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

[Anthony]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

It can be.  Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more
injurious.

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

I agree.  But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't
involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures.

Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the
image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself
newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give
permission.  I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film
productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a
public place), but it seems like the right thing to do.  Especially given
that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial
purposes.

One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the
person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic.  If you snap a shot of a Mayor
accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed.  Additionally, I
suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous
that no one is likely to object.