Hi, I have some comments inline. 



 
---o0o---

This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

---o0o---

Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file.
 
As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a fool to waste my time contributing there. 



Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how that would work.

We could develop a process:

1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most likely)
2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter developed to "email" Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of this)
3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account. 
4) Fight the good fight on Commons. 

Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved, forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion. 

Again "stop bitching, start a revolution" comes into play here. 

 


Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to intervene.



This is where it falls two ways IMHO:

1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance
2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact

And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to legal@wikimedia.org, so be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this stuff is happening. 


We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the Foundation. 

Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more!!!!!

-Sarah 




--
--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian
www.sarahstierch.com