User:Brianjd

Jurisdiction[edit]

Commons inherits rules from relevant jurisdictions, as well as defining its own rules. Relevant jurisdictions always include the jurisdiction where Commons is hosted, but often also include other jurisdictions. There is some inconsistency in how Commons determines which jurisdictions are relevant.

Scope[edit]

Commons is a repository of free (as in freedom) educational media. Its scope (for media) is defined by three criteria:

Copyright status. This has its own policy; in practice, both here and elsewhere on Commons, it is treated as a separate issue to scope. It is discussed in its own section.
Educational use. Media must be ‘realistically useful for an educational purpose’. This is discussed in this section.
Format. This is not discussed here.

Media that is outside this scope is usually referred to as ‘out of scope’.

Generic ‘out of scope’ deletion requests[edit]

Some media is subject to generic ‘out of scope’ deletion requests, even though it is clearly in scope. Examples are given below.

Media that was subject to generic ‘out of scope’ deletion requests.
Two musical staffs with treble and bass clefs, with two octaves of notes labelled, showing how the notes continue from one staff to the other with only one ledger line. (full description; deletion request)
2015 shaped sunglasses being worn by a child. (full description; deletion request)

The ‘2015 shaped sunglasses’ case is particularly damning, because that deletion request included 1 762 files, of which many were clearly in scope. The nominator relied on advice received from other users (including the administrator Yasu) at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2022/10#Category:Sakurako_Miki and Commons:井戸端/過去ログ19#Category:Sakurako_Mikiに収集されている人物について. No one seems to have considered that some files might be useful. One user (RZuo) admitted that some photos could be good stock photos, but went on to say that having so many rather private photos is useless for commons.

Even worse, some of these deletion requests lead to deletion. An example is given below.

Bikini baristas are clearly in scope, since they have their own article, Wikidata item (bikini barista (Q4907411)) and category. The same user who uploaded this bikini barista image, NeoBatfreak, also uploaded a variety of other images of bikini baristas, which are all in scope. This image, showing a bikini barista from a different venue to most of the other images, is even more valuable. It was undeleted per a request to the deleting admin.

Some of these deletion requests are challenged by other users who happen to see them. Examples are given below.

‘Consent’[edit]

The term ‘consent’ can refer to two very different things:

Consent of the subject, as in {{Consent}} and Commons:Country specific consent requirements.
Consent of the copyright owner, as in Commons:CONSENT (which redirects to Commons:Email templates/Consent).

These are very different things because the copyright owner is usually not the subject and copyright is handled differently to privacy.

Privacy[edit]

The term ‘privacy’ can refer to many different things. Here, it refers to restrictions on collecting and sharing information about people, including images of people.

Personality rights[edit]

Here, the term ‘personality rights’ refers to a person’s rights to restrict use of their image.

There is inconsistency as to whether personality rights apply when the subject is not ‘identifiable’. Even the relevant Commons guideline is inconsistent. It is called ‘Photographs of identifiable people’, but its summary says nothing about identifiability:

Commons respects the legal and moral rights of people depicted in our photos. These rights may affect how we host photos and how they can be re-used, including whether consent is required. The legal rights of the subjects constitute non-copyright restrictions on use of photos. These rights vary by country.

The guideline itself also suggests that personality rights can apply to subjects who are not ‘identifiable’, with statements like:

‘… even if the person is unidentifiable …, certain legal and ethical issues may remain.’
‘The provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. A "downblouse" or "creepshot" photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject's face is cropped out. A paparazzi telephoto shot of a naked sunbather does not become acceptable merely by pixelating the face.’

From January 2023 to February 2023, there was a failed proposal to remove the word ‘identifiable’ from the guideline’s name.

It gets worse: actual Commons practice is sometimes inconsistent with that guideline. For example, consider this widely used image of topless women sunbathing. According to its deletion requests, it has no personality rights issues because the subjects are not ‘identifiable’.

Identifiability[edit]

According to this image’s deletion requests, the subjects are not ‘identifiable’.

Copyright[edit]

Copyright complexity[edit]

Copyright is far too complex for most people to understand. (This is why I dedicate all my material to the public domain, meaning that it is not covered by copyright; see my global user page.)

Copyright is so complex that the Commons policy on licensing contains not only the actual policy, but also an overview of complicated copyright laws through an example-based tutorial for non-lawyers. That overview is highly simplified, with links to many other pages with more details, but is still complex. Shown here is a Commons licensing tutorial developed as part of a usability project; this is even more simplified, but is still long.

Even the rules for free (as in freedom) works are complex, due to the variety of free licenses and situations involving multiple licenses (and sometimes multiple works). The Help desk discussion ‘How do I cite an image on Wikimedia commons outside of wikimedia projects?’ (archived in November 2021) links to:

Instructions for using Commons material elsewhere. This page is complex (for the reasons given above), but is still incomplete. It says: If the file is available under multiple licenses, you can use any of them. But it does not explain that some files contain multiple parts, each released under a different license, and in this case, users must comply with all the licenses. It then says: If none of the licenses suits you, you can try to contact the creator and negotiate a special arrangement. Otherwise, you'll have to use a different file. But it does not explain exceptions to copyright like fair use.
An attribution generator. This is supposed to do the hard work for you, but still asks several annoying questions before presenting the license notice and also includes complex instructions on how to use it. Even for a public domain work, it warns that (in Germany, but this also applies to some other jurisdictions) the author retains some rights that cannot be waived.

The variation of individual licenses is complex enough, but some material is released under multiple licenses, where users may choose any one license to comply with. As a particularly egregious example, the file Server-kitty.jpg has this crazy triple license scheme:

CC BY 2.0: a permissive license
GFDL 1.2+: a copyleft license
CC BY-SA 3.0: also CC (like CC BY 2.0), but copyleft (like GFDL 1.2+); added as part of the GFDL migration

(This was the subject of the Village pump discussion ‘File:Server-kitty.jpg: triple licenced CC BY 2.0, GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0’ (archived in November 2021), which did not go anywhere.)

A different situation is where a work contains multiple parts, each released under a different license. In this case, a user who uses the whole work must comply with all the licenses. Sometimes, it is hard to tell which parts are present and which licenses apply. For example, a screenshot of a web page of a Wikimedia Foundation project may depict MediaWiki (the software used by the Wikimedia Foundation), the project’s contents, or both; MediaWiki and Wikimedia Foundation projects’ contents are released under different licenses. More specifically, the Wikipedia screenshot shown here depicts the project’s contents but does not depict any copyrightable part of MediaWiki. But the screenshot’s description contains only the generic notice {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}, which refers to three different (and mutually incompatible) licenses, with no clarification on which apply to this specific screenshot.

Acceptance of copyright violations[edit]

Commons takes copyright very seriously (at least for media); copyright is one of Commons’ core principles. But outside of Commons, copyright violations are commonly accepted. This is because of copyright’s complexity, together with its impracticality (even for people who understand it).

For example, in revision 609375845 (an edit to Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg), Rubin16 (a Commons administrator) added a link to a Google Street View screenshot uploaded to an external site. Surely this screenshot was posted by Rubin16 for the purpose of responding to that deletion request; surely this was a copyright violation (at least it would be if not for fair use). Google Street View screenshots uploaded to Commons are quickly deleted as copyright violations; an example is Knilles Ynsesstrjitte.jpg, which was deleted less than 7 hours after being nominated for deletion. (To further complicate matters, taking that screenshot also violated Google’s guidelines: You may not screenshot Street View imagery … for any purpose. … All uses of … Street View content must provide attribution … (emphasis in original).)

Search engine reliability[edit]

Search engines are useful for checking whether media is in scope and for checking its copyright status. But they are not always reliable: they sometimes fail to find things that should be easy to find. For example, as of 17 January 2023, DuckDuckGo fails to find the Flickr image British Columbia-Yoho National Park-Yoho Lake-P1040446 (uploaded to Commons as Michael Peak from Yoho Lake.jpg) when searching for the title in these formats:

With the photo ID in parantheses like it normally is on Commons: British Columbia-Yoho National Park-Yoho Lake-P1040446 (36710284342)
With quotes: "British Columbia-Yoho National Park-Yoho Lake-P1040446"
With quotes and the term ‘Flickr’: "British Columbia-Yoho National Park-Yoho Lake-P1040446" Flickr

This is also true for the following Flickr images, which were uploaded to Commons and later deleted (and show women wearing only bikini bottoms, one with a nipple visible):

IZIBA2004_102 (But the search with the photo ID did, at one point, find the Commons file IZIBA2004 056 (1924606).jpg, originally uploaded to Flickr by the same user. It also, at one point, found this user page, with this extract: Commons:Deletion requests/File:IZIBA2004 102 (1924810).jpg; Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Panty lines: just the origin of COM:NOCREEPSHOTS and the issue of drawing attention, both in the comment by Rhododendrites, everything else done already. That text has not been on this page since all its content was moved to a separate page for old content, more than 2 months ago.)
Romania-2480 - Really............... I didn't know... (But all three searches do find a Wikipornia post citing the Commons upload of this file.)

Media used on this page[edit]

Media used only in the ‘More examples’ section below may not be listed here.

2015 shaped sunglasses (15827579308).jpg[edit]

This image is in legitimate use at the Wikidata item New Year's glasses (Q16933125) (and has been since 16 August 2018). That means it is in scope. But it was subject to a generic ‘out of scope’ deletion request, along with 1 761(!) other files.

Used in this section:

Scope > Generic ‘out of scope’ deletion requests

Licensing tutorial en.svg[edit]

This Commons licensing tutorial was developed as part of a usability project; it is a highly simplified description of how copyright laws apply to Commons, but it is still long. This shows how complex copyright is.

Used in this section: Copyright complexity

PINK PANTHERZ Expresso (Fresno Ca.) bikini barista with face mask.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted per a generic ‘out of scope’ deletion request, even though it is clearly in scope. It was undeleted per a request to the deleting admin.

Used in this section: Scope

Topless Barcelona.jpg[edit]

As of 19 January 2023, this image is used in the article List of social nudity places in Europe, articles on toplessness or topfreedom in 4 other Wikipedias, the article for G-strings in the Japanese Wikipedia, the entry for sun tanning in the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia, the entry for topless in the Italian Wiktionary and the entry for 「曬」 in the Traditional Chinese Wiktionary; it is even used as a generic image of a Barcelona beach in an article on public domain administration on the Catalan Wikipedia.

According to this image’s deletion requests, it has no personality rights issues because the subjects are not ‘identifiable’.

Used in these sections: Personality rights, Identifiability

Treble clef and Bass clef.png[edit]

This image is clearly in scope, but was subject to a generic ‘out of scope’ deletion request.

Used in this section:

Scope > Generic ‘out of scope’ deletion requests

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia0.jpg[edit]

This Wikipedia screenshot depicts the project’s contents but does not depict any copyrightable part of MediaWiki. But its description contains only the generic notice {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}, which refers to three different (and mutually incompatible) licenses, with no clarification on which apply to this specific screenshot. This shows how complex copyright is.

Used in this section: Copyright complexity

More examples[edit]

This section discusses examples that should be properly documented here, but are currently being investigated by me or discussed by the community.

User talk:Brianjd#Child pornography suspicions. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A coloured teenboy penis.jpg is apparently OK despite saying ‘teen’.

User talk:Brianjd#MY photos.

Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports (and other upskirt categories, some of which are included in that discussion).

The inconsistency about jurisdiction claim might not be justifiable, especially since the house rules stuff was added to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Open deletion requests[edit]

Scope[edit]

Images uploaded as demonstrations of mint hair.
Chris Dlugosz - mint hair (2451783403).jpg. (deletion request)
Chris Dlugosz - mint hair (2451782583).jpg. (deletion request)

These images were uploaded as demonstrations of mint hair, but then speedily deleted as personal images. After this speedy deletion (which should apply only to non-contributors) was questioned, the files were undeleted but then nominated for (regular) deletion as out of scope.

Personality rights[edit]

Photos of Viona Ielegems.
(deletion request)
(deletion request)

The first two photos were nominated for deletion by a user claiming to be the subject, Viona Ielegems; the nominator said that they wanted the photos deleted for personal reasons.

File:606avbws BC.jpg

Stop reporter with reflection. (deletion request)

The uploader requested deletion because the reflection shows the photographer.

Scope[edit]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/12#Seizure risks.

Privacy[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Paulthelawyer.

Personality rights[edit]

It is not even clear what ‘personality rights’ means. Commons has an essay on ‘personality rights’. It seems to have semi-official status, as it is, for example, linked from the help page Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia (where ‘personality rights’ are listed as an example of a non-copyright restriction) and even listed as the main page for the guideline section Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#The right of publicity. Yet it is very poorly written. Its nutshell says:

The current Commons guideline is at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. This page is a legal review of the right of publicity, according to US law. The right of publicity is different to a right to privacy.

But it does not even define the terms ‘right of publicity’ and ‘right to privacy’. Also, the essay itself starts with this sentence: ‘Nothing in Wikimedia may violate any person's personality rights or right of publicity.’ This sentence suggests that ‘personality rights’ and ‘right of publicity’ have different meanings.

Continue reviewing Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

The idea that personality rights can apply to subjects who are not ‘identifiable’ is supported by deletion requests like those for the following files:

The deleted file Obese office worker at lunch break in Brisbane, Australia.jpg depicts a man standing at a shopping centre in Brisbane, Australia, in 2020. He is near a bench outside a Lorna Jane store, looking down at his phone.

The file was deleted due to a belief that the subject did not consent to being used as an example of obesity. The discussion suggested that blurring his face would not be enough.

The confusion about whether personality rights can apply to subjects who are not ‘identifiable’ creates real problems: at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless Barcelona.jpg#File:Topless Barcelona.jpg 3, a user pointed out that some laws seem to require consent regardless of identifiability, but users try to get around this by pointing to the word ‘identifiable’ in the guideline’s name.

Inconsistency: ‘Certainly by the letter of the law [File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg] should be deleted, but I'm seeing several forums where people talk about how, in practice (by journalists, etc.), blurring the face is seen as an acceptable fix.’ (Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/01#Rename ‘Photographs of identifiable people’ to ‘Photos and videos of people’)

More confusion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female body hair removal.jpg.

Template talk:Consent#Identifiability.

Regarding whether identifiability matters and whether a subject is ‘identifiable’, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research and File:Topless Barcelona.jpg (first deletion request; subsequent deletion requests) (start discussion about this contradicting COM:DIGNITY).

Inconsistencies in handling this issue on and off Commons:

File:Romania-2480 - Really............... I didn't know... (7811453976).jpg (deletion request)
File:IZIBA2004 102 (1924810).jpg (deletion request) (was used at fa:خطوط برنزه‌نشده at time of deletion)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teen girls hanging out.jpg (also scope; was used at tr:Gençlik kültürü at time of deletion)

User talk:Kritzolina#Photo challenges involving children.

Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes#Sleep.

Commons:Patient images (linked from photo challenge).

Middle schooler with Bangs.jpg: Middle schooler with bangs. (deletion request) The subject revoked their consent, according to the uploader; it is not clear whether that consent is actually revocable. See Commons:Patient images: Inform the subject their permission is not revocable.

Images that require consent due to the subject being in a private place per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people[edit]

File:Nude in the sun.jpg

Nude woman sunbathing. (deletion request)

Images that require consent per Commons:Country specific consent requirements but appear to lack consent[edit]

As of 15 January 2023, this image is used at:

he:קרדיגן (archived in the Wayback Machine)
ja:カーディガン (archived in the Wayback Machine) (image added in ja:Special:Diff/47567250 by the same user who did Special:Diff/94913282)
ja:利用者:Castsock3A (archived in the Wayback Machine)
vi:Đồng phục (archived in the Wayback Machine)

Images that require consent per Commons:Country specific consent requirements but do not have confirmation of consent[edit]

Images with redacted faces[edit]

Images in the category Bikini baristas.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask.jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask (2).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask (3).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask (4).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask (5).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) barista with face mask (6).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (1).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped mobile phone digital selfie photo’, whatever that means.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (2).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (3).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (4).jpg. Used in the article Bikini barista. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (5).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (6).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (7).jpg. Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (8).jpg. Used in the Wikidata item bikini barista (Q4907411) (and, by extension, the category infobox and a profession list on the French Wikipedia). Described as a ‘cropped digital photo’.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (9).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (10).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (11).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (12).jpg.
Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (13).jpg.
PINK PANTHERZ Expresso (Fresno Ca.) bikini barista with face mask.jpg.
Pink Pantherz Expresso (Fresno, California) bikini barista.jpg.

All information about this gallery is correct as of 15 January 2023. All uses are noted in the image captions displayed here, except for generic galleries and redirects; all references in the original descriptions to editing are also noted in the captions here. All faces are cut off at about nose level, or at about eye level (but never giving a good view of both eyes) for subjects who are wearing protective masks (except that Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (2).jpg and Bottoms Up Expresso (Clovis, California) bikini barista (9).jpg are even more restrictive, being cut off below and at the mouth, respectively).

All images were uploaded by NeoBatfreak, who claimed that the images were their own work. Also see a discussion on that user’s talk page about these images.

Images of patients[edit]

Images of patients uploaded by NeoBatfreak, from newest to oldest.
Vaccinated Wheelchair-bond woman.jpg.
CVS Pharmacy - vaccinations (4077 West Clinton Ave. 93722) (2).jpg.
CVS Pharmacy - vaccinations (4077 West Clinton Ave. 93722).jpg.

The patients’ faces are not clearly visible; those that are partly visible are covered by masks and blurry.

Images of homeless people[edit]

Images of homeless people uploaded by NeoBatfreak, from newest to oldest.
Homeless old man on Fresno - East Belmont Avenue.jpg. The subject is facing away from the camera.
Homeless man sleeping on sidewalk(1).jpg. The subject is facing away from the camera.
Homeless man at West Shaw Ave. (Fresno CA 93722).jpg. The subject is facing towards the camera.
Beggar at North Blackstone Ave.jpg. The subject is facing away from the camera.
Beggar with a sign and cart (Herndon & N. Fruit)l(1).jpg. The subject is facing away from the camera.
Homelessness at Riverpark Shopping Center (Homeless woman with bicycle).jpg. The subject is facing towards the camera.

The subjects’ faces are not clearly visible; the ones facing the camera are partly visible but blurry.

(The same user also uploaded Homeless camp (Oakland, CA - 10th street, near Laney College).jpg and other images that are related to homelessness but do not show homeless people.)

Images of minors or school students[edit]

User talk:Brianjd#Permission from minors to use their likeness.

Sleeping children, used as examples for the proposed photo challenge theme ‘Sleep’.
A child sleeping.jpg.
Sleeping-girl.jpg. Used in the article Fear of falling, at wikiquote:Sleep, at wiktionary:dusa and at many other pages on many other projects.

Two school girls in England.
Original.
Cropped. Used in the articles School uniforms in England and School uniforms by country.

Tagged with a consent query, despite the subjects’ faces not being visible. Also, the image appears to be taken in public? See User talk:Berrely#Images of people without faces.