[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
> Tim's spectrum.  Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
> people in them.  I place a high value on not doing harm to the models
> pictured.

Sexually explicit photographs are only one of many classes of
photograph which pose the risk of embarrassment.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Childhood_Obesity.JPG  (the
original was not anonymized, and this image was subject to a lengthy
argument as the photographer was strongly opposed to concealing the
identity of the involuntary model)

Or people who might show up here without their knoweldge,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_HIV/AIDS

(Not even getting into all the photographs of people performing
activities which are illegal in some-place or another, simply being
gay will get you executed in some places, no explicit photographs
required, and using some drugs can get you long sentences in many
others...)

So please don't make it out like there is a unique risk there.

Commons has a policy related to identifiable images:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people

(and why do people on foundation-l keep insisting on discussing these
things without even bothering to link to the existing policy pages?)


I'm all for strengthening it up further, but I hope an hysterical
reaction to sexual images isn't abused to make a mess of the policy
and convert it into something which will be less practically
enforceable than the current policy.