Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2 girls in Japan

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Huge issues with Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Japan. Our guideline states:

  • Taking a picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (see conditions below)
  • Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)
  • Commercial use of a published picture of a person in a public space: Requires consent (as per above)

This would place in jeopardy: - any image where a visually minor is depicted; - any image where the side or the backside is shown: no indication about any consent can be gleaned by the acting of the persons depicted; - any media imported from Flickr, as no Wikimedia person can be hold accountable for such uploads.

Barely acceptable, in the light of the ruling by the Japanese supreme court quoted in the guideline text, could be cosplayers and depictions of minors acting at festivals (for the latter: File:Aioi Peron Matsuri July09 191.jpg) - I've still included it in the DR for the sake of precaution to discuss whether such a motif would still mandate clear evidence of consent.

I also included File:Laika ac Shitamachi Tanabata Matsuri (7560647822).jpg and File:Two girls dressed up 2009.jpg. While the females shown are clearly interacting with the camera and apparently also visiting a festival, I don't know whether such a posing would give an implicit consent for the publication on Commons.

I knowingly included the Akihabara maid café images, as I think that being an employee of such ventures do not make you fair game for any internet publication.

Not included are indeed cosplayers in this category (File:Shinya and Kyo cosplay.jpg; File:Harajuku Girls - 4219556476 historical photo of cosplay at jingu bashi 2009.jpg and File:Harajuku historical photo of cosplay at jingu bashi 2006.jpg as I understand the cosplayer subculture as entailing public acting as a persona, sufficiently negating the need for consent. Nor are included PD-Old images.

Some images may also sport infractions to rules like COM:MODELS or COM:FOP Japan, notably File:Pink puppy and kids (3010729394).jpg.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply

私に通知がきたので
上記については普通に写り込んだだけであり過剰。撮影の趣旨がそこではない。
上記については著名人であり、撮影可の時間に撮影したものです。 ウィ貴公子 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • No objection to deleting based on possible invasive photos with minors. Can we presume none is in use? The discussion might be different depending on that context. FYI 2 of my uploads are in this DR, both remain published (12 years ago) and public domain as military photographs on dvidshub, and consent can be inferred; though not looking to pursue that rationale if others wish to delete. (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Comment In some cases, the people cannot be recognized, so I don't see how consent could be required. Otherwise, yes, some pictures should go. Details mentioned above. Yann (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@: Unfortunately, maybe half of the nominated images are actually used on Wikimedia projects. In fact, I found that category through the inclusion of File:Kei-Car Mazda Scrum, barely fitting in parking space (19710372040).jpg in de:Kei-Car. Other examples: File:Rockabilies japoneses (14496118898).jpg is on ZH-Wiki, File:Randoseru-red-walkinggirls-feb14-2019.jpg on several projects including en:Randoseru, File:Loosesocks-japan-chiba-dec13-2012.jpg on pl:Gyaru among other (but that should be replaceable and I don't even see how a standard school uniform could be a depiction of a Gyaru).
File:Pink gothlolita.jpg may have the most uses and I may have overlooked that one in VFC, as it is a cosplay image, could perhaps be kept. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Comment I agree with Yann that when individuals cannot be recognized, consent is normally not required. Japanese case law protects a person’s identifiable appearance (容ぼう・姿態), so if the subject is not identifiable, there is no basis for requiring consent and such images should be kept. --MGA73 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@MGA73, @Yann: What are the standards of identifiability enforced on Commons? I think that the prevailing legal norms (possibly set forth by the German Federal High Court) in Germany assume a possibility of identification when someone loosely acquainted with a person can recognise the person on an image, not only based upon the face, but also on the general bearing, the clothing, the time of shot, the environment seen and similar criteria. File:Kashira island in Bizen, Okayama,Japan 岡山県備前市日生町日生,頭島 261.JPG and File:Going to school P5140621小学生通学.jpg for instance would be deemed "identifiable" in my opinion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I struck out an image that has no business staying in this DR: File:ちっこいテーブル (55184724412).jpg. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that it is mostly enforced if the photo shows people in a "bad" situation where they could expect privacy.
If A is sitting on a bench minding their own business and for half a second puts their finger in the nose then I think it was meant to be a private moment.
But if B decides to protest by sitting on the middle of the road or takes part of a public costume event I do not think A should be protected. If B is hit by a car during the protest or the event and is now lying on the street possibly dying then it changes to a "private" moment.
If there is a photo of someone with 6 fingers on one hand then they would probably be easy to recognise. But apart from that I do not think we enforced any "someone-might-recognise-them"-policy very strict. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I was under the impression that we were following US law on Commons. If we are following Japanese law, just obscure any faces that can be clearly seen. No need for complete deletion of all images when it would be easier to just obscure clear faces (or name tags or other direct identifiable things, just clothes from a two decades old photo shouldn't be enough to identify for example) if that is required by law. If we can't assume consent from portraits of clearly children looking at the camera with no other context, those are the ones that should be removed I guess, although it would reduce representation on Commons of Japanese youth depictions. I would wonder why we would assume no consent in those cases though. Also looking through that list I see some historical photos that aren't even for sure minors (like the ones at clubs, aren't you suppose to be an adult if you go to a club?). And I thought Japanese law allows for depicting people in the case of there being value in the use of the picture, and historical/educational value is value I'd guess. Nesnad (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC) EDIT: Also for example, the "SAKURAKO and SAKIKO" ones are clearly uploaded by their father, the flickr account follows them through their ages. Are we saying their father uploaded that against their will? And are we assuming all the other facing camera ones were not uploaded by relatives? I think this wide attack on images is kind of too wide, and there are plenty of ones on here that seem acceptable. For example, I noticed a Randoseru image I took was included. I intentionally did not take the photo with their faces pointed at the camera, and even went through the (what I thought unnecessary) step of obscuring the address written on the sign in the background to ensure the anonymous nature of the photo and just have it be a depiction of a Randoseru in use. Nesnad (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree. We should not delete all photos of people. Some photos could look like photographer like to see girls in skirts ("creep shot"?). But other photos like File:Two girls dressed up 2009.jpg does not seem to be a "creep shot" and I also don't think the girls look minor if that is a criteria and to me it looks like they pose for the camera.
But if photos are in scope I also prefer that we blurr faces instead of deleting. --MGA73 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I would not delete this one. They are obviously posing, so consent is implicitly given. Yann (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Keep these images listed below, for the following reasons:
List of images should be kept
These photos below are taken and published under a CC license by the parent of the depicted children, so there are consent from the legal guardian of the children.
I think the depicted subjects are not identifiable in the following photos.
The subjects' faces have already been blurred in the following photo
For the other images not listed above, I think most of them can be kept if the face of the depicted subjects are blurred.
Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"The most important such restrictions are personality/privacy laws which do not allow photographs of identifiable people which were made in a private place, unless the depicted person gives permission."
Also Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#The_right_of_privacy says that:
"...the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded."
So unless it is one of the examples listed in Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Examples or Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues (usually "creep shots") I think we can keep all those in a public place. --MGA73 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Info Similar "youth photo" requests in Category:Japanese law deletion requests/pending
 Info In addition, "SAKURAKO and SAKIKO" photo series seems taking by "her father".--Benzoyl (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Comment For instance, File:Twins! (6037547477).jpg. It seems "mass production ready-made clothes". Therefore, I don't think it's possible "Sigle out a person".--Benzoyl (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
 Keep for File:Maids distributing flyers in Akihabara Tokyo 20100731 7376.jpg is listed as a quality image Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply