Commons:Deletion requests/File:PC DIY SHOP FreeT 発売記念イベント 西明日香さん 3.jpg
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.
芸能事務所協会団体のポリシーに違反する写真 58.138.60.12 23:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep: As per COM:IDENT, "the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place." The exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court for Japan specify:
- The expression (in this case, the photograph) is reasonably a matter of interest within the society.
- It is of interest to society to have a public figure's likeness shown in Wikipedia.
- The content and method of expression is not unjust.
- Photos were taken in public of an official event, neither of which is unjust. --Puramyun31 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- 日本タレントの写真をWebで使いたいなら事務所の許可を得るべき。それが日本芸能事務所のルールである。健全にネットを使う人はみんな、このルールを守ってる。
日本芸能事務所のポリシー「タレント、声優は肖像権を持っています（他人に顔写真などを勝手に公開されない権利）。 肖像権は、通常専属契約している所属事務所が委託管理をしています。 芸能事務所の協会団体に於いても、現在、タレントのファンサイトでの写真の公開を一切認めておりません。 タレント固有の肖像は「商品」であるためです。 ホームページなどでタレント写真を扱う場合は、必ず所属事務所に許可を取らなければなりません。」--118.157.74.169 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
I think we have better ones in this category. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the image exists long-standing for years. --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid rationale. This is Commons and we act as an image repository. Tabercil (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- How so? It is completely valid, the subject is making a grimace and there are way much better pictures of the same event in the category. Completely fall into the Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality criteria. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- What the subject is doing is irrelevant to the concept of "bad quality" IMO. The only flaw I see with this image as it stands it that it's on the dark side as it's about a stop under-exposed for my taste. Beyond that I'm fine with it. We have lots of other images with far more serious issues than this one on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think keeping images that ridicule the subject is a serious issue. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- How is showing the subject doing a simple grimace "ridicule"?? If anything it humanizes them. Tabercil (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well I think keeping images that ridicule the subject is a serious issue. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- What the subject is doing is irrelevant to the concept of "bad quality" IMO. The only flaw I see with this image as it stands it that it's on the dark side as it's about a stop under-exposed for my taste. Beyond that I'm fine with it. We have lots of other images with far more serious issues than this one on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- How so? It is completely valid, the subject is making a grimace and there are way much better pictures of the same event in the category. Completely fall into the Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality criteria. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
