+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

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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...?

On 9/12/11 3:58 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: 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'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 Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people that the informed semi-public them. same that consent to 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,