In the ObWolf photos the issue isnt licensing, the issue is whether consent from the subject was given and what that consent was.
We see that the photo was not taken in a public place, so that make its a private place for which we require a model release that specifies consent to use for any purpose, in absence of any proof we should be deleting the image see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place and becasue the author has contacted us through OTRS  and specifically stated that consent wasnt given for the images to released freely http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle deletion should occur.

Or we need to address both of these policies to reflect what is actually happening on Commons, provided that what is happening is what we to happen

On 11 April 2012 13:20, Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the
> retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the
> courtesy removal would to the free culture community.  And it looks terrible
> for us.

It's worse than that.

This situation does not make us look bad, not really, not yet. It has
potential, but I doubt it will materialise. If it did, I am absolutely
confident that the images would be taken off in the swift and decisive
action that is appropriate in this case. The point is precisely that
in the absence of media attention, the community is as a whole
incapable of taking such appropriate action. We act in narrow
self-interest, not in the best interest of things and people in
general.
 -- Rama

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com