Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people

House rules

Hello, I just saw that "house rules " are a subchapter of "Moral issues". But I guess that often the house rules are more than only a recommendation or a moral issue. These rules can have legal effect in front of a court. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition: What I mean is that the chapter about house rules should be a chapter in its own rights, no subchapter. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The guideline currently says (emphasis added):

However, when house rules provide an expectation of privacy, Commons may respect such rules, even though it is usually not legally required to do so.

But the original wording added by Rhododendrites said:

This is not a legal requirement, but one which Commons may respect on moral grounds.

The original version of that section, also by Rhododendrites, was just two sentences tacked on to the end of a paragraph in the ‘Moral Legal issues’ section.

As far as I can remember, there has never been any discussion about whether this could be a legal issue, but it seems wrong to say that it is never a legal issue, which is why I added the word ‘usually’ in the first quote.

@Ziko: Thoughts? It might help if you could cite examples of house rules being legal issues; I cannot think of any such examples. Brianjd (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Brianjd, thanks - it may depend on the country. But what I know in general from some European countries is that the owner of a park or a building can set up rules that you have to follow. For example, that you are not allowed to take images. German courts have confirmed this again and again. The freedom of panorama applies only for photographs taken if the photographer stands on public ground.

Institutions prohibit taking pictures for protecting the privacy of staff and visitors or for other reasons, e.g. making it impossible to publish images of their venue or of art objects exposed there. Other institutions are more liberal.

Therefore, it is problematic to describe house rules as a merely moral issue or that you are "usually" not required to follow them. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ziko van Dijk: "freedom of panorama applies only for photographs taken if the photographer stands on public ground.": exactly, so freedom of panorama does not apply on private grounds regardless of house rules. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Your ping to Ziko didn’t work (note the different username). Brianjd (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you muddle things a bit by referring to freedom of panorama (a copyright concept). So when you refer to the owner of a park or a building setting up rules, which are backed by German courts, it is not clear whether you are referring to copyright or privacy (or both). I note that taking photos in Germany normally does not require consent, according to Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Germany, so if legally enforceable ‘house rules’ can override that, that is something we should pay attention to.

Unfortunately, I have not found more specific information and do not know how to search for it, so I rely on you to provide it. Brianjd (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I ever had a strong opinion about whether house rules is a subsection or a section. What it has in common with the "moral issues" section is "reasons we may remove photos even if we don't legally have to". For example, that you are not allowed to take images - Point is, this deals with an agreement (or lack thereof) between the photographer and the "house", and doesn't concern one of the laws that would make the photos illegal for us to host. If I attend a taping of a TV show where they say no photography allowed, and I take a photo and upload it to Commons, the TV studio/venue might sue me but it would be hard to argue that Commons must take down the photo. A takedown might be a condition of a settlement, in which case we might opt to help the photographer by removing it, but it's not us that would be required to do so (this is all assuming there isn't copyrighted content or identifiable people in the photo that could create other reasons for removal, but there again it's not the house rules that are responsible for the removal). The exception to all of this is when the determination of public vs. private as concerns law is influenced by house rules. For that reason the addition of "usually" makes sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

People at protests: avoiding putting protesters and demonstrators at risk

Hello, given the power of face recognition software and the generalization of CCTV, it is more and more common practice for photographers to blur the face of people participating in demonstrations and protests. Being recognized on such a photograph can lead to people being arrested by police, prosecuted and even jailed. Here is an example of blurred faces at the w:ZAD de Notre-Dame-des-Landes in France : File:W0127-NDdL ZaD Defile 56894.JPG. Even if these are public events, it is better to ensure their anonymity.

I propose to add a paragraph about this on this page, which could read something like "Do not put people participating to protests, demonstrations or other political activity at risk of being recognized by police. It is advised to blur the face of any recognizable person in photographs and videos". Do you agree? Skimel (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It will hurt the number of pictures and especially videos that get contributed to the Commons (and thus preserved, in many cases) of these events, as well as hurting the quality of the pictures. It will have little impact on the risk of being recognized; besides surveillance cameras and police drones, the police also have access to Twitter and likely Facebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes I understand your point, but I think it is a good practice for Commons photographers not to take picture of people faces, especially if the movement is criminalized. Some pictures on social networks like Twitter and Facebook are already blurred to protect protesters' anonymity (exemple here). Skimel (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait, have we just gone from all demonstrations and protests to "criminalized" activity? That seems quite a jump. - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking photographs of people taking part in banned demonstrations for instance, or civil disobedience actions (like Ende Gelände in Germany, Les Soulèvements de la Terre in France, but also protests like Mahsa Amini protests in Iran). Skimel (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I can certainly see the argument for blurring the faces for a clearly banned demonstration where people presumably hoped not to be arrested. Still, do you think I should have blurred faces here? Civil disobedience (at least in my experience in the U.S.) usually means being open and either intending to be arrested or defying the authorities to arrest you; usually protestors in an act of civil disobedience don't want anonymity. But the original proposal here goes tremendously toward blurring everyone's face at any demonstration or protest. Are we saying an image like File:WTO protesters, 1999 (26169377791).jpg should have the faces blurred? It would certainly decrease the impact of the image. Or this? en-wiki ended up using a crop of this as the main image in Nicole Macri! - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Commons does not prevent uploaders from blurring faces if they see fit. However, this practice irreversibly damages the quality of the image or video. Fortunately, in most countries, simply participating in a demonstration is not criminalized. And so, as noted above, law enforcement agencies in countries where this is possible usually have much better resources at their disposal (CCTV on every corner, drones etc.) than searching photos on the Commons. Jklamo (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'd support such a proposal. The power of face recognition software, ubiquity of CCTV, media on social networking sites, etc. are indeed potential threats for protesters... and yet they protest anyway. It is, more often than not, an act of defiance -- of wanting to be seen, well, protesting something. If somewhere there is someone who is unfamiliar with the state of ubiquitous cameras or the nature of a "public demonstration", I don't think that's on Commons to rectify. We'd far more often be destroying documentation of people who want to be photographed than protecting the person who somehow thought they were attending a private undocumented gathering. All of that said, I do think we have some ethical questions when it comes to photos/videos of people committing crimes, which may in some cases include protests. I'd support a line to the effect of "take care when" and dealing with it on a case by case basis. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm way more careful about photographs of something like an anarchist book fair, or the audience for a politically radical speaker, than I am for an open, public protest. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Restarting conversation in 2024

Since October 7, 2023, a lot has happened which has resulted in numerous public protests and demonstrations. Regardless of anyone's political stance on the issues, it seems a proper time to discuss the power and responsibility of Commons images, and what factor they may have furthering harm or risk to identifiable people at these events. In some Telegram discussions I mentioned I'm astonished and somewhat appalled we don't have any guidance at all on this Commons page, and I'd like to discuss changing that. I'm not thinking of any hard policy, but rather a set of considerations for any Commons photographer/uploader to keep in mind. I tend to avoid faces unless it is obvious they are consenting to being publicly identifiable (leaders, speakers, those already being filmed by news media, etc.) and others that have chimed in also had similar practices. It's odd that after all these years, the words protest/demonstration don't show up at all on this page in the age of doxxing and online harassment. It has been more than a decade since the main parts of this page were put forth, and we live in very different times. Let's start having that conversation. - Fuzheado (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, It would be indeed a shame if some people get into trouble because of images on Commons. We can advise photographers to publish blurred pictures whenever there is a risk, i.e. in the cases mentioned above: civil disobedience, countries known for not so democratic process, etc. But we can't make this compulsory. Yann (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not have a process for determining when to hide faces, and it is difficult to develop one. Along the way to developing such a process, it would be easier to develop a process for anyone to explicitly give permission as a model. I have some documentation for that at Commons:Model license, and would like to get it out as an instance of an "ethical license". Ethical licenses are popping up fast nowadays especially in the context of dataset development and FAIR data, and I think wiki will explore adopting more of these.

To be more explicit about how model licenses apply to protests - supposing that someone uploads protest pics. A concerned Wikipedian speculates that there is danger with the pics. The photographer would like to indicate that they got certain permission from the people depicted, as commonly people in protests are publicly presenting themselves as protestors. There is no good way to document this in Commons.

If anyone is interested in exploring this direction, then ping me. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

COM:VP/P

See here at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Purpose of the use of personality rights tag. 2001:4452:11E:F200:94DC:E923:5B60:B367 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Political refugee photo

Where is the appropriate place to discuss File:RafalGawel.jpg (copyright status, BLP status), which is a photo published by police in the country of origin of the political refugee w:Rafał Gaweł? The uploader claims that the photo counts as a "Polish administrative document", and thus under Polish copyright law is PD. The police website itself says nothing about who the author of the photo is, and says that copying is permitted but that copiers take on their own legal responsibility for publication. While the police presumably have an exception that allows them to ignore copyright in this case, it's not clear that that transfers copyright to the police or makes the photo into a "government document". Boud (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done This issue seems to have been handled. Boud (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Moral issues

This section (excluding ‘House rules’) was added in the the 2013 rewrite and not substantially changed since then.

I have done an initial rewording of this section (excluding ‘House rules’) to make it more concise, logical and consistent (and to fix a dead link); this initial rewording should not change the meaning substantially.

I would like to make further changes that do change the meaning (or at least clarify it), but those changes might require further discussion. This section, as currently written, is so vague that it is almost impossible to apply it:

• It is not clear to what extent this section, or any part of it, is supported by consensus.
• This section says that certain photos are unacceptable even if the subject's face is obscured. Presumably, it is really saying that certain photos are unacceptable even if the subject is ‘unidentifiable’. This should be clarified, and we should consider whether the name of this guideline (which says ‘identifiable’) is accurate.
• This section seems to be based on the term ‘creepshot’, but that term is similarly vague. Also, that term apparently requires some kind of sexualization, but in general, photos can be morally unacceptable even if they do not involve sexualization.
• The main example is a telephoto shot of a nude sunbather, but discussions like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Barcelona.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barceloneta Girl.jpg make a mockery of that example.
• It is not clear what the ‘public interest’ test actually involves, how scope is relevant, or in particular, whether a file being in use is relevant.

Brianjd (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know what the law actually is for most of these examples and we should probably focus on obeying it instead of the moral opinions of individual editors. I don’t necessarily consider my opinion better than anyone else’s, I’m just trying to prevent a hypocritical application of the current rules, vague as they are— there is no objective reason a picture of a whale tail is different than sagging or a woman in a bikini even though no-one would object to those regardless of whether the subject explicitly consented. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Dronebogus is wrong here. For example, at large face-to-face Wikimedia events we often have people wear their badge on a different-colored lanyard if they wish not to be photographed. Even if (as in the U.S.) there is no law preventing someone from photographing a person wearing such a lanyard (especially clear in U.S. law if you photographed them on the street outside the event) and publishing that photo, there is clearly a moral problem with doing so, and we should not host that photo. Similarly, if you happen to photograph someone while they are picking their nose, that is almost certainly not a photo of them we want. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

For context, DB is referring to this ongoing DR, but yes, accepting anything that's technically legal without regard for other moral issues seems like a fringe position. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if I’m wrong about priorities, I think I’m not necessarily wrong about the DR in question because of both the counterexamples I presented and the fact that the consensus at similar discussions such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale tail of woman sitting against rail.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whale tail.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whaletail oc.jpg is roughly in line with my opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

On consensus: If a guideline has been in place for 12 years, it is certainly presumed to have consensus (and that's without bothering to look for the discussions from that time, which likely justify it as well).

On the name: You are correct that it should probably be renamed "photographs of people".

On creepshots: Yes, there are other moral objections beyond creepshots, but that doesn't seem ambiguous in the text.

The two topless sunbather photo DRs took place before that 2013 guideline modification (one of the noms shortly thereafter), but yes if they were kept now it would be contrary to this guideline.

My understanding of the "public interest" exception is to cover things like "The Terror of War" (the famous photo of a naked Vietnamese girl burned by napalm), which is both morally objectionable and historically/culturally important (and, importantly, cannot easily be obtained with consent, like the various sunbathers and whale tails). It is not to support arguments like "useful to depict boobs". Yes, there is a wide spectrum between those examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Unfortunately, the photo you refer to, en:File:The Terror of War.jpg, is not acceptable on Commons for copyright reasons. It would be useful to have specific examples of how this sort of guideline actually affects decisions on Commons.

I would highlight the following (possibly biased) examples, in addition to the questionable sunbathing and whale tail discussions cited earlier:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breasts.jpg#File:Breasts.jpg 3: Unidentifiable, consensual, in use, yet deleted as a courtesy to the uploader.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axillary Hair in Puberty.jpg: Self-upload by a minor who changed their mind, yet not deleted as a courtesy.

Pinging @Ikan Kekek. Brianjd (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Photos not in use can always be the subject of courtesy deletion requests. I don't think that's relevant to photos that have no such requests. We agreed to delete a whole bunch of photos of a Spanish woman, only some of them nude, because she explained that they were being used to harass her in real life. No such issue with any of the whale tail photos has been brought to our attention. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

not acceptable on Commons for copyright reasons - I know, but it's an easy case with which to discuss "public interest" because it's been discussed in exactly that context in newsrooms, social media platforms, etc. around the world for decades. I disagree that we need to look for concrete past examples when formulating a guideline, as each individual DR is based less on a broad consensus of what should happen and more on who happened to show up and who happened to close it. Courtesy requests are IMO related, but not useful to conflate. We shouldn't need a victim of a creepshot to stumble upon the photo, navigate Commons, and figure out how to request it be removed in order to understand that it should be removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion isn’t really about courtesy requests. I chose those two to contrast the reasons behind them, where the one that seemed much more deserving of a courtesy deletion was the one that was denied a courtesy deletion; those reasons may be related to moral issues more generally. (Or they may not be. If that was the case, then clarifying that might also be useful.) Brianjd (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

So of course I agree that there are shots taken without consent that are unacceptable, regardless of the laws in question. Let's say some country had a law stating that it was acceptable to show photos of adults having sex with children. Even if the U.S. didn't have laws prohibiting child pornography, I would oppose such photos on principle.

I don't think you'll find Commoners who say they approve of creep shots. The problem is that in less obvious situations, whether a photo is a creep shot is not necessarily a consensus decision - much like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan's mistake in saying that he couldn't define obscenity but "I know it when I see it." We've had problems quite a few times with users who think that even clothed shots that are obviously consensual are obscene and need to be deleted because they don't approve of such images for what they consider moral reasons. We've also had problems quite a lot with the subjects of photos in which they appeared at a public event try to demand takedowns. I seriously doubt Commons users would do better than the Supreme Court in any attempt to make an agreed-upon definition of what is and is not a creep shot, nor on exactly when beyond the requirements of countries' laws photos taken in public need to be taken down as courtesy deletions or on the sole initiative of Commons deletion requesters, such that there will be no more debate at whatever users consider the gray area to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Relevance (or otherwise) of a file being in use

At recent whale tail deletion requests (some of which are cited earlier in this discussion), other users have voted to keep certain files that are in use. Rhododendrites has responded that a file being in use is irrelevant to moral issues, but I have not seen any other users specifically address that point. It could be argued that a file being in use is evidence that its educational value outweighs any moral issues. It seems like we need some guidance here. I am particularly looking for comments from Rhododendrites and Ikan Kekek (already pinged above) and Infrogmation (who has removed uses of some files nominated for deletion). Brianjd (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @CanofCan, Gates of Ale as users who extensively commented at one of the deletion requests. Brianjd (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a need to add my own comments, as the closing admin can consider comments by whomever made them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Its use is irrelevant because that's simply a different policy (COM:SCOPE). We don't consider INUSE when it comes to freedom of panorama issues, either. It's true that in this case, unlike copyright-related issues, there can be extraordinary circumstances of "public interest" (like the Terror of War photo), but those should indeed be extraordinary. On the contrary, the bar to someone uploading an image and then adding it to a Wikipedia article (or anyone adding it to a Wikipedia article) is unremarkably low. BTW I'd argue rather than ping those of us who already show up at these discussions, it would be better to solicit uninvolved opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed wording:

In extraordinary cases, a photo's moral issues may be outweighed by its educational value. Commons may apply this principle in the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test. This principle should be applied only where the photo cannot be replaced by a consensual equivalent and only where the photo's inherent educational value is sufficient to outweigh its moral issues. It is not sufficient for the photo to be in use on other Wikimedia projects. Commons is not required to host any photo of a person, and may delete doubtful photos regardless of educational value.

Brianjd (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This has had limited discussion, so I searched for discussions referencing COM:INUSE and COM:DIGNITY. It seems like when users vote to keep files because they are in use, in general, they really mean that there are no moral issues, not that the files being in use outweighs the moral issues. In particular, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorking Schoolgirls Patiently Waiting For Mum (6258299657) (cropped).jpg, comments by other users also suggest that files being in use is irrelevant to moral issues.

 Done The guideline has been updated with the new wording given above. Brianjd (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Brianjd: I've been thinking about this "public interest" bit. It seems like a subjective test that will likely vary based on specific usage of the images. Commons media, however, must be usable for any purpose. I'm increasingly of the mind that Commons should not have a "public interest" exception, but that any individual Wikimedia project can make a decision for itself whether to host a local copy. So in that most recent case, if, say, English Wikipedia weighs the moral issues and decides that the photo of uncontacted peoples is of sufficient public interest, it can decide to host it, but we should not be putting it out there in our more general repository. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I have too many thoughts, too many for anyone to make sense of. Maybe we should start with this usable for any purpose idea. What, exactly, does that mean? It sounds like more of a copyright thing. I’m not sure that we can apply that principle here. The guideline itself gives these examples of situations that require consent:

• A man and woman talking, entitled "A prostitute speaks to her pimp" (possible defamation)
• An identifiable child, entitled "An obese girl" (potentially derogatory or demeaning)

(if memory serves me correctly, the second example is referring to Childhood Obesity.JPG, which originally showed the face) Brianjd (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:First steps/Reuse says (emphasis added):

Unlike traditional media repositories, Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely for any purpose including commercial ones as long as [certain licensing requirements are met].

That is clearly referring to copyright.

Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia says:

Other restrictions may apply. These may include trademarks, patents, personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the many other legal causes which are independent of copyright and vary greatly by jurisdiction.

Returning to the examples I quoted from the guideline, what does consent mean? Is consent to publish the photo sufficient, or is it also necessary to have specific consent for to use the photo in the context described? That is a question that the guideline should answer, but it also relates to the usable for any purpose issue. Brianjd (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Consent

I’m trying to fix up the ‘consent’ section, but I am also running into problems there:

• A photo on Commons will have greater potential exposure than one in a photo album, on a personal Facebook, or part of a user's Flickr stream. For example, a model may have consented to a photo being used in a personal portfolio, but may not have consented to the same photo being published on the Internet. The first sentence gives examples of photos being published on the Internet, which is not consistent with the second sentence. Also, Commons routinely imports photos from Flickr, apparently without any guidance on respecting subjects’ rights. (Presumably, no such guidance is actually required, but then the first sentence quoted here needs to be changed.)
• At the most basic level, a subject looking at the camera and smiling would normally be assumed to have consented to the photo being taken. In some circumstances, however, verbal or even written agreement may be required. The second sentence seems to have no basis.

Brianjd (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, that image caption about hospital wards being private places has nothing to do with the main text as it is currently written. Brianjd (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@KaiKemmann: I removed your use of the term ‘minor’ because I didn’t understand how using that term added any meaning. It was italicized, as if it was a special term, but it was not defined (or even used) anywhere else on this page.

The appropriate age threshold for capacity to consent may vary depending on context, given the variety of photos we host, the variety of jurisdictions in the world and the fact that this guideline covers moral as well as legal issues. If we want to be more specific about it, we should have more details about capacity to consent generally. Brianjd (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I figured it out: you want this page to show up in search results for ‘identifiable’ and ‘minor’. That might be a good idea, so I changed to the more general wording ‘minors or people with limited mental capacity’.

Still, I don’t understand your edit summary’s reference to users being blocked (Commons doesn’t have bans, which are a distinct concept on the English Wikipedia) just for uploading images of identifiable minors. Such blocks would be absolutely outrageous and unthinkable, given that Commons is full of media depicting identifiable minors. Brianjd (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked the block log, going back to 8 June 2022, 16:15:52 (UTC), searching for the same terms (‘identifiable’ and ‘minor’). I did not find anything relevant. Brianjd (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Worldwide view

At Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Archive 3#Worldwide view, I complained about a biased view that most of the world does not require consent.

In Special:Diff/1003001747, Jerimee gave a view biased in the opposite direction:

The fact that this is explicitly illegal in Brazil and most of the rest of the world (USA is a notable exception) ….

That deletion request is currently focussed on the issues that matter there, and I want it to stay that way, so I am replying here. Jerimee, your thoughts? Brianjd (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See the archived discussion and this comment from the first deletion request, by Gestumblindi:

Although I personally (coming from Switzerland where we also have a strong tradition of respecting personality rights and strict laws) would like to see Commons being more cautious with regards to personality rights everywhere, I accept that many countries are not so strict in that regard. So, per Commons:Country specific consent requirements there is no consent needed, for example, in the United States or in in Italy - then I accept this. Although, with my cultural background, I find it strange that, apparently, you can point a camera at a random stranger and publish that picture in the US, in Ireland, or in Sweden, without any kind of consent - I accept that fact. But you can't do that in Switzerland, and you can't in Brazil. We should stick to the applicable personality rights law of the country where the picture was taken. So, taken in the US: It's legal there, no grounds for deletion. Taken in Brazil: Not legal there, should be deleted.

Brianjd (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

While one can do that - stick a camera in somebody's face without any kind of consent - nobody in their right mind does that in their own hometown. The social consequences would be significant. Despite not always having the laws to match, Americans have a high expectation of privacy. Jerimee (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t find comments like that helpful. There is a wide variety of non-consensual photography that is not covered by stick a camera in somebody's face. That includes the non-consensual photography I have seen on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

point taken; you are right Jerimee (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really. Paparazzi are a normal thing in life, and many people wouldn't hesitate to photograph a celebrity out in the wild. In other cases, I don't think that Americans tend to have respect for, say, the French guy who sued Google Street View because it caught him in his yard urinating.[1] Note the US case mentioned there was thrown out. There might be more respect for the Japanese complaints that the camera was mounted too high, because it was catching things not public. If I happened to catch some people in my photos of buildings or monuments, I would find it silly to blur them out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree, I live on the east coast and I'm not sure I've ever seen a Paparazzi. Aren't Paparazzi notoriously disliked? Americans have traditionally been strongly opposed to security cameras, though I think that is changing due to inexpensive consumer versions. Jerimee (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

There are security cameras all over the freakin place in New York. If you hadn't said you lived in the U.S., I'd say you were behind the times on the U.S., in my opinion, but where on the East Coast do you live? I think a lot of things changed as a result of the G.W. Bush Administration and the September 11, 2001 megaterrorism attacks. On your other point, we New Yorkers are known for tending to leave celebrities alone, but I don't think that can be said of people visiting New York, and while paparazzi are indeed held in low regard, their work in public places is completely legal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I cobbled together a rather lengthy overview of professional standards here (3 or 4 weeks ago): User:Jerimee/consent/response-to-ik

And User:Rhododendrites has a better response below. Starts with It's a mistake to get into "reasonable expectation of privacy" when talking about issues outside of strict legal concerns. Jerimee (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There are famous American photographers who were known for taking candid photos of people on the street and in the subway in their home town, sometimes using concealed cameras. So as a matter of history, you are wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jerimee in case they haven’t seen this. Brianjd (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you pinging me. I'll need some time to demonstrate this (ie compile sources). For US Americans though this is easy to demonstrate: simply ask the next 5 strangers you meet if they mind if you take their photo and upload it to the internet for anyone to do whatever they want with. Appreciate you. Jerimee (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This is one of those odd things where asking can be much creepier than doing. Like a man saying to a woman on the subway, "Can I sit directly across from you, where I can see you well?" or to go up and ring a doorbell and ask, "Can I leave my car for a few hours in the empty parking space in front of your house?" - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

point taken, but...

1) We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify. In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to: Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people

2) go up and ring a doorbell and ask, "Can I leave my car for a few hours in the empty parking space in front of your house?" I've actually done this many times (maybe 15?); I've never had anyone say no except once they were worried I'd block the garbage truck. Purely anecdotal of course, and I couldn't resist!

I do get your point and it is a valid point and, nonetheless, sometimes considerate behavior is a bit uncomfortable, especially at first. In the late 90s, when discussions about consent were becoming more frequent, some folks suggested replacing the slogan "no means no" with "yes means yes." And stand-up comedians and pundits had a field day: "Can you imagine how unromantic and awkward it would be to ask before you kiss someone?" was a typical response. But today this is a fairly common; people do this and are better for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_consent#%22No_means_no%22

TL;DR: If we don't stick to our values when they're inconvenient, they're not actually our values. Jerimee (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Jerimee: I believe you are ignoring the context of "We feel that it is important and ethical": the antecedent is "portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation". - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand this sentence. If you don't mind, could you rephrase? All the best Jerimee (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  Jerimee, you quoted a WMF resolution that says "We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent". That sentence ("it") is not about "taking pictures of people". That sentence is about taking pictures of "identifiable living persons in a private place or situation".

  The rule, therefore is:

  • [OK] "Obtain subject consent for the use of...media" that will "portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation".

  The rule is not, and has never been:

  • [No]"Always get consent before taking a photo of people in public places".

  

  Don't try to get permission for this kind of photo.

  One of the things that I have appreciated in the last decade is seeing more sensitivity to publicity. For example, if the newspaper writes about a family, then any photos of children tend to have their faces turned away from the camera. But there are reasonable limits. A rule that says you have to take get permission from unidentifiable people (because what if one of them is being stalked, or they told their parents they were going to the library, and here you've got a photo of those teenagers playing at the beach instead – they could get grounded!) is not reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Always get consent before taking a photo of people in public places". We are not talking about taking pictures, we are talking about licensing them online for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with. Is that what you meant? Jerimee (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  Requiring consent for photos of people in public places would mean banning the photo above, as well as pretty much all of Category:Crowds. Is that what you meant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  No Jerimee (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  How would you describe the difference between the photo above, which you accept, and a photo taken in an equally public place, possibly even at the same public event as the above photo of the crowd, that you would not accept? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I ain't wrong! Just kidding, here is a lengthy yet still incomplete response: User:Jerimee/consent/response-to-ik
Jerimee (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

See also w:en:Candid Camera and all of w:en:Category:Hidden camera television series. If it is possible to have a popular television show based on the premise of secretly recording ordinary people, then the expectation of privacy may be lower than you hoped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, candid camera not what we going for Jerimee (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the existence of that television show indicates that people in the US don't "have a high expectation of privacy". If we did, that kind of show would have provoked outrage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

? Candid Camera got releases from people after they were filmed, and otherwise didn't air the footage (or blurred the person). That's still the case with e.g. Impractical Jokers and other similar shows today. I don't know why this is a useful example. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a useful illustration of the viewers' expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In Season 2, Episode 5 of Beavis and Butt-Head (Mike Judge, 1994), the titular characters take a photograph of a stranger in a public setting without first obtaining permission. The subject of the photo is visibly offended. I offer this as an example of the extent to which Americans’ expectations of privacy are often more nuanced — and perhaps more demanding — than what is actually afforded by American law. :) Jerimee (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a mistake to get into "reasonable expectation of privacy" when talking about issues outside of strict legal concerns. No amount of "don't film me" while standing in Times Square will make it illegal (assuming it doesn't cross into harassment). But here on Commons our standards are higher than just what's legal -- creepshots are completely legal in most cases, but we still don't want to host them here. Yes, it's hard to draw bright lines, and easy to play whataboutism. I tend to look at an image and ask whether the photograph was taken to sexualize and/or embarrass the person without their consent, regardless of whether it's a legal photo, but I don't get the sense that's how everyone applies the guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, while I stand for a very broad policy on what photos are acceptable for Commons, I have stopped uploading certain types of photos because they seem to attract what I see as creepy/objectifying categories, e.g. Category:Underarm hair on female people. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I share your concerns about categories which objectify the subjects of a photo. You may be interested in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obesidade.jpg. Omphalographer (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Colonial-Era Photos

Following a recent discussion started here, I would like to discuss the position regarding photographs taken during the colonial era. At that time, colonized populations had no personal rights. Many surviving photographs depict naked children and teenagers who were photographed without their consent, printed on postcards for commercial sale, and are now in the public domain and uploaded here. Should such images be kept or removed, considering they violate the personal dignity and lack the consent of the individuals portrayed, especially in cases where the photos carry erotic or exploitative undertones.

Riad Salih (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment in general, we are much less concerned with consent issues for people no longer alive. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think the community share the same vision. It should definitely be included in the guidelines and stated clearly. Riad Salih (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)