these are private places: a toilet and any other place that has a locked door. If someone takes a picture of a street and you happen to be walking on that street while the picture is taken, they don't have to remove you if you are not the subject of the picture. For any other place, what counts is the level of privacy one could expect. What is important here is that we are talking about people who are are already known by the public. (except for the child probably) So when they agree to having a picture taken, especially at a party (could be different if there wasn't) they can reasonably expect the picture to end up being published. If you take a photo of a random person walking down the street, you are violating their privacy. (when they are the subject of your photo) If you take a photo of a celebrity walking down the street, you are not. The child is not a celebrity, also not an adult and the photo also does not make it clear if she was posing or just dragged in front of the camera. It hardly matters though since http://evdokimov-show.com/about/ still shows the picture - including child. For the privacy of the subjects, there is no specific permission for Commons or Wikipedia needed. If they agreed or could have reasonably known the picture would be published, it's ok. Doesn't matter if it's published in a magazine, Facebook or Commons.

By the way: there are 17 people in that picture. Whenever there are 17 people in my house, the neighbours tend to complain I'm having a party. I keep telling them it's just a casual evening spent together, but for some reason they never bought it. - Alexis Jazz 13:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per Green Giant. --Jcb (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)