To Robert's point below, I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model release policy? How does one prove that one really is the photographer / the person in a photograph?
There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't seen further discussion recently: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification Sam. -- user:sj +1 617 529 4266 On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde <raro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>[...] >> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of >> Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily >> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the >> people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models >> pictured. >> >> This is essentially a consent issue. If the model is a well-known >> porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no >> problem. However, many of the sexual images we receive depict >> non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct. >> If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine >> too. However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have >> no idea how their image is being used. Even if the person pictured >> consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified >> at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by >> millions. >> >> At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image >> are often very lax. With regards to "self-made" images, we often take >> a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible. >> >> In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue >> of biographies of living persons. For a long time we treated those >> articles more or less the same as all other articles. However, >> eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living >> persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards, >> especially in the case of negative or private information. >> >> I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially >> embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where >> we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a >> stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content. >> (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be >> done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people >> should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential >> for embarrassment or other harm.) >> >> Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living >> people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which >> would require no special treatment. >> >> >> Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at >> least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget >> the potential to harm the people in the images. > > > I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely > inclusionist in the larger debate here. > > I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend > stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude > pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia > to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific > picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate). > > The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses > of her privacy and property. > > This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth > keeping in mind. > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herb...@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