[Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Mon, 12/9/11, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org> wrote:
First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for 
years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything, 
please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their 
outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these pages:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity

The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any 
proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly problematic 
about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut 
down.  
And rightly so. After all, the idea --
-- that people might feel aggrieved if a picture of them naked, or giving a blowjob, is hosted on Commons for global reuse, without their consent, 
-- that their strength of feeling might be different if the matter concerned a picture showing them clothed, walking down the street 
-- and that the Foundation should bear that difference in strength of feeling in mind, by requiring more solid consent for the former type of image, 
is really outré, isn't it. :))

Andreas
The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and 
guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a 
sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what NOT to do:
I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable 
/ necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing - 
thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
     I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8 
January 2009 (UTC)

If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now. 
That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In particular...

Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in 
private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for 
public spaces. (Take a look at 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.) 
The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and 
reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to 
assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient 
system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with 
consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with 
the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used currently).

I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very 
simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing 
policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers, 
professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have 
to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for 
everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about 
consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are 
concerned about censorship.

As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw 
it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received.

Ryan Kaldari

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110913/031e036f/attachment-0001.htm