<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be uploaded with a free license, and what that means. <br><br></blockquote><div>
<br>Yes, there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate representation about this. I also think it should be acceptable to have some type of model release OTRS type template and expiration date for deletion if not acquired. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated. <br>
</blockquote><div><br>Absolutely. The moment a person releases something into the free culture world, many have no clue what that can mean. As with many of the problems we have with Wikimedia culture - with readers, writers, lack of contributors - it all comes to informing the public, and again, uploaders and participants need to be better educated (or "warned") about what their content being release means. There has to be better ways we can do this. Even if it means dumbing things down (for normal human beings who don't know Wiki-speak, which seems to be a HUGE portion of the people who upload to Commons).<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.<br><br></blockquote><div><br>Exactly.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them. IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized way.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>+1. There are hundreds of photographs of women sunbathing, walking down the street, etc. It makes me severely uncomfortable that we have people taking photographs of people in a voyeuristic manner uploading images to Commons, Flickr, whatever. Just because someone (of any gender) lays on the beach, walks down the street wearing something sexy, or whatever, doesn't mean they are "asking to have their photograph taken." <br>
<br><br>-Sarah<br></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.glamwiki.org" target="_blank">GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch" target="_blank">Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art</a> <br>
and<br>Sarah Stierch Consulting<div><i>Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.</i><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><a href="http://www.sarahstierch.com/" target="_blank">http://www.sarahstierch.com/</a></div>
<br>