Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dallos-Nyers Boglárka 2013.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 17:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bogi is a young Hungarian singer (huwiki article).


I'm not sure your description of the lighting is accurate, but perhaps language is the problem here. This is High-key lighting. It is very soft and bright. It might not be to your taste, but it is absolutely standard for such model portraiture and technically executed well here. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin. Yes, my English is not very good, but I think I expressed exactly what I meant... You know what ? I've already seen such pictures ! You are right, it is not my taste.--Jebulon (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Info: I recounted the photographer's words: in a broad sense of the concept of 'High-key lighting', is it, yes. Strictly defined is it not. Technical to see it's a "border area". For sure, it's a light-toned portrait on verge of burnout - because it is trendy nowadays. This photo was taken as a single-cd cover image.
The singer knows that I uploaded this image to Wikipedia. If it is absolutely necessary, then I ask her to do give a written warrant... but isn't I do not want to disturb her during the preparation for the semifinal of the national Eurovision.
The permission Ticket Number is 20140203.... - You can see that the license had been sent on 3 February, only the "stamp" was not even there when I nominated the picture. Fauvirt (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze, I'm puzzled that consent should be in doubt here. The photo is clearly taken at the same time/setup as the pop video and is on the cover of her single. Do you think all portraits on Commons require evidence of consent to be sent to WMF/OTRS? I'm concerned that the nominator is being asked to jump though hoops that go well above what is required by Commons guidelines. I'm sure our guidelines and ethics could be improved but this doesn't seem to be the image to make a point about. -- Colin (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Colin, I am of the opinion that when we offer an image that is supposed to be free that it should be free in the fullest sense of the word. This person has personality rights that have nothing to do with licensing. To use her image commercially, as what is implied by the license, invokes her publicity rights. I am not convinced just because the photographer gives us a free license she is simultaneously giving away those publicity rights. At a minimum this should have both a consent template with the appropriate parameter included as well as a personality rights template. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But are you in doubt about consent and if so, on what evidence/basis? The statement you make about a photographer's licence not giving away the subject's rights is absolutely true but I don't see how the subject's consent is in doubt here. I'm uncomfortable about making {{Consent}} a requirement as it isn't such in any guideline and looking at the parameter options, it seems that template is ill-thought out. The discussion page shows nobody seems to think much of the parameter options, and I'll add my 2p there shortly. If by "free in the fullest sense of the word" you mean "has a model release" then I can't see that being acceptable for Commons at all. Most of Commons content would be publishable (commercially or otherwise) under editorial usage, which does not require a model release. This fits with our mission. Some of our content could be used for advertising and publicity, but not any images involving identifiable people unless the publisher can obtain a model release or specific consent for that usage. The publisher would need to deal directly with the photographer in order to get one. Commons is not an agent and wouldn't get involved in such negotiations. Unlike a stock photo site, it isn't our mission to supply images for adverts and promotional literature, and being serious about that would require a chain of evidence, signatures, contracts and money. Something that isn't going to happen with anonymous volunteers. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt is not at issue. This image is held up as free for commercial use yet what is actually means is free for non-commercial uses and editorial uses. The personality rights template should make that clear. It doesn't. As to consent, no, I don't think we will ever get to the point where we require signed MRs being submitted through OTRS or the like. However, I think every image with an identifiable person should have a statement initiated by the uploader that clearly states what consent was granted or why they think consent is not required. This will help re-users understand the risks associated with re-use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you have no doubt that consent is given, would you strike your oppose. I see from the discussions on those template talk pages that you confuse "commercial use" with "promotional use" and "advertising". Discussions about what templates should say and what templates we should have and use belong elsewhere than the FP page. I note that File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney.jpg, which you supported, does not have a statement of consent. Nor probably do nearly all of our Featured Pictures of identifiable people. -- Colin (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. I am not confused. Your argument because I haven't taken a stand on this before should stop me from taking one at some point is a rather onerous standard. My oppose is based on a principle that images like this should be templated properly not unlike it should be licensed properly (GFDL anyone?). Just so it is clear I am campaigning elsewhere. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my argument at all. I'm pointing out the flaw in your "free in the fullest sense of the word" stance. It isn't a requirement, wrt personality rights. If it was then we'd have to delete all our pictures of identifiable people as the number of such images we host that have model releases is negligible. What is blatant here, is that you see a pretty girl and think we need a model release. Whereas for Obama you see a president and are happy with editorial use. Double standards. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin I don't know what I did to piss you off but that shot is rather cheap. Anybody that tries to use that whitehouse image for anything other than editorial is likely to find out about consent the hard way. I am not saying this needs an MR to be on Commons, but re-users should be made aware of the risks associated with using content like this in a commercial context. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colin here: there is a difference between commercial use, and advertising. The latter includes commercial use, but also endorsement of a product, which is a whole different matter. We have consent for the former, not for the latter. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, commercial use and editorial use are well defined in case law. Any commercial use where the motive is clearly to gain benefit to the re-user, to include advertising, promotional, endorsement, etc all require a model release to avoid the potential of civil litigation. Only in the case of editorial use would consent not be required. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: AFAIK, our standard consent is OK for a publication as a postcard or a book of portraits. These are commercial commercial uses, but not advertising. Yann (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yann, I think in various venues I have provided you with enough information to show that your position is wrong. What Commons holds up a free for commercial use wrt identifiable people, i.e. consent, would subject re-users to risk of civil litigation. This risk is not well highlighted. In fact your position is often in conflict with official commentary from the WMF as Jee has been pointing out. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I asked the Hungarian forum to give an advice whether what the requirements of such a letter which ensure the personality rights are.
It is clearly defined in our general disclaimer: "Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the Wikimedia Commons are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikimedia Commons media under the specified licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikimedia Commons can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk."
The problem is that the general disclaimer is well hidden at the footer of the page and the license template and consent template proclaims "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license, including commercial use." which is misleading and contradicting to our well defined policy which is very inline with CC's suggestion on marking third party contents.
So I suggest every media depicting third party identifiable persons (not for self portraits) must include a {{Personality rights}} close to the license tag and the wording of {{Personality rights}} should be improved according to Commons:General disclaimer.
Inviting more people to policy level discussions; we are very short of qualified opinions there, so struggling to meet the industry standards, other competitive projects offering. Jee 09:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dallos-Nyers_Boglárka_2013.jpg&oldid=116509288"