You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
below is covered by
.
If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop talking
on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead for full
community input.
I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
venue.
Cheers,
Russavia
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here is an example of a recent deletion request that
was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_pha…
The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
"This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
---o0o---
File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddl…
To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in
source." This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Conti
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti>|✉<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti>
19:36,
11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*.
-- Infrogmation <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation> (
talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation>)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmation<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation>
(talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation>) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Conti<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti>
|✉ <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti> 12:10, 12 March
2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257>}}.
For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
set<http://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/>)/>),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion --moogsi<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi>
(blah <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi>) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faigl<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav>
(talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav>)
01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
------------------------------
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck>* (
Talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck>) 02:00, 1
April 2013 (UTC)
---o0o---
The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:
---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.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html
---o0o---
In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr
account holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded
to Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in
uploading sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more
recently been played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo
Band ceased editing in early 2011.
No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman
depicted are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it
appears it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his
current or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as
such) to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is
aware of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her
likeness to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects, and to be used commercially in perpetuity by
anyone who sees the image on a Wikimedia site.
Surely, we can all imagine a number of scenarios where one or more of
these assumptions might prove mistaken. (I have personal experience of a
case where the director of a small publishing house specialising in
underground comics put out an entire book with nude images of his former
partners, including one with whom he had a child, without asking any of
them for consent.)
There are hundreds of similar Flickr uploads on Commons, and more are
added continuously.
It would be helpful if the Foundation could insist on a standard letter to
be sent to Flickr users that would advise them in advance of the intent to
upload an adult Flickr image of theirs to a Wikimedia site. This would
point out to the Flickr account holder that the image may become highly
visible through inclusion in Wikipedia, and that once uploaded, it will be
available in perpetuity for commercial re-use by anyone who sees the image
on a Wikimedia site.
It would then ask for formal confirmation that the model(s) have been
advised of these facts, and that they are happy for their image to be used
in this manner. This would also go a long way towards ensuring that any
commercial re-users of the images are safe, and won't find themselves at
the receiving end of a legal claim.
I believe it would be in the Foundation's best interests to advise Commons
admins that they are expected to uphold these requirements, and to de-admin
anyone who fails to do so.
On a slightly different, but related topic, Commons admins should be
advised that in the case of sexual images whose description states that
they depict a minor (i.e. below the age of 18), the appropriate action is
not to open a deletion discussion (there was a recent instance where this
happened), but to have the image promptly removed by an oversighter and/or
Foundation staff. Again, I believe it would be in the Foundation's and
downstream users' best interests to issue a warning to any admins failing
to do so, and to de-admin them if the warning is not heeded.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap