I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
-Sarah
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
-Sarah
Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard that needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy.
IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.
Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.
Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them. IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized way.
Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided, someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want to use best practices.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
Yes, there doesn't really seem to be an appropriate representation about this. I also think it should be acceptable to have some type of model release OTRS type template and expiration date for deletion if not acquired.
Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.
Absolutely. The moment a person releases something into the free culture world, many have no clue what that can mean. As with many of the problems we have with Wikimedia culture - with readers, writers, lack of contributors - it all comes to informing the public, and again, uploaders and participants need to be better educated (or "warned") about what their content being release means. There has to be better ways we can do this. Even if it means dumbing things down (for normal human beings who don't know Wiki-speak, which seems to be a HUGE portion of the people who upload to Commons).
Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.
Exactly.
Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them. IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized way.
+1. There are hundreds of photographs of women sunbathing, walking down the street, etc. It makes me severely uncomfortable that we have people taking photographs of people in a voyeuristic manner uploading images to Commons, Flickr, whatever. Just because someone (of any gender) lays on the beach, walks down the street wearing something sexy, or whatever, doesn't mean they are "asking to have their photograph taken."
-Sarah
+1. There are hundreds of photographs of women sunbathing, walking down the street, etc. It makes me severely uncomfortable that we have people taking photographs of people in a voyeuristic manner uploading images to Commons, Flickr, whatever. Just because someone (of any gender) lays on the beach, walks down the street wearing something sexy, or whatever, doesn't mean they are "asking to have their photograph taken."
-Sarah
How about this one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:TalkingintheRoad.JP...
Anyone's permission required?
Fred
They don't appear to be in any questionable or exploitative situations. I would like to think you did ask their verbal permission or informed them that they represent their town on Wikipedia. I have learned to avoid people in images without strict permission after having an anthropologist as a mentor :-)
Again, and I believe I have stated that it's content that is "questionable" we need to be concerned with. This is what guidelines and best practices are for.
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Sep 12, 2011, at 4:12 PM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
+1. There are hundreds of photographs of women sunbathing, walking down the street, etc. It makes me severely uncomfortable that we have people taking photographs of people in a voyeuristic manner uploading images to Commons, Flickr, whatever. Just because someone (of any gender) lays on the beach, walks down the street wearing something sexy, or whatever, doesn't mean they are "asking to have their photograph taken."
-Sarah
How about this one:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:TalkingintheRoad.JP...
Anyone's permission required?
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
-Sarah
Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard that needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy.
IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.
Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.
Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them. IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized way.
Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided, someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want to use best practices.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate this?
cheers, phoebe
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate this?
I'm not sure if we're ready to move it to meta yet, I do wish we had a more private place to develop this. It's a rather sensitive topic for folks. Perhaps a google doc or...?
Sarah
On 9/12/11 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I'm not sure if we're ready to move it to meta yet, I do wish we had a more private place to develop this. It's a rather sensitive topic for folks. Perhaps a google doc or...?
To be honest, I think that working as publicly as possible is only good, in the long run, for what needs to happen. Transparency is super important.
We've actually been having some interesting arguments about the use of Google docs within the office.
One camp favors multiple edits at a time usability. The other camp believes that the use of a non-transparent medium is antithetical to the nature of the projects.
(I fall in the second camp, personally).
To be honest, I think that working as publicly as possible is onlygood, in the long run, for what needs to happen. Transparency is super important.
I suppose it's paranoia that makes me sensitive about making it "so transparent" in an infant stage. But, if we have to place it someplace public, that's fine. I'll let other participants make the final decision =) *eyeballs everyone else*
Sarah
On 9/12/11 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I'm not sure if we're ready to move it to meta yet, I do wish we had a more private place to develop this. It's a rather sensitive topic for folks. Perhaps a google doc or...?
To be honest, I think that working as publicly as possible is only good, in the long run, for what needs to happen. Transparency is super important.
We've actually been having some interesting arguments about the use of Google docs within the office.
One camp favors multiple edits at a time usability. The other camp believes that the use of a non-transparent medium is antithetical to the nature of the projects.
(I fall in the second camp, personally).
I agree, but it can be a punishing process. The "right" place is the talk pages of policy pages.
Fred
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate this?
I'm not sure if we're ready to move it to meta yet, I do wish we had a more private place to develop this. It's a rather sensitive topic for folks. Perhaps a google doc or...?
Sarah
This is totally anecdotal, but I have been pretty pleasantly surprised with the reaction to the identifiable people resolution. It has induced some grumbling because of extra workloads, and there are images in debatable circumstances (beach: public or not?) that have gotten argued over, but I haven't seen any real opposition to the principle of model consent.
I think public discussion is good for a few reasons: * it helps highlight the issue, which can bring more people in; we shouldn't assume that everyone interested already knows about this resolution/issue (obviously you didn't ;) * it helps alleviate concerns about cabalism or cliquishness, which is the perpetual bane of online communities; * it helps provide documentation in a way that we know is backed up, and will be so for the foreseeable future * and it provides a place that people on other wikis can link and refer to * finally, I don't think documenting project policy and similar is a particularly sensitive issue. Other things (individual requests etc.) might be; but that wasn't really what I was thinking of here.
Digression: Like Brandon I have mixed feelings about g-docs, and I wish we had a better solution for what they are good at. I do think that they tend to sequester information in a way that is often unhelpful over the long term. I was a pretty early adopter of google docs, and I look at my folder sometimes and wonder how much knowledge about Wikimania planning is hidden away in there, inaccessible and therefore useless to anyone else -- too much, that's for sure.
cheers, Phoebe
On 13/09/2011 03:31, phoebe ayers wrote:
there are images in debatable circumstances (beach: public or not?)
In France there is a jurisprudence regarding photos of monuments and other public places worthy of photography.
It states that you are allowed to have non consenting people on your photo, provided the focus is clearly on the monument and not the person.
The reason for that is that in such places it would be impossible to ask the numerous people to move away, so if you were to apply the consent rule then you would have to forbid hundreds of thousands of tourists to take the photos, or you would have to manage law suits from hundreds of thousands of tourists who didn't want to be on the photo.
So basically the courts assume that by being present in a public space, you tacitly give your consent to be anecdotally present on the photo.
The rule then would not apply to the photo mentioned by Fred Bauder, because the place is not touristic and the persons are clearly in focus :
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:TalkingintheRoad.JP...
That jurisprudence is also applied in most other countries. For example you can find many photos of Jurmala, a famous sea-side resort in Latvia.
So to answer directly to Phoebe Ayers, a beach is public, provided the photo focuses on the beach and not on particular people.
Your right to privacy does not supersede the right of other people to take photos of interesting places.
Arnaud
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
-Sarah
Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard
that
needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy.
IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to
the
person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.
Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather
informed
consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.
Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a
semi-public
places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place with the expectation that only the people in that location will see
them.
IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The
same
is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think
that
someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give
consent
for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized way.
Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided, someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want
to
use best practices.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate this?
cheers,
Phoebe, yes, we need to go to meta and make a comprehensive list. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that all wikis have policy and procedures in place based on the Foundation resolution.
Sydney
Anyway they can italic or bold this Phrase: " in a private place or situation without permission." ??
On 9/12/2011 10:53 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this? -SarahYes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial content only because of they are prudes.