Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Thompson Maksimir 17.6.2007 2.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Thompson Maksimir 17.6.2007 2.jpg

Boy on this picture looks like he is minor. Its obvious that this foto is uploaded without his assent, and he is not public person --Suradnik13 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How is that obvious? I'm looking at the picture and I fail to recognise the obviousness of this assumption. :-) Let me just state few facts:

• This photo was published on net.hr which is one of two most popular web site in Croatia at the time (tportal.hr and net.hr both held ~35% of all of unique visitors of all of Croatian cyberspace in February of 2007 [1]). Although the photo was displayed on such a prominent site, there was absolutely no reaction from either the boy, his parents or any office of Republic of Croatia.
• In case of legal problems with this picture, it is original author of this picture (Goran Katić) who would be sued, not Wikimedia, since author of this picture is known, listed in the licence info box and email in which he allows redistribution of this picture is available in Wikimedia archives.
• It is in no way obvious that this boy did not give assent to the original author. He might have not given the assent. In which case it is Katić's problem, not Wikimedia's. But, he also might have given the assent. In which case there is no problem at all.
• The picture has "Personality rights warning" clearly displayed on the Image description page. Any Wikimedia/Wikipedia contributor using this picture is informed of potential risks that images of living people inherently contain.

Having all these facts in mind, I urge the closing administrator not to create a dangerous precedent of deleting pictures that might be problematic. On one hand, there is no hard evidence that this picutre is illegal, on the other hand it is work of well-known Croatian photographer published on respected Croatian web site. In case there should be any legal problems with this picture, I'm quite sure Wikimedia will be notified by relevant authority and/or the author, and then it is perfectly logical to remove this picture. Until then I see no credible reason to delete this fine photograph.

--Dijxtra (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete This picture violates at least two (or possibly three) Croatian laws. Anybody can take pictures on anything, but media which distributes pictures is to be sued. If I take a picture of something prohibited and keep it to my eyes only, nobody can sue me as nobody knows that I am in possession of such materials.

With certain exceptions as, for instance, child pornography.

So if anybody can be sued, it will be firstly Commons (for keeping media which violates Croatian law), and secondly uploader (for conscious breaking of the law).

Hm. I see no premises in previous paragraph which would support such a conclusion. Do you have any reference that supports your claim?

Uploader writes above there is no hard evidence that this picutre is illegal, I think it is obvious that boy on photo is minor, or in other words - photo itself is evidence.

I didn't say that the boy is not evidently minor. I acknowledge that he is. But, unfortunately, conclusion "boy is a minor, therefore, existence of his picture on Wikimedia is illegal" is pretty unclear to me. I do not see which law and/or Wikimedia rule explicitly forbids any picture of a minor on Wikimedia.

References of (one) law violated:

Article 1 of Convention on the Rights of the Child:

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

In Croatia you are minor if you are less than 18.

Article 16 of Convention on the Rights of the Child:

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Excellent. What evidence you have that this boy is subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation? Mere existence of a photograph of a minor on a web site constitutes none of that, which is evident in, for instance, this example: (almost) all of people in this album are minor.

For more information please see Convention on the Rights of the Child on en wikipedia. I see no credible reason to violate not only Croatian laws, but Convention which is adopted worldwide by UN member states. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But, of course. There is absolutely no excuse for hosting illegal content on Wikimedia! We perfectly agree on this. The only problem is that removing content for which it was not definitely established that it is illegal is simply not in the spirit of Wikimedia or freedom of information, but more in spirit of (while we're at Ustaše iconography) fascism :-) I think that we should first be presented with evidence that this boy's privacy was interfered with (for instance, that he didn't give a permission for this photo to be published) and only then delete the picture.

Your writing is simply false (and you are using big words to underline your point, I'm very sad to see it).

Speedy, why going ad hominem? If you wish to discuss my writing style, please do, but there are more apropriate places to do it than here. Please stick to my claims expressed here, thanks. Now we are both very sad. --Dijxtra (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If somebody put book(s) of Stephen King on wikisource, it would be deleted at once, without provision of photocopied pages of original as proof of violation of law, and above Convention clearly states No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. 2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Even if boy gives express written permission, persons who misuse such pictures can be prosecuted because law protects minors, it doesn't give provision for clever offenders who will get written permission of minors. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If I got you correctly (and I'd like to think I didn't) what you are saying is that even if the author of this picture has the premission to publish it, the permission is not relevant because... law protects children from people who have written permissions required by law? Because people who take permissions are clever offenders? Sorry if I missunderstood you, I'm trying really hard to see any other meaning of your remark. --Dijxtra (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Speedy, no hard feelings, eh? Nothing personal, mate, I hope our diverging notions of this matter will not interfere with our personal relations. ;-) --Dijxtra (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings on this side, I know what you are trying to show, but please do it without violating the law. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool, just tell me what is, in your oppinion, legal way of puting a minor's picture on Wikipedia? If not acquiering a permission, then what is it? --Dijxtra (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but add black stripe on eyes --Orlovic (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Kept. This seems to have been taken in a public place (on the way to a concrt) and is thus OK under COM:PEOPLE. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has nothing in it that prevents photographs of minors, and such photographs are commonplace in many countries that have ratified the convention. If you would like to suggest that Commons' policy should forbid images like this, please make a proposal to that effect on the talk page of COM:PEOPLE (actually, that has been done several times already, but so far the consensus has been that current policy should not be changed). MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)