Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.*
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
- Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable peoplehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Approved 10-0. ---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
Good morning,
We have just received this morning on the Bistro (ie the French village pump) a deletion request for personality rights.
The photo has been taken in Caffé Florian at Venice.
That helped me to understand your confusion between first, the WMF resolution, and secondly the Wikimedia Commons application.
The resolution seems to be related to pictures taken in private, not in the public space:
"The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place."
"Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. "
I so think: i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions ii. we should delete picture taken in private space iii. we should communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way, working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Approved 10-0. ---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson dereckson@gmail.com wrote:
I so think: i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such deletions ii. we should delete picture taken in private space iii. we should communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way, working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.
Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.
Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question? SJ
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
Andreas
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Dereckson dereckson@gmail.com wrote:
I so think: i. we should be especially polite and kind to the requester of such
deletions
ii. we should delete picture taken in private space iii. we should communicate competently in a calm, yet assertive way, working with requesters to help them understand pictures of public personalities taken in public space are legitimate in a democratic society, in the balance between privacy and free speech.
Agreed on all points; and iii. can be done in a friendly way as well.
Andreas, can you post a link to the wiki discussion in question? SJ
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae, coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise on any subject at good-faith face value.
- d.
Mr Gerard, could you please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere? For the record, what you're saying is totally off the wall.
Andreas
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
And to put not too fine a point on it, you have a track record of bad-faith actions, c.f. your campaign of harassment against Fae, coordinated on WIkipedia Review with banned user Edward Buckner. Given this, I'm afraid I find it hard to take almost any concern you raise on any subject at good-faith face value.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Bencmq wrote:
I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?
Yes. Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may not have such consent. If the uploader did not upload directly to Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it is hard to gainsay them.
In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request, unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after reasonably verifying their identity.
Ryan Kaldari writes:
What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Maarten Dammers writes:
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room... If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented.
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not promptly take that photo down?
If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had gotten consent. If not, again -- would we not take the photo down? If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.
Sam.
http://dottmakeup.intuitwebsites.com/
________________________________ Da: Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com A: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Inviato: Domenica 8 Aprile 2012 17:45 Oggetto: Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Bencmq wrote:
I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?
Yes. Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may not have such consent. If the uploader did not upload directly to Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it is hard to gainsay them.
In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request, unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after reasonably verifying their identity.
Ryan Kaldari writes:
What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Maarten Dammers writes:
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room... If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented.
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not promptly take that photo down?
If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had gotten consent. If not, again -- would we not take the photo down? If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.
Sam.
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. This is the link I received by mail:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Those people are identifiable and in a private place. If the photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not promptly take that photo down?
This is exactly what happened. The photographer showed up. He had his identity verified. He said he did not have model consent, and both he and the models badly wanted the images taken down. He asked six times. He was refused six times. You voted in favour of taking the images down, but were outvoted.
So no, Commons would not take the image down, even though Commons policy says it should be taken down.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people...
Andreas
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.
For example tonight I came across this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no investigation.
Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore it).
Tom
Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.
For example tonight I came across this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no investigation.
Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore it).
Tom
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion requires the photographer to establish permission.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
** Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.
Ryan Kaldari
Well, is there a chance now that anyone might delete the images we've been discussing here, per the Board Resolution on Personality Rights and Commons' own Guideline, incl. any copies in the web archive? We are now, through this public discussion, propagating an additional set of links to these privacy-infringing images.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Part of the solution, Ryan, surely is to de-admin admins who do not uphold guidelines and policies. If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stal...
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such endemic abuses.
The other, more proactive part of the solution is to actually *train*admins, make them pass a test rather than a popularity contest, and have regular performance reviews.
Andreas
On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.
For example tonight I came across this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no investigation.
Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore it).
Tom
Commons-l mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of things that should throw up huge red flags.
Image was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
It should be quite easy to get them deleted when there's a copyvio source. The problem is when you 'feel' that the image is a copyvio, yet you can't find a source for that.
On 09/04/12 03:57, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.
Ryan Kaldari
I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be used now on Wikimedia Commons. That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it isn't so bad to "lose" the images. And if they appear back 2 years later, with infringiment claims, we can point to how we notified them, and they ignored for so long, as an indicator of probable abuse of the rules.
On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be used now on Wikimedia Commons. That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it isn't so bad to "lose" the images.
This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once.
As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded them myself :-)
And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers...
Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye straight away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it up for review.
Tom
On 9 April 2012 18:40, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be used now on Wikimedia Commons. That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it isn't so bad to "lose" the images.
This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once.
As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded them myself :-)
And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
These are both great suggestions. I'm going to keep these as notes for future UploadWizard development.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/9/12 10:48 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Another suggestion would be to run all new uploads through Tineye straight away; and if they have significant or suspicious hits put it up for review.
Tom
On 9 April 2012 18:40, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk mailto:andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 9 April 2012 18:24, Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com <mailto:Platonides@gmail.com>> wrote: > I'd go for an automatic bot / server process messaging them on flickr > thanking for posting the photo with a free license and how they can be > used now on Wikimedia Commons. > That won't obviously avoid blatnant flickrwashing, but if the license > was indeed wrongly set, any issues should arise soon enough, when it > isn't so bad to "lose" the images. This is an excellent suggestion - it solves several issues at once. As well as people who've set the "wrong" license ( = they probably didn't think it through) being able to fix it, it means that we do the nice and polite thing of actually telling people that their work was appreciated, that we're wanting to use it, etc. People like being told their images are being reused - I know that when someone left me a note on flickr to say that they'd copied my pictures to Commons, I was quite excited even when I had a vague feeling I should have uploaded them myself :-) And, of course, it promotes Commons to photographers... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk <mailto:andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Ryan Kaldari
On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project.*We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.*
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
* Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people> with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. * Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. * Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same. Approved 10-0.---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.
Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly.
According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account.
Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.
Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently.
Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game. -- Rama
On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Ryan Kaldari
On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Approved 10-0. ---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here. The photographer has asked us to remove it. We have no reason to doubt the subject wants it removed. It's not actually very complementary of her. We have ample other pictures of her. I see absolutely no reason not to honor this request.
Cary Bass
On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:
With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game. -- Rama
On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Ryan Kaldari
On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Approved 10-0. ---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 4/5/12 10:39 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
I think the public/private place argument is actually irrelevant here. The photographer has asked us to remove it. We have no reason to doubt the subject wants it removed. It's not actually very complementary of her. We have ample other pictures of her. I see absolutely no reason not to honor this request.
Cary Bass
Of course I agree with you. I was just trying to pick the easier fight since Andreas had said that the photos had been taken in "a private situation". Respecting uploader wishes is often discretionary, but adhering to official guidelines is expected unless you have a compelling reason not to. Either way, I would probably support deleting it, but since I don't know the specific situation, I can't comment further.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/5/2012 10:24 PM, Rama Neko wrote:
With "public place" meaning "public event where the presence of the subject was advertised so it's not their private life", of course; as opposed to taking photographs of a celebrity shopping in a supermarket, for instance, which would not be fair game. -- Rama
On 6 April 2012 02:22, Ryan Kaldarirkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
Ryan Kaldari
On 3/10/12 8:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution:
---o0o---
The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons.
However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.
In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same.
Approved 10-0. ---o0o---
Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago. Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied. Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi Ryan,
Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room... . If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.
Maarten
Its a balancing we need the images but we also the goodwill that the removal of images creates, what we dont need are court battles or media battles with high profile people the loss of a couple of images every now and then shouldnt be a big deal thats the way I treated such requests when I was on OTRS. I'd review the image its usage and then decide if there was a critical necessity for the image if there wasnt I'd delete it. When the image is sourced through flickr like sources that doesnt stop another person copying it back to Commons at a later date anyway.
On 8 April 2012 20:01, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi Ryan,
Op 6-4-2012 2:22, Ryan Kaldari schreef:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room.... If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented. For this picture we're probably able to get that afterwards because we know these people, but for most picture this is an easy way to get images deleted which you don't like.
Maarten
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 06/04/12 10:22, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
I looked at the deletion discussions. It looked to me like personality rights were never seriously considered.
The first three deletion requests were made anonymously, and the whole of the request was just "Copyrights!" The fourth and fifth deletion requests were closed by admins who gave no indication that they had read the discussion on personality rights or the OTRS tickets, they just said "kept per the other DRs".
Maybe if the requester knew how Commons worked, they wouldn't have submitted deletion requests that looked so trollish. If they only sent OTRS tickets and never tried a deletion request, the images probably would have been deleted by now.
-- Tim Starling
this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link to what is being discussed
I checked http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stal... doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... are the only discussion that have been linked in the email I've recieved thru commons-l,
If this discussion is going to start throwing around solutions that include Commons admins having their tools removed by the foundation, and changes to way in which commons chooses its admin and the skill requirements of these people then we should have access to the discussion that triggered it.
As for not reading OTRS tickets unless you have access you cant read them, OTRS agents dont normally(privacy requirements) release the information on the ticket so Commons Admins must "assume good faith" in what we are being told. The Stalin discussion stated that "*OTRS confirmation* - We have received an email from the son of Margaret Bourke-White who is the current copyright holder giving permission for the photograph to be used" at that point every commons admin would close the discussion on the assumption of good faith in the OTRS agents comment.
When images are transferred from Flickr the only decision is verification of license, permissions arent something that can be considered if the uploader askes the author they then forward the permission to OTRS so again Commons Admins need to AGF to accuse admins of "*Part of the solution, ..... If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example*:" when they dont have access to the information is disgusting these people are volunteers the Stalin discussion followed Commons policy the decision being made were based on available information there was no collusion there was no incompetence intentional or otherwise. When other information was presented to dispute the decisons the discussion reopened and closed according to the new information that is fine example of how Commons discussions work
The solution here isnt to alter how Commons admins work, nor how they are chosen the issue here is ensuring OTRS agents have the knowledge to process permission tickets so that admins can act on requests. When I started on OTRS there was no training, or guidence on how to use the system I was left to my own devices to learn to answer tickets In the time I was there the OTRS wiki was started up, I was dropped off the OTRS list for not being active so I cant comment on whats changed since nor how the OTRS wiki works now.
Trolling is problem on all wiki's as are witch hunts the system we have works very well, yes it has flaws including AGF and Trust but we cant work without those, we cant work without admins either yes Commons needs more but doesnt every wiki. Whats needed is to drop the creation of policy thru witchhunt proccesses because we are always going to have issue with images. the current processes work well in most cases, but future changes to way we get images from flickr are going to stretch those processess both on Commons and thru OTRS we need ways to deal with the effect of these changes.
On 10 April 2012 10:14, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 06/04/12 10:22, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
This is generally a straightforward decision per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. If the photos were taken in a private place, consent is required. If the photos were taken in a public place, consent is not required (with exceptions for some countries). What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?
I looked at the deletion discussions. It looked to me like personality rights were never seriously considered.
The first three deletion requests were made anonymously, and the whole of the request was just "Copyrights!" The fourth and fifth deletion requests were closed by admins who gave no indication that they had read the discussion on personality rights or the OTRS tickets, they just said "kept per the other DRs".
Maybe if the requester knew how Commons worked, they wouldn't have submitted deletion requests that looked so trollish. If they only sent OTRS tickets and never tried a deletion request, the images probably would have been deleted by now.
-- Tim Starling
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link to what is being discussed
I checked http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stal... doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... are the only discussion that have been linked in the email I've recieved thru commons-l,
If this discussion is going to start throwing around solutions that include Commons admins having their tools removed by the foundation, and changes to way in which commons chooses its admin and the skill requirements of these people then we should have access to the discussion that triggered it.
As for not reading OTRS tickets unless you have access you cant read them, OTRS agents dont normally(privacy requirements) release the information on the ticket so Commons Admins must "assume good faith" in what we are being told. The Stalin discussion stated that "*OTRS confirmation* - We have received an email from the son of Margaret Bourke-White who is the current copyright holder giving permission for the photograph to be used" at that point every commons admin would close the discussion on the assumption of good faith in the OTRS agents comment.
When images are transferred from Flickr the only decision is verification of license, permissions arent something that can be considered if the uploader askes the author they then forward the permission to OTRS so again Commons Admins need to AGF to accuse admins of "*Part of the solution, ..... If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example*:" when they dont have access to the information is disgusting these people are volunteers the Stalin discussion followed Commons policy the decision being made were based on available information there was no collusion there was no incompetence intentional or otherwise. When other information was presented to dispute the decisons the discussion reopened and closed according to the new information that is fine example of how Commons discussions work
The solution here isnt to alter how Commons admins work, nor how they are chosen the issue here is ensuring OTRS agents have the knowledge to process permission tickets so that admins can act on requests. When I started on OTRS there was no training, or guidence on how to use the system I was left to my own devices to learn to answer tickets In the time I was there the OTRS wiki was started up, I was dropped off the OTRS list for not being active so I cant comment on whats changed since nor how the OTRS wiki works now.
Trolling is problem on all wiki's as are witch hunts the system we have works very well, yes it has flaws including AGF and Trust but we cant work without those, we cant work without admins either yes Commons needs more but doesnt every wiki. Whats needed is to drop the creation of policy thru witchhunt proccesses because we are always going to have issue with images. the current processes work well in most cases, but future changes to way we get images from flickr are going to stretch those processess both on Commons and thru OTRS we need ways to deal with the effect of these changes.
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.
On 4/10/2012 7:38 AM, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.
Absolutely,
I've read the OTRS email, now. The author never intended to release the images to the public under a free license. He uploaded them to Flickr to share with the models. It seems that we are playing "gotcha" with the artist by stating "irrevocable", which is a very poor stand from which to operate, especially because people do make errors in judgement due to lack of technical expertise or understanding of implication.
The images are not actually available anywhere else under a free license, and I've yet to locate anything but a direct link to the images themselves available online, on a copyrighted site. Additionally, the artist's Flickr site
We are indeed broken if we are now deciding that we cannot honor an artist's request to remove images he uploaded in either an error of judgment, a misunderstanding of licensing, a lack of technical understanding, or some combination of any or all of those.
So, can this still be remedied? I would like to hear suggestions. I think we have admins willing to delete the images, but I would certainly not do this on my own, "lone wolf' style, or without some agreement as to how to accomplish this.
Cary
On 4/10/2012 8:59 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
On 4/10/2012 7:38 AM, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.
Absolutely,
I've read the OTRS email, now. The author never intended to release the images to the public under a free license. He uploaded them to Flickr to share with the models. It seems that we are playing "gotcha" with the artist by stating "irrevocable", which is a very poor stand from which to operate, especially because people do make errors in judgement due to lack of technical expertise or understanding of implication.
The images are not actually available anywhere else under a free license, and I've yet to locate anything but a direct link to the images themselves available online, on a copyrighted site. Additionally, the artist's Flickr site
SHOULD READ: "the artist's Flickr site is now entirely Copyright, thereby demonstrating a renewed understanding of intent and free licensing."
We are indeed broken if we are now deciding that we cannot honor an artist's request to remove images he uploaded in either an error of judgment, a misunderstanding of licensing, a lack of technical understanding, or some combination of any or all of those.
So, can this still be remedied? I would like to hear suggestions. I think we have admins willing to delete the images, but I would certainly not do this on my own, "lone wolf' style, or without some agreement as to how to accomplish this.
Cary
On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.
Yes, I was talking about the ObiWolf images.
Admins have to deal with a ton of crap every day, and decisions need to be made quickly if there is to be any hope of keeping up with demand. I didn't mean to lay blame, I just think that the DRs should be reopened, with more care taken in the opening paragraph of the DR to guide the admins in the right direction.
-- Tim Starling
OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how Commons does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable and that we dont check personality rights when uploading from flickr.
What was linked in this discussion has been a witchhunt and stand by that and my review of the Stalin photo discussions.
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
in the Obiwolf discussions one closure was a coi and it was also the discussion that raised the personality rights. IMHO that sufficient reason to reopen the discussion
As a side issue maybe we need a spedy criteria for OTRS agents to tag images where its outside the normal reasonshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. though point 5 " Missing essential information." should have caught these ones
On 11 April 2012 07:25, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.
Yes, I was talking about the ObiWolf images.
Admins have to deal with a ton of crap every day, and decisions need to be made quickly if there is to be any hope of keeping up with demand. I didn't mean to lay blame, I just think that the DRs should be reopened, with more care taken in the opening paragraph of the DR to guide the admins in the right direction.
-- Tim Starling
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how Commons does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable ...
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences as irrevocable.
I'm asking this because I've seen a couple of cases on the Commons in the last few months where people have asked that personal images be deleted (usually involving body parts that they uploaded when kids), and being told no, too late, you can't change your mind. This seems cruel and unreasonable, and so I'm wondering what the legal basis for it is.
Sarah
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_...
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Not exactly. The license is irrevocable =/= license is exclusive. We don't *have* to follow the NC license.
Say the work was once BY-SA-NC and later changed to BY-SA, people can still create derivative work and license them with BY-SA-NC, *not* BY-SA.
(Do correct me if I'm wrong)
Best regards, Benjamin Chen / User:Bencmq
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Benjamin Chen cnchenminqi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable?
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_...
Thanks for the link. Wouldn't we have to know that the uploader was over the age of consent? I'm thinking that a young teenager wouldn't be in a position to enter a contract before that. That is, they wouldn't be in a position to say "I hereby release this image of my body parts (or anything else) irrevocably under a cc licence."
Also, has the irrevocable nature of these image releases been upheld by a court?
Sarah
On Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM, "Sarah" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences as irrevocable.
A license change doesn't mean the original license has been revoked. (On Flickr or commons)
A work can be simultaneously licensed under multiple CC licenses even if they have conflicting terms. (e.g. you could a single work under both BY-ND and BY-NC-SA) That just lets the user/distributor/derivative choose which license(s) to use the work under.
-Jeremy
On 4/10/2012 9:45 PM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
We would not allow a change of mind in the other direction, but allowing any change implies that we don't, in fact, regard cc licences as irrevocable.
I'm asking this because I've seen a couple of cases on the Commons in the last few months where people have asked that personal images be deleted (usually involving body parts that they uploaded when kids), and being told no, too late, you can't change your mind. This seems cruel and unreasonable, and so I'm wondering what the legal basis for it is.
Sarah
A CC-By license *is* irrevocable.
By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it irrevocable (see link that Benjamin Chen provided). That does *not* mean * that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or * that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images
I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., once we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward images have a chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally obligated to do that. Downward reusers can either decide that we demonstrated a free license at the time they copied from us or they can remove them themselves. We are in no more obligation to them than we are to those artists that we're reusing from.
You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community.
In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible for us.
Cary
In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible for us.
It's worse than that.
This situation does not make us look bad, not really, not yet. It has potential, but I doubt it will materialise. If it did, I am absolutely confident that the images would be taken off in the swift and decisive action that is appropriate in this case. The point is precisely that in the absence of media attention, the community is as a whole incapable of taking such appropriate action. We act in narrow self-interest, not in the best interest of things and people in general. -- Rama
In the ObWolf photos the issue isnt licensing, the issue is whether consent from the subject was given and what that consent was. We see that the photo was not taken in a public place, so that make its a private place for which we require a model release that specifies consent to use for any purpose, in absence of any proof we should be deleting the image see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people... becasue the author has contacted us through OTRS and specifically stated that consent wasnt given for the images to released freely http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle deletion should occur.
Or we need to address both of these policies to reflect what is actually happening on Commons, provided that what is happening is what we to happen
On 11 April 2012 13:20, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe
the
retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks
terrible
for us.
It's worse than that.
This situation does not make us look bad, not really, not yet. It has potential, but I doubt it will materialise. If it did, I am absolutely confident that the images would be taken off in the swift and decisive action that is appropriate in this case. The point is precisely that in the absence of media attention, the community is as a whole incapable of taking such appropriate action. We act in narrow self-interest, not in the best interest of things and people in general. -- Rama
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
A CC-By license *is* irrevocable.
By agreeing to the CC-BY license, you are agreeing to make it irrevocable (see link that Benjamin Chen provided). That does *not* mean
- that you aren't allowed to modify your own images or
- that reusers are obligated to continue to retain your images
I've heard an argument about the downward reuse (beyond commons), i.e., once we have an image we're obligated to retain it so that downward images have a chain, but I'm not at all convinced that we are legally obligated to do that. Downward reusers can either decide that we demonstrated a free license at the time they copied from us or they can remove them themselves. We are in no more obligation to them than we are to those artists that we're reusing from.
You have to weigh the consequences of losing reused images versus the consequences of ignoring courtesy to the creative community.
In the circumstance, I think the ObiWolf situation, I sincerely believe the retention is causing far greater harm to the creative community than the courtesy removal would to the free culture community. And it looks terrible for us.
Cary
Thanks, Cary. Given that the women are identifiable, haven't consented to release, and the photograph was taken in a private place, why won't an admin simply delete the image? Or at least pixellate the faces?
I'm sorry if this has been explained already.
Sarah
On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software. But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
The people who reuse your content based on the first license, must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe because you granted them an irrevocable license.
What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses. Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't understand what they were doing. But then Commons could respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
When someone licenses an image they first have to be legally able to do so, if they dont its irrelevant what the license is or what it gets changed to, its invalid and cant be enforced. That also means no matter what we claim the license to have been when we got it its still invalid so we cant host it.
On 11 April 2012 17:50, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software. But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
The people who reuse your content based on the first license, must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe because you granted them an irrevocable license.
What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses. Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't understand what they were doing. But then Commons could respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software. But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
The people who reuse your content based on the first license, must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe because you granted them an irrevocable license.
Thank you for the explanation. As I mentioned earlier, surely only adults can grant irrevocable licences. Huge numbers of our uploaders are under the age of consent. We ask all kinds of questions before allowing people to upload (are you the author, has your work been published before, etc), but we don't ask "are you over 18?"
Many of the rest of the uploaders aren't paying attention, and often the authors aren't the uploaders, but have consented by email without realizing what they're agreeing to.
What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses. Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't understand what they were doing. But then Commons could respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
Yes, indeed, but as we see, they don't.
Sarah
A license is, specifically, not a contract.
Tom Morton
On 11 Apr 2012, at 18:30, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
On 04/11/2012 06:45 AM, Sarah wrote:
Can anyone point me to the basis of the claim that cc licences are irrevocable? If someone were to upload an image to Flickr with a cc non-commercial licence, then changed her mind and broadened it to allow commercial use, Commons would not reject the image on the grounds that the first, more restrictive, licence was irrevocable.
Granting a license means opening a legal door. Granting another license means opening another door, and this is okay. That is called "dual licensing" and the famous example is MySQL software. But irrevocable means you're not allowed to close the first door.
The people who reuse your content based on the first license, must still be allowed to do this. If you try to sue them for reusing your content under a license that you now regret, they are safe because you granted them an irrevocable license.
Thank you for the explanation. As I mentioned earlier, surely only adults can grant irrevocable licences. Huge numbers of our uploaders are under the age of consent. We ask all kinds of questions before allowing people to upload (are you the author, has your work been published before, etc), but we don't ask "are you over 18?"
Many of the rest of the uploaders aren't paying attention, and often the authors aren't the uploaders, but have consented by email without realizing what they're agreeing to.
What we're discussing here is whether Commons should respect people who wish to regret having granted irrevocable licenses. Legally they may (or may not) be able to claim they didn't understand what they were doing. But then Commons could respect such wishes even if there is no legal demand.
Yes, indeed, but as we see, they don't.
Sarah
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Actually; to be more specific. A license is not always a contract - although they can form part of a contract.
The sorts of licenses dealt with on Commons, though, are not contracts.
I have no idea whether the age of majority affects the ability to grant a license; but I suspect it doesnt.
Right, now I'm in front of a computer here's a third, more detailed reply, which hopefully addresses a lot of what Anne is asking.
A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal with, though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is that you enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some entity) - one that carries a legal obligation.
The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the licensing permissions for the media.
If someone violates those licensing permissions they are not violating any contract, the matter is purely considered under copyright law. The copyright holder asserts that a user has violated the license terms; and the licensee can either prove they have not, or agree the have etc.
As far as I know, it is not a requirement for you to be above the age of majority in any jurisdiction to license your work.
This is because Copyright is considered a moral right, automatically endowed on your creative works. Licensing that work falls under the purview of copyright; it is the way you set out the permissions for reuse of that work.
When you put a work under a Creative Commons, for example, it includes this text in the license:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants
You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
As you can see; this is a perpetual license.
You can, of course, stop offering the work under this license - however anyone in possession of the work retains the license they received it under, and could (in the case of Creative Commons) offer it online themselves if they wish.
This is what Commons generally means by "irrevocable".
Ok this next bit is my musing; and it relates to whether Commons acts as a host for the creator (or, more properly, the uploader) of a work OR as a licensee.
If Commons acts as a licensee then they are within their rights to refuse to delete a properly licensed image at the request of the uploader. This is because they have a copy of the work under a perpetual license and can use it under the terms of that license to their hearts content.
However, if Commons simply acts as a host for the uploaders work, providing a way for others to receive it under the specified license, then it becomes more interesting. If the Foundation (the legal entity) has not been granted the work under the relevant license then the uploader could assert his or her moral right to have them remove it - essentially say "I would like to withdraw this work".
Given the hand waviness of how this licensing stuff operates, that is probably only an academic distinction of little practical use.
(n.b. I say uploader, of course, because if a work has been re-uploaded by someone who is not the creator then it is up the uploader as to whether to remove it).
Which is why it is much easier to say "the license if irrevocable" when these questions are posed ;)
Tom
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal with, though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is that you enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some entity) - one that carries a legal obligation.
The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the licensing permissions for the media.
Thanks, Tom. There's a story here about the relationship (or the developing understanding of the relationship) between copyright and contract law. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04163310101.shtml
The thing I don't understand is how a child could agree to any of this. A CC license is an agreement proposed by the author. "I will allow anyone to use this image so long as (for example) you credit me with each use." A child is not in a position to propose anything, or agree to anything, or to give away her rights or the rights of her heirs. But this is what we're asking under-age people to do on a daily basis, then when they say they have changed their minds - or that they realize for the first time what their words implied -- we ignore them.
That's really out of order, morally, and probably legally, especially when the images are personal and of no conceivable benefit to the project. It means we're being unpleasant just because we can.
Sarah
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
A license, as I mentioned, is not a contract - although it can (and regularly does) form part of a contract. The kinds of licenses we deal
with,
though, are not part of any contract. The point about a contract is that
you
enter into a direct, binding agreement with someone (or some entity) -
one
that carries a legal obligation.
The free licenses we use don't do this; what they do is set out the licensing permissions for the media.
Thanks, Tom. There's a story here about the relationship (or the developing understanding of the relationship) between copyright and contract law. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/04163310101.shtml
The thing I don't understand is how a child could agree to any of this. A CC license is an agreement proposed by the author. "I will allow anyone to use this image so long as (for example) you credit me with each use." A child is not in a position to propose anything, or agree to anything, or to give away her rights or the rights of her heirs. But this is what we're asking under-age people to do on a daily basis, then when they say they have changed their minds - or that they realize for the first time what their words implied -- we ignore them.
That's really out of order, morally, and probably legally, especially when the images are personal and of no conceivable benefit to the project. It means we're being unpleasant just because we can.
Sarah
For the most part, minors are perfectly able to execute contracts. People are sometimes reluctant to contract with minors because minors can, in some circumstances, void contracts that are not in their interest. But as a general rule, contracts with minors are not impossible or illegal.
That's of course a totally separate question from moral responsibility and whether we should accept licenses from minors for certain kinds of content... but as history has shown, that kind of argument gets little traction in the Wikimedia community.
For the most part, minors are perfectly able to execute contracts. People
are sometimes reluctant to contract with minors because minors can, in some circumstances, void contracts that are not in their interest. But as a general rule, contracts with minors are not impossible or illegal.
Ah, yes, that was the other critical part of the response to Sarah that I missed, thanks :)
Minors can enter contracts. They just have no legal obligation (or close to).
Tom
With all the legal talk I think this discussion is moving in the wrong direction. To paraphrase Sarah, is it really worth it to "be unpleasant just because we can"? I realize that we need to draw lines to protect our users and ensure reliably the freedom of the work we host. But can't we move the line on the other side of content that is not particularly valuable for the project and could cause serious personal problems for uploaders and depicted persons. The keep on the Obi DR seems rather spiteful and detrimental to the overall cause. But I have the feeling that the involved people still think they are the "guardians" of free content... Dschwen
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
This is a matter of institutional politics in Commons.
As you say, an office action would be an intervention of the Foundation on administrative turf, a recourse that the Foundation understandably wish to reserve for the most serious of events to avoid wearing its authority. Because of this, we have to rely on the administrative corps, which does not function as a coherant institution, but as the sum of contributions of the random administrators who decide to intervene on such or such event. This occasionally leaves a great deal of influence in the hands of people who lack the insight to see the finality of things rather than stop at matters of pure form, and occasionally of people who are too intellectually lazy to completely understand even the forms.
Our system works well for usual cases where simple matters can be railroaded through mediocre people. It has every chance of failing in exceptional circumstances, when some actual understanding is required. It is not that there is no intelligent person in Commons, but that intelligence can hardly be expressed in the collective voice that emerges through our system. -- Rama
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You don't just do them because you care about something.
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
-- Tim Starling
Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would be to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what is going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing issue and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least that forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You don't just do them because you care about something.
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
-- Tim Starling
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
IF the discussion is reopened with the reason being stated that consent from the models doesnt exist then licensing is irelevant. People presenting opinion have to address the concern of whether the models have given consent, they can say all they want about licensing but it'd be pointless. I think the bigger concern would be another COI closure.
On 12 April 2012 07:33, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would be to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what is going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing issue and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least that forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
Ryan Kaldari
On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You don't just do them because you care about something.
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
-- Tim Starling
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Since the issue is mainly (although not strictly limited to) consent of identifiable persons, it seems that the least disruptive solution would be to blur the faces in the photographs. There is precedent for this on Commons, and I think it would be harder to argue against than outright deleting them. If they are nominated for deletion we already know what is going to happen: everyone is going to concentrate on the licensing issue and ignore the consent issue. If we just blur the faces, at least that forces people to discuss the consent issue on its own merits.
Everyone who has commented here seems to be in fairly good agreement that these images should have been deleted long ago, per the Commons guideline, as well as the board resolution. Let's please do the right thing, and face the consequences.
Alternatively, I will shortly start the seventh deletion request.
Or we can give up any pretence that Commons is subject to a system of policies and guidelines, and follows the directions set by the Wikimedia Foundation board.
Andreas
On 4/11/12 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 11/04/12 14:23, Gnangarra wrote:
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
Office actions are typically initiated by the community department and approved by Sue Gardner. I think about one per year gets approved. You don't just do them because you care about something.
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
-- Tim Starling
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 4/11/2012 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
I think your opinion on the discussion itself will carry far more weight than an out-of-process technical deletion.
Cary
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted by Russavia.
As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion at the bottom of this page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Andreas
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
On 4/11/2012 4:25 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
I could just delete the images, but someone would probably revert me. If they need to be deleted out of process, it's best if a well-respected Commons admin does it.
I think your opinion on the discussion itself will carry far more weight than an out-of-process technical deletion.
Cary
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 4/12/2012 8:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted by Russavia.
As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion at the bottom of this page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Andreas
After all the discussion on the list, I'm not at all certain why Rd232 went ahead and simply deleted it. -- likely to stir up considerable drama.
Cary
there was an earlier suggestion that a well respected admin just delete them, I wouldnt class the new discussion as drama as there isnt an of the usual noticeboard threads about either the deletion or the subsequent reversal
On 13 April 2012 10:46, Cary Bass bastique.ml@bastique.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 8:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
The images were deleted this morning by Rd232. They have now been undeleted by Russavia.
As a result of the undelete, there is now yet another deletion discussion at the bottom of this page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Commons:Deletion_** requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_**Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_** .286th_nomination.29http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_.286th_nomination.29
Andreas
After all the discussion on the list, I'm not at all certain why Rd232 went ahead and simply deleted it. -- likely to stir up considerable drama.
Cary
______________________________**_________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/commons-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 04/12/2012 08:10 PM, Gnangarra wrote:
there was an earlier suggestion that a well respected admin just delete them, I wouldnt class the new discussion as drama as there isnt an of the usual noticeboard threads about either the deletion or the subsequent reversal
If I were an admin who was going to delete these pictures based on consensus, I would want to be sure that it wasn't going to be reversed because the current discussion has not been linked on the Current Deletion Requests (better) or any other noticeboard (not so better):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_req...
Unless I'm missing something there.