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

[Ilario Valdelli]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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.

Perfect.

Ilario