You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high risk of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm. cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Rama Neko <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from people making > public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the > participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph > anyway. > > I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps > what we need is a reminder of general the ethics of photography of > people. > > -- Rama > > > On 06/08/2010, private musings <[email protected]> wrote: > > G'day all, > > > > I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation > > lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice > > I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude > words > > and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.) > > > > Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related > > questions is gently dying down - > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content > > > > and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt > > the 'sexual content' policy proposal - > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3F > > > > What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or > not > > media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that > all > > of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - > you > > can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition > > retrospectively, and maybe not at all - > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_deletions_by_noconsent_template > > > > I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual > content, > > and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy - > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid=42301328#consent > > > > The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and > > generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more > > outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to > > share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles > sexual > > content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming > > poll.... > > > > cheers, > > > > Peter, > > PM. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
