[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content
thepmaccount at gmail.com
Thu Apr 23 21:38:51 UTC 2009
ok - well to try and take sj's sage advice, and move this conversation
forward, I'll focus on one smaller aspect of the bigger issue.
Commons currently has quite a few photographs of people in various states of
undress on beaches. The permission of the subject's for this material, for
example, an image of a young woman topless bathing, is not currently
discussed or taken into consideration.
There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
captured. The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
project. It's just plain wrong, really.
I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the image,
permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
the media should be deleted.
Does anyone disagree?
ps - happy to talk about things like genital warts, and very specific
imagery too, but focus is awfully hard to maintain here :-)
pps - I really like John's idea, and will mention more on that anon (or
probably on wiki)
It's my belief that commons
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>wrote:
> > 2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>:
> >> I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are
> >> too
> >> bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who
> >> wants
> >> to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
> >> as one solution, one hides the picture writing "This image depicts a
> >> vagina". Whoever wants to see the image, clicks on "show".
> > Pretty much your proposal has been shot down repeatedly on en:wp.
> > Which other wiki communities are actually pushing for this? Any of them?
> > BLP, model release etc. issues are quite separate from this. You're
> > talking about the body part itself.
> I am not the one who raised the issue and I am personally fine with any
> images. I just want to state that this is a community issue, not a global
> Btw yesterday an apparent troll started a topic on ru.wp claiming that
> nude images represent "pornography" which is illegal according to Russian
> The topic has been speedily closed.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l