On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip> 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---
<snip> Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the
board resolution.
We need to be careful here. Does Erik's statement of what is *desirable* (the
word he used) truly read to you as an *interpretation* of the
resolution? I think not. In fact, Erik has used similar language ("consent
to be photographed") on this very list. Speaking of what is desirable is a
very different thing than interpreting a resolution.
Meanwhile, we still have the issue that the resolution does not address
what is being consented to. It's plain English, and it's simply not stated.
Trying to interpret something that is simply not there doesn't seem like a
good use of our time.
But pushing to develop and pass a more helpfully-worded resolution does.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
Hi Pete, COM:IDENT makes clear that consent to be photographed isn't
enough:
"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."
That's the current guideline. If this were enforced, it would cut down on a
large percentage of the cases we're seeing, where there's no evidence of
consent to a release of the kind needed for Commons.
Sarah