Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_U...
Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
Andreas
1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_U...
Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
Andreas
1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
Nathan
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists everywhere.
As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people...
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists everywhere.
As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people...
Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle, with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should. And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for unlimited publicity.
Nathan
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists everywhere.
As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people...
This whole issue is a very delicate one, and I agree not really anything to do with whether the images are explicit or not. A selective harsher standard to apply to explicit images makes no sense whatsoever. Not in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of ethical behaviour.
Anyone remember this case of Virgin Mobile using (or abusing) the CC 2.0 license in their advertising in a manner that the license specifically allows, but is just simply pretty damn sleazy?
I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257 record-keeping service called 2257services.nethttp://www.2257services.net/ .
His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site that accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an update that discusses how child pornography laws apply to small business here: http://18usc2257.org/literature/DOJ-2257ComplianceGuide.pdf
On the top of page 4 there's a FAQ section that says:
*Q. How does the rule apply to social networking sites?* A. Most social networking sites would not be covered by the rule because its definition of “produces” excludes “the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the communication.” Social networking sites would not then normally need to comply with the rule’s record-keeping requirements, labeling requirements, or be required to maintain information concerning their users, and the rule would therefore have no effect on the operations of the site. However, users of social networking sites who post sexually explicit activity on “adult” networking sites may well be primary or secondary producers. Therefore, users of social networking sites may be subject to the rule, depending on their conduct.
He considers Wikipedia to be a social networking site therefore should not be considered a secondary producer (we do have "selection or alteration of the communication" however). He thinks we should find a way to make sure that uploaders (who are primary producers if "own work" or secondary producers if somebody else's) should be keeping records and there are several ways to do this. We also need to report any suspected illegal images to the proper authorities.
Since Drew runs a contract record keeping service, he said he would be willing to work out a deal with the Board of Trustees to modify his website so individual users can log in and upload records while OTRS maintains administrative rights to verify the records exist. His usual cost (after set up fees) is $1.00 per record. His email is admin@2257services.net and he is willing to discuss the matter with a Board of staff member who would like to know more.
More information: Generic model affidavit: https://www.2257services.net/forms/model-affidavit.html Bloggers Legal Guide: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult
*On Adult Material*: "The regulations imply that the record-keeping requirement is restricted to commercial operations. This would seem to exclude noncommercial or educational distribution from the regulation, and to limit secondary publishing and reproduction to material intended for commercial distribution. However, the DOJ has left wiggle-room, and it is still unclear if they intend to go after noncommercial websites."
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant
discussion is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_U...
Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not
apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of
sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise
managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time
offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might
become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that
need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
Andreas
1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If we're exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to advise our users about their own responsibilities.
If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not oppose our doing so-- it raises the question that if we do it in such a manner as to match the requirements of US law, even to the extent of making use of a service set up specifically to meet that law's detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our defense that we are not a producer?
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257 record-keeping service called 2257services.nethttp://www.2257services.net/ .
His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site that accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an update that discusses how child pornography laws apply to small business here: http://18usc2257.org/literature/DOJ-2257ComplianceGuide.pdf
On the top of page 4 there's a FAQ section that says:
*Q. How does the rule apply to social networking sites?* A. Most social networking sites would not be covered by the rule because its definition of “produces” excludes “the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the communication.” Social networking sites would not then normally need to comply with the rule’s record-keeping requirements, labeling requirements, or be required to maintain information concerning their users, and the rule would therefore have no effect on the operations of the site. However, users of social networking sites who post sexually explicit activity on “adult” networking sites may well be primary or secondary producers. Therefore, users of social networking sites may be subject to the rule, depending on their conduct.
He considers Wikipedia to be a social networking site therefore should not be considered a secondary producer (we do have "selection or alteration of the communication" however). He thinks we should find a way to make sure that uploaders (who are primary producers if "own work" or secondary producers if somebody else's) should be keeping records and there are several ways to do this. We also need to report any suspected illegal images to the proper authorities.
Since Drew runs a contract record keeping service, he said he would be willing to work out a deal with the Board of Trustees to modify his website so individual users can log in and upload records while OTRS maintains administrative rights to verify the records exist. His usual cost (after set up fees) is $1.00 per record. His email is admin@2257services.net and he is willing to discuss the matter with a Board of staff member who would like to know more.
More information: Generic model affidavit: https://www.2257services.net/forms/model-affidavit.html Bloggers Legal Guide: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult
*On Adult Material*: "The regulations imply that the record-keeping requirement is restricted to commercial operations. This would seem to exclude noncommercial or educational distribution from the regulation, and to limit secondary publishing and reproduction to material intended for commercial distribution. However, the DOJ has left wiggle-room, and it is still unclear if they intend to go after noncommercial websites."
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant
discussion is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_U...
Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not
apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of
sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise
managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time
offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might
become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that
need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
Andreas
1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply with USC 2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part of my April 2010 sexual content proposal. 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. Mr. Sabol (below) thought that Wikimedia should be setting an example of how educational institutions can handle this issue responsibly.
In my opinion, the advantages of obtaining this information far outweigh potential disadvantages. I've listed the advantages in multiple places, so I'll just give a link to the latest discussion herehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_Using_USC_2257_on_Wikimedia_Projects .
The unfortunate part is that there's no support for this idea from the legal council, in fact Mike Godwin's statements seem to indicate that we should not be concerned with these records at all. This is unfortunate, because there is no clear exemption for non-commercial or educational websites.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If we're exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to advise our users about their own responsibilities.
If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not oppose our doing so-- it raises the question that if we do it in such a manner as to match the requirements of US law, even to the extent of making use of a service set up specifically to meet that law's detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our defense that we are not a producer?
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257 record-keeping service called 2257services.net<
http://www.2257services.net/%3E
.
His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site
that
accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an
update
that discusses how child pornography laws apply to small business here: http://18usc2257.org/literature/DOJ-2257ComplianceGuide.pdf
On the top of page 4 there's a FAQ section that says:
*Q. How does the rule apply to social networking sites?* A. Most social networking sites would not be covered by the rule because
its
definition of “produces” excludes “the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the communication.” Social networking sites would not then normally need to comply with the rule’s record-keeping requirements, labeling requirements, or be required to maintain information concerning their users, and the rule
would
therefore have no effect on the operations of the site. However, users of social networking sites who post sexually explicit activity on “adult” networking sites may well
be
primary or secondary producers. Therefore, users of social networking sites may be subject to the rule, depending on their conduct.
He considers Wikipedia to be a social networking site therefore should
not
be considered a secondary producer (we do have "selection or alteration
of
the communication" however). He thinks we should find a way to make sure that uploaders (who are primary producers if "own work" or secondary producers if somebody else's) should be keeping records and there are several ways to do this. We also need to report any suspected illegal
images
to the proper authorities.
Since Drew runs a contract record keeping service, he said he would be willing to work out a deal with the Board of Trustees to modify his
website
so individual users can log in and upload records while OTRS maintains administrative rights to verify the records exist. His usual cost (after
set
up fees) is $1.00 per record. His email is admin@2257services.net and he
is
willing to discuss the matter with a Board of staff member who would like
to
know more.
More information: Generic model affidavit: https://www.2257services.net/forms/model-affidavit.html Bloggers Legal Guide: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult
*On Adult Material*: "The regulations imply that the record-keeping requirement is restricted to commercial operations. This would seem to exclude noncommercial or educational distribution from the regulation,
and
to limit secondary publishing and reproduction to material intended for commercial distribution. However, the DOJ has left wiggle-room, and it is still unclear if they intend to go after noncommercial websites."
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.
-----Original Message----- From: Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
The list of advantages for helping uploaders (producers) to comply with USC 2257 record-keeping guidelines are numerous, and was the core part of my April 2010 sexual content proposal. 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. Mr. Sabol (below) thought that Wikimedia should be setting an example of how educational institutions can handle this issue responsibly.
In my opinion, the advantages of obtaining this information far outweigh potential disadvantages. I've listed the advantages in multiple places, so I'll just give a link to the latest discussion herehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_Using_USC_2257_on_Wikimedia_Projects .
The unfortunate part is that there's no support for this idea from the legal council, in fact Mike Godwin's statements seem to indicate that we should not be concerned with these records at all. This is unfortunate, because there is no clear exemption for non-commercial or educational websites.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:31 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
This seems self-contradictory. If we are exempt we're exempt. If we're exempt we have no need to keep records. We would of course do well to advise our users about their own responsibilities.
If we do decide to require some sort of certification--and I do not oppose our doing so-- it raises the question that if we do it in such a manner as to match the requirements of US law, even to the extent of making use of a service set up specifically to meet that law's detailed requirements, whether we would not be perhaps admitting in advance that us law applies to us in this respect, and forfeiting our defense that we are not a producer?
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com wrote:
I contacted Drew Sabol; professor, attorney, and owner of a 2257 record-keeping service called 2257services.net<
http://www.2257services.net/%3E
.
His opinion is the Wikipedia is something like a social networking site
that
accepts user submission. The Department of Justice (DOJ) put out an
update
that discusses how child pornography laws apply to small business here: http://18usc2257.org/literature/DOJ-2257ComplianceGuide.pdf
On the top of page 4 there's a FAQ section that says:
*Q. How does the rule apply to social networking sites?* A. Most social networking sites would not be covered by the rule because
its
definition of “produces” excludes “the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the communication.” Social networking sites would not then normally need to comply with the rule’s record-keeping requirements, labeling requirements, or be required to maintain information concerning their users, and the rule
would
therefore have no effect on the operations of the site. However, users of social networking sites who post sexually explicit activity on “adult” networking sites may well
be
primary or secondary producers. Therefore, users of social networking sites may be subject to the rule, depending on their conduct.
He considers Wikipedia to be a social networking site therefore should
not
be considered a secondary producer (we do have "selection or alteration
of
the communication" however). He thinks we should find a way to make sure that uploaders (who are primary producers if "own work" or secondary producers if somebody else's) should be keeping records and there are several ways to do this. We also need to report any suspected illegal
images
to the proper authorities.
Since Drew runs a contract record keeping service, he said he would be willing to work out a deal with the Board of Trustees to modify his
website
so individual users can log in and upload records while OTRS maintains administrative rights to verify the records exist. His usual cost (after
set
up fees) is $1.00 per record. His email is admin@2257services.net and he
is
willing to discuss the matter with a Board of staff member who would like
to
know more.
More information: Generic model affidavit: https://www.2257services.net/forms/model-affidavit.html Bloggers Legal Guide: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult
*On Adult Material*: "The regulations imply that the record-keeping requirement is restricted to commercial operations. This would seem to exclude noncommercial or educational distribution from the regulation,
and
to limit secondary publishing and reproduction to material intended for commercial distribution. However, the DOJ has left wiggle-room, and it is still unclear if they intend to go after noncommercial websites."
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wjhonson@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
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@usdoj.gov <askdoj@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&S...http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200135.htm
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
wjhonson@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, I have largely turned off on this subject. It has hardly a relation to what I consider as relevant. Asking the Assistant Attorney General to me will bring us just another opinion with recommendations. In practical terms less relevant then Commons being blocked by the Iranians because we are good at ignoring opinions and recommendations.
I would love to know if we have any clue on how and why this block came about. I would love to know if there is a way that would regain us access to Commons for the Iranian students.
On a different subject I think we all agree that Mr Sanger would earn himself a permanent ban if he were one of our own. His trolling and the trolling by that media conglomerate have proven effective. It is sad that when Private Musings exhorted us on the same subject, he was not given the same attention. When the board was considering measures at that time, it would have been nice if he was told that it was under considerations and would take some time. Now he looks like a martyr of this cause and sadly so given what recently transpired. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 May 2010 22:11, Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com wrote:
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@usdoj.gov <askdoj@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&S...
2000->Ch0847->Section%200135.htm<
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S...
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
wjhonson@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@gmail.com wrote:
From: Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@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@usdoj.gov <askdoj@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&S...http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200135.htm
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
wjhonson@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Stillwater Rising stillwaterising@gmail.com wrote:
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@usdoj.gov <askdoj@usdoj.gov?subject=USDOJ%20Comments> or (202) 514-2000) and report back to the Foundation as to what his recommendations are.
If any records needed to be kept, I think Mike would already know. If people needed contacting on the issue, I think he'd have done it (maybe he has, I don't know). In any case, I think Mike knows how to do his own job. He is the lawyer after all, and the overwhelming majority of us are not.
-Chad
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org