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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea.

Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me.

Andreas



--- On Fri, 14/5/10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010, 10:36
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > Nathan wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell
> <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>   
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>
> >>
> >> Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general
> statement of principle,
> >> with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have
> much impact on the
> >> state of things. We don't require evidence of
> release, but we should.
> >> And in the case of explicit content, we should
> require that release
> >> even if the photograph is taken in a public place.
> Topless sunbathing
> >> on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide
> license for
> >> unlimited publicity.
> >>
> >>     
> I may have said it before -- and I do apologize if I sound
> like a record stuck into repeating the same groove again
> and again -- but the issue in cases like that *decidedly*
> isn't the "explicitness" of the image, but the _privacy_
> _violation_.
> 
> It may be that here again the ugly head of my Nordic
> liberal values may be rising above the parapet, but I
> do not consider a female of the species enjoying the
> sun without incurring tan-lines to their upper torso
> as remotely "explicit" in any sensible sense of the
> word -- any more than I would consider "explicit" an
> image of a woman breastfeeding her one year old baby.
> 
> Though I do recognize the sentiment that people who
> have very few opportunities to see womens breasts in
> "the flesh", might feel otherwise. I forget who it was
> in relation to a campus ban on shows of affection, that
> said "Kissing in public in front of lonely people is like
> eating a hamburger in front of people on the point of
> starvation." -- or words to that effect.
> 
> So to recap, I wouldn't support a selective standard only
> applied to "explicit" images, no matter how defined.
> 
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>