I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on Commons. Otherwise we are exploiting her. I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the person. I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals, some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of education and it is wrong for us to do it now. Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

In response to Sydney's post.. Having worked in the photography industry (and been forced in front of a camera a few times in my day..) as a consultant and a make-up artist (10 years in that industry) I've written, signed, had others sign, and dealt with model release forms a million times over. Here is a nice standard break down of that from the NYIP: http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html If we require permission for use via OTRS, I don't know why we can't have "model release" be incorporated sexual/nude photography, modeling photography, studio photography. Materials used for educational purposes, as Commons is supposed to be, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't thought too hard about it yet, but, it is possible.

One thing Wikimedia as a whole /suffers/ from is no "solidity" when it comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken, changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.

If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general.

IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site.

One thing Wikimedia as a whole /suffers/ from is no "solidity" when it comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken, changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Arnaud HERVE<arnaudherve(a)x-mail.net> wrote: If I understand correctly, one of your concerns are regarding the image name. An invalid name isn't a good reason to delete an image, as images can be renamed.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve(a)x-mail.net> wrote: Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of privacy? Sarah _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

I wonder whether it would be worth developing a guideline, or just writing an essay about it on Commons. Trouble is, I know so little about how the Commons works -- I don't even know how to find their list of policies. My thinking is that voyeurism is increasingly becoming a criminal offence, and an essay about it might help to identify the kinds of images we should be wary of uploading. For example, in the UK, a person commits a criminal offence if: "(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act, "(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and "(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67 The problem with all of this on Wikimedia is the anonymity factor. People could say "I am the model and I hereby give consent." I don't know how we get round that. Sarah On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:45, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote: appropriate signs disagree, solve privacy? _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

That was something I noticed the other day. An anon replaced the infobox image on Veganism with a close-up shot of a woman's genitals and a vibrator. I looked to see who had uploaded it and it said Flickr upload bot. So is there a bot that uploads all cc images from Flickr indiscriminately?

the images are scraped off the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA Flickr That was something I noticed the other day. An anon replaced the infobox image on Veganism with a close-up shot of a woman's genitals and a vibrator. I looked to see who had uploaded it and it said Flickr upload bot. So is there a bot that uploads all cc images from Flickr indiscriminately?

On 12/09/2011 13:45, Sydney Poore wrote: Let us not forget that for many males the decision to post an image of their nude girl-friend online is a deliberate insult. Precisely, that is their revenge after they have been dumped by said girl-friend. In such a context, any domestic nude photo should be deemed suspicious. Unless there is the explicit consent of the girl, but I assume I am not very far from truth in assuming all those photos are posted by males. Less frequently, such a tolerance might also encourage the publication of incest. More concretely, in this "Korean" case today, a small but not neglectable probability exists that it is the author's daughter. It can happen.

Yes, the rule should be that personally identifying images should be routinely suppressed in the absence of permission from an identifiable person who has signed an informed release. An informed release would include a declaration that they understand how open source image licensing works. There are privacy issues. Can a person remain anonymous and release an image of themselves. If so, how, in the case of Commons or Wikipedia? We routinely use the oversight tool on the English Wikipedia to suppress phone numbers and home addresses as releases of personal information. Fred

--- On Mon, 12/9/11, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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/Arc… 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.   And rightly so. After all, the idea -- -- that people might feel aggrieved if a picture of them naked, or giving a blowjob, is hosted on Commons for global reuse, without their consent,  -- that their strength of feeling might be different if the matter concerned a picture showing them clothed, walking down the street  -- and that the Foundation should bear that difference in strength of feeling in mind, by requiring more solid consent for the former type of image,  is really outré, isn't it. :)) Andreas 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_perso….) 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

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 &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org <mailto: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/Arc… 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_perso….) 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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 &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Splitting_logs_with_a_gas_powered_lo… to good (in scope a http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arc… 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_perso… .) _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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&lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

I think this is really great, thank you Kaldari for taking the time to create this. The n00b in me asks : 1) Is this trackable? That is, a hidden category or anything?

2) I think we should solidify the policy documentation (i.e. the recent board passing, etc), and complete that work before we promote this template.

[snip]

as everyone one is singing from the same page in the hymnal. The deletion discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack of model consent as reason) have gone well. Friendly, with no conduct issues that I can see. No extreme hyperbole. Largely people are discussing the images by citing policy, and admins are closing them with consensus.

as everyone one is singing from the same page in the hymnal. The deletion discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack of model consent as reason) have gone well. Friendly, with no conduct issues that I can see. No extreme hyperbole. Largely people are discussing the images by citing policy, and admins are closing them with consensus.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Ryan Kaldari &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Not commenting on the merit of including such a variation: Consenting to the release of something under a free license emphatically *does not* mean "granting unrestricted rights to redistribute the media for any purpose." In particular, under many licenses, the redistribution is restricted by the requirement that the new copies also be provided under a free license. They also usually require that the creator be attributed. You may wish to rethink the wording of that, a bit. -- Tracy Poff

So the problem with the basic consent template as written -- "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to this photograph or video" -- is that it implies to the unsuspecting that consent has been given to take the image, publish the image, and release the image.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:17, Arnaud HERVE &lt;arnaudherve(a)x-mail.net&gt; wrote: Do we have specific Commons policies on voyeurism and invasion of privacy? Sarah _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On 12/09/2011 12:18, Sydney Poore wrote: If you look at the full body of his work, this admin truly is trying to follow policy and the customs of Commons and WMF projects in general. Well I might have been too quick in judging him, and besides idiocy or perversion the reason of his behaviour might have been a complete lack of attention. To the point that he didn't even have a look at the photo, because if he did and still protected the photo, then I am back at the idiocy or perversity hypothesis. Because, quite frankly, voluntary or not, exceptional or not, what he has done here is an insult to plain common sense, and a clear direct deterioration of WP content. From the scientific point of view it is below the required level to even begin a discussion. Imagine the page for Finger, should we even take time to discuss the propriety of a photo showing the forearm without the fingers ? What would we think of an admin who would protect a photo of the forearm without the fingers on the Finger page, after having been duly pointed to the obvious mistake by a user ? Don't you think the user with a normal self-respect would be right to no bother to come any longer on Wikipedia ? If you add the Asian-erotic content to that, you realize that the photo was totally inappropriate on so many levels that the problem doesn't lie in the photo anymore but on the admin. IMO, the policies need to be tweaked so that admins like him will have better policy to work with. And we need a broader group of people commenting in all deletion discussions so that we get a more globally representative view of what is appropriate for Commons to have on site. Yes but as Sarah Stierch wrote today : One thing Wikimedia as a whole *suffers* from is no "solidity" when it comes to policy and rules. Everything seems that it can be adapted, broken, changed, manipulated..etc. I think that's a problem. Adding rules or adding policies or adding commentators doesn't work if the admins don't show the adequate level of literacy, or use their position to manipulate the rules at their convenience. In his Discussion lock comment Yann says "Person is not recognizable". That is typical of illiteracy and bad faith. You add a right detail to justify an otherwise totally wrong and very obviously wrong decision. That is totally twisting the rules. As a result we now have a scientifically totally irrelevant and plainly domestic-erotic photo on WP, which is explicitly protected by WP. The mistake is so obvious that no further rules will work if admins don't show a normal intention to respect the rules. Re-read the discussion page. Is it normal that Sarah Stierch (Missvain) had to take time to write the obvious in detail, and that she was not followed eventually ? This is not fair, no grown-up literate person should be treated like that. Even if it is involuntary, Yann's decision is so wrong and so rude it should seriously put in doubt his position as an admin. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vul…