Samuel Klein wrote:
To Robert's point below,
I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model
release policy? How does one prove that one really is the
photographer / the person in a photograph?
There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't
seen further discussion recently:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clari…
Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from
unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a
photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity
is no reason to accept such images.
Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private
photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult
groups, sometimes with contact data.
A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license,
which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo
that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the
distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5…
Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that "A
magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published
photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was
15 because the images had already been widely circulated online."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/
So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet
the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images.
Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry.