--- On Wed, 29/6/11, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011, 0:00
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There have been efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal of effort. Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit conduct" as defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some connection I'm missing? Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one. -Pete
And many thanks to Charlotte for injecting clarity into the situation.
The thing is, apparently Mike Godwin advised Commons that --
---o0o--- Wikimedia Commons and other projects are under no obligation to keep records on the age and identity of models shown in media depicting sexually explicit conduct.[15] However, editors who have produced such media, as well as content reusers, may have record- keeping obligations if they qualify as a primary or secondary producer under the act.[14]
Whenever possible, media with potential 2257 record-keeping requirements should be marked with the {{2257}} template to warn commercial content reusers in the United States about possible legal obligations. To facilitate such distribution, uploaders may wish to provide contact information for 2257 documentation requests in the file description. Wikimedia Commons does not request and may not accept copies of identification cards and affidavits as a matter of project scope. Editors from any country are strongly urged, for their sake and ours, not to upload sexually explicit photographs if they are not entirely confident that those shown are 18 or older.
2257 requirements apply specifically to sexual content that includes subjects of legal age. content is of child nudity which does not qualify as sexual, then 2257 notifications are not needed. On the other hand, if child nudity is identified as sexual, then it should not be tagged with a 2257 template or amended to include 2257 information; it should be deleted and reported to the WMF.
No record keeping requirements exist for illustrations or for old photographs proven to be produced before November 1, 1990. With respect to "depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct consisting of only lascivious exhibition or depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct," 18 U.S.C. § 2257A record keeping regulations apply only to works originally produced after March 18, 2009.[16]
Source: Commons Sexual content policy draft: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&ol... (Rejected by the community in December 2010) ---o0o--- Mike Godwin posted to that effect on the policy draft's talk page at the time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3ASexual_content...
Andreas