Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Rama Neko <ramaneko@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from people making
public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the
participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph
anyway.

I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps
what we need is a reminder of general the ethics of photography of
people.

-- Rama

On 06/08/2010, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> G'day all,
>
> I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation
> lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice
> I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude words
> and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if they rhyme.)
>
> Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related
> questions is gently dying down -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
>
> and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt
> the 'sexual content' policy proposal -
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.3F
>
> What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or not
> media featuring sexual content should contain at least an assertion that all
> of the participants consent to the upload / publishing of the material - you
> can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't apply such a condition
> retrospectively, and maybe not at all -
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_deletions_by_noconsent_template
>
> I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual content,
> and would like to see this sort of wording ratified as policy -
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid=42301328#consent
>
> The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and
> generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more
> outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to
> share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles sexual
> content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or as part of the upcoming
> poll....
>
> cheers,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l