Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the image is sexual)?
Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed here[2] and here[3]).
Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself.
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
Sam
1. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007... 2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html 4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate misinformation?
Thanks,
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate misinformation?
Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs.
Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing practices.
In any case this is all off-topic for the thread,
Sam
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]]
Hoi, What is the point of off list communication when you quote from these communications ? Thanks, GerardM
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston samj@samj.net
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston samj@samj.net wrote:
... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
publishing...
As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate misinformation?
Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs.
Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing practices.
In any case this is all off-topic for the thread,
Sam
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html
-- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston samj@samj.net:
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this is inadequate.
- d.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston samj@samj.net:
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now
the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing
it's
probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag
images
lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this is inadequate.
It quite probably is, and provided the tags are used it answers some of the issues in the other (sexual content) thread too.
Thanks,
Sam
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this is inadequate.
I don't see this tag at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg
and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort to add these tags which just has started?
Regards, Peter
2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi pjacobi.de@googlemail.com:
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this is inadequate.
I don't see this tag at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort to add these tags which just has started?
I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was thinking of the personality rights tag.
- d.
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was thinking of the personality rights tag.
Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?
2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi pjacobi.de@googlemail.com:
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was thinking of the personality rights tag.
Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?
This is the personality rights tag:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights
This is the category of restrictions templates:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Restriction_tags
Possibly I was thinking of the note about model rights in the reuse page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:REUSE
So if there isn't a tag warning in general about model rights (assuming reusers aren't reading all of Commons, they're just looking at an image page, seeing the licence and going "ooh I can use that" as Virgin did with the CC-by-sa pic they reused) - is a tag warning that, duh, you have to take care with pictures of people worthwhile?
(cc to commons-l)
- d.
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses Commons as a battleground and we get sued.
________________________________ From: Sam Johnston samj@samj.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:18:32 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to knowledge?
Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the image is sexual)?
Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed here[2] and here[3]).
Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself.
I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
Sam
1. http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007... 2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680 3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html 4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/31 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses Commons as a battleground and we get sued.
We do not have the authority to ask people questions under penalty of perjury.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org