No, not really. The assumption is toward the uploader having the appropriate permission if it appears to be an amateur image and it has not obvious signs of being a copyright violation. People have been in disagreement about whether images that are "controversial content" should be be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Some people say that we are be biased if we require a higher level of scrutiny for images of naked people. I disagree, but think that we really need to have a higher level of scrutiny for all images with identifiable people. By requiring model consent, we would solve a large part of the problems with the images on Commons.<br>
<br>Sydney Poore<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Sarah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com">slimvirgin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE <<a href="mailto:arnaudherve@x-mail.net">arnaudherve@x-mail.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have<br>
> better policy to work with.<br>
<br>
</div>Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of privacy?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Sarah<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gendergap mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>