Wikivoyage talk:Photographs of identifiable people

If you can be described as a public personage or are performing a public role in which you can reasonably be expected to be photographed - eg.making a public speech, performing in a live show etc, then you HAVE no privacy right in that context. At least that's what I've heard... so you could upload photos of Manilan folk dancers or whatever without worrying about consent forms.

Also, if the people in the photo are not individually recognisable, then they don't count. (WT-en) KJ

Agreed -- I think the text here is too conservative. The rule of thumb (in the US) is that you do not need a model release for a picture of a person taken in a public place, as long as you do not make a commercial profit from it, which applies to almost all pictures of people here. Naturally it's worth noting that things are rarely quite this clear-cut and having written model releases are always welcome as insurance... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:33, 14 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Ah, but it's the word commercial that's the catch. The by-sa is all about allowing somebody (anybody) to use our work in other works, including commercial works, so long as they assign credit and share-alike. -- (WT-en) Mark 10:48, 15 Aug 2004 (EDT)

There is no catch. The model release is required for models, not ordinary people. Time and time again it was proved in courts that if you are just a person who was doing his own business and then was accidentally included in some photo, you don't have any special rights. When you use a model, i.e. a person who models for you, you need some paperwork. If you just film in public random people, you don't need anything. The wording is really to strict without justification. 81.211.110.171 11:47, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)

This is a worldwide travel guide intended to be usable anywhere in the world including for commercial use. I have difficulty accepting the concept that all legal systems in the world are as sane as you suggest. Secondly, although it may have been proved "time and time again," I don't think we can afford the costs of even one incident. And lastly, with a few exceptions (like folk dancing mentioned above) we don't need photos with people in them. So in my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefits. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:41, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)

This sounds like folk legal theory to me. I see no support whatsoever for the idea that you don't need a release when you take pictures of people in public. All the IP-law pages I can find are extremely clear: get a release if you have a picture of person, period. Considering how rarely we need pictures of people in Wikivoyage anyways, I don't see a good reason to change things, here. --(WT-en) Evan 15:19, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)

Note I wrote this below concurrently with Evan's contributions above

It is not that clear cut. For commercial use (and I think a travel guide is commercial use), if someone is the 'subject' of the photo and you are going to publish it you generally need a model release. This is obviously quite subjective. If the photo is of a building, but there is a distinctive recognizable person in the photo, that person may be able to argue they are a subject of the photo and did not consent to the photo. (If they were part of a crowd, or just in the peripheral of the photograph, this argument would probably not succeed). There is a famous Quebec case where a photographer was sued for using a photo that was of a colourful house, but showed a (barely) recognizable person sitting on the steps of the house, she was able to argue that publishing this photo was an invasion of her privacy.

This applies almost no matter who the person is (with very few exceptions).

I know we have in some cases accepted verbal model releases, but this is not really very legal, as they probably did not intend to agree that the photo may be published. There is a difference between agreeing that a photo may be taken for personal use and agreeing that a photo can be published. There are standards as to what should be in a model release and many publishers will not publish any photo in which the model release does not contain specific wording to protect them from being sued. This is particularly true if you took the photograph as a "tourist" and not a professional photographer, as if you were obviously a professional photographer and got a verbal release, the subject would reasonably expect that the photograph may be published. Furthermore to be a proper contract there has to be consideration given. Therefore you have to give something to the person you are photographing (a copy of the photograph is a good thing to give in consideration).

To complicate matters even further, taking on private property without explicit permission on what the photographs are going to be used for are very problematic. Also photographs of sculptures, or other works of art that are not in the public domain are problematic as well. In some countries even buildings have been considered copyrighted "artwork". Lots of places that appear to be public property (train stations, public buildings, transit stations, driveways, private parks, malls, parking lots) are actually private property. Even National Parks often have rules as to how photographs taken in the park may be used.

It should also be noted that we are basing this on North American laws which are generally a lot more lenient than many other countries. As photos are from around the world and it may be published everywhere we have to be quite conservative on this. Unfortunately I think that this means that photographs with recognizable people that are anything other than part of a crowd or a peripheral part of the photograph, with only a few exceptions, should not be used. Furthermore we have to be very careful about photographs obviously taken on private property (This is particularly true in churches which often take a very negative view of publishing photographs of the inside of a church without permission).

Here is a simple website with some of the basics . I have a much longer and more detailed article complete with many references to case law that deals with the issue from a Journalist's perspective (who have much more freedom about "fair use" and "newsworthy events" than travel photographers have). Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be on the internet anymore. Photo.net also has a number of articles that may be enlightening. The important thing to remember is the difference between the right to take the photograph and the right to commercially publish it. To release it under our copyright it has to be legal to commercially publish it. -- (WT-en) Webgeer 15:22, Nov 16, 2004 (EST)

Pictures of performers at a public festival

So I had the pleasure of attending Kulamba in eastern Zambia last week and would like to upload a few select pics — but, alas, I don't have written model releases from the Nyau secret society dancers who were gallivanting in front of approx. 10,000 people including three TV cameras and every photographer who forked out 30,000 kwacha (US$6) for a photo permit. Is is thus reasonable to assume that said dancers have given up their privacy rights and the pictures are thus fair game for Wikivoyage? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:07, 31 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Bump. See also Talk:Panmunjeom. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:17, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

Where the line is drawn

File:Surabaya-becak-drivers.jpg is currently under discussion in VfD. The controlling standard on photos with recognizable people is mainly this: "If a person is central to an image and identifiable, permission to publish that photo must be granted by the individual. A person is `central' if their removal or replacement would materially affect the picture, so this does not apply to crowd scenes or bystanders near monuments." I think this photo is on the wrong side of the line, because three of the becak drivers are smiling for the camera. But what about this one: File:Night life in Piazza Trilussa in Trastevere, Rome - 3316.jpg? See talk page here: File talk:Night life in Piazza Trilussa in Trastevere, Rome - 3316.jpg. Is that photo OK because no-one is looking at the camera? Because while it could be argued that no one individual in the second photo is "central" to the image, it could also be argued that the first photo could be of any four other becak drivers, and that it is the fact of their being becak drivers, rather than their images that is central. Perhaps this reasoning is a bit strained - and it is a devil's advocate argument - but going back to the Trastevere night life scene, I could also argue that the seated man playing the percussion instrument is central to the image - he's not far from the center of the image, not blurred, most nearly looking toward the camera, and has a striking face. I think that his removal from the photo would materially affect the picture. Your thoughts, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a question of people who are paid to appear in public in tourist venues where photography is permitted. That's something that could easily come up with attractions like "Pioneer Village. A few dozen historic buildings including blacksmith and general store, staffed by guides in period costume of the era and practising the respective trades common to a village in the 1800s." where someone is paid to dress as a 19th century ironmonger at the forge while travellers take photos. While specific commercial uses could be problematic, such as placing this person's photo in an advertisement for products for sale with a false claim that they endorsed the product, using that photo in an article about Pioneer Village should be entirely legitimate if the person is paid to appear in public with photography permitted, if the image is on commons: and if it is properly tagged as subject to {{personality rights}} which may affect its re-use for some other purpose. Certainly we want to avoid the type of travel snapshot where an amateur photographer includes immediate family in every image of every landmark, but in some cases a person is a key part of an artistic or historical sight and is paid to appear in a venue with photography permitted. K7L (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Publishing Law Center article linked from this guideline:

Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph. An example of a permitted use would be a photograph of the Rockefeller Center Ice Rink that was used to illustrate a book about Rockefeller Center or about New York City attractions, even though many people may be identifiable.

By my reading of that guidance, in your "Pioneer Village" example, if the image is generically of "Pioneer Village square" then we would probably be OK. If the image is of "blacksmiths in Pioneer square" then we might be on shaky ground. A good rule of thumb is probably that if there is any doubt it is probably safer to delete the questionable image and find another. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a lot easier about recognizable faces in photos than we are. That doesn't make sense now all our photos are moving there. --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well here's a real example. I've been using File:Walt Disney World - Animal Kingdom - Bird Trainer.jpg in Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom for some time now. It's on Commons now, so we have no inherent control over whether it's deleted, but does it violate this policy? Should it be removed from the article? What about File:Lights, Motors, Action motorcycle jump by JeffChristiansen.jpg? Is that one okay because the person is not identifiable? There's also File:Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater interior by hyku.jpg, which has a big "Personality Rights Warning" on Commons. Is that sufficient? LtPowers (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to use Commons policy, now that essentially all our photos will be hosted there. Also, they call it "personality rights" instead of "privacy rights", so we might want to rename that too.--Globe-trotter (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd support removing this policy as a local policy and deferring to Commons. The less we have to manage images here the more people can focus on travel writing. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We still need local image policies, as we will still be hosting files here. And there's also the issue of content -- which files are appropriate for inclusion in our travel guides. Not every file on Commons is appropriate for our guides just because it's on Commons. LtPowers (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm not proposing we get rid of all image policies here, but since image hosting should move to Commons for 99+ percent of all images I do think that we can reduce our policies to 1) guidelines on what type of images and how many images should appear in an article (currently Wikivoyage:How to add an image) and 2) what images warrant a "keep local" exception (currently Wikivoyage:Non-free content). For things like privacy rights of individuals, fair use, etc, I think we can eventually eliminate any local policies and defer to whatever policies Commons has in place. As noted above, the less we have to deal with image management and licensing the more we can focus on travel. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the people are in a public place than legally their picture can be taken without explicit permission. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)