[Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

Toby Hudson toby at hudsonclan.net
Tue Sep 13 22:31:12 UTC 2011


I agree.  As you wrote this email, I was altering it to include the phrase
"consent to publish".  Your wording is better, I'll change to that.
Toby/99of9

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> That looks good, Ryan. Would it make sense to add something about the
> release of the image? For example,
>
> "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
> specifically consented to this photograph or video being taken and
> released under a free licence."
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 15:43, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
> > I have created the new consent template:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
> >
> > Here is an example of it in use:
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Splitting_logs_with_a_gas_powered_log_splitter.JPG
> >
> > I also added a new section to the
> > Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons guidelines encouraging people
> to
> > use the new template.
> >
> > The wording of the template and guidelines don't mention anything about
> > nudity or sexualization. This is on purpose. Hopefully, this will be a
> good
> > first step to increasing the value and visibility of consent on Commons
> (in
> > a way that builds consensus rather than warring factions).
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
> > On 9/12/11 5:49 PM, Toby Hudson wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110914/c380b44c/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Gendergap mailing list