Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg

[edit]

Doubt of pirating. —the preceding unsigned comment is by DRAGONBALLXYZ (talk • contribs)

What you mean by "doubt of pirating"? The Flickr user admitted he had taken the image, and in fact he displays two images. -- ReyBrujo 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the user had taken pictures on the same day about the place, another image of the singer, and the current image uploaded to Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i have to agree, this is obviously a taken picture: it's resolution is that of a normal picture, 1204 x 768, and it's obviously not of the highest quality. It's definetely not a pirated picture either; he has other pictures from the same place. -- Artistthatneverwas 7:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with this file. Why would we assume Doubt of pirating? -- KyonEN 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been picking tidbits here and there, and apparently in Japan it is not allowed to take pictures of singers while on stage. My speculation: this may be a restriction of Avex Trax or other companies because they hold "Personality rights" over the figure. I will see if I can contact someone with better knowledge, but as far as I know, until DRAGONBALLXYZ explains himself, there is no problem with the image. -- ReyBrujo 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see your point, but she's not on stage in the picture, so that doesn't make sense. -- Artistthatneverwas 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there. So far, I reached a fairly empty page where they basically explain that the copyright is held by the artist, photographer, etc, and that without their permission it is not possible to reproduce. The closest I was to finding a place where to post a note was here, but it won't reach the guys I want. -- ReyBrujo 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm not fluent at all in Japanese (I would classify myself as ja-0.8, hehe), I think that (first) page only contains information about the artist's booklets/discs/etc. I can not find another mail address or anything else on their site, though. -- KyonEN 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning a Japanese right of likeness, you cannot use this image.In the first place if it is what you took, it is pirating.--DRAGONBALLXYZ 13:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, does this mean that if I snap a picture of, lets say, Koda Kumi, and upload it to the internet, she can sue me for piracy? *confused* --KyonEN 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point us to the law or to someone who can explain it better? As I said, I understand your point, however I would like reading the wording directly, or talking with someone who is able to explain and quote the regulations. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for japanese right of likeness delivers Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Range-Murata-03.jpg. However, in that specific case, the subject of the image contacted the Japanese Wikipedia and requested to have the image removed. Therefore, if we apply the same rationale, Utada Hikaru should contact either Wikimedia Commons or the japanese version of Wikipedia and demand to have it down. -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further investigation reveals a little more information at this blog entry. However, the blogger could not find the law that was being broken, nor we have it here. From what I understand after reading it, it appears that there is no law that is really against publishing the image, but instead it is a cultural imposition pushed by record companies. I would like getting more information so that I stop searching around for jpop images, though. -- ReyBrujo 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any problem. The ridiculous accusation is that DRAGONBALLXYZ saying "pirating"! Because she smiles for us ;) --WashiR 18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore your thing is pirated to say many times.Please examine a right of likeness by oneself.What may I do if not charged?There is not a right with a photograph of Utada if I do not understand a Japanese sense after all.--DRAGONBALLXYZ 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was licensed under a free content license by the author, any en:moral rights discussion is orthogonal to this debate. This is a freely licensed image. - cohesion 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At it was suggested a similar usage to Image:Nazi Swastika.svg. The symbol may be considered illegal in some countries, so the image has a disclaimer. As Cohesion said, the image is free, even though there is a moral issue. We could add a disclaimer to every picture about japanese persons stating there may be moral issues with the image, but it is still free. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note we already have a template for Template:Personality rights which I've added to the image. If it's necessary to make a specific one for Japan because of the apparent extremely strict personality rights in Japan I suggest it be based on this one. Also wider discussion should be undertaken first Nil Einne 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against wider discussion. Note that what I have stated are what I think is happening: we don't know if there is a privacy law or it is just custom, we don't know if this would restrict only the Japanese Wikipedia from using images or all of them, whether the Japanese law is applicable to the servers regardless of location, etc. We need legal counsel from Japan if possible. -- ReyBrujo 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, the only reason to remove this image is because of Utada's privacy. Am I right? --KyonEN 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently. -- ReyBrujo 02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a restriction outside of copyright, just like trademark law and the like. In such cases, as noted above, we simply note on the image description page that such issues may exist in certain jurisdictions. Morven 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Image is not a copyright violation. While there may be moral-rights issues in certain jurisdictions (may being the critical word; nobody has cited an actual law here, just assertions lacking detail) these have precedent not to be cause for deletion. Morven 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Exactly the same reason as Morven. --KyonEN 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say if Utada is is really concerned about the picture, she would have asked for it to be removed. All of her CD covers have her picture on them. So, she obviously doesn't mind especially if she saw them take her picture (which she did because she smiled.) Also, In America you can't take pictures in some concerts either but people do anyway. I don't see a problem with the picture. Keep it. (Anonymous) 14:59, 28 April 2007
  •  Keep Strong doubt that DRAGONBALLXYZ's explaination is far from adequate. All aspects of the image indicates that this is totally legit. Obviously no Japanese moral or constitutional problem. Probably not worth the effort to go into deep depths over a deletion request that so far clearly fails to explain itself. —Tokek 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image can be verified not to be pirated by visiting its source site: http://flickr.com/photos/84063124@N00/7773326 It is listed under a creative commons license. Reason for doubting piracy is not mentioned, and nobody has been able to speculate what that reason could be. If there are other reasons for the deletion request and if the submitter is more fluent in another language, I would request the user post in that language so we could better understand what the reason for the deletion request is. —Tokek 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Please reconsider. It is NOT the matter of copyright. Provably she did not agree with the picture of herself to be taken at that situation. So it should be violating some privacy rights. The picture is so-called secret photography, isn't it? See Japanese Association of Music Enterprises (JAME) website [1] (sorry in Japanese), it says that "although there is no act which directly regulates the violation of privacy of celebrities such as singers and actors, precedents show that such the infringements (including the using/taking of pictures without permissions) should not be allowed". Also see ja:プライバシー. --Calvero 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is interesting that the above two accounts (KyonEN & Tokek) seems to be taken just only for this deletion request. I guess this picture really being needed. But I think it is illegal. Plese do not wait until the action from the Utada's office. --Calvero 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I haven't uploaded any pictures of Tokyo yet; I'm just back since Sunday. Do you want me to upload pictures immediately? -- KyonEN 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit: There, uploaded just for you. -- KyonEN 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for a pretty good photo. But, I just wanted to point out that the picture attracting attention (possibly because of the argument by the nominator seems oddly for some people), and not wanted to criticize newbies. I think getting an acconut for discussion is totally not bad. It seems that the standpoint for privacy is somewhat specific in Japan. --Calvero 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, I'll upload more, but I don't know which I should upload first, lol. Anyway, I just think that this picture is somewhat needed on Wikipedia projects, where no license like 'Fair use' is available. The reason for deleting this image should rather be something like "The Japanese <<right of likeness>> prohibits the legal use of this image", or not? Seriously, what's up with "Doubt of pirating"? Wiktionary gives this meaning to piracy: the unauthorized duplication of goods protected by intellectual property law (eg copying software unlawfully). What kind of intellectual property does Hikaru have over this image according to Japanese jurisdiction? -- KyonEN 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't now how DRAGONBALLXYZ intended the word "pirating". But, in Japan, the office of any celebrities has the control of the pictures of them, regardless who took them. At least they claim so. They intend to save their profit by controlling the right for using pictures, e.g., no one can sell/publish any calender or postcard without the permission of the clebrities' office. Anyway, I don't know how to treat this problem. I am just afraid of leagal action from a office. --Calvero 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a copyright issue, so I will ignore the piracy comment by DRAGONBALL XYZ (who has left Wikipedia) from now on. And I will also recommend deprecating the term "right of likeness" which he used. While article 21 of Japan's constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the FAQ linked by Calvero states that there is no law related to shōzōken in Japan. To explain shōzōken, I have translated entries from Daijirin Dictionary:

  • Shōzōken: The right to refuse displayal of pictures or photos of one's face or appearance. Considered part of jinkakuken.
  • Jinkakuken: A generic term refering to rights inseperably related to a person's existance or personality. A right related to one's life, body, freedom, honor, image, and privacy. (See also: w:Personality rights.)

The picture with no known copyright problems shows Utada Hikaru smiling in public. Calvero's linked FAQ does not give any specific example court cases relating to shōzōken, however I don't see how this photo could be considered harmful or problematic from an intuitive standpoint. What are referred to as shōzōken cases are really just slander and libel cases like those relating to "idol collages." Voyeurism is against Japanese privacy law, however this is taken in public so it doesn't apply. For JAME, as the organization that represents these artists in court cases, it is benefitial for them to be as vague as they can possibly get away with in their FAQ in order to sound like the artists have more rights than they actually have. —Tokek 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the term "right of likeness" is often used in English translations of Japanese to refer to shōzōken. I was reading both the shōzōken and Personality rights articles from Wikipedia. The Japanese article cites the "John Lenon Incident" - Tokyo Metro sold prepaid cards that had his image on it without permission from heir Yoko Ono. Celebrities are generally granted less privacy rights (in EU, US, JP at least), but instead they are often granted publicity rights:

"In a publicity rights case the issue to decide is whether a significant section of the public would be misled into believing (incorrectly) that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between a plaintiff and a defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising involving the image or reputation of a famous person." -- w:Personality rights

And:

"In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off." -- ibid.

Presumably it is not too different in Japan. Maybe a notice stating that there is no commercial arrangement held with Utada could reduce legal risks with regard to publicity rights (財産権 zaisanken). Also since Wikimedia Foundation is a not-for-profit organization, I wouldn't consider the photo as commercial speech. I don't see copyright, libel, slander, or privacy problems. The image could potentially be used to violate publicity rights, but I don't consider the current usage as such. —Tokek 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —Angr 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Utada_Hikaru_Kanto_2004.jpg&oldid=17810209"