[Gendergap] Resolution:Images of identifiable people

[Sydney Poore]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?)
> >>
> >>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
> >>
> >> Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this?
> >>
> >> -Sarah
> >
> > Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the
> > discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial
> > content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is
> > identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard
> that
> > needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've
> > discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being
> > sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy.
> >
> > IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person
> > giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be
> > uploaded with a free license, and what that means.
> >
> > Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people
> > assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the
> > image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to
> the
> > person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated.
> >
> > Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather
> informed
> > consent from models. This is an area that needs more work.
> >
> > Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a
> semi-public
> > places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place
> > with  the expectation that only the people in that location will see
> them.
> > IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean
> > that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the
> > world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The
> same
> > is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think
> that
> > someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give
> consent
> > for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their
> > body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized
> > way.
> >
> > Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided,
> > someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This
> > problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want
> to
> > use best practices.
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
>
> Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a
> (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to
> be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar
> policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate
> this?
>
> cheers,
>
Phoebe, yes, we need to go to meta and make a comprehensive list.  And we
need to figure out a way to make sure that all wikis have policy and
procedures in place based on the Foundation resolution.

Sydney
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110912/f8d133fc/attachment.htm