[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

[private musings]

ps. for my proposal see;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Proposal_3_-_Model_ages.2C_releases.2C_and_personality_rights

pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit
of a crazy person.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com>wrote:

> Here are some pointers to commons discussions;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
>  - the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
> useful than things like permissions.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>  - mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
> are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
> apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
> closeup of boob etc.)
>
> Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
> unpredictable - see
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_(302214719).jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_%28302214719%29.jpg>
>
> for a beach shot which was deleted, and
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg
>
> for a beach shot which was kept.
>
> It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Last post on this thread.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means
>> that
>> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
>> many
>> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
>> > captured.
>>
>> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this?  I haven't seen
>> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
>> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
>> suggesting one does not.
>>
>> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
>> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
>> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
>> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
>> them.  you can leave out this tangent.
>>
>>
>> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography
>> featuring
>> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
>> image,
>> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting
>> -
>> > the media should be deleted.
>>
>> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
>> leave out that comment entirely.  Permission of subject should be
>> assessed, period.  If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
>> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> An aside on work-safety:
>>
>> Earlier, John wrote:
>> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
>> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
>> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>>
>> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
>> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
>> context.  What I was suggesting is:
>>  - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
>> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
>> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
>> images].
>>
>> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
>> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context.  [for any given image or
>> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
>> commonplace]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>