On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has
further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow
it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then
they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the
board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not?
No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt
instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a
private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr,
Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.
The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private
place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent.
It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model
of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would
have to be deleted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habi…
In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed
replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address
that point.
YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that
assertion. (They have
staff.)
Unless I'm badly mistaken, their staff is not especially proactive, but
instead respond to user flags and DMCA filings. Commons volunteers are
proactive. Perhaps not up to your standard of perfection, but to a very
high degree.
-Pete