<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM, phoebe ayers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:phoebe.wiki@gmail.com">phoebe.wiki@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><div></div><div class="h5">On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore <<a href="mailto:sydney.poore@gmail.com">sydney.poore@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch <<a href="mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com">sarah.stierch@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people" target="_blank">http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people</a><br>
>><br>
>> Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?<br>
>><br>
>> -Sarah<br>
><br>
> Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the<br>
> discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial<br>
> content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is<br>
> identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard that<br>
> needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've<br>
> discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being<br>
> sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy.<br>
><br>
> IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person<br>
> giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be<br>
> uploaded with a free license, and what that means.<br>
><br>
> Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people<br>
> assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the<br>
> image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the<br>
> person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.<br>
><br>
> Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed<br>
> consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.<br>
><br>
> Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public<br>
> places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place<br>
> with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them.<br>
> IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean<br>
> that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the<br>
> world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same<br>
> is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that<br>
> someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent<br>
> for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their<br>
> body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized<br>
> way.<br>
><br>
> Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided,<br>
> someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This<br>
> problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want to<br>
> use best practices.<br>
><br>
> Sydney Poore<br>
> User:FloNight<br>
<br>
</div></div>Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a<br>
(re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to<br>
be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar<br>
policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate<br>
this?<br>
<br>
cheers,<br></blockquote></div>Phoebe, yes, we need to go to meta and make a comprehensive list. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that all wikis have policy and procedures in place based on the Foundation resolution.<br>
<br>Sydney<br><br> <br>