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

[David Goodman]

I recall personally deleting and asking for oversight of an
identifiable picture of a clearly underage person in a similar
context, where the images were the basis of an internet meme. The
picture was oversighted; the article on the meme itself was almost
unanimously deleted from WP.

The courts may be fools. We are not. (at least not as often).


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM,  <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from
> unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a
> photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity
> is no reason to accept such images.
>
> Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private
> photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult
> groups, sometimes with contact data.
>
> A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license,
> which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo
> that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the
> distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site.
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5442
>
> Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that "A
> magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published
> photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was
> 15 because the images had already been widely circulated online."
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/
>
> So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet
> the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images.
>
> Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>