Sounds like a good idea. It would put drafting the Sexual Content policy on a more solid
footing, and maybe avoid problems later on.
Andreas
--- On Thu, 20/5/10, Stillwater Rising <stillwaterising(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Stillwater Rising
<stillwaterising(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, 20 May, 2010, 21:11
There's been many legal opinions
presented in this forum, but the one that
really matters is that of the Office of the Attorney
General. I would
suggest that Mike Godwin contact Assistant Attorney General
Lanny A. Breuer
(AskDOJ(a)usdoj.gov
<askdoj(a)usdoj.gov?subject=USDOJ%20Comments>
or (202)
514-2000) and report back to the Foundation as to what his
recommendations
are.
*Legal Resources:*
DOJ 2257 Compliance Guide:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf/guide/2257-compliance-guide.html
National Obscenity Law Center:
http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/index.htm
Florida obscenity law:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&…
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, <me(a)marcusbuck.org>
wrote:
wjhonson(a)aol.com
hett schreven:
> You are missing the key point. The pivot
upon which the issue turns
> is not whether or not a site is
non-commercial or
educational. The
> pivot is whether the site itself creates the
content, or whether it
> merely hosts the content.
>
> Wikimedia Commons is more likely to be viewed as
a host agent like
> Flicker or Facebook, and not a creator.
> A host does not have a legal requirement to
maintain any records of
this
sort.
I am not a US citizen and I do not know US laws. But
if law requires
record keeping for explicit content so that it is
possible to verify
that the content is legal, it's meaningful
that
re-users also keep the
name and contact info of the person who keeps the
initial USC 2257
records. That way the content stays traceable. So
I
agree with what
Stillwater Rising said:
> To clarify, I did not then and still do
> not believe OTRS should be directly handing
Personally Identifying
> Information (PII) for sexual content, but
should
have a way of verifying
> that it exists by at least keeping on file
the
name and address of the
individual(s) who are keeping the records.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l