You might consider sexual content as material which has a fairly high risk
of causing harm if published without consent, I guess.
Further, I think that we currently only require consent of privately taken
photos if the person is identifiable - so for example if someone were to
upload an image of them have sex with their ex-boyfriend, and perhaps only
his genitals are visible, then under current practice, commons would not
require his consent to publish this picture - I'm suggesting that it's
probably best if we do require consent from all parties, for all sexual
content (see the proposal page for specific definitions) - really because I
do tend to think it's a higher risk for causing harm.
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but I was under the impression that, apart from
people making
public appearances where consent is implied, consent of the
participants should be obtained before publication of any photograph
anyway.
I fail to see how sexual content is different in this respect; perhaps
what we need is a reminder of general the ethics of photography of
people.
-- Rama
On 06/08/2010, private musings <thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote:
G'day all,
I hope it's appropriate to cross-post this to both commons and foundation
lists - it seems so to me, and no doubt if there's a courtesy or practice
I'm unaware of, someone will be kind enough to point it out :-) (rude
words
and nasty comments are ok, but it's better if
they rhyme.)
Discussions at the meta page where Robert Harris is posing some related
questions is gently dying down -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C…
and over on commons we're approaching another poll about whether to adopt
the 'sexual content' policy proposal -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Another_poll.…
What appears to be the largest point of discussion extant is whether or
not
media featuring sexual content should contain at
least an assertion that
all
of the participants consent to the upload /
publishing of the material -
you
can see some folk arguing that we shouldn't
apply such a condition
retrospectively, and maybe not at all -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Automatic_del…
I believe consent is desirable across the board in regard to sexual
content,
and would like to see this sort of wording
ratified as policy -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&o…
The discussions are actually pretty substantial, civil, useful, and
generally better than we've managed in the past, and of course the more
outside views on the matter, the better - so if you're at all inclined to
share your thoughts on the commons specific side of how WMF handles
sexual
content, please do pipe up, either ahead of, or
as part of the upcoming
poll....
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l