Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Moment of Birth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The moment of birth

[edit]
Original - A team of obstetricians perform a caesarean section in a modern hospital. The image shows the very first moment the mother glimpses her new-born child.
Edit 2 by Diliff. Same idea as Victorrocha but kept original resolution and slightly cleaner noise reduction (compare background, eg clock)
File:Cesarian the moment of birth4.jpg
Diff version.
Reason
As another user commented, the WOW factor is incredible (this definitely makes you want to read accompanying article). The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted. I find the edit cleans the picture up to the degree that it meets the FP requirements. Was originally posted to WP:PPR and seconded here Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Cesarian
Articles this image appears in
Caesarean_section
Creator
Salimfadhley
  • Support as nominator --smooth0707 (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my comment on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Cesarian. Imperfect, but awesome image. Fletcher (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where's the model permission? DurovaCharge! 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see why one is required, especially since no one is this photo is identifiable, as the woman is lying down and the doctors are covered. smooth0707 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's call this a matter of perspective. I am a woman. If anyone ever shows up in a delivery room where I am giving birth and attempts to use "she's lying down" as a pretext to take photographs without my permission, I will leap from the gurney, tackle the SOB, and eat the camera. DurovaCharge! 15:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The presence of this picture here implies nobody "tackled the SOB" and ate the camera. Muhammad(talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct, it would be very hard to sneak into that particular surgery and start taking snapshots of strangers. All images were taken with the full knowledge and consent of all present (except for the baby). --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A bit harder to do during a c-section than a regular birth: general anesthesia. How do we know she was any more willing to permit photography of the delivery than she would have been of the conception? DurovaCharge! 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, no one in the photo is identifiable, with the doctors masked, the new mother facing away, and, while the baby is uncovered, all newborns pretty much look alike. The lack of clearly identifiable individuals would seem to cut against the argument their personality or privacy rights are being infringed. Nevertheless, I can't pretend to offer a legal opinion; perhaps someone else knows more. Fletcher (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not know British law. If it is anything like the U.S., a standard hospital consent form would grant permission for limited photography purposes (patient care, scientific research and medical training). Anything beyond that use would require additional specific consent, and presence in Wikipedia (let alone the main page) goes far beyond those limited purposes. That standard applies to all medical procedures, not just childbirth. DurovaCharge! 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This photo was taken in a private hospital, therefore the only consent required was that of the surgeons and the mother. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do we know British law applies rather than Florida law? Wikipedia is not in the London hospital, taking the pictures. We are hosting the image from Florida. And I doubt Florida law covers people in London hospitals. Fletcher (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, where site policy is to respect the law of both the home country and the United States. Another editor notes below that this photograph may be in violation of the European convention on human rights. DurovaCharge! 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose I agree with Durovas questioning of the image having appropriate approvals, the medical team would obviously not have given permission for their image to used commercially, I also note that in Australia a doctor can be deregistered for such actions, that while I'm not sure of the UK position commonalities between UK and Aust are in the majority. Gnangarra 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean that a doctor can be deregistered for such actions...? What actions exactly? Allowing a photographer to take a photo of them during a procedure? I have no idea whether you're right or not, but it sounds a bit over the top. I'm sure I've seen photos taken before. How many families have photos, or even video, of a childbirth? Is that something for a doctor to be deregistered for? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allowing a photo to be taken by a person for a private record isnt an issue, allowing an image to be taken for commercial purposes violates ethical standards and such violations can see the doctor de-registered. Gnangarra 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah sorry, I didn't see that you meant commercial photography. OK, but what about documentaries filmed in a hospital.. you sometimes see footage of an actual operation, and a documentary is commercial. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Such things would have obtained the necessary approvals as seen in the credits, my oppose is based on the image licensing and whether the necessary approval has been granted from the medical team for unrestricted commercial use. Gnangarra 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Surely the privacy/personality issue has come up before? Hopefully I didn't miss something, but I didn't see anything pertinent in Image Use Policy or featured picture criteria. Does the apparent lack of policy indicate it's only an issue between photographer and subject? Or does Wikipedia experience "second hand" liability if a freely licensed photograph is found to infringe the rights of the subject? Hmmm. Fletcher (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are going on this, Photography_and_the_law (see UK section), then I quote "in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes." Unless someone presents something more definitive, I think it is jumping the gun to vote oppose (based on the permission doubts), similiar to our friend Gnan. In addition, I do not believe that any permission is required when no one is identifiable, but I will look up definitive info if I can. smooth0707 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I did see under the General Disclaimer that Wikipedia explicitly disavows responsibility for photographs that infringe on personality rights. Thus, it should be a matter between the photographer and subject. I presume if a lawsuit developed Wikipedia could conceivably have to remove the offending photo, but I don't see why we would have to preemptively suppress photos we have explicitly denied responsibility for. Furthermore, as the subjects are not identifiable, it's rather unlikely there will be any issue with it down the road.Fletcher (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allow me to be explicit then. Although I don't perceive any deliberate bias and all of the participants to this discussion are probably decent people, there is also an undercurrent which is--to say the least--disturbing. Some women allow their childbirths to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. Some women allow their copulations to be photographed and distributed; others, most vehemently, do not. We have no idea which view this woman holds. I doubt very much we would even consider a photograph of comparable quality of two human beings copulating with equivalent proportions of their bodies, faces, and the surrounding room visible unless their permission had been explicitly granted, because this is sufficient detail for the people who already know the individuals well to recognize them. And if this subject happens to be of the opinion that childbirth is as private as lovemaking, then this discussion is downright dehumanizing. It reduces one of the most important moments in her life to the level of the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet: look at the female mammal generating offspring, as expressed by a group of males who can never themselves be humiliated in this particular manner. The nearest parallel I can think of would be a photograph of a vasectomy with the patient's face partially visible, the medical team's faces partially visible, and the operating room in such good depth of focus that it's easily recognizable to anyone who knows the department and the hospital. Camera metadata are a strong hint to the rest. If a man who is having a vasectomy consents to such a photograph I will support it, and if this woman likes the idea of her childbirth running on Wikipedia's main page I will support it. But until and unless she grants that permission my opinion here has to be very strong oppose. Call that WP:IAR if necessary: this is just plain wrong. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the relation between childbirth and porn. I do not know what undercurrent you see, but I nominated this picture because I thought it was an amazing picture highlighting the first moment of life, not to mention its encyclopedic nature. The Free Arts license attached to it is concerned with respect. The nomination is in a great respect to childbirth and to the author of the photograph and a nod to its rarity. This is the 21st century and many women choose C-sections as a preference, and I think this photograph is a tremendous illustration of that. It does not demean the moment in that woman's life whatsoever (who I remind is unidentifiable). Please do not take offense to that. smooth0707 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about the copyright laws but I see that this image successfully passed as an FP without any model permission. Muhammad(talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • British law and the Wikipedia misquote above from Wikipedia. The full sentence says,

"Photography without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights, however in general there is no right to privacy under UK law, and photograph of individuals may be used for any purposes. In addition persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment. In general, schools disallow photography and video recording of people due to privacy concerns. "

  • It's always interesting to me what people choose to omit to prove their points. Now, Wikipedia isn't the authority on British photography law, but since if it were taken "without consent of someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it could be considered to be against the European convention on human rights."
  • You omitted that it might be a violation of her human rights. But, hell, she's a woman, what's another woman's human rights violated?
  • I think this photograph should come with a permission of the models. With the models' permissions, its a wonderful image, without it's just more exploitation. But again, what's a human rights violation when a Wikipedia FP is at stake? Please, just ask the photographer to get the model's permission. It's simple. Don't guess, just get the permission. --Blechnic (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, be civil. You're the second person in this review to assume sexism. Fletcher (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no release form, this is just a family snapshot of which we are particularly proud - if you are concerned then rather than imagine what my wife must be thinking then one of you can meet her, verify that she is the same person and then ask her yourself. Contact me directly if you are interested. Thanks! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statistically sound assumption when it comes to human rights violations and women. I'm concerned about privacy issues, identification issues, release issues. So is Durova. Her concerns are being dismissed. These issues were dismissed with a misquote from a Wikipedia article. This raises questions to me, and statistically, in the world, brick or web, the human rights of women are not of great concern. That is a far greater incivility than mentioning it or suspecting it can ever be. -Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically sound or not, you are assuming bad faith if you say someone is motivated out of sexism and disregard for women. Legal matters can get very complex; the mere fact that someone makes an interpretation that might be adverse to a woman hardly implies it is done out of sexism. Quite possibly it is the British interpretation of privacy that will be practically relevant, even if there is some potential appeal to the EU, which could explain why he quoted it that way. In addition, why do you interpret disagreement with Durova as dismissal of her concerns? This isn't some old boys' club; it's a wiki. No one gets to dismiss her, but we can disagree, if we want. Fletcher (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify for my own part: I assume the best of intentions and basic decency on the part of all parties. Certain scenes are just much easier or harder to relate to from a given perspective. If someone were to nominate a photograph of a circumcision being performed on an adult, my predominant reaction would be a clinical curiosity about what the operation looks like supplemented with an interest in public health issues as the procedure relates to HIV transmission. Most men would react very differently. It becomes a little harder to maintain good faith after having set forth the substance and reasoning of my misgivings in an articulate and (I hope) nonconfrontational manner, but I am maintaining it: I trust that the obstacle is an alien perspective, very hard to imagine effectively when one's anatomy is fundamentally different, and that everyone in this discussion is a well-meaning person. DurovaCharge! 01:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Fletcher for pointing out that the sexism claims are misdirected. If I did misquote, its not a failure on my part to recognize women's rights, I was taking the relevant part about UK, not some broad claim about the EU that has no source. The source for that Wiki page is this about Photographer's rights, unfortunately, it does not cover this particular situation and I haven't been able to find anything else on the matter (yet). I would also like to reiterate that I do not think it matters if I am male or female, I look at this picture from an objective third party perspective and I think it is an amazing photograph. Also Durova, with all due respect, you keep mentioning anatomy, but isn't that the case with medical related pictures? If there was a photograph nominated of a vasectomy or circumcision then I would judge that photograph exactly how you expressed, with a clinical perspective coupled with an encyclopedic view, as I am doing here. I personally believe that most people seeing this picture for the first time will be thoroughly surprised on seeing a picture like this one. I can understand if you feel differently however and do not mean to disregard your opinion. My point is that it seems to me that none of us know if a model release is required in this case. A reliable source would certainly end this discussion, although I am surprised this matter has never arisen before[citation needed]. In the meantime, I will ask Salimfadhley to get a model release, despite the fact that none of us are sure on the law. smooth0707 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I didn't realize you already did. smooth0707 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it over carefully and decided that even if model release isn't legally required, context and common sense demand it. Wikimedia projects often handle images more conservatively than the bare minimum statutory requirement: consider Wikipedia's fair use parameters and Commons's decision to not host material based upon inapplicable local law even though United States copyright is the only restriction it is required to observe. The shared element is courtesy--we endeavor to refrain from exploitation. This woman was unconscious when the photograph was taken. We have no assurance that she permitted it or that she even knows it exists, yet we are seriously contemplating displaying it on Wikipedia's main page where it will be seen by approximately seven million people. This is why I invoked WP:IAR: it may be that no one anticipated such a discussion, and I will be very grateful if she does consent, but we must not presume. A consent to publish the actual birth of one's child is the most personal decision in the world. DurovaCharge! 03:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: What makes you think that the mother was unconscious when the photograph was taken? In my experience general anaesthesia during caesarean section is rare and there is no evidence in the photograph that it was used in this case. Also, I count six adults present in the image, none of whom could fairly be described as the subject. 66.240.20.113 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My wife was fully conscious throughout the entire procedure - that is why there is a surgical screen, to prevent the mother from seeing and becoming disturbed by the procedure. At the end of the procedure (and after baby is checked by the midwife), baby is given to the mother to hold for the first time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very standard procedure; I see no reason to suspect that the Mother, obstetricians or other medial staff were unaware that the photograph was being taken. Support 66.240.20.113 (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<=Wikipedia's image policies are structured to promote free content, which doesn't seem to be the issue here. Wikipedia is not censored, so we do not suppress images as a courtesy to people who don't want them shown. I haven't seen any policy against exploitation, and I'm not even sure what that term is supposed to mean. I do think we should figure out if the photographer infringed the subject's rights. If he did, we should not compound the damages done even if Wikipedia is not liable (as we are not, per the General Disclaimer). If he didn't -- either she consented or her consent was not required -- I don't see the harm in featuring the image. It's a wonderful image, and the benefit to Wikipedia's readers will far exceed any harm done to the subject. Indeed I don't really understand what harm is done to the subject: she is not identifiable, nor is the baby, in my opinion, nor are the doctors, so the image does not expose anything about her particular life, because nothing in particular is known about her. Her head faces away, with her body covered in blankets. The newborn looks like any newborn; it could be any of us, as its mother could be any of our mothers. In that way the image has artistic value complementing its encyclopedic value. I continue to support, if the image is legal. Fletcher (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the person who took this photo. The "model" is my wife and the baby is my baby. This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present (except the baby who could not have any say in the matter. He's now 2 years old. I asked him if he minds Wikipedia using this image and he ran off to do something more interesting. This image has been used all over the world - I think it's been on the cover of at least one obstetrics journal (in Mexico) and it's been on Flickr for over 2 years now. Nobody objects to it being on Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec - now mostly redundant)Strong Support if the model's permission can be obtained per a striking and moving image. If the model can't be found then still I think Support per Fletcher (assuming the image is legal - agree with Fletcher we should check). As the woman and doctors are unrecognisable I don't see any great need to remove the image to protect their privacy. Since the question has been raised, I am a man, but I don't think my support is due to my "anatomy [being] fundamentally different": I can't speak for most men, but I'd be acting exactly the same (and exactly the same as Durova describes herself acting) if the picture were of a circumcision or vasectomy. If the image were good and the subject anonymous, as I believe they are here, I'd be supporting just the same. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support despite being a bit grainy in the shadows. Had we but asked the uploader first, all those electrons used in the discussion above could have been left unbothered... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although could be less grainy in some areas. If there is more reason than conjecture that this might violate privacy (it has bee freely released) then you should attempt to have this image deleted. But I don't really see that there is beyond guessing. gren グレン 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral the original photo is released under a "CC Non-commerical by attribution" license on Flickr - that means if somebody feels the photo would be better with the mother's face blurred out then they are free to do so as attribution is preseved. I honestly do not mind as long as the CC rules are followed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just realized - this is my baby daughter (not my son). They all look the same when they were newborns. The original photo is here: http://flickr.com/photos/salimfadhley/2141742390/in/set-72157603567517647/ --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask your wife to grant her permission in writing. That's the only barrier here, but it's quite a serious one. DurovaCharge! 16:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what benefit is gained by a written release when all we have is his word that the person giving his release is actually his wife, as opposed to him giving his word that this wife consents. Mangostar (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound redundant, but based on the points raised by Fletcher and Olaf, and from the author's comments, I do not think it is a "barrier" to being a FP, although I don't see how a release would hurt. smooth0707 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware that the license you released the image on at Wikipedia is not non-commercial? The fine print of the Free Art License states "it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work including for commercial purposes and without any other restrictions than those required by the respect of the other compatibility criteria;". This conflicts with the license you released it with on Flickr... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't believe a model permission is necessary in this case. Worst to the worst, Wikipedia would get a cease and desist letter, the photograph would be taken down, and that would be that. NauticaShades 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportStrong Oppose But I would like a model release, also. The graininess can't be helped with the lighting situation, so this doesn't matter. It's a very generic childbirth, too, because of the limited view of the mother, and the timing. Yes, Salim, son/daughter, the whole human race looks pretty much the same at the moment of birth. It would be a good picture to see on the main page. --Blechnic (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's not going to be a model-release. Like I said, this is a family snapshot. The "model" is not a model but my wife. The baby is not a model either - she is my baby. She can dribble, puke and cry really well. She's learning to crawl but she's not going to be signing any legal documents for another 2 years at least. As I said before, these images have been CC licensed on Flickr for at least 6 months - that alone makes it fair-game for Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the issue that everyone has been crowing about is the fact that your wife, however unidentifiable she is, might not approve of the image being released or worse, file a lawsuit down the track. She might be your wife but she is still entitled to own opinion, obviously. I don't see how she could possibly implicate Wikipedia though, as you have released the image under a specific license, and Wikipedia will respect the license. I guess the point remains that you might not, in theory, have the right to release an image of another person in a very intimate time and location, and I think that Durova's concern is that while permission might not be required, it would be discourteous to not attempt to get it. I see that point and respect it, but on the other hand she is quite unidentifiable, and I'm inclined to think that if she is not happy with the image being published, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. For the time being, lets assume good faith and that the benefit of a good quality, encyclopaedic image outweighs the potential distress/embarassment/shame/etc on the part of those in the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snappy to me, Salimfadhley. I supported the image, but stated I would like a model release. Guess what? You don't get to sign your wife's model release. You don't own her release rights. Changed to strong oppose--this attitude and answer about the model release does not bode well for the situation of using this image. The model is a model, and she's a human being first, and apparently an adult, with her own legal rights, that you don't get to, in the laws of many lands, sign away with only your say-so. --Blechnic (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that such a release is required. His attitude is irrelevant, as we are judging the picture, not the photographer. Besides, if he seemed "snappy" it may be in reaction to the implication that he is untrustworthy, which I think is uncalled for. Fletcher (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Diliff. Again, I note the general disclaimer absolves Wikipedia of responsibility in the hypothetical event Salim is doing something improper. That covers us legally. Ethically speaking, I think to assume good faith is to defer to Salim's good judgment about his wife's expectations. Fletcher (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights, he's the one giving her permission, seems photographer thinks it needs permission he gives. Heck, snappy for assuming bad faith? I supported the image, and then said I would like a model release, not I demanded one, and then I praised the picture, for that I get snapped at? Forget it. This picture will be problems. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Salim was trying to be snappy. Perhaps he misunderstood the model permission requirement and was explaining that his wifeis not a model:-) Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand the European Convention on Human Rights. In the third millenium, a wife speaks for herself. Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose on principle, and in the strongest terms. DurovaCharge! 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does the European Convention of Human Rights apply to a situation in which the person concerned is unidentifiable? You cite law, but your argument is about moral principles (and I agree with your argument, except to say I think it would be nice but not absolutely necessary). It doesn't sound like the author is going to be swayed into providing 'proof of authorisation' by opposition out of principle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, you said "Until and unless she agrees, we must oppose". Salim has said above that his wife has given permission. I really don't see why we should oppose on principle unless we have any reason to doubt Salim's truthfulness about his wife having consented (which we don't). After all, he's not saying "I hereby give my wife's permission" as Durova and Blechnic seem to be implying - he's just telling us that she has consented herself. What's wrong with that? And what will convince you that she has consented, if Salim's word is for some reason not enough? Olaf Davis | Talk 14:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Durova's defense, I don't think Salim ever did actually say his wife gave permission, he just said no written permission would be forthcoming. It was only somewhat implied that his wife approved - certainly it wasn't explicitly stated that his wife gave permission. Again though, I don't think it is absolutely necessary anyway, if she isn't identifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement of Salim's I was referring to is "This is a photo from my family album taken and uploaded with consent of all present". Assuming that "uploaded" means "uploaded to Wikipedia" that seems fairly explicit to me - do you disagree with my interpretation? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're absolutely right. I thought I had read everything thoroughly (I even searched for every instance of Salim's name to confirm that I had), but somehow I missed that statement. Fair enough, I think thats about as much proof as you can really expect. As has been mentioned, a written document is no more proof unless we can confirm his wife's signature anyway, and that is just getting a bit ridiculous over someone who is unidentifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hostility from Durova and Blechnic is puzzling. "Provide evidence he owns the wife and her legal rights". I never suggested anything of the kind, and I don't see any evidence that portraying the issue as some kind of gender war is justified. I look at it as deferring to the mutual respect and understanding that ought to exist between people in a committed relationship. A woman photographing her husband undergoing some procedure would be no different. Fletcher (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not impute hostility onto me. This is a matter of international human rights convention. This woman is an adult; we do not have her explicit consent; she has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nobody else can grant consent for her, unless that person can also produce power of attorney. DurovaCharge! 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored my question about whether the issue of human rights applies to this situation. I would argue it doesn't simply because she is unidentifiable. There is nothing about this image that could violate her rights as far as I can see. As I said above, I feel like you're taking a moral issue (and a tenuous one, given she is unidentifiable) and trying to make it a legal one to support your case. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I accept your assurance that you're not being hostile; if that was hostility on my own part, I apologize (as well to Blechnic). Please explain which human rights convention, specifically, you are referring to -- which law states or implies a person must have written consent to take a photo of his or her spouse in a private situation and post it to the web. In addition, your claim that we are saying Salim consents on his wife's behalf is a bit of a strawman (or strawperson, if you prefer); as you can see from Olaf Davis' comments above, and the quote to which he refers, Salim did explicitly claim he is publishing this photo with his wife's consent [1]. So it is not a question of him consenting on her behalf, but a question of believing what he has told us, versus forcing him to produce documentation of what he has told us. On Wikipedia we try to assume good faith, so I don't understand why this wouldn't suffice, particularly given the fact that she is not even identifiable in the photo. Fletcher (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a responsibility to host images with clear and unobstructed rights, particularly when we feature them and run them on the main page. Salim asserts his wife consented; she has not submitted her own consent. She could generate an OTRS ticket quite easily herself, but she hasn't. Now I wish to express these important and delicate points sensitively: suppose for a moment that she does not consent; that she is a very private person. There is enough information in this shot and the photo description and metadata for people who already know this woman to confirm that it is her. Have you ever had someone misunderstand you in a really big way? This is a human rights issue; twelve to twenty million people will see this if it runs on the main page. Of course we can't be cavalier. DurovaCharge! 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason that we'd trust an OTRS claiming to be from Salim's wife more than him claiming to have her permission? If I didn't trust Salim not to lie about having asked his wife (though trust him I do), I'm not sure I'd trust him not to fake his wife's name when creating a ticket. I really can't see any way of being more sure about this than we already are.
It doesn't look as though either side in this disagreement is about to change its mind, so unless anything new comes up I will probably leave this to the closer's judgement of our consensus. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think victorrocha's edited version really helped the image noise, though at the cost of some sharpness. Fletcher (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to edit an image, I have .NEF (Nikon Raw) versions of all of these images (somewhere). --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The infant seems too small in the frame of the image. Can we see how it would looked cropped slightly?Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting comment - this isn't about the infant, it's about the process. It's actually good that we see all the doctors, the mother, the operating room. Newborn kids are thirteen to a dozen, but a picture of a team doing a Caesarean are scarce. Keep as is. --Janke | Talk 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. If this image is about the process of Cesarian section then it doesn't seem to have enough emphasis on that. The creator User:Salimfadhley writes "The focal point of the picture is really well highlighted." which is clearly the infant. The image would be more appropriate if the infant weren't highlighted, and the team of physicians were less dark and less grainy. At first glance this image could be of a cesarian section or vaginal birth. You have to look closely to tell that which it is. This doesn't add much to the encyclopedic content of the article. It definitely has the "wow" factor, but this doesn't meet the criteria to be a featured picture.Dwayne Reed (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent point, until you completely enlarge the image, and look carefully and analyze, you can't tell whether it is a c-section or vaginal delivery. --Blechnic (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a C-Section. They would never put up a surgical screen during a normal delivery. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that point is as important as you make it out to be. Most of us might not even know what the two deliveries would look like until we'd been through them or we were a medical professional. People would likely see this image because they visited the article, so they would already be aware of what it is depicting. In this case, I think it might be an ambiguous image, but one which is appropriately explained by the article and by the caption, so the fact that it isn't self descriptive isn't important IMO. What it does do well is show the medical environment of a caesarian birth, the baby being delivered, etc. It is still a very useful image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't people see the image because it appears on the front page? Anyway, I was attempting to comment on the ability of the picture to add to the encyclopedic value of the article. The article and caption certain explain what's going on, but I thought the photo should be able to illustrate the article and not the other way around.Dwayne Reed (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with preference for Edit 2. Great capture of the atmosphere of a common but not well documented event. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, prefer Edit 2 Encyclopaedic, excellent, keeps from too much information about the mother. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose until proof woman consented provided. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we need to obtain consent for every image containing a visible human being in a situation that may be considered sensitive to someone (whether it be the person in the image, or a viewer of the image)? How do we judge what is acceptable and what is not? I don't feel we can. I don't think Wikipedia should be censored based on what individuals personally feel are morally ambiguous. We're supposed to be judging the image and its significance in the article, not basing it on our own moral agenda. Morality rests on the shoulders of the original contributor IMO - not us. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to contact me directly and I can put you in touch with the woman in the photo - that is if you really care that much. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me; have you examined this discussion's references to the European Convention on Human Rights? DurovaCharge! 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But excuse me, have you replied to my two previous requests for you to tell me exactly how the European Convention apllies to this situation? Since you ask though, I have looked at it, and I cannot see, to the best of my ability, anything in there that would be an issue. The closest match I can find is Section I, Article 8:
          1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
          2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
          • Is this what you are refering to? I don't think it really applies to this situation. If you're refering to something else, please cite it specifically so we can discuss it. As it stands, the European Convention on Human Rights is far to big (and vague for that matter) to wave around without being far more specific about what you mean exactly. Diliff | (Talk)
            • Yes, this is very silly: The convention on human rights is a cumbersome document that serves a similar role as the US Constitution - it guides lawmakers and not citizens. It's simply not relevant to this discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Contribs) 10:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Edit 2 Withdrawing Edit 1 in favor of Diliff's. Good job at making it better BTW. victorrocha (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 Very nice, quality is good, composition is good. – sgeureka t•c 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either enyclopedic and interesting. Muhammad(talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2 - Given the identity of the photgrapher and the subjects I agree with some comments above that a release is not required. Love the shot especially the focus the lighting brings - Peripitus (Talk) 04:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per ethical issues raised above. Potential legal issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage. If not legality, moral issues resulting from putting this on the mainpage and never knowing what the mother thinks. Remember that Dilbert cartoon? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its been done many times before though, without consent from those in an image. This is an encyclopaedia. We provide information about all subjects and we don't censor on the whims of moral paranoia (usually). She is clearly quite unidentifiable, her husband has said she doesn't mind the photo being published, and he has released the image on Flickr for 6 months already. If this were scrutiny applied to all FP images, we'd have to track down everyone vaguely identifiable and ask for their permission to be made famous on the front page of Wikipedia. That is ridiculous. Oooh, what if someone was caught in a photo of a random landmark? What if they were supposed to be on a business trip that day, but really they were having an affair and their wife caught them with another woman? What if Wikipedia was sued? Oooh! Censor! Censor! Get rid of them all!!! *screams for dramatic effect!* Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not moral paranoia; I admit it's a principled decision on my part, though. Take it or leave it. But before I go: The concern here is that this is a woman giving birth, not evidence of someone cheating on their spouse. If you understand my distinction, then you understand my oppose given the circumstances. Again, it's principled. OTOH, I'm willing to concede that perhaps whomever was giving birth wouldn't mind at all that that image of theirs is on the front page of one of the largest websites in the world... but be that as it may, I'm rather cautious. <shrugs> I'll never know, and there's the rub. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realise you're being light-hearted and not trying to offend anyone Diliff, but given how strongly several people seem to feel on this maybe that's a dangerous route to take. After all, it won't help any of us if someone gets offended over a perceived attack in your 'dramatic scream'! Olaf Davis | Talk 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think people often see attacks where attacks don't exist, though - it was ridicule of the argument, perhaps, but not an attack on the person. I happen to feel strongly about the issue too - I feel that if we have to go to the lengths requested to satisfy the minority here, we're setting a rather extreme precedent. I've not been against the idea of getting Salim's wife's permission, but I am against the idea that people are opposing because he has not provided it. Good faith has flown out the window in the hysteria of this nomination and it was my dramatic scream that was intended to show how silly it could be if applied to all nominations. I agree with jjron - a sensible closer should and would ignore moral issues and stick to the opposition addressing the criteria. It either is or isn't a FP based on that. Everything else is just forcing morals onto the process where they don't belong, IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we suspend the nomination and kindly ask Salim to ask his wife to give evidence of her acceptance. Muhammad(talk) 10:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say from reading the above we could stand Salim's wife up in court and get her to swear her approval for the use of this photo, and that still wouldn't satisfy some voters. In other words it would just be a hiding to nothing. Obviously 'votes' that do not address Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria will be ignored by the closer. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any concerned Wikipedian is free to contact me directly and then directly speak to my wife, of course you will have to meet her in person to verify that she is the woman in the photo and not a female impostor. Other than that you will have to take my word for the fact that she has no objection to these pictures being published. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Edit 2 great shot. A pervasive argument seems to be that if this image gets featured it will automatically appear on the main page. FP != POTD. None of the people are distinguishable in the picture so I see absolutly no need for permission even if it wasn't explicitly given by the creator. I see no reason not to trust the creators word or why a photo of childbirth should be treated differently than other pictures of people. Cacophony (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Image is large enough, and striking enough and certainly encyclopedic enough. Even the rules of commons, which are more strict than WP rules, says that as long as there is a reasonable assurance that attempts were made to get permission, the picture is ok. Commons did not require a statement in writing from the wife, and thus neither do we. The author of work has commented here, and permission has been given. Having made a reasonable effort, there is no reason to fear legal prosecution, and no reason to object to this being featured on those grounds. Its an awesome picture. Let's feature it. pschemp | talk 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as the photographer and the husband and father of the subjects of this image, I think the request for written documentation is silly - not because you genuinely want to respect their rights (that is sensible and good), but because there is no way for you to verify that the person claiming to file the documents is in fact the model. As I have stated previously, if you really are concerned and you would like to visit us in North London to confirm all is in order then kindly contact me privately otherwise please do not assume malice or wrongdoing! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true, I've released copyrighted images to Wikipedia. I send an e-mail to foundation, they have a special e-mail address just for this, with a low-res of the image attached, give my full name, state that I am the sole copyright holder and hold all rights to the image and release it to Foundation with whatever copyright is appropriate (usually what an editor has requested). It's simple. I send them from work, under my name, but I've also released them on my home account (not a gmail/yahoo/hotmail type, but my ISP's account). Have your wife send a release from her non-flightly e-mail account to foundation. If Wikipedia already has a policy on model releases, follow that policy. Your response to this is strange, and it is making it seem far more important to get a model release before allowing this image to remain on Wikipedia for one more second. Think of the time this is taking when so little was required. That suggests that the little required is undoable for some reason. What reason? --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me explain - you have no way of knowing the identity of the woman in the picture other than the information I have provided. If you distrust the information I have provided about this photo then why should you believe my claims about the identity of the subject? The release proves nothing. If you truly cared about ensuring that the "model" in this image was happy with this iamge then we could work out a way for an independent person to verify that we are who we claim to be and that we have no issues with our own family photos. Unless somebody is prepared to do this then all you really have is my word as a Wikipedia contributor in good standing... and you already have that! I've already offered that somebody who has genuine concerns is welcome to contact me directly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight. You apparently will do or say anything but provide the model release, giving your wife her own voice in an image of her.
      • It is more than a little strange, now, all of your arguments, and protestations, and I sincerely hope that other Wikipedia editors will look at this and let it gnaw at them for a minute: how much time would it have taken his wife to write an e-mail versus how much time he and others have protested this model release. Demands that people trust him, personal accusations about whether or not I "care" about strangers on the internet.
      • This is a danger signal. If you were dealing with this person in brick and mortar world, your flight signal would be going off loudly. Pause for a moment and ask yourself, what is so hard about his wife signing a release, sending an e-mail? Why is this photographer discussing "trust" issues with perfect strangers on Wikipedia? --Blechnic (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point has never been that Salim couldn't provide a model release. It is that he felt it wasn't necessary and he refused out of principle. An analogous scenario is if you asked him to squawk like a chicken to prove that his wife is happy with this image being released - he could in theory do what you ask him, but it would be logically irrelevent and prove nothing so he would refuse because it was silly and unnecessary. I don't see his refusal as being a danger signal at all. I'd probably do the same out of principle if someone tried to push me to do something I thought was silly. For the record, I mean the fact that nobody has the ability to prove it is his wife providing the release is what makes it silly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if this unidentifiable person sends an email from an essentially anonymous email account saying that it is ok to use a picture of her then everything is ok with you? But if the creator of the image, a Wikipedia contributor in good standing, gives his word that isn't good enough? I'm not understanding your reasoning. Why are you fighting this nom so vigorously when there are many, many other instances of images of someone that is actually identifiable being used. This is truly bizarre. Cacophony (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blechnic, I concur with Cacophony. You've gone beyond the bounds of reason and logic and are bordering on harassing the creator of the photo now. Salim, just ignore him, you've proved your case sufficiently. pschemp | talk 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blechnic's concern for my wife's privacy is good admirable as is the desire to follow Wikipedia's rules, however I feel (he/she) is confused about how this release is supposed to protect our anybody's privacy. I would like to see a happy consensus on this (including Blenchnic), so I have set up a means of contacting my wife directly that would allow a very good verification of her identity which will not require international travel - you will need to contact me directly because I am not going to post her private details on this forum. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think these bully responses are sufficient to establish the point I made needed made and has been validated. Salim, I've stated my position. That's all. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alternative versions of the picture

Support any Amazing photograph and per Salim's comments, thanks for uploading it. I've never read such ridiculous arguments then what is above. Epson291 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cesarian the moment of birth3.jpg MER-C 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Moment_of_Birth&oldid=1138511415"