Hi again, Andreas.
In February you'd responded to Fred as followshttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000204.html, concerning pornographic images in Commons:
*"I have given notice that I perceive there to be a problem on-Wiki many times, and the reply has always been the same: Wikipedia is not censored.
The suggestion that our editorial judgment with respect to illustration should reflect and be based on the judgment our sources exercise in that regard has not gone down well. We are all agreed that when it comes to text content, we must follow sources. When it comes to images, however, the community claims the freedom to apply its own ("OR") standards, which naturally reflect our skewed demographics."*
Yes, after reading this thread I wandered through that hall of mirrors that discussions of Sexual Content policies and guidelines constitute on Commons. As Batman might say, "Holy Ontological Incoherence!!!"
You'd also responded to Fred and asked the listhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000184.html :
*"On a different, but not completely unrelated issue, how do women editors feel about illustrations like those used here (Warning - not safe for viewing at work):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake
In my experience, any attempt to argue for editorial restraint in illustrating pages like this (e.g., using just *one* image, and leaving the rest to a Commons link) runs into a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] brickwall. Female editors (with one exception I believe, who has run into this brickwall repeatedly to no effect, and at some cost to herself) are rarely participants in such discussions."*
Unless the "primary producers" of the "Hogtie bondage" photos obtained and tagged them with all the data required by the Section 2257 regulations issued under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Actbefore uploading them to Commons, *and* Commons is storing that data and those tags along with the photos in order to make them available to any would-be user, any such photos -- by Commons' *own* standards -- should be speedily deleted (although from my review of the various archived and recent Sexual Content discussions there, this might come as a terrible shock to all or most of the Commons editors who've weighed in on those discussions).
Section 75.1(n) of the 2257 Regulationshttp://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=962e99768c99d69c3ac70f9374f89c9b&rgn=div8&view=text&node=28:2.0.1.1.30.0.17.1&idno=28provides that "Sexually explicit conduct has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A)" (which -- unsurprisingly by now -- I could find *no*evidence of *any* Commons editors having *eve*r bothered to look up).
18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html provides:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) [pertaining to child pornography], “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) *sadistic or masochistic abuse*; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
"Sadistic or masochistic abuse" traditionally means, in virtually all states of the U.S.:
"...flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed."
http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html See, also, e.g., http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statu... http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html "Mask" is usually be deemed to include any kind of gag.
So, pausing a moment to review, it's highly likely that all or most of the photos on that page would be subject to Section 2257 recordkeeping requirements by "primary producers" (photographers, filmmakers, etc.) and "secondary producers" who display, disseminate, etc., the photos for sale or "trade" (such as exchanging photos with other aficionados). I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation relies on the educational institution exemption in order not to have to meet the Section 2257 recordkeeping or notice requirements, but if Commons *doesn't* require the submission along with the upload of such photos (or videos) of *all* the required Section 2257 documentation, then it would be* illegal* for any would-be U.S. commercial "secondary producer" to utilize any of them.
According to the Commons:Copyright tags pagehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works ,
"All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United States"
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags#Unfree_licenses
"The following copyright options are not acceptable at Commons. Images with these tags will be deleted... {{Noncommercial}} - Noncommercial copyright status. *This image will have to be deleted*."
Although none of these Hogtie bondage photos may be marked "noncommercial," if Commons cannot supply a would-be U.S. commercial secondary producer with all the data and tags required to be supplied under Section 2257 by the primary producer and maintained by both of them for U.S. government inspection, then those photos have *effectively* been rendered "noncommercial use only" by *operation of law*.
I may weigh in further, later, as my schedule permits, on the sheer ontological incoherence (not to mention ethical squalor and possible tortiousness) of seeking at most only an "affirmation of consent" from "uploaders of self-produced sexual content"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content, as well as on the dubious legality of the bukkake image, but hopefully this will give those on this list who share your concerns something to chew on in the meantime.
And given that this email has focused on legal issues, I also need to include the requisite disclaimer. * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * *DISCLAIMER:* This email includes general legal information for discussion purposes only which is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date, and does not, nor is it intended to constitute, legal advice to any individual recipient (intended or unintended). Receipt of this email (intended or unintended) does not create an attorney-client relationship between the undersigned (who is no longer actively engaged in the practice of law) and any such recipient. No one should act upon the information contained in this email without seeking legal advice from their *own*attorney. * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Best,
Charlotte
Hi again, Andreas.
In February you'd responded to Fred as followshttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000204.html, concerning pornographic images in Commons:
*"I have given notice that I perceive there to be a problem on-Wiki many times, and the reply has always been the same: Wikipedia is not censored.
The suggestion that our editorial judgment with respect to illustration should reflect and be based on the judgment our sources exercise in that regard has not gone down well. We are all agreed that when it comes to text content, we must follow sources. When it comes to images, however, the community claims the freedom to apply its own ("OR") standards, which naturally reflect our skewed demographics."*
Yes, after reading this thread I wandered through that hall of mirrors that discussions of Sexual Content policies and guidelines constitute on Commons
Yes, they can't even have a picture of a vacuum cleaner without it having sexual subtext, see
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Imitation_of_Christ...
This, of course, is art, see
http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/08/05/tara-subkoff-imitation-of-christ-public...
He's been a major contributor of images of New York celebrities.
It is art. Perhaps being out of focus adds to it; playful and interesting, and quite original, which is the point you made above.
Note, of course, that it is performance art in the form of a fashion show choreographed by a woman.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Tara_Subkoff
Fred
Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There have been efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal of effort.
Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit conduct" as defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some connection I'm missing?
Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one.
-Pete
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There have been efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal of effort. Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit conduct" as defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some connection I'm missing? Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one. -Pete
And many thanks to Charlotte for injecting clarity into the situation.
Sarah
--- On Wed, 29/6/11, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
From: Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 29 June, 2011, 0:00
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 16:57, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There have been efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal of effort. Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit conduct" as defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some connection I'm missing? Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one. -Pete
And many thanks to Charlotte for injecting clarity into the situation.
The thing is, apparently Mike Godwin advised Commons that --
---o0o--- Wikimedia Commons and other projects are under no obligation to keep records on the age and identity of models shown in media depicting sexually explicit conduct.[15] However, editors who have produced such media, as well as content reusers, may have record- keeping obligations if they qualify as a primary or secondary producer under the act.[14]
Whenever possible, media with potential 2257 record-keeping requirements should be marked with the {{2257}} template to warn commercial content reusers in the United States about possible legal obligations. To facilitate such distribution, uploaders may wish to provide contact information for 2257 documentation requests in the file description. Wikimedia Commons does not request and may not accept copies of identification cards and affidavits as a matter of project scope. Editors from any country are strongly urged, for their sake and ours, not to upload sexually explicit photographs if they are not entirely confident that those shown are 18 or older.
2257 requirements apply specifically to sexual content that includes subjects of legal age. content is of child nudity which does not qualify as sexual, then 2257 notifications are not needed. On the other hand, if child nudity is identified as sexual, then it should not be tagged with a 2257 template or amended to include 2257 information; it should be deleted and reported to the WMF.
No record keeping requirements exist for illustrations or for old photographs proven to be produced before November 1, 1990. With respect to "depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct consisting of only lascivious exhibition or depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct," 18 U.S.C. § 2257A record keeping regulations apply only to works originally produced after March 18, 2009.[16]
Source: Commons Sexual content policy draft: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&ol... (Rejected by the community in December 2010) ---o0o--- Mike Godwin posted to that effect on the policy draft's talk page at the time: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3ASexual_content...
Andreas
Hi Charlotte,
Thanks. I see the hogtie page has reverted to the photo album approach again, although at least we now have one clothed man to balance the five naked women. Progress! If you've found the COM:SEX talk page archives in Commons, with the "big poll", then you probably understand why I have given up contributing there.
And you see, you actually talked about encyclopedic content in those deletion discussions in Wikipedia. It's fascinating ... and so unprecedented as to make one pinch one's cheek. You really shouldn't have wasted these sources on the AfD page, but just revised the article ... I think what you wrote in the AfD was already better sourced and more comprehensive than the article itself. :))
Well, all I can say is that I would *like* to work in an encyclopedia that is home to more people like you. I agree that our policies and guidelines are a poor substitute for maturity and intelligence, and in some ways actually make things worse, by superimposing a well-meaning but ultimately gamed and warped rule set on editors' behaviour that is beginning to foster a cultish mindset -- cultish in the sense of a set of behavioural standards that the average person in the street would consider totally alien.
You must assume good faith, for example, and are forbidden to express the view that an editor's intentions might be anything other than well-meaning, and in support of the project. However, it's okay to call them "disruptive", or describe their behaviour as "troubling". That usually works to get them blocked. It also helps to point out that they have been "warned" before. If they have been "warned", if their behavior is "troubling", and they are now being "disruptive", then you can eliminate them. All the while assuming good faith, of course, and enjoying the entitlement to have others assume that you are acting in good faith, too. (And being able to report them if they assume otherwise.)
It's a funny place. I would love for you to stick around (and perhaps put all of those sources you cited in the AfD into that article), but I can see that you just don't fit in right now. You'd be like a fish out of water.
But joking aside, Wikipedia needs people like you if it is to become something more than it is now. And even if you can't bear to enter the fray, secure in the knowledge that you are more qualified to contribute than people who have made 120,000 edits and can (and do) operate Twinkle, Rollback and Huggle in their sleep, then it's at least jolly nice to have your input here. :)
Best, Andreas
--- On Tue, 28/6/11, Charlotte J ravinpa2@gmail.com wrote:
From: Charlotte J ravinpa2@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 28 June, 2011, 21:04
Hi again, Andreas.
In February you'd responded to Fred as follows, concerning pornographic images in Commons:
"I have given notice that I perceive there to be a problem on-Wiki many times, and the reply has always been the same: Wikipedia is not censored.
The suggestion that our editorial judgment with respect to illustration should reflect and be based on the judgment our sources exercise in that
regard has not gone down well. We are all agreed that when it comes to text content, we must follow sources. When it comes to images, however, the
community claims the freedom to apply its own ("OR") standards, which naturally reflect our skewed demographics."
Yes, after reading this thread I wandered through that hall of mirrors that discussions of Sexual Content policies and guidelines constitute on Commons. As Batman might say, "Holy Ontological Incoherence!!!"
You'd also responded to Fred and asked the list:
"On a different, but not completely unrelated issue, how do women editors feel
about illustrations like those used here (Warning - not safe for viewing at work):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake
In my experience, any attempt to argue for editorial restraint in illustrating
pages like this (e.g., using just *one* image, and leaving the rest to a Commons link) runs into a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] brickwall. Female editors (with one
exception I believe, who has run into this brickwall repeatedly to no effect, and at some cost to herself) are rarely participants in such discussions."
Unless the "primary producers" of the "Hogtie bondage" photos obtained and tagged them with all the data required by the Section 2257 regulations issued under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 before uploading them to Commons, and Commons is storing that data and those tags along with the photos in order to make them available to any would-be user, any such photos -- by Commons' own standards -- should be speedily deleted (although from my review of the various archived and recent Sexual Content discussions there, this might come as a terrible shock to all or most of the Commons editors who've weighed in on those discussions).
Section 75.1(n) of the 2257 Regulations provides that "Sexually explicit conduct has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A)" (which -- unsurprisingly by now -- I could find no evidence of any Commons editors having ever bothered to look up).
18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A) provides:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) [pertaining to child pornography], “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
"Sadistic or masochistic abuse" traditionally means, in virtually all states of the U.S.:
"...flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed."
http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html%C2%A0 See, also, e.g., http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statu... and http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html%C2%A0 "Mask" is usually be deemed to include any kind of gag.
So, pausing a moment to review, it's highly likely that all or most of the photos on that page would be subject to Section 2257 recordkeeping requirements by "primary producers" (photographers, filmmakers, etc.) and "secondary producers" who display, disseminate, etc., the photos for sale or "trade" (such as exchanging photos with other aficionados). I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation relies on the educational institution exemption in order not to have to meet the Section 2257 recordkeeping or notice requirements, but if Commons doesn't require the submission along with the upload of such photos (or videos) of all the required Section 2257 documentation, then it would be illegal for any would-be U.S. commercial "secondary producer" to utilize any of them.
According to the Commons:Copyright tags page,
"All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United States"
and
"The following copyright options are not acceptable at Commons. Images with these tags will be deleted... {{Noncommercial}} - Noncommercial copyright status. This image will have to be deleted."
Although none of these Hogtie bondage photos may be marked "noncommercial," if Commons cannot supply a would-be U.S. commercial secondary producer with all the data and tags required to be supplied under Section 2257 by the primary producer and maintained by both of them for U.S. government inspection, then those photos have effectively been rendered "noncommercial use only" by operation of law.
I may weigh in further, later, as my schedule permits, on the sheer ontological incoherence (not to mention ethical squalor and possible tortiousness) of seeking at most only an "affirmation of consent" from "uploaders of self-produced sexual content", as well as on the dubious legality of the bukkake image, but hopefully this will give those on this list who share your concerns something to chew on in the meantime.
And given that this email has focused on legal issues, I also need to include the requisite disclaimer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: This email includes general legal information for discussion purposes only which is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date, and does not, nor is it intended to constitute, legal advice to any individual recipient (intended or unintended). Receipt of this email (intended or unintended) does not create an attorney-client relationship between the undersigned (who is no longer actively engaged in the practice of law) and any such recipient. No one should act upon the information contained in this email without seeking legal advice from their own attorney.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Charlotte
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap