Sydney, I completely agree with your opinion and comments. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:SCOPE Roberta 2011/9/12 Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> > I wonder whether it would be worth developing a guideline, or just > writing an essay about it on Commons. Trouble is, I know so little > about how the Commons works -- I don't even know how to find their > list of policies. > > My thinking is that voyeurism is increasingly becoming a criminal > offence, and an essay about it might help to identify the kinds of > images we should be wary of uploading. For example, in the UK, a > person commits a criminal offence if: > > "(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act, > > "(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for > the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B > doing the act, and > > "(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with > that intention." > > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67 > > The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor. > People could say "I am the model and I hereby give consent." I don't > know how we get round that. > > Sarah > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:45, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the > appropriate > > permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious > signs > > of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about > > whether images that are "controversial content" should be be held to a > > higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we > > require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I > disagree, > > but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all > > images with identifiable people. By requiring model consent, we would > solve > > a large part of the problems with the images on Commons. > > > > Sydney Poore > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudhe...@x-mail.net> > >> wrote: > >> > IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have > >> > better policy to work with. > >> > >> Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of > privacy? > >> > >> Sarah > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gendergap mailing list > >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
