[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
>> relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
>> responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
>> sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have
>> provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist
>> for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and
>> invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
>>     
>
>
> The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
> is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
> Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the
> moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists
> everywhere.
>
> As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place
>
>   

This whole issue is a very delicate one, and I agree not
really anything to do with whether the images are
explicit or not. A selective harsher standard to apply
to explicit images makes no sense whatsoever. Not in
the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of ethical behaviour.

Anyone remember this case of Virgin Mobile using
(or abusing) the CC 2.0 license in their advertising
in a manner that the license specifically allows, but
is just simply pretty damn sleazy?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/003636.shtml