--- On Wed, 29/6/11, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects"
<gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011, 0:00
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:57, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)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&o…
(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_conten…
Andreas