That looks good, Ryan. Would it make sense to add something about the
release of the image? For example,

"I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
specifically consented to this photograph or video being taken and
released under a free licence."

Sarah

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 15:43, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I have created the new consent template:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
>
> Here is an example of it in use:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Splitting_logs_with_a_gas_powered_log_splitter.JPG
>
> I also added a new section to the
> Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons guidelines encouraging people to
> use the new template.
>
> The wording of the template and guidelines don't mention anything about
> nudity or sexualization. This is on purpose. Hopefully, this will be a good
> first step to increasing the value and visibility of consent on Commons (in
> a way that builds consensus rather than warring factions).
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> On 9/12/11 5:49 PM, Toby Hudson wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan,
>
> A draft template was actually made to augment the mostly recently voted
> [[COM:SEX]] proposal:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
>
> The proposal closed with no consensus*, but with a few modifications, the
> template could still be put to good use.
>
> Toby / 99of9
>
>
> *Mainly because it included a clause allowing admins to delete out of scope
> sexual content directly in a speedy deletion rather than setting up a
> deletion request.  There actually wasn't too much opposition to requiring a
> statement of consent for identifiable sexual images, although there was
> some.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I've been
>> wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the time. I'm
>> worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so I want to
>> quickly share a few thoughts...
>>
>> First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for
>> years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything,
>> please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their
>> outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these pages:
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
>>
>> The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any
>> proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly problematic
>> about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut
>> down. The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and
>> guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a
>> sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what NOT to
>> do:
>>
>> I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable
>> / necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing -
>> thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
>>     I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8
>> January 2009 (UTC)
>>
>> If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now.
>> That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In particular...
>>
>> Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in
>> private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for
>> public spaces. (Take a look at
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.)
>> The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and
>> reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to
>> assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient
>> system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with
>> consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with
>> the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used
>> currently).
>>
>> I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very
>> simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing
>> policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers,
>> professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have
>> to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for
>> everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about
>> consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are
>> concerned about censorship.
>>
>> As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw
>> it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap