[Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

[Toby Hudson]

Hi Ryan,

A draft template was actually made to augment the mostly recently voted
[[COM:SEX]] proposal:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent

The proposal closed with no consensus*, but with a few modifications, the
template could still be put to good use.

Toby / 99of9


*Mainly because it included a clause allowing admins to delete out of scope
sexual content directly in a speedy deletion rather than setting up a
deletion request.  There actually wasn't too much opposition to requiring a
statement of consent for identifiable sexual images, although there was
some.



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org>wrote:

> I'm both a long-time admin on Commons and an OTRS volunteer. I've been
> wanting to chime in on this thread, but haven't really had the time. I'm
> worried though that I'm about to see history repeat itself, so I want to
> quickly share a few thoughts...
>
> 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. 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/d6c0a358/attachment-0001.htm