Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
Sam; I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses Commons as a battleground and we get sued. From: Sam Johnston To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:18:32 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia) > Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to knowledge? Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the image is sexual)? Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed here[2] and here[3]). Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself. I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5]. Sam 1. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html 2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html 4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi : > David Gerard wrote: >> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a >> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and >> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this >> is inadequate. > I don't see this tag at > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg > and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort > to add these tags which just has started? I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was thinking of the personality rights tag. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole would not fall ,at least IMHO, under "Must be realistically useful for educational purpose". How is it any different than the tons of "preview" material available to promote the zillion porn sites save, of course, for the license? (probably this question should be somewhere on commons, but I am not a frequent commons user, I apologize for the off-topic). On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:53 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth : > > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any > > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions > > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of > > consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? > > Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) > > could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not > > just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP > > the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being > > depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with > > these images. > > > > --Andrew Whitworth > > I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had > Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on > quality. > > The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no > shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see > Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have > fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see > no reason why we should accept further images of questionable > providence and quality. > > I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful > if someone put together Template:Novulva > > > -- > geni > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Delirium wrote: > Anthony wrote: > >> My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the >> moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral >> rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they >> do. >> > The problem is that moral rights in your sense---i.e. not the legal > construct "moral rights" that exists in some countries' laws, but a more > general concept of morality as it relates to authorship---boils down to > settling philosophical debates on what constitutes a "right", what > "morality" is, and so on. You have some opinions on these matters, while > others have other opinions, and I certainly don't expect this mailing > list to be the place where centuries-long debates over what (if > anything) constitutes a "moral right" are resolved. So I'm not too sure > what the point of the discussion is. > The only reason that "moral rights" is an issue is its inclusion in the statutes of various countries. It mostly stems from an inflated Napoleonic view of the Rights of Man that was meant to replace the divine rights of kings. Common law countries have been loath to embark in this direction. Moral rights are mentioned in the US law, but only as a toothless tiger. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Ray Saintonge wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: > >> Requirements like that (the US used to >> require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable >> burden on authors. >> > I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the > ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the > requirement that registration was a precondition to copyright > protection, it was a consequence to acceding to international treaties > which demanded that copyright vest automatically in the author. The > author could not lose his rights out of ignorance. > I'm aware of the background behind the change. I don't find any of it inconsistent with saying the requirement was deemed an unreasonable burden on authors, those are simply some of the arguments why it was unreasonable. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Michael Snow wrote: > Requirements like that (the US used to > require a copyright notice) have been stripped away as an unreasonable > burden on authors. I don't think that that was the reason. The publishers would be the ones to make sure that the notice was there anyway. Like abandoning the requirement that registration was a precondition to copyright protection, it was a consequence to acceding to international treaties which demanded that copyright vest automatically in the author. The author could not lose his rights out of ignorance. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On Friday 30 January 2009 01:02:41 Chad wrote: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:That%27s_why_my_mom_always_told_me > >_to_cross_my_legs_when_I_wore_a_skirt.jpg > > > a usage for the first of the two images, but the latter holds > no educational merit whatsoever (and the page title is hardly You don't think it's an appropriate illustration for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upskirt article? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a > Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING > this than in having my name on their website. This point brings to mind my early days on the internet in the 90s, working side jobs creating simple websites and making ugly websites less ugly. I had all sorts of graphics creating packages that I somehow acquired in some fashion or another. Never having been a professional graphic artist (nor having any ambitions as such) I myself took pride that images I created were appearing (unattributed) on other people's websites. I neither made money from them nor intended to and wasn't suffering for the loss of income or attribution. Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJg1EFyQg4JSymDYkRAvS4AJ4haygNIouthlQxikypZkFADz7lyACeMrH3 VWplp2msU4qeYn5LBTVD2iY= =MdxX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster
Hoi, So you are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is the license and the uploader AND it may be PD. The cost of adding this is not calculated as there is no functionality (as far as I know) that does it. When I print at my copy shop, I get a prestine copy. Remeber these are typically single copies. Thanks, Gerard 2009/1/30 Ray Saintonge > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be > > printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This > > would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be > > practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear > to > > you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the > goose > > that lays the golden eggs ? > It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how > much information should be there remains an open question, but there > should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive > future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture. > Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture > (admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will > have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown > origins? > > Ec > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster
Gerard Meijssen wrote: > When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be > printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This > would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be > practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear to > you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose > that lays the golden eggs ? It could be in a discrete line at the bottom of the poster. Just how much information should be there remains an open question, but there should be enough for the owner of the printed poster or successive future owners to determine the copyright status of the picture. Somewhere down the line an owner may want to republish the picture (admittedly with reduced quality), but the chain of free licensing will have been broken. Would we accept uploading such a picture with unknown origins? Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] General Assembly and guided tour / Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss Nation al Library)
try http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.pdf regards mark On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, effe iets anders wrote: > that gives a 404 > > 2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler > > > The silently stripped PDF is at (English version) > > > > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF > > > > Sorry about that! > > > > M. > > > > On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > >> From: Michael Bimmler > > >> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00 > > >> To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour / > > >> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library) > > >> > > > > > >> Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH > > >> liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH > > >> > > >> It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly > > >> 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne. > > >> Please find the details attached as a PDF. > > >> > > >> Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH > > >> ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M > > >> itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei. > > >> > > >> Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi > > >> ble. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> freundliche Grüsse, > > >> > > >> Michael Bimmler > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Michael Bimmler > > >> President > > >> > > >> Wikimedia CH > > >> Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge > > >> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > >> 8008 Zürich > > >> Switzerland > > >> +41 44 912 20 18 (home) > > >> +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile) > > >> michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch > > >> http://www.wikimedia.ch > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ___ > > >> Members mailing list > > >> memb...@wikimedia.ch > > >> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members > > > > > > > > > -- > > Michael Bimmler > > mbimm...@gmail.com > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] General Assembly and guided tour / Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss Nation al Library)
that gives a 404 2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler > The silently stripped PDF is at (English version) > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF > > Sorry about that! > > M. > > On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Michael Bimmler > >> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00 > >> To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour / > >> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library) > >> > > > >> Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH > >> liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH > >> > >> It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly > >> 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne. > >> Please find the details attached as a PDF. > >> > >> Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH > >> ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M > >> itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei. > >> > >> Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi > >> ble. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> freundliche Grüsse, > >> > >> Michael Bimmler > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Michael Bimmler > >> President > >> > >> Wikimedia CH > >> Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge > >> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > >> 8008 Zürich > >> Switzerland > >> +41 44 912 20 18 (home) > >> +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile) > >> michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch > >> http://www.wikimedia.ch > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> Members mailing list > >> memb...@wikimedia.ch > >> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members > > > > > -- > Michael Bimmler > mbimm...@gmail.com > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] General Assembly and guided tour / Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss Nation al Library)
The silently stripped PDF is at (English version) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF Sorry about that! M. On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Michael Bimmler >> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00 >> To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org >> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour / >> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library) >> > >> Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH >> liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH >> >> It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly >> 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne. >> Please find the details attached as a PDF. >> >> Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH >> ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M >> itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei. >> >> Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi >> ble. >> >> Best regards, >> freundliche Grüsse, >> >> Michael Bimmler >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Bimmler >> President >> >> Wikimedia CH >> Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge >> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens >> 8008 Zürich >> Switzerland >> +41 44 912 20 18 (home) >> +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile) >> michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch >> http://www.wikimedia.ch >> >> >> >> ___ >> Members mailing list >> memb...@wikimedia.ch >> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members > -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
Sam Johnston hett schreven: > Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"? Well, it's not, but that's actually not a very useful point. I was never in Cameroon. I have never met anybody from Cameroon. I have never seen any obvious evidence that Cameroon really exists. And still I do not question that there is a place like Cameroon. Why? Cause people say so. If the uploader confirms that the subject of the image is not underage, has consented to the image and to the upload, that's no evidence, but it's still much more than requiring no confirmation at all. We could require the uploader to give the name of the model for example (by OTRS, not on the wiki). We could require confirmation of age and consent, we could require an explicit identity by asking for a identity card number or anything like that. We should require at least _anything_. At the moment we assume good faith even if the probability for good faith is marginal. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: General Assembly and guided tour / Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Libr ary)
Begin forwarded message: > From: Michael Bimmler > Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00 > To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour / > Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library) > > Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH > liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH > > It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly > 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne. > Please find the details attached as a PDF. > > Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH > ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M > itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei. > > Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi > ble. > > Best regards, > freundliche Grüsse, > > Michael Bimmler > > > > -- > Michael Bimmler > President > > Wikimedia CH > Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > 8008 Zürich > Switzerland > +41 44 912 20 18 (home) > +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile) > michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > > > ___ > Members mailing list > memb...@wikimedia.ch > http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
David Gerard wrote: > At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a > reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and > Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this > is inadequate. I don't see this tag at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort to add these tags which just has started? Regards, Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
2009/1/30 Marcus Buck : > The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could* > be the thing you two are searching for... > > Marcus Buck Breasts are also something on an issue. It would also be somewhat tricky to make a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nopenis.svg style image for Genitalia in general. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, geni wrote: > > Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have > articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images > of faces. > > In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same > providence issues. > > Oh yeah, we humans tend to use faces as the way to recognise different people... maybe genitalia are appropriate to distinguish between porn actors ;) (please do not take this sentence as an incentive to upload these kind of images, I think the set we have already covers all our encyclopedic needs) Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
geni hett schreven: > 2009/1/30 Chad : > >> Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than >> going through all of the human anatomy. >> >> -Chad >> > > > Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have > articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images > of faces. > > In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same > providence issues. The issue is pictures of genitalia, isn't it? So "NoGenitalia" *could* be the thing you two are searching for... Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
2009/1/30 Chad : > Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than > going through all of the human anatomy. > > -Chad Not really. For example our need for portraits of people we have articles on means that we should have several hundred thousand images of faces. In addition most parts of the human anatomy don't have the same providence issues. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM, geni wrote: > 2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth : > > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any > > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions > > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of > > consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? > > Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) > > could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not > > just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP > > the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being > > depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with > > these images. > > > > --Andrew Whitworth > > I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had > Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on > quality. > > The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no > shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see > Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have > fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see > no reason why we should accept further images of questionable > providence and quality. > > I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful > if someone put together Template:Novulva > > Wouldn't a generic solution be more adequate? Certainly better than going through all of the human anatomy. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth : > I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any > nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions > about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of > consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? > Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) > could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not > just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP > the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being > depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with > these images. > > --Andrew Whitworth I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on quality. The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see no reason why we should accept further images of questionable providence and quality. I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful if someone put together Template:Novulva -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, David Moran wrote: > I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the > idea that sexual images equal "harm". > > FMF The two are not necessarily equal. There are plenty of people who, upon finding a nude picture of themselves on Wikipedia, won't be too offended or hurt by it. However, there is the potential for harm in many other cases. Do a google search for "girlfriend revenge" (if you are old enough to be looking at such stuff, NSFW) and you will see my point: People post private nude images of other people on the internet as an act of hate and revenge. It's also along the same lines as the various celebrity sex tapes that get released: People take these videos in private, they get stolen or released by vengeful ex-lovers, and causes extreme embarrassment for some people. Nude images do not necessarily equal "harm" by themselves, but they have a higher potential to do so if the uploader is being abusive then most other types of images. A picture of a nude 16 year-old and a picture of a nude 18 year-old person may look very similar, although the former would be considered child pornography and the later would not be. An image intended for private viewing in a romantic couple may appear to show a consenting model, but consenting only in the context of that private relationship. I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images. --Andrew Whitworth ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > David Moran hett schreven: >> I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea >> that sexual images equal "harm". > > Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As > far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about > deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person > agrees to the depiction. Is it ever clear "that the depicted person agrees to the depiction"? Perhaps they did agree to the depiction but not to its public posting? Conversely, perhaps those who aren't facing and smiling at the camera agreed to the shot before/after it was taken? I tend to agree with David - there is no reason to treat sexual content differently from any other. A "harmless" photo taken at a political rally could well do more "harm"... Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
David Moran hett schreven: > I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the > idea that sexual images equal "harm". > > FMF > Not the images themselves equal harm. But it can mean harm to people. As far as I have understood this discussion, we are not talking about deleting sexual images where it is clear, that the depicted person agrees to the depiction. We are only talking about images, where the depicted person is not aware of being published and/or has not agreed to it. People usually don't agree on being published cause they fear to experience some kind of "harm" if that would be done. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
I think perhaps then the most fundamental disagreement we have is the idea that sexual images equal "harm". FMF On 1/29/09, Nathan wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan wrote: > > > > > > > To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of > any > > sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. > To > > me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible. > > > > Re-reading myself, cultural relativism is not the correct description. If > anything, its decried most often as moral absolutism or an assertion of > cultural superiority. Obviously I disagree with that view. The way I see > it, > we as members of the Wikimedia community have a responsibility to not do > harm. This principle, in a necessarily nuanced form, is embodied in the > English Wikipedia policy governing biographies of living people - and it is > past time that the core ideal of taking steps to protect others from being > hurt by our work is extended to images. > > Nathan > > > > -- > Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation > today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
Hoi, What is the point of off list communication when you quote from these communications ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/30 Sam Johnston > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier >wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote: > > > > > > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial > > publishing... > > > > As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is > > blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate > > misinformation? > > > Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak > and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I > said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs. > > Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply > by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with > flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards > being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing > practices. > > In any case this is all off-topic for the thread, > > Sam > > [1] > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html > > > > -- > > Guillaume Paumier > > [[m:User:guillom]] > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/1/30 Sam Johnston : > > > I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now > the > > French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing > it's > > probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag > images > > lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or > > replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about > > minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5]. > > At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a > reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and > Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this > is inadequate. It quite probably is, and provided the tags are used it answers some of the issues in the other (sexual content) thread too. Thanks, Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston : > I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the > French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's > probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images > lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or > replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about > minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5]. At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this is inadequate. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote: > > > > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial > publishing... > > As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is > blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate > misinformation? Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs. Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing practices. In any case this is all off-topic for the thread, Sam [1] > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html > > -- > Guillaume Paumier > [[m:User:guillom]] > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
Hello, On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston wrote: > > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial > publishing... As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate misinformation? Thanks, [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
> Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to knowledge? Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the image is sexual)? Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed here[2] and here[3]). Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself. I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5]. Sam 1. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html 2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html 4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton : > The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things > either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki > before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a > book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, > it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright > owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get). Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it. Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to distinguish between: a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the "new copy" of it under license X. b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously published elsewhere, and must be treated as such. Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster
Hoi, I could not disagree more with you. People who work on Wikipedia do this because they make a difference. This making a difference is what I think is of paramount importance, what makes people proud of this endeavour. When people use my pictures and my ,it makes a difference how they use it. But essentially I do not really care as long as my ideal of more and better information or more people is realised. Obviously I like it that my picture of a wild boar is used on a Russian website. They asked, nice. But I take more pride in KNOWING this than in having my name on their website. When I print a poster, and the license and the contributors have to be printed on it as well, the image of the picture is spoiled for me. This would be a reason for me to return the printed poster. So let us be practical, WHERE do you want to have all the information that is so dear to you? What are the costs and is this feasible.. Are you not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs ? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > > I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. > I > > went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. > No > > fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have > > downloaded the picture at the copy shop. This is the real world. There is > > nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from > > Commons. > > > > I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You > don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book. > (of course before the printing press you needed to have a > scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by) > > > > With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to > > printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway. > > Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we > > realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be > > shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the > > overhead you think up has to be paid. > I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters > would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users, > and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and > traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make > production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible. > > > In another thread all kinds of > > difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated > it > > is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up > > with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose > that > > lays "golden" eggs. > > Thanks, > > > > I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped > the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel > about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to > our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. > Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life. > > > Yours cordially, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The reality of printing a poster
Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I selected a great picture from Commons. I loaded it on my memory stick. I > went to a copy shop and had it printed in poster format for little money. No > fuss. I did not even need to bring it on a memory stick, I could have > downloaded the picture at the copy shop. This is the real world. There is > nothing stopping anyone from printing one of the great pictures from > Commons. > I think this is the great thing about our emerging age. You don't need to own a printing press to be able to make a book. (of course before the printing press you needed to have a scribe to make a book, but that it very much by the by) > With all the talk about the French chapter's cottage village solution to > printing, the reality is that printing a poster is not a problem anyway. > Given this reality, what are we talking about. What do we think we > realistically achieve. You have to appreciate that the poster has to be > shipped, there has to be something for the French chapter and all the > overhead you think up has to be paid. I don't think it is at all a bad thing that wikimedias chapters would have to face all the same obstacles as other re-users, and of course the obstacles are all there for a reason, and traditional copyright would not only be worse, but would make production of something like wikipedia essentially impossible. > In another thread all kinds of > difficult theories are discussed about atribution. The more complicated it > is in the real world, the more likely it is that the chapter will end up > with very little indeed and that all this talk will only kill a goose that > lays "golden" eggs. > Thanks, > I completely agree with your point, but I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. It is precisely the pride people feel about contributing and being acknowledged as contributing to our great charitable work, that is laying the golden eggs. Attribution is not a killer, it is what gives our projects life. Yours cordially, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal
Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> wrote: >> > > >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> >>> But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights >>> to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation. >>> >> I have made some studies, and it appears this last >> sentence is in fact complete bollocks. (xcuse my french) >> >> There is a frequently expressed view that the moral >> rights provision of "paternity rights" are there to >> protect the authors right to be identified as the >> originator of the work, but it is in fact (according to >> a finding by Finnish copyrights protection arbitration >> committee - which of course has no actual legal standing >> as a binding precedent on later court cases) somewhat >> more involved. >> >> TN 1991:7 states that the paternity right extends to >> the level of making it obligatory to not only mention >> if the original authors work has been tampered in some >> way (adapted, translated, modified, whatever; choose >> your own term) but to identify specifically by whom, if >> known. >> >> This is a very strong finding, though as far as I know >> untested in an actual court of law here. >> >> I am sure most cases of shuffling punctuation around >> and such is not something that can be considered >> creative acts, but certainly they would qualify as >> modifications. And I was recently reminded of the >> Emily Dickinson poem "A Narrow Fellow in the Grass" >> (published as "The Snake" in The Republican) had >> a change of a single punctuation mark, which in her >> own view changed the meaning of it completely on its >> head; so even a mechanical application of considering >> punctuation changes as minor, is not universally >> defensible. >> > > > I hope you don't mind my abbreviation of your original context. Anyone who > didn't read the original post can scroll back a few messages to see it. > > Anyway, it seems to me that the purported moral right you're speaking of > would be a right of the original author, and not a right of the person > making the modification. Am I correct in this assumption? > I think you have hit the nail on the head there. But of course there is a bigger can of worms to be opened, in the sense that even though the original author would under this theory have an imperative right to make known all modifiers, it is very unclear whether some forms of modification would confer equal authorship rights to *their own modified version*. This is of course in particular interest to translators; but in the wikipedia context would be relevant to any editors who substantively improved an article. If it were legally defensible to claim such rights, it would of course only apply to modifications made to the version they had sufficiently modified to confer a legitimate authorship right to it. There is no way to grand-father authorship rights even under the moral rights regime. > If so, I think it has significance in the how that right should be > protected, if indeed one is to accept that it is a right. In that sense, > I'm not sure how "modified by a bunch of idiots on Wikipedia" is any worse > than "modified by [insert a bunch of psudonyms here]". > > On the other hand, the GFDL (via the section entitled History) certainly > protects this purported right much stronger than CC-BY-SA under any > interpretation. CC-BY-SA mostly attempts to punt on these issues, leaving > it to the laws of the individual states (and in some cases to the terms of > service of the individual ISPs where the content is first contributed). > I have no opinion on this point in support of your view, but will not present my objections publicly either. > Personally I think there ought to be a philosophical discussion of whether > or not this is a right the WMF wishes to recognize, and if so, to what > extent. Only by answering that question can this issue be rationally > resolved, and once that question is answered the specifics should come quite > naturally. But there seems to be a reluctance to engage in such discussion > on this mailing list. > > This point is one I wholly subscribe to though. Yours in amity, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
