Hi SJ,
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pete,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
To me the
wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands.
No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a
blunt
instrument that it requires the deletion of all
normal portraits taken
in a
private place, vastly exceeding the standards of
sites like Flickr,
Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.
H'm? The resolution does not specify deletion. Nor does it specify
what the Commons guideline should look like - it specifically does not
link to a historical revision.
It urges that the current Commons guideline extend to specifying when
an explicit affirmation of consent is required by the uploader. And
that this then be enforced. As with the "no fair use" shift, I would
expect first this would only apply to new media, then uncertain-status
media would be phased out, then years later the uncertain-status
orphans might be mothballed.
I'm pretty sure that's something we all agree would be worthwhile, and if
that was your intent in the resolution, excellent. If there is will to move
forward, it's hardly worth quibbling over the language of something passed
several years ago.
The current Commons guideline and template do define "consent": to be
published on the Internet. "The photographer and
uploader must
satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is
appropriate for uploading to Commons." The Commons policy already
addresses the nuances around public figures, news of public interest,
&c.
Yes, exactly. It does, but it could do so better. I think it's interesting
that the very file used to illustrate the central Commons policy,
[[COM:IDENT]], contains only a statement that the subject consented to
having her image published; not published on the Internet or published on
Commons, but merely published. I don't see any indication that anybody has
given a thought to what is required by the policy. Clearly, we have some
work to do in establishing a clear shared understanding.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actress_Anna_Unterberger-2.jpg
Most identifiable photos of non-public-figures published on Flickr,
Facebook, Google +, &c do *not* in fact have
subject consent. We can
and should do better than this: as with awkward copyright status,
images with uncertain consent should be replcaed with those with clear
consent wherever possible.
Yes, this is exactly my point. Wikimedia Commons is not any more "broken"
by this measure than any other top upload site; I'd say it's much *less*
broken by this measure.
there is no
broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
<tada>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
</tada>
As I acknowledged before, this template is more thoroughly developed than I
had remembered, and something I think we should use. I misspoke. Still,
it's worth pointing out that this template is in use on about 600 files on
Commons -- a tiny sliver of a tiny fraction of where it could be applied.
It probably should be applied to every file in [[Template:Personality
rights]], or if it can't be applied, those files should be considered for
deletion. I think one of the best things we could all do to move things
forward would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and
encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be
fantastic -- really fantastic -- if cultural organizations advised by a
Wikipedian in Residence, and organizations within the Wikimedia sphere,
could start doing so by default, to set a strong example. I'm going to
start with the photos of me.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]