2009/1/30 Sam Johnston <samj(a)samj.net>et>: 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.

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(a)samj.net> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)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) 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/200… 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l