Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people

‘Unidentifiable’ or dead subjects

The lead says: In most countries, these issues only affect photos where the person is identifiable and still alive. However, even if the person is unidentifiable or has died, certain legal and ethical issues may remain.

Regarding ‘identifiable’ subjects, see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Rename ‘Photographs of identifiable people’ to ‘Photos and videos of people’: This confusion 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. I suspect that this confusion is widespread, and simply hasn’t been discussed yet.

Regarding dead subjects, see #Previously published photos:

You say that as if it's common knowledge, but my point is that it's not, and the mitigating aspects you just mentioned don't seem to be covered in this guideline. When I ctrl+f for "dead", the only hit I get is in the intro, which just says Certain legal and ethical issues may remain if the person is dead or if they cannot be identified. If there's an exception for long-dead subjects, we should say that.

I ran into the same issue, although I did find this other statement: Note that in some countries and US states, the right of publicity may persist for some time after the subject's death.

It sounds like both of these issues require further discussion. Brianjd (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

For dead subjects, also see #Dead subjects. Brianjd (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

CREEP vs NOCREEPSHOTS

COM:CREEP redirects to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Consent, while COM:NOCREEPSHOTS redirects to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues. What’s the difference? Pinging @Rhododendrites, Arlo Barnes. Brianjd (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Creepshots involve some kind of sexualization/fetishization. It's not just a photo taken without consent. They should both be pointing to #Moral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanted a shortcode to point to the #Consent section for ease of linking, if COM:CREEP is better suited to the section immediately prior that's fine, but it should be replaced with something else. Arlo James Barnes 16:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Arlo Barnes -- PHOTOCONSENT? Brianjd (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Arlo James Barnes 16:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: You forgot to edit COM:CREEP itself. I have just done so. Brianjd (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Brianjd (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Text added during 2013 rewrite and not changed since then

This refers to the rewrite that was made official in Special:Diff/89045668 per Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Archive 2#Another redraft; the authors credited are Colin, Yann, Kaldari, LPfi and WhatamIdoing.

I have some questions (and probably more questions as I continue working through this page):

• Where is the United States information supposed to be? (See #Worldwide view.)
• Why does it say There are two forms of personality rights that govern the taking, hosting and use of photographs where the subject is a living person: the right of publicity and the right of privacy. (emphasis added)? Even at the time of this rewrite, the Wikipedia article mentioned that these rights can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction).

Brianjd (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

When discussing legal issues, logically, the first issue to discuss is which jurisdiction’s law applies. So why doesn’t the section start with that? Also, the page claims that photos must be legal in the jurisdiction from which they are uploaded, but I think no one knows or cares about that, and it is completely unenforceable. So why is that rule there? (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law has the same problem.) Brianjd (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be practical for a guideline to "start with" a complete list of where and to what extend and what duration such rights apply. I think at one point in the rewrite, the "Country specific" was removed or proposed to be removed to Commons:Country specific consent requirements as it is rather detailed. A guideline like this can only give broad advice that these are concerns users should be aware of. Ultimately, we cannot advise individual users about their individual circumstances, nor do we have this information even if we wanted to. Many times, Commons has to make a guess about matters that likely could only be tested in a court. I wonder if you have the wrong expectations of what the guideline is for or able to achieve. Wrt "completely unenforceable", not everything is about us enforcing things. If the photo was not legal for you to take in your country then you should not upload it and we should not encourage you to do so. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd, this page is Commons' version of w:en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is not Commons' attempt to provide a comprehensive legal guide to uploaders. It specifically mentions living people because the Board of Trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation decreed years ago that every project had to follow some rules about living people, but they didn't say anything about dead people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Definition of ‘private place’

The guideline currently says: The law on privacy concerning photographs can be crudely divided into whether the photograph was taken in a private or public place. A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy while a public place is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation ….

But what is a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’? Does an area not accessible to the public – another definition of ‘private place’ – automatically have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Apparently the answer is not clear. From Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Rename ‘Photographs of identifiable people’ to ‘Photos and videos of people’:

Wrt File:Yasield à Wikiconvention Francophone 2022 06.jpg there seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what is a private place, which is a place where you have an expectation of privacy. It does not mean a place where only some people are permitted to attend (attendants at a conference).
— User:Colin 19:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So how widespread is this misunderstanding? Let’s check some search results for ‘red lanyard’:

Deletion request	Description
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tim de Haan, Nationaal Archief, bij de Wikimedia Nederland Conferentie 2013 (10643446423).jpg	Deleted because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimani Poster Session - Day 2.jpg	Kept because the person wearing a red lanyard was OK with the photo
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimania Hackathon 2019 - Pre-Conference Day 1.jpg	Deleted because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimania Hackathon 2019 - Pre-Conference Day 3.jpg	Deleted because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia Nederland Conferentie 2013 (10643231445).jpg	Deleted because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nieuwjaarsborrel Wikimedia Nederland bij het Nationaal Archief en de Koninklijke Bibliotheek. (12026264584).jpg	Deleted (after only 3 minutes) because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nieuwjaarsborrel Wikimedia Nederland bij het Nationaal Archief en de Koninklijke Bibliotheek. (12026184333).jpg	Deleted (after only 3 minutes) because of red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia Conferentie 2014 (15496296817).jpg	Deleted (after only 3 minutes) because of red lanyard (with an additional request to refrain from uploading such images to Flickr)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia Conferentie 2014 (15496105058).jpg	Deleted (after only 12 minutes) because of red lanyard (with an additional request to refrain from uploading such images to Flickr)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Structured Data on Commons data modelling session at the Wikimania 2019 Hackathon.jpg	Original deleted because of red lanyard; cropped version kept
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedia cursus bij de Wikimedia Conferentie 2014 (15495625169).jpg	Deleted (after only 11 minutes) because of red lanyard (with an additional request to refrain from uploading such images to Flickr)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hackathon Wikimania 2019.jpg	Deleted due to red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimania Hackathon 2019 - Pre-Conference Day 8.jpg	Deleted due to red lanyard
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rohini Lakshané Taking Lunch - Wiki Conference India - CGC - Mohali 2016-08-07 8574.JPG	No provision at this event for indicating consent; deleted as out of scope; disagreement about whether consent is required. Special mention of Jaluj’s comment: they are an experienced, even if inactive, user who specifically referenced this guideline when claiming that consent is required.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eröffnung des Wikicon.jpg	Deleted due to orange lanyard (no photo) (with a complaint about the frequency of such deletion requests and a note that this is a special rule for WMF events)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discussion The Future of Wikimania, Wikimania 2016.jpg	Nominated by an admin with specific reference to this guideline; disagreement about whether this was a private event; kept because no subjects were wearing a ‘no photos’ lanyard

(The requests to refrain from Flickr uploads were made by different admins.)

It would seem that this misunderstanding is very widespread indeed. Brianjd (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Colin went on to suggest that there is no need to delete File:Yasield à Wikiconvention Francophone 2022 06.jpg. But, as I showed above, there is a clear precedent for doing so. If you want to go against that precedent, you should do more than question my competence. Brianjd (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm now starting to twig that wearing a "red lanyard" at a WikiMedia event means "Don't take my photo". I've not been to such an event. If this is a Wikimedia convention, and a pattern for deleting such images, then this "red lanyard" rule should be mentioned, either in a sentence on this guideline with an appropriate shortcut, or in its own brief explanation page also with a convenient shortcut. That way people can link to it when they mention it in deletion discussions. This seems to be an entirely separate rule from anything regarding "expectation of privacy".

Let's be clear, if Wikimedia has a convention that "If I wear a red lanyard then I don't want my photo taken", then which part of "Don't take my fucking photo is not clear to you" would be my response on seeing an image of me uploaded to Commons. And then on seeing someone blur me out, but keep the identifiable photo in the history, I would not only be questioning that person's intelligence but also sending a message to WMF trust and safety.

So, can we sort this out then? If there's an effectively contractual and trust-and-safety reason where attendants at Wikimedia events can signal they don't want their photo, and some photographers have broken that, the images need deleted, and the photographer educated on the matter and if they won't accept that, banned from attending future events. I'm not really clear how that isn't mindbogglingly apparent. -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A lot of Wikimedia events have a mechanism to let people indicate they don't want their picture taken. I think Wikimania has been fairly consistent (maybe?), but it varies between Wikimedia events. Sometimes it's a lanyard color, sometimes it's a different nametag, sometimes it's a pin, sometimes it's a sticker, etc. Sometimes there's just a "no photos" indicator, and sometimes there's a "no photos at all" vs. "photos only with consent" indicator. The language of the photo policy at the events varies, too, as well as instructions to people who don't want to be photographed. There are some straightforward cases: if I'm wearing a red lanyard or whatever, don't come up to me and take my picture. But what if I'm in an audience of 200, and someone takes a picture of the audience? To what degree does "identifiability" matter? What if I have a red lanyard but decide I want to be in the group photo? It's tricky. The language of the 2019 Wikimania photo policy has some guidance about crowds. It also includes the somewhat awkwardly worded statement that "The traditional Wikimedia-event default position that the subject is responsible to identify photographs of themselves on Commons and request takedown, after the fact, does NOT constitute consent." The "default" in that case is more "the way it usually plays out" than a default policy (having been to more than a hundred of these things, there's definitely no standard policy).
So what does all this mean for the policy? How about: Semi-public events like conferences don't generally give you a reasonable expectation of privacy, but individual conferences (such as Wikimania) may have policies which create such an expectation, which should be handled on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you've just demonstrated your expertise in the matter and volunteered yourself to write. I think it should be respected all the more as Wikimedia is part of our family, and if Commons does not respect or support an event's photo policy, then that says something bad about Commons. I think we also need to fix this naive idea that uploading a new version just fixes things, when the old version is still there undeleted. I agree that sentence about "default" is very confusing. I think it would be better to say that ultimately the responsibility to obtain consent lies with the photographer, but mistakes happen and we appreciate subjects helping to identify such mistakes on Commons and request they be taken down. And in all cases, Commons will respect that.

We also need I think a better appreciation that photos like File:Yasield à Wikiconvention Francophone 2022 06.jpg are of very very little value. Blurring out people in it makes it of even less very very little value. To the point where we have spent more time discussing it or fixing it than is in any way justified by its potential for use (nil, I'd say). So our default for such images should be a straightforward delete unless there is a good case made for its particular value.

I wonder if we could link this in a way to the "expectation of privacy". That even though such events are public wrt the various legislations, the presence of a photography policy that offers people the expectation that they will not be photographed if they wear a red lanyard, generates an expectation of privacy for those individuals. -- Colin (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, at conferences pretty much the only time I take candid audience shots is to capture (for example) two people of Wikipedia-level notability engaged in a conversation, or some such. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I just added a line about this. I tried not to be too prescriptive; it seems sufficient to say you should treat someone with a no-photographs lanyard the same way you would treat someone in a private space. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites The line you added is in the ‘Legal issues’ section, but it seems to have nothing to do with the law; I think it belongs in the ‘Moral issues’ section.

Also, it seems inconsistent with Commons practice. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eröffnung des Wikicon.jpg, the closing admin Jameslwoodward specifically said that this is a unique rule for Wikimedia events. Another example that comes to mind is Burning Man: supposedly, photography is prohibited, yet photos from that event are still kept on Commons.

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yasield à Wikiconvention Francophone 2022 06.jpg, I also mentioned this inconsistency (between Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia events) and said that it needs to change. But what does the rest of the community think? Brianjd (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I added it there because it was the place where we discuss the "expectation of privacy". It read a little awkwardly in the moral section, but that may in part be due to my reluctance to create new paragraphs because of the translation system. Maybe we can just add a clarification that a conference policy can create an expectation of privacy that isn't legal in nature.

But you raise a good point about inconsistency. It seems to me this falls under a larger heading of "house rules". We have a line here that, for example, If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum. I think what we need to figure out is when, exactly, we do care about "house rules" when it comes to photos of people. We obviously care for Wikimedia events. Burning Man is not a good example ("ask first"), but the point stands that I'm sure we host other photos of people taken in a place where photography wasn't allowed.

I've added a subsection under the moral heading for "house rules" which basically says "it's not a legal requirement, but sometimes we might respect them, like at wikimania". If this is too bold an addition anyone should feel free to revert. If others think it makes sense, we should link to it from COM:HOUSERULES and add the translation code. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"If the museum's house rules forbid photography" <= totally different issue. Paintings don't have issues of personal privacy. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the event attendee example is a reasonable illustration of the "expectation of privacy".

I believe that another common example of that is that people have an expectation of privacy in a public restroom. It is a social convention, in the absence of consent, not to publish photos of a fully clothed person entering or leaving a toilet stall, even if there is no legal restriction against doing so.

COM:HOUSERULES on museums speaks specifically to the copyright status. A photo of an identifiable person in a private place, taken without consent, also has a valid copyright status. This page says we don't choose to host a privacy-invading photo of a living person even though that photo is not a copyright violation. We apparently do choose to host equivalent photos of artwork, so long as it is not a copyvio. As Jmabel says, you can't invade the privacy of a painting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

you can't invade the privacy of a painting - Yes, I brought up museums to make that distinction because Commons users are probably used to house rules being ignored. i.e. in other cases, we don't respect house rules; in some cases having to do with photographs of people, we do. expectation of privacy in a public restroom - I think bathrooms are pretty legally gray/variable. This one seems like it could go in the moral section above house rules, though, because I don't think many places (businesses, etc.) have a rule specific to bathroom photography. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Commons users are used to house rules being ignored. Certainly that was my impression until I started looking into it. This page has been updated; I think COM:NCR#"House rules" should be updated too.

I also reworded this page slightly to say that Wikimania photos are routinely deleted, because I don’t think it’s true for other events (not yet, anyway), as discussed above. Brianjd (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Made another minor adjustment and added a see also to COM:NCR. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording ‘that event’ (referring to Wikimania) might be too specific, but ‘such events’ (referring to ‘conferences and conventions’ in general) is too broad. I suggest the following wording:

Wikimedia events, such as Wikimania, allow attendees to use colored lanyards to indicate whether they consent or object to being photographed. Photographs taken at these events are routinely deleted if they depict an identifiable person wearing a "no photography" lanyard.

Brianjd (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence just before says while many conferences and conventions are considered public, some may have specific photography policies that create an expectation of privacy, so that (or events like Wikimania) is what the "such events" would refer to. If the former, I think if we had clear evidence that someone didn't want to be photographed, with a colored lanyard cross-referenced to that conference's policies, then we would delete it. It just doesn't happen often that we get that kind of evidence except from Wikimedia events. Regarding the latter, it's not quite accurate that Wikimedia events use the lanyards. Wikimania does, and probably some others, but other Wikimedia events use other conventions or none at all. We just ran an event here in NYC and I don't think anyone thought to include that process this time, but in years past we used special nametags, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not only is it self-evident, but it is Wikimedia Foundation policy: people who do not want to be photographed at Wikimedia public events cannot be photographed. If they are also at informal meetings or lunches outside of public events, there is even less right to upload photos of people without their consent. A public event is when I am giving a speech or making a presentation. If I'm having lunch or coffee, it's a private moment. Images that violate these rules must be immediately deleted.--Jalu (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)