Some comment on Lane Rasberry's "model release" question: first it seems from the supporting essays, the underlying purpose of a "model release" is legal protection for a photographer selling photographs, which wouldn't apply to Commons. The "model" terminology is somehow not quite right for the open source movement either, it invokes fashion or "adult" industry terminology. The definition of a "model" is someone who is paid to display merchandise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model Finally, if such a thing became available, how would it end up being used--to require Wikipedians to sign such a release as a precondition of attending events? We have already seen in the past the unfortunate effects of such photographs being used against Wikimedians, and disproportionately against women, by those who politically oppose the Wikimedia movement. I suspect such a thing would result in less, not more photographs uploaded.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alison Cassidy <coot...@mac.com> wrote: > Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of > children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed > consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their > parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re > identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated > with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later > life. They, as children, had no say in the matter. > > Just putting that out there. > > — Allie > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe <emilymonro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial > features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely. > > Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that > the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. > I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of > parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the > medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions. > > From, > Emily > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person >> had a lot more than marfans" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
