[Foundation-l] Personality rights

[Benjamin Chen]

I probably know what images we are talking about here. I believe the
closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those images to
Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Best regards,
[[User:Bencmq]] / Benjamin Chen



On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Techman224 <techman224 at techman224.com>wrote:

> Would you mind posting this on wiki so that everyone there can comment
> about this. Not many on wiki users subscribe to this list.
>
> Thanks,
> Techman224
>
> On 2012-03-10, at 10:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following
> > Resolution:
> >
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed
> > content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content.
> We
> > also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as
> on
> > our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to
> > limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to
> > take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when
> > publishing biographies of living persons.
> >
> > However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to
> > media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a
> free
> > license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private
> > place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and
> > ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with
> > our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that
> > seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light
> of
> > the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as
> > Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent
> > difficult to verify.*
> >
> > In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to:
> >
> >   - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs
> of
> >   identifiable
> > people<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
> >
> > with
> >   the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media,
> >   including photographs and videos, when so required under the
> guideline. The
> >   evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the
> >   uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from
> >   identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private
> place.
> >   This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied
> >   consistently.
> >   - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place
> >   regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in
> private
> >   situations.
> >   - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves
> hosted
> >   on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage
> others
> >   to do the same.
> >
> >
> > Approved 10-0.
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a
> > private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous
> contributor
> > and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr,
> > having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has
> > requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He
> said
> > that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up
> on
> > Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be
> > released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified
> > that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr
> > account.
> > Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen
> deletion
> > discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of
> > isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of
> > subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been
> > that licenses once granted cannot be revoked.
> > Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting
> these
> > images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the
> > images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are
> these
> > images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server?
> > I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or
> Commons
> > bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and
> OTRS
> > communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>