Commons:Deletion requests/File:Índios Isolados 4.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Índios Isolados 4.jpg[edit]

Keine Einwilligung der fotografierten. Diskussion unter: Commons:Forum#Welche Regeln gelten für Bilder mit Personen? Johannesfff (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: Nominator claims that the depicted persons haven't given consent to their picture being taken, as might have been required in Brazil: Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil. --Túrelio (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not only not allowed by local law, but also ethically wrong and against Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it." and #Examples: "The following examples typically require consent: Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots" --Johannesfff (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment given the low resolution, I wouldn't call them “identifiable”. --MB-one (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But i would definitly. You can easily identify them. You can clearly see their face and their unique clothing and enviroment can also used to identify them. Even taking that picture was probably illegal in Brazil and Commons:Photographs of identifiable people says: "Where the law forbids taking or publishing a photograph of a person without consent, and consent has not been given, then making the subject hard to identify (such as blurring their face) is unethical: the photograph should not be uploaded to Commons." and "An image is unacceptable to Commons if it is illegal, or arguably illegal, in any one or more of: (a) the country in which the photograph was taken" --Johannesfff (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 CommentWhat about just blur the faces and delete the older Version? --GPSLeo (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, thats not acceptable for several reasons, please read my last comment. --Johannesfff (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per nomination. Blurring is not an option either per our guidelines. As has been mentioned at COM:FORUM, the people depicted clearly did not wish to be photographed. The man aiming his bow and arrow at the photographer is a pretty clear statement. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And it's a clear statement that the laws do not apply for them ;-) --A.Savin 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @A.Savin: I know you're joking, but … well, maybe read that statement again and think about whether you really want to let that sit there. I find that highly disturbing. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I dont understand what you wanted to say with that and why you deleted your own comment. Did you mean something like they dont have rights and are not protected by law? --Johannesfff (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Every human has at least basic human rights, so uncontacted humans do too (not sure what you thought). But that's not the point here; by default, you are allowed to take pictures in this area, unless a) the depicted person clearly says "I don't wish to be photographed", b) there is a law that prohibit taking pictures in this area in general. None seems to be the case here --A.Savin 12:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How do you come to that conclusion? The brazilian law is pretty explicit: Taking images and publishing images of a person require consent! There is no need for active objection, even taking the image is illegal without consent! And other than stated by you, he clearly protests being photographed. And what did you mean with your first sentence "The laws do not apply for them"?? --Johannesfff (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Because, shooting at other people is normally illegal (even in Brazil I guess) --A.Savin 17:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What? Are you crazy? Imagine some group of random strangers that dont look like anyone you have ever seen before walk around on your property and show up at your doorstep. They have every right to point a weapon at the intruders. This would probably be legal in any country. None of your comments make any sense! --Johannesfff (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thgis kind of replies somewhat make me think the same about you, so I'll better quit this discussion --A.Savin 21:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The protest is against other unknown people and not against the photo. Did he know what the photographer is doing? --Migebert (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Image is copied thousands of times all over the world - see google-image-search. Deleting it on commons will change nothing on the status quo and cut WP short of a somewhat powerful image. Also given the age of the image, the low resolution and missing coords, I wouldn't call the persons “identifiable”. -Ordercrazy (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This image has several billion hits on Google's reverse image search. Having it on Commons would change nothing on the status quo and enable WP to show an extremely popular image. We would still delete it within seconds of discovery because of copyright laws. We go so far to CARE about copyright even if the owner does not. Since when has copyright (=money) become more important than personality rights (=people)? And I'm pretty sure their friends and neighbours would be able to identify them. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree with El Grafo. The age of the image and wether other websites use it are irrelevant here. --Johannesfff (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per Ordercrazy --A.Savin 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per my comments above. And all laws aside, could we as a community please try to show a bit more decency and less greed? Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this not getting deleted? Its a clear violation of several Commonsrules, so it should have been deleted immediately. No new arguments against deletion have been posted in a while. Can someone please delete it? --Johannesfff (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete To me, the case is pretty straightforward. This is a photo from Brazil. Per Commons:Country specific consent requirements, Brazil requires consent to take a picture. It's one of the countries with the strictest consent rules. Consent has obviously not been given, as shown by the hostile approach of the depicted. That they are "members of an uncontacted tribe" doesn't deprive them of their personality rights. Ordercrazy's "Image is copied thousands of times all over the world" is also, obviously, not a valid reason to keep that image here. At least here on Commons we strive to respect the law. I'm only not deleting it now because Johannesfff, unfortunately, thought it necessary to point me to this discussion in German-language Wikipedia - I was already aware of this DR and was intending to delete, but now I can't anymore, because as a matter of principle, I don't process deletion requests people point me towards. I'm not an on-demand admin. So another admin will have to deal with this. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: as participation in this DR discussion was a bit "closed shop" (all from :de), I've invited at VP for broader participation due to the general relevance of the discussed issue. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep My two cents:
    1. If these people are uncontacted tribes, then natural law should apply. I see nothing wrong with making graphic descriptions (photos) of unknown peoples, whether or not they are naked.
    2. Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest. Here, the event was civilised humans meeting jungle tribes, and there was a need to document such encounters, hence a government employee Secretaria de Comunicação do Estado do Acre produced this image and the govt agency Agência de Notícias do Acre published it.--Roy17 (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They live in Brazil so they are protected by brazilian law! By your conditions it would basically be acceptable to sneak into a locker room, take pictures and publish them. The term "public interest" is preggy vague. I think this is intened for political scandals or stuff like that. "meeting" is not a accurete description here. They are basically herassing them like paparazzi. This has no historical value, especially considering that additional information of circumstances is missing. I cant think of any public benefit that would justify the violation of their privacy rights. --Johannesfff (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are Índios isolados, so it is not appropriate to compare them to common people living in civilised world. If you still do not see the difference, think of a situation whereby some illegal immigrants, or space aliens, sneaked into Brazil and lived somewhere. Does anyone require their consent to take a picture of them, to illustrate the unusual circumstance of these individuals?
They were not certainly within private properties either. They were outside their hut. It could well be a communal place for their tribe, i.e. they were standing in their public places, if they had concepts of public and private. They pointed weapons maybe because they thought Brazilians invading their country, not the person's hut. So it could be a confrontation in both Brazilian and their public places. Have you considered this possibility?--Roy17 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even to date, many people around the modern world do not have the privilege of extending private ownership to spaces outside shelters like people in the developed world do. I see them standing in public. The Brazilian govt flew over and took a picture, for the purpose of extending the public's knowledge of these uncontacted tribes, but they saw it as intrusion and pointed weapons.--Roy17 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is simply Racism! First of all they are no illegal immigrants that sneaked into Brasil. They where probably there long before any civilised society started to emerge. Even if not, it probably wouldnt matter as the law usually protects anyone regardless of his nationality. Also the circumstances of these individuals are not unusual, they are natural. I definitly would say its private property. You cant say the place 1m from your doorstep in midst of a jungle is a public place, especially as they choose segregate from mainstream society. And they (probably) live in small families where they all know each other or are related. At least for them its a private place (and probably a huge amount of land around their village aswell) wich wich was intruded to create this image. Even if it wasnt private it wouldnt make it acceptable as brazilian law requires consent in public places aswell. --Johannesfff (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was making the point that they were not subjects of Brazil or any recognised sovereignty. Illegal immigrants and space aliens would be two similar examples of beings that are legally not residents of Brazilian law. This is the unusual part, that merits photographic documentation. As you said, Brazil came much later, then why should colonists' law apply to their realm? You would be racist here, by not recognising their unique identities but insisting on application of Brazilian law. They are on their own soil, just like a ship in the high seas. It is definitely acceptable for humans to draw (or now photograph) foreign people, as humans have been doing it all along.--Roy17 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally think that they have the right of sovereignty, but usually it needs several states approving to become an indepentent country. If they had their own state they would have their own law wich likely would forbid outsiders to invade their village and photograph them. And if they were neither subjects of Brazild (Do you have any source for this?) or ther own state, they would still be protected by commonsrules, wich require consent independent from local law. --Johannesfff (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also how are thousands of year old cave paintings relevant for the situation today? --Johannesfff (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roy17: Why would Brazilian law be applied differently to illegal immigrants or alien or people who are not, in your words, "civilized"? Are you saying that consent is only required from citizens of Brazil? If so, please provide something to back up that assertion. If not, what are you trying to say? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are neither ordinary Brazilian nationals nor citizens of any country, hence they are worth news attention. Taking photos of a random Brazilian is not valuable, but isolated people's images can and have made headlines around the world. Just like illegal immigrants and aliens' would. The whole argument of privacy, paparazzi and so on is hence void.--Roy17 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am just trying to make sure you agree that the law of Brazil applies here. Not "natural law" (whatever that means) or US law, but the law of Brazil where the photo was taken? Yes? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep non-copyright restrictions on photography are restrictions on reuse. what is the risk? has there ever been a lawsuit or stern letter from people in Brazil or Spain or Switzerland? why would you then pre-emptively censor encyclopedic content? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why dont we completely abolish Ethics, Commonsrules and Law? Its all just censorship ;-) --Johannesfff (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why don't we abolish all talk of ethics, as you are not listening to the consensus. there is no universal personality rights law; trying to formulate it here is bound to fail. righting great wrongs will not happen in the toxic battleground here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment @Johannesfff: there is generally no need to repeat your opinion after every statement of a contrary opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not an argument --Johannesfff (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It shows that their doesn't seem to be any legal problem with publication in Brazil, since the government knows its own laws. Regarding Commons policy, I assume the photo is taken outdoors in some kind of government reserve area, which wouldn't be considered a "private place". --ghouston (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks to Ghouston for this discovery. Taken from its caption: A foto, premiada na 11ª edição do Prêmio José Chalub Leite de Jornalismo, mostra o modo de vida adotado por muitos povos, mantendo-se com suas tecnologias e culturas. It won a journalist photo award, so it is indeed a photo of news events of public interest which would override consent from the subjects.--Roy17 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick google search didnt get me any good results, so this award is probably irrelevant. Does someone know the exact definition of public interest? That would be helpful when discussing about it. This public interest exception is not even written down in the law, but only known from cases. And it is ouverruled by commonsrules anyway as far as i understand them. --Johannesfff (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a exposição de fotos dos índios isolados do Acre, feitas por Gleilson Miranda, trará uma pequena mostra da diversidade amazônica, Prefeitura de Rio Branco.
O trabalho foi repetido em 2009 e 2010. As primeiras imagens ganharam o mundo e foram expostas em Brasília e na Austrália. O último material lhe rendeu o prêmio de jornalismo acreano Chalub Leite., Notícias do Acre. (Please do click this link and read. The photos had made news headlines around the world, and been exhibited in Brazil and Australia. The photographer was even holding a book of these images!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy17 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brazilian governments whose laws you are citing to delete the images do not think so. They commissioned this expedition, produced the images, released them in news reports, and hosted an exhibition. An exhibition, as well as news reports and online postings, of course serves the purpose of informing the public of the existence of this uncontacted tribe. They have also kept the images online for eight years.
This exception is pretty easy to understand, otherwise all images of news events, especially of a large crowd such that it is impossible to obtain each person's consent, should be rejected. Could you please give evidence that Brazilian law is as strict as what you suggest, that news photos of humans violate privacy rights?
When Brazilians don't think it's wrong under their law, why would others insist on a strictest application of Brazilian law?--Roy17 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who says that that goverment cant break the law. All information we have so far lead to that conclusion. An just because they havent gotten into legal trouble doesnt mean its legal. The isolated people are basically victims wich cant defend themselfes because they dont know brazilian law or the justice system. An when the gouverment reserves an area especially for them it rather makes a more private place than the opposite --Johannesfff (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All arguments brought forward for keeping that image are easily refuted, I think. As far as I can see, they are mainly along the lines of:

  • Taking photographs is allowed unless the depicted person clearly says "I don't wish to be photographed" (A.Savin) - that's a reversal of the actual state of affairs which is that taking photographs of persons in Brazil without their explicit permission isn't allowed. Per Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Brazil, "just taking someone's photo without their permission (in private or public space) can violate their image right and gives them a right to compensation for moral damage". Stating that you're allowed to take pictures (of persons) "by default" is therefore simply wrong.
  • Something like "Shooting at other people is illegal, so the laws do not apply for them" - doesn't make much sense, i.e. I see no indication that people should lose their personality rights on such grounds in Brazil.
  • "Image is copied thousands of times all over the world" (Ordercrazy) - doesn't make it legal. Could be said for copyright violations as well, we're deleting these anyway.
  • Persons not "identifiable"? Even though the resolution is rather low, the faces are clear enough and I'm pretty sure that friends of these people would know and could identify them.
  • "If these people are uncontacted tribes, then natural law should apply" (Roy17) - well, even though they don't live in the so-called "civilised" world, I assume that the area is still considered part of Brazil by the Brazilian authorities; there is no independent state there, to the best of my knowledge, so Brazil laws basically apply - even if they can't be enforced there due to the tribe being uncontacted. But why shouldn't the law apply for those "civilised" people who took and disseminate the picture?
  • The picture is published by the government and won a prize - governments aren't infallible. Maybe the responsible people indeed thought it "okay" to treat these people that way, ignoring their personality rights, because they're an "interesting" example of an isolated tribe and so on, but that wouldn't make it legal. It seems to be indeed accepted that there are exceptions for public figures and "people who are present in a public space or participating in a public event (unless the depicted person is the main focus of the picture)", but here we have two people who are certainly "the main focus" of the picture, not just accidentally present in an image of public space.

So, my conclusion would still be to delete the image. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Gestumblindi: I think it would come under "people related to news events of public interest (only if necessary and reasonably justified and if the reported facts are true)", stated on consent requirements#Brazil. In any case, it seems like the legal risk of using the file would be minimal, so the file can be considered free in practice. Many files on Commons have theoretical legal risk, but would be unlikely to be deleted if nominated (e.g., for PD-Art or FoP issues). --ghouston (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ghouston: Would it be really "necessary" and "reasonably justified" to take and publish pictures of people who most obviously have not agreed to contact and having their picture taken? A "minimal legal risk" is also never a valid reason for keeping images; although COM:PRP is about copyright, not personality rights, some of the invalid arguments described there as being "against Commons' aims" can be applied in an analogous manner, such as The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to or The copyright owner will never find out. Replace in this case "copyright owner" with "person whose personality rights are infringed". I think El Grafo has asked a good question in this discussion: "Since when has copyright (=money) become more important than personality rights (=people)?". We're always so zealous to respect copyright, and applying COM:PRP, every day huge numbers of images are deleted where it's quite unlikely that the copyright owner would ever sue. I'm not opposed to this, not at all. I think it's right to respect copyright, and I'm deleting images with unclear copyright status as well. But I think we should respect personality rights not less, and also apply a kind of "precautionary principle" there. As for Roy17's comments, I indeed think that categories such as Category:Homeless people of Brazil are highly problematic, not just in Brazil - although images like File:O Povo quer dignidade.jpg where the person clearly isn't identifiable should be acceptable. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we were so concerned about such things, we'd be deleting photos that don't have consent throughout Commons, not just for certain countries in certain situations. Occasionally, somebody will even come to Commons and request that a picture of them be deleted, and these requests are usually denied it seems to me. --ghouston (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment When in practice Brazilian citizens, news agencies and governments do not exercise such stringent restrictions on taking photos, I doubt if all the arguments for deletion are based on correct interpretation of Brazilian law. The entire segment on Brazil was written by one user JordiCuber. @JordiCuber: your opinion on this case will be very much appreciated.
And if possible, please ask for professional legal opinions from Brazil, or see if WMF can help.
It should not be deleted if no professional opinion supports so. At least get some Brazilians or any Portuguese speaking users look into this please. When yall insist Brazil law is so and so, please involve experts or at least locals.--Roy17 (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I am a bit torn here. Although, I agree to apply the local laws, and to respect the rights of people, especially in this case, Roy17 made a good point above. It seems that the law is not applied as advocated here, so I don't think we should be stricter than Brazilians in applying the local laws. It doesn't make sense if our interpretation of the law is completely different than what local people do. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The other way round, please (in the spirit of COM:PCP, as there obviously is "significant doubt" here). If it can be shown that our understanding of Brazilian law as it is written down at Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil is overly cautious and the file is legally fine to keep: Fine, let's keep it. I don't think WMF legal would step in here, but maybe it's worth a try asking. --El Grafo (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Why is this discussion so much about our interpretation of the local law? The rules we should consider are: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people which clearly says consent is required even if local law doesnt require it. The question wether this is legal in brazil or not is completely irrelevant here. --Johannesfff (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question whether this is legal in Brazil is very much the core of the issue. If it is, then the page you linked above is wrong. And not only the letter of the law, but how it is applied is important. So far, it seems it is not applied very strictly, to say the least, or even not at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would this be the core of the issue? The violation of one rule is enough for deletion, theres no need to clarify weather other rules have been violated. --Johannesfff (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I confess to not have decided if we should keep the image or not, mainly due to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people moral and ethical aspects. However, I do not see a Brazilian court finding for damages in this case. "Public interest" is very broadly defined in Brazilian courts and taking this photograph in a journalistic context would most certainly apply. Chico Venancio (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beside all other issues in this case: There is a difference between taking a picture and publishing a picture. It's right, that it's not allowed to take pictures of such uncontacted people. But the picture was already taken, and cannot make untaken. The signs (e. g. here) are providing the reason for the prohibition of taking photos: The people could rate the camera for a weapon. That's feasible, and could be the reason of the uplifted lance on the picture.
But as I wrote: The picture is already taken. The special law to not taking the picture is already broken, and that should not be the question here anymore. The intention of this special law is to prevent the uncontacted people from being feard of attacks with weapons and has nothing in common with publishing such photos. --Stepro (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though it is very dangerous for the uncontacted natives and to the photographers, I'm not aware of any law in Brazil specifically about their image of photo taking. FUNAI does regulate the entrance in their land, if it is recognized as such by the federal government (not sure if that is the case here or not). Chico Venancio (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm changing my view to  Keep here. I do believe there are personality rights restricting all possible uses of this image and this should be noted on the page with the appropriate template (✓ Done [1]). There are no copyrights beyond those given by the free license and the moral and ethical consent issues are, in my view outweighed by the right to information and freedom of the press. The photograph is taken in a journalistic context and as long as it is used in an educational or journalistic context it is fine to be used from a Brazilian law and ethical perspectives, in my view.

I confess to be no expert on this matter and could be convinced otherwise. What weighs the most on my opinion to keep are the considerations on this book about copyright and personality rights about indigenous people in Brazil, specifically pages 48-51 that deal with the limitations of personality rights and when is consent required and from whom. The biggest explicit exception to previous consent for photographs and publishing cited there is photojournalism. "O exercício do jornalismo é revestido de interesse público, na medida em que cumpre a função de informar a sociedade. Trata-se do direito difuso à informação, de caráter público e geral, que sobrepõe-se ao direito de imagem, razão por que a autorização do retratado é dispensada, e não há que se falar em autorização de uso de imagem, gratuita ou onerosa." (The practice of journalism is embedded by public interest, as it fulfills the function to inform society. It is the diffuse right to information, of a public and general character, that outweighs the right of personality, so that the approval of the portrayed is dismissed, and there is no need to talk about personality use consent, neither free nor paid.) [1] Chico Venancio (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chicocvenancio: Use in journalism is Fair Use. We don't allow Fair Use here on Wikimedia Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair use policies deal with copyright issues, not personality rights. The Brazilian doctrine means in such cases personality rights could be waived, because it is the diffuse right to information, of a public and general character, that outweighs the right of personality, so that the approval of the portrayed is dismissed, and there is no need to talk about personality use consent, neither free nor paid.--Roy17 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeff G., Roy17 is correct. Fair Use is a specific US legal doctrine dealing with exceptions to copyright infringement. The copyrights are not disputed in this photo, it belongs to State Government of Acre and it has decided to license in a free license. The personality rights are a more murky situation, but reading the ethical discussions and law and legal doctrine I believe we can and should keep it. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: The above discussion didn't show that personality rights current practice in Brazil are violated in this picture. If the government of Brazil itself has published the picture, it probably means that the application of the law is quite different to what some people claim to be. --Yann (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ↑ Baptista, Fernando Mathias Os povos indígenas frente ao direito autoral e de imagem / Fernando Mathias Baptista, Raul Silva Telles do Valle. -- São Paulo : Instituto Socioambiental, 2004. Vários colaboradores. ISBN 85-85994-25-8 Available at https://www.socioambiental.org/sites/blog.socioambiental.org/files/publicacoes/10114.pdf
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Índios_Isolados_4.jpg&oldid=332002080"