Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Anonymous people of Portugal

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.

Files in Category:Anonymous people of Portugal

[edit]

per Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Portugal: Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent

I doubt that files like File:At the door (58690109).jpg, File:Bajouca, Portugal (105447344).jpg, File:O velho e os pombos (2193383166).jpg and others do qualify for scientific, educational or cultural purposes

PigeonIP (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Portugal has sloppy edited. The portuguese law is very clear in saying that there is not a requirement of consent to publication of images taken in public space (except in trials in courthouses per the Portuguese "Code of Penal Process"), as the law involved with "Direito de imagem" ("right to image") clearly states (i bolded some parts), per article 79 of the Portuguese "Civil Code", (i bolded some parts):
"Article 79.º
(Right to image)
1. The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent; after death of the portrayed person, said consent rests in the persons designated on the Article 71(2), according to the order in said article.
2. It is not required the consent of the portrayed person when so justifies said person notoriety, the office that perfoms,police of justice demands, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when said reproduction is framed in public places, or framed in facts of public interest or have occurred publicly.
3. The portrait cannot, however, be reproduced, exhibited or put in commerce, if from said fact results prejudice to the honer, reputation or simple decorum of the portrayed person."
So as the deletion requester admits this images are taken in public space so according to Article 79(2), this images, of public facts, public spaces and publicly ocorred facts (Carnivals, Markets, Religious events, etc) are legal and interely in scope. So it is up to the Deletion requester to show proofs that this images are illegal and against consent (as all images are taken with the consent implicit or explicit of the portrayed persons. Tm (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent. – At Commons we do exhibit and reproduce pictures. There is no OTRS-ticket stating, that the people in question said it was OK to publicly show their picture.
2. It is not required the consent of the portrayed person when so justifies said person notoriety, the office that perfoms, police of justice demands, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or when said reproduction is framed in public places, or framed in facts of public interest or have occurred publicly. – The pictures in question may be taken in public places (do qualify restaurants as public places? - in Germany they don't), but No 2 does not qualify for pictures of people in public places, but for pictures of reproductions shown in public places (with permission of the shown person).
--> Publishing photos of photos of people shown in public places is allowed. Publishing photos of people in public places without their permission is not.
3. The portrait cannot, however, be reproduced, exhibited or put in commerce, if from said fact results prejudice to the honer, reputation or simple decorum of the portrayed person. – Some of the photos do qualify for that, too. Like Man with funny coloured hair.
And last but not least: People like File:Surprise surprise (4961139962).jpg and File:The Bird Lady, Algeciras_(4240797475).jpg don't look very pleased to be pictured and may even have expressly refused to be photographed. --PigeonIP (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“Unlawful recording and photographing. 1. One who, without consent, a) records another person's words not intended for ::public knowledge (...) is punished with prison up to one year or a fine (...). 2. The same penalty applies to whom, against ::their will, a) photographs or films another person, even taking part in events in which their presence is lawful; or ::b) uses or permits to use such photographs or films, even if obtained lawfully.”.

However it is not, in public places, the photographer that must ask to permission to photograph persons but that same persons that must show explicitaly that they are against being photographed by some other person, for taking images and reproduced isaid images. For example in 2007, Marinho Pinto (today Bastonário of the Portuguese Bar Association, the only Order that can cetifies and aproves the portuguese lawyers and barristers), citing the Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code, pointed out that “the only case it is not allowed to take photos is when there is an explicit refusal by the affected individuals. One has to actively oppose to beeing photographed by another person,” he said, referring to a case of a hobby photographer arrested by the police just for taking photos of kids at a funfair (they thought him to be a pedophile). Although the police justified this measure by claiming the missing parental consent to take photographs of their children, there is a general consensus among legal practitioners that the police was not acting legally. In this context, the parents must haved showed their kids active opposition to the taking of their kids. The portuguese courts are very clear in mentioning that, unless someone actively opposses being portrayed, there isnt any consent needed as, if article 79(1) of the portuguese civil code says that "The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent;", the article 79(2) of the same code says that, in exception to the former artcile "It is not required the consent of the portrayed person when so justifies scientific, educational or cultural purposes [and Wikimedia Commons is in said exception as it has educational purposes and this images put to DR depict the traditions and costumes of portugal, in music, old people feeding peageons, carnivals, markets, and other events that are at the same time in public places, facts of public interest and have occurred publicly], or when said reproduction is framed in public places, or framed in facts of public interest or have occurred publicly.". To the contrary of what you say this article is about " pictures of people in public places" and not "pictures of reproductions shown in public places (with permission of the shown person)". Consent, in public places, is responsability of someone being portrayed and not of the photographer.

The Portuguese courts and law in that are very clear in this case. The only example were the photographing of person present public places is forbideen by default, is in a courthouse in some cases, per [http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?artigo_id=199A0088&nid=199&tabela=leis&pagina=1&ficha=1&nversao=#artigo article 88(2c). The portuguese courthouses 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 and phroibition without consent of the judge and person portrayed, in general, it is permissible to make images of people in publicly acessible places).

Portuguese courts have explicitaly said what is permissible and what is not:

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 images are taken in public places, of public events and of public interest and have "scientific, educational or cultural purposes".

For last i ask the nominator to respond with portuguese legal cases if he still thinks that this images must be deleted, as this images are in scope, have educational scope as depicts the portuguese culture(s), and have no privacy concerns, also because there is an implied consent on all of this images.Tm (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have doubts that my foto File:CF Saboia.jpg qualify for scientific, educational or cultural purposes. Here is my response:

1. I never take a foto without asking the persons, if it is such a type of portrait. I hate it by myself if somebody takes a foto of me without asking. Therefore I can garantee that for this photo I did ask the persons directly in the moment. This was some time ago (2001). 2. In the backgroud you see a big Azulejo painting (typical portuguese tile artwork). I was informed before in 2001 that this station will be totally renewed and the wall tiles will be taken away. So it was nearly the last oportunity to take a photo of this wonderful tile paintings. For your information some months later the whole south portuguese railway line was renewed (intercity connection) and all old railway station buildings were restructured or demolished. The historic clock shown at the upper side of the photo has also been taken away. This was my main motivation to take the photo and it was worthwhile. It took during these years hundreds of photos from other CF stations in Portugal (if you follow my fotos in Wikimedia), which today do not exist anymore in this shown format. Especially if ornaments (like these tiles) and some architectural structures have been taken away. The only reason for taking the photo with the people was the fact that they were sitting there in front of the tiles. The real object of the photo are the tiles and the historic clock and not the people in front. From the above information you can see that there is of course a high scientific and cultural purpose to keep this foto in Wikimedia.Bunks (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is no merit in this bundled deletion request. Some of these images are rubbish, others are outstanding, some may raise i.a. copyright concerns, others none at all. In good faith, these images need to be addressed one by one, or at least bundled as smaller, more homogenous sets. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This deletion request, as it is, is more disruptive than anything else, and I see no merit at all in a bundle like this. As shown above Portuguese law allows for photos of people in public places and public events in most situations without consent. If some of those files are problematic, then issue individual deletion requests or at least in small, homogeneous bundles as suggested by Tuvalkin. Deletion request is denied. Darwin Ahoy! 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Anonymous_people_of_Portugal&oldid=358730948"