Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marina Poplavskaya06.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:Marina_Poplavskaya06.jpg

[edit]

A user claiming to be the subject is stating that the picture was taken without permission at a book signing where photography was forbidden without permission from her or the event organizers. See here for the users comment and here for the associated ANI discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a moral obligation to delete it and should err on the side of caution when it comes to the legality.
  1. If there are not local laws preventing the capture of the image, there are overriding "moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained)" if the venue is considered "public". Even if it is not considered "public" the spirit should apply. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a public place
  2. "Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place..." Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Photographs taken in a private place and note that the example given discusses people openly taking photographs. The subject claims that the photographer did it covertly while others were not.
We can request an email tough the OTRS system if editors are not comfortable assuming it is truly the subject making the request.
Cptnono (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable changing my !vote. I do like the image and assume a fine contributor did everything on the up and up. It won't bother me much when this is closed as "keep" but there is enough of a question mark on the situation. If the OTRS process is clearly explained to the subject (or whoever they are but I don't think we can say for sure it is a troll) and they go that route then I would be fine changing my stance on it.Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and don't want to judge it, but it sounds trollish. with that said, apparently a nice e-mail was returned to someone who e-mailed the user in question. It sounds like she has contacted OTRS. So we've got that to wait for, then hopefully something can be determined about the situation where the photo was taken. CycloneGU (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place... In this case, more than two-thirds of BLP images all over Wikipedia need to be erased. CycloneGU (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, misread. But as for moral obligations, the copyright holder is the person taking the image. If that person is the copyright holder of an image taken in a public place, it must be proven that the photo is not allowed to have been taken for it to have to be removed. And that complicates matters more because someone else can add a similar image two weeks later. CycloneGU (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All we know is that an account claiming to be the subject says it was taken without her permission. This should only be given serious consideration if the subject contacts OTRS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This "private place" was a stage in front of the cathedral, where everybody was able to go and everybody was taking photos and the stars where smiling in the lenses. At least I took a minimum of 9 photos of her. (According to my local disk) MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate the claim "potography forbidden" I've just uploaded an another picture from this event, as I said nobody complaint about scenes like this.
public autography during Salzburg festival 2008
] MatthiasKabel (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Photo taken a public event. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am voting as well as nominating as my nomination was procedural as a way of resolving the position (if anyone objects to me doing that please simply strike my vote I will have no objection) I was neutral but now that the uploaded has verified the situation there seems to be no question that the copyright owner is the uploader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since nom has basically withdrawn objection and voted to keep, couldn't this be speedy closed for whatever reason? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection but one user has vote commented delete, so ... Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Marina_Poplavskaya06.jpg&oldid=57715029"