On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Sarah et al
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Sarah <
slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is my first Commons deletion nom. I'm trying to act rather than
> expecting others to do it, but it's not a particularly pleasant experience.
> I understand why people don't want to get involved.
If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy
images, then look at whether consent was given for their initial
publication (as per
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT).
Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to
be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free
licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial
publication is what matters currently.
Thanks, Russavia, this is very helpful advice. Regarding consent, Commons:IDENT says: "Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer
to do what they like with the image. ... The photographer and uploader must
satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is
appropriate for uploading to Commons."
So a model release would presumably have to include agreeing to release the image under a free licence, or explicitly to upload it to Commons. It could not simply be agreement to publication, which might be of a more limited kind.
Is that your interpretation too?
This seems to be the crux of the matter. Erik said,
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith ("I put them on Flickr with permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons"), it's still desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.
---o0o---
Russavia said,
---o0o---
If copyright checks out, for private settings/expectation of privacy
images, then look at whether consent was given for their initial
publication (as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:IDENT).
Ignore things such as whether they have given permission for photos to
be uploaded to Commons, for photos to be made available under free
licences, etc for these are not actually required -- initial
publication is what matters currently.
---o0o---
There is a disconnect here between Russavia's interpretation, which I believe is representative of the Commons view, and Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the board resolution.
That disconnect needs to be resolved.
Ryan offered a quote from the consent template:
---o0o---
"This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be reasonably inferred."
---o0o---
This introduces the editorial standards of the source as a criterion. We had the example of the official White House photostream vs. a pseudonymous Flickr account that posted adult images on Flickr and then disappeared.
It seems to me that this is the way to resolve the contradiction. The Commons view that initial publication alone justifies a Commons upload is appropriate for sources that have high professional and ethical standards.
The board view, i.e. that specific consent for the Commons upload should be sought, must be brought to bear on sources with poor editorial standards, such as pseudonymous uploads of sexual media by Flickr accounts that often disappear a relatively short time after the upload.
Thanks for the deletion nomination, Sarah.
Andreas