On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 06:50, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> wrote: > Three more things that I want to state clearly based on these conversations: > > Commons bases "identifiably" on the face of an individual. While in many > situations, that maybe the only way to identify an individual, when it comes > to nudity, etc, there is more to identify than just a face. Any sexually > active person can often remember specific features etc. of current and past > lovers (birth marks, hair patterns, piercings, whatever), porn star they > watch, models they like (I can pick out Bettie Page's sucked in stomach, > Tempest Storm's legendary "moneymakers" and my favorite Suicide Girls > tattooed back from a mile away without heads..) etc. As SlimVirgin stated - > the "model" is identifiable to those who know her. (And yes, slippery slope > again..) However, I really doubt that we'd have much weight with this > argument, but, perhaps I'm wrong in that. > We must stress that objectification goes beyond women on Commons. Men are > objectified, however, generally in a different manner by "self-imposed > objectification" - uploading photographs of their own body parts and > self-indulgent photographs, while it appears others upload images of women > "on their behalf". > Objectification of culture is a major problem, especially when it comes to > Asian women. Whether it's anime pornography (which we have plenty of and > people argue that it's educational because of the tools or techniques used > to create it) or photographs of "Korean vulvas" which feature "hot Korean > girls" (or whatever). I notice there is a similar situation with > Eastern/Eurasian women as well. Something has to change - while these women > might not be active on Commons, someone has to have a voice for them. > The expertise about what it means for a photograph to identify a person is out there, so it's just a question of accessing it. In journalism, when a court orders a publication ban on identifying someone, you can't argue that your description of them did not identify them to the general reader. If you write about them in a way that allows their local circle to recognize them that's often sufficient to trigger contempt of court proceedings.
This Commons guideline -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT -- discusses what's meant by "private place," but doesn't say how the law defines "identifiable." Sarah _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
