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

[Nathan]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli at gmail.com> wrote:
> Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
> OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
> view of copyright.
>
> In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the
> cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where
> the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot
> be considered "injurious").
>
> Ilario

It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow
concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of
yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on
the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission
to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument
addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do,
but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the
photograph. That's pretty unfortunate.

Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between
cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of
that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to
abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle
ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people
who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate.

Nathan