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

[George Herbert]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
> 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.
>
> This is essentially a consent issue.  If the model is a well-known
> porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no
> problem.  However, many of the sexual images we receive depict
> non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct.
> If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine
> too.  However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have
> no idea how their image is being used.  Even if the person pictured
> consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified
> at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by
> millions.
>
> At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image
> are often very lax.  With regards to "self-made" images, we often take
> a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible.
>
> In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue
> of biographies of living persons.  For a long time we treated those
> articles more or less the same as all other articles.  However,
> eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living
> persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards,
> especially in the case of negative or private information.
>
> I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially
> embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where
> we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a
> stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content.
> (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be
> done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people
> should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential
> for embarrassment or other harm.)
>
> Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living
> people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which
> would require no special treatment.
>
>
> Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at
> least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget
> the potential to harm the people in the images.


I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely
inclusionist in the larger debate here.

I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend
stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude
pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia
to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific
picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate).

The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses
of her privacy and property.

This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth
keeping in mind.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com