[Foundation-l] Principle and pragmatism with nudity and sexual content

Samuel Klein meta.sj at gmail.com
Thu Apr 23 22:06:11 UTC 2009

Last post on this thread.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this?  I haven't seen
anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
suggesting one does not.

> 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

I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
them.  you can leave out this tangent.

> 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.

I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
leave out that comment entirely.  Permission of subject should be
assessed, period.  If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.


An aside on work-safety:

Earlier, John wrote:
> While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:

I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
context.  What I was suggesting is:
 - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the

It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context.  [for any given image or
block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not

More information about the foundation-l mailing list