[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[Samuel Klein]

To Robert's point below,

I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
justification for inclusion might look like.  An OTRS-based model
release policy?  How does one prove that one really is the
photographer / the person in a photograph?

There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't
seen further discussion recently:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification

Sam.
--
user:sj
+1 617 529 4266



On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
>> Tim's spectrum.  Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
>> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
>> people in them.  I place a high value on not doing harm to the models
>> pictured.
>>
>> This is essentially a consent issue.  If the model is a well-known
>> porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no
>> problem.  However, many of the sexual images we receive depict
>> non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct.
>> If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine
>> too.  However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have
>> no idea how their image is being used.  Even if the person pictured
>> consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified
>> at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by
>> millions.
>>
>> At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image
>> are often very lax.  With regards to "self-made" images, we often take
>> a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible.
>>
>> In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue
>> of biographies of living persons.  For a long time we treated those
>> articles more or less the same as all other articles.  However,
>> eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living
>> persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards,
>> especially in the case of negative or private information.
>>
>> I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially
>> embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where
>> we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a
>> stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content.
>> (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be
>> done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people
>> should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential
>> for embarrassment or other harm.)
>>
>> Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living
>> people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which
>> would require no special treatment.
>>
>>
>> Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at
>> least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget
>> the potential to harm the people in the images.
>
>
> I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely
> inclusionist in the larger debate here.
>
> I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend
> stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude
> pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia
> to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific
> picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate).
>
> The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses
> of her privacy and property.
>
> This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth
> keeping in mind.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>