File:CFC Media Lab's Pearl Chen, Patrick Naval, Aylwin Lo, Jacqueline Nuwame, Ana Serrano, Leonardo Dell'Anno and Andrea Mallozzi at the Bata shoe museum (6210871503).jpg [ edit ]

As one of the individuals captured in this photo, I did not consent to its release online. [[Special:Contributions/ North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)| North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) ]] 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• First, {{Flickrreview}} confirmed that this image was properly licensed, almost 9 years ago.

  Note: The Canadian film centre released over 6,000 photos taken at its events, during the early 21st century. This image, like the other 6,000 images, was taken at an event organized by the CFC. The individuals invited to these events knew that designated photographers were circulating at these events. I suggest that agreeing to pose for a photo taken by one of the CFC's photographers indicated the invitee's consent for the CFC to do whatever it wanted with the photos, including releasing it under a license that allowed the WMF to make use of it for educational purposes.

• Second, User: North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) , the WMF commons, and other WMF projects, do make provisions for people to request the deletion of properly licensed images. We do so as a courtesy. Its discretionary. If you consider your request to be serious, please: [ reply ]

1. Send an email to the committee of trusted volunteers who confidentially confirm the real world identities of outsiders like yourself. We should never delete material based on an anonymous request. permissions-commons wikimedia.org
2. I recommend you offer a meaningful explanation for this image's deletion. This image has been viewed 2000 times , since it was uploaded here. This represents considerable effort on the part of the projects volunteers. Your explanation for your deletion request should be significant enough to justify ignoring the efforts volunteers made in the uploading and curation of this image.

   If the real reason for your deletion request is, well, no offense, simple vanity, your request is most likely to win approval if you honestly own up to this.

   You could upload a superior image. Go to the Barber or hair-dresser, take a selfie of yourself that you think is superior to this image. Upload it, using what we consider a "free" license.

3. User: North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) , at this point some people who are making a request for courtesy deletion get anxious, feel confused, because they want to know what they should do to make sure they can guarantee the image that triggered their concern gets deleted. [ reply ]

   There is no guarantee. You are requesting this properly licensed image's deletion as a courtesy - a favor. The success of your request rests on the strength of your request. Everyone here is supposed to be courteous. We are supposed to be courteous to you. And this courtesy rule applies to you too. So, make sure you remain courteous during this discussion.

   Note: if you upload an additional image, that selfie I recommended above, any WMF member who writes about you, and wants to use an image of you, will choose the best image of you. So, if your selfie is a good image, you can trust that that is the one that will be used. Geo Swan ( talk ) 09:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

4. What if the reason you want the image deleted ISN'T vanity? Over the years I have thought about the other reasons someone might prefer we delete an image of themselves. Alternative reason have included...
   1. Since this image was taken I observed a serious crime, and I am now in an official witness protection program, and I request a courtesy deletion to help protect my safety...
   2. Since this image was taken I have undergone a religious conversion. I am now a member of a church that believes cameras capture an individual's soul, and I request courtesy deletion so I can comply with my church's doctrine...
   3. Since this image was taken I have developed a serious case of body dismorphia. Images of my own body make me ill, and my therapist has written a letter, to you, and everyone else who has an image of me, requesting you delete it to help protect my mental health...

If an individual finds the reason for their request for courtesy deletion embarrassing, should they confine the explanation to their letter to the confidential committee?

It is an option, but I don't think it is a good idea. The committee member could come here, and state the nominator shared a confidential reason for their request. But the decision as to whether to keep or delete lies with the people participating here, not with the committee member. I think that, if the nominator is serious, they would be best served by voicing their true reason here. Geo Swan ( talk ) 09:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

@ Geo Swan Something to note is that the image shows several people. If one of them has a good reason to request the image to be deleted (do we have an official list of reasons? Second one cited above does not sound serious to me, unlike the two others - but the first one should require some proof, like the third one states...) , then it should not affect the others; the main image should be replaced with one that blurrs/blanks the face of that one person, and the extracted image of theirs could be deleted. I can think, however, of no good reason for the deletion of multiple extracted faces. Yet see for example File:Aylwin Lo, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503) (cropped).jpg and File:Pearl Chen, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg ; the IP seems to be claiming to be each and every single person in the photo... this cannot be correct. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) PS. I see this was explained later, feel free to ignore the second part of my message. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Piotrus , WRT the reasons to request courtesy deletion... Fifteen or sixteen years ago I participated in a DR where the justification of the individual requesting courtesy deletion was that she was young, inexperienced, and did not understand all the implications of a CC license. She had gone on a field trip, with fellow students, to Pond Inlet, one of the half dozen smallest, most isolated and most northerly communities in Canada. It is on the North Coast of Baffin Island. She had a great camera, and was a talented photographer, and had taken six dozen or so truly amazing photos. After I uploaded those photos from flickr she had a kind of moral panic, as her six dozen photos included a dozen or so images of Inuit children. These happy energetic children seemed very excited to have visitors to their community. Her moral panic was mainly over having uploaded these images of happy children. I don't know if she would still have felt this panic if the children's parents had explicitly given permision. In fact, she requested all six dozen photos be deleted. The DR decided to only delete those images that showed the Inuit children. Geo Swan ( talk ) 08:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Keep - My keep is probably implied, but I will explicitly state that I, the uploader, favor keeping this image, for the reasons I stated above.

Since I noticed this nomination I cropped the File:Aylwin Lo, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503) (cropped).jpg , File:Pearl Chen, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg , File:Patrick Naval, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg , File:Jacqueline Nuwame, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg , File:Leonardo Dell'Anno, of the CFC Media Lab, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg , File:Andrea Mallozzi, a CFC Media Lab alumnus, at a CFC event at the Bata shoe museum, in 2011 (6210871503).jpg . This is an example of the curation I described to nominator, above. I spent close to two hours on that, cropping the images, repeating my original research on the individuals, and creating wikidata entries for them.

Curation represents significant work. Geo Swan ( talk ) 09:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Thank you for the clarification @ Geo Swan To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure how the processes at Wikimedia Commons worked, so I really appreciate your help. I'm reaching out to request consideration for the deletion of the image due to my personal privacy concerns. However, I understand that this is merely a request and I respect the community's decision-making process. I also didn't realize how much effort had been put into curating the file.

Thank you for your time and consideration. [[Special:Contributions/ North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)| North6318 ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) ]] 01:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

• You are welcome.

1. Your next step, IMO, would be to write to the confidential committee, permissions-commons wikimedia.org , and ask them to confirm you are one of the people in the photograph.
2. Upload your favorite selfie, releasing it under what we consider a "free" license.

• Could you clarify what you mean by "personal privacy concerns" ?
• What legal obligations do organizations like the Canadian Film Centre have to respect the privacy of people who accept invitations to the events they organize? Legally, I don't know, because I am not a lawyer, and the law can be highly counter-intuitive. My suspicion is that they have no legal obligation to honor attendees privacy concerns, so long as there was a note in the invite, or at the door, reminding attendees that official photographers would be circulating...
• What moral obligations do organizations like the Canadian Film Centre have to respect the privacy of people who attend their events? If I were the CFC, I would have a pile of stickers, at the door, next to the name tags, that had one of those circles with a diagonal stripe through it, on top of a camera, and said something like, "I would like to opt out of having my picture taken at this event".

I'd have my official photographers try to avoid including individuals wearing this tag in group photos.

I'd have the photographers go through their photos, prior to printing them, looking to see if they ended up including people wearing the opt-out sticker, in spite of their best efforts. If that individual can be cropped out, or if there is an alternate photo, without them, Great.

But, ultimately, I'd let it be the responsibility of the opt-out person to keep an eye out for photographers. Geo Swan ( talk ) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

•  Keep A properly-licenced, posed, photograph taken at a public event, with no reasonable expectation of privacy. No valid reason for deletion given. [I also note that all of the derived images, of one individual each, are tagged for deletion with the same "I did not consent" rationale.] Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 13:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
  • Andy Mabbett - that is an artifact. When I created headshots cropped from the original they inherited the DR. Sorry if I didn't make that clear when I mentioned them above. Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk ) 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Keep Per above, multiple images of different people, claiming they are one of them. -- RAN ( talk ) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]
•  Keep Interesting attempt at w:censorship by copyright . Deny censorship. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

More time

This edit looks like the nominator took the time to create their own wiki-ID. I think this could be because they are going to write to permissions-commons wikimedia.org , and then make a more detailed request.

So, I suggest we keep this DR open for at least an extra week, to give them a chance to do that.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk ) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Call for closure

Help was offered to the nominator to complete their request for courtesy deletion. Everyone was polite, patient.

More help was promised, if they needed.

More time was offered. They got more time, several weeks. I think it is fair to say this courtesy deletion request was never properly completed, and should be judged abandoned... so call for closure. Geo Swan ( talk ) 04:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. -- Yann ( talk ) 08:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]