Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image
In many (most?) legal jurisdictions, no release is required if you're in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Aug 12, 2016 1:43 AM, "Neotarf" wrote: > 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 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 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 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 > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image
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 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 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 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
Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image (Neotarf)
As far as consent, I have only seen two types of medical consent forms. One is a consent to treatment when the client first enters the system. No provider will treat someone without that. There are also specialized consent forms for various procedures, to show that the client has received information about a particular procedure and understands the risks beforehand, that is, "informed consent". Medical consent forms will often, perhaps almost always, have a section about photographs, especially if it's a teaching hospital. The implication is always that any photos would be used for training purposes. Here is a sample medical consent form that has exactly that sort of language: "I agree to have photographs taken for medical study or research", and also a phrase that the patient will not be identifiable. http://www.bestmedicalforms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Diagnostic-1.jpg In my experience, people do not read such forms, they just sign them. Perhaps they are in distress, or perhaps they believe they must sign in order to get treatment. So I don't believe a medical consent form gives the kind of consent needed to upload a photo from a medical journal for a WP article. I agree the photo is disturbing on many levels. One is that there is no way of knowing whether the subject is being exploited. Years ago, western medical texts used to be full of photos that were obviously from socio-economically disadvantaged areas. So, "legal in some country in the Global South" is probably a poor standard to apply to choosing medical photos. Also, imagine you or someone in your family being newly diagnosed with this condition and coming across this photo that shows someone with the condition having a mental deficiency, which is obviously not part of marfan, and perhaps also being treated in a questionable manner. Maybe "portrays the disease accurately" and "portrays a person with the condition with dignity" would be better standards to follow. The article is still lacking clear illustrations for the eye and aorta conditions that go with it. There are much better ones online, but not with the right copyright status. Also scoliosis--the WP article has several good illustrations for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoliosis This still leaves the original problem unaddressed, which is how to find copyright-free medical images. The Marfan Foundation links to a series of very positive "What does Marfan Syndrome look like" images on Flickr, but again they are copyrighted. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmarfanfoundation/albums/72157612643340384 Perhaps the ultimate solution will be to partner with some of these organizations that are concerned with patient advocacy and get them to upload some of their photos. On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Ellie Kesselman wrote: > Regarding the Marfan syndrome image, I looked into it as well as I could. > It seems to be allowed for re-use per the terms of the Creative Commons > license in the source article. I changed the description of the image on > Wikimedia Commons to be "13 year old female" instead of woman, but that > doesn't help at all. The use of the image in the Wikipedia article bothers > me a lot, as she is an almost entirely naked 13 year old girl with an IQ of > 50 according to the research article. I wish that it was not uploaded to > Commons to begin with. Doc James was the user who uploaded according to the > log. I can't find any reason to get it removed or deleted though. If anyone > else can look into it, as Neotarf mentioned, I would be grateful. In my > previous job, I worked for a state services program that cared for children > with debilitating congenital medical conditions, and this photograph makes > me feel very uncomfortable and sad because it seems exploitative to show > this female child naked from three views on Wikipedia, but I don't know > what to do about it. > > --FeralOink > > ___ > 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
