--- 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&oldid=46713054#Legal_Issues


(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&action=historysubmit&diff=39225950&oldid=39225824



Andreas