Also, I will say this out in the open.
What I wrote just previous to this is EXACTLY why we on Commons have allowed ourselves to be guided by common sense and our community drafted policies, rather the potentially destructive Board resolution.
I will also make it known that I sent emails to Sue Gardiner, Jimmy Wales and Philippe Beaudette on two occasions last year in relation to this VERY issue, and did not receive a response back from a single one of them.
So, please, before we start attacking Commons, please remember that 3 people within the WMF were made aware of this issue on two separate occasions last year, and did nothing about it. (as far as I can tell).
Regards,
Russavia
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their reasonable expectation of privacy.
The cucumber lady, however, DID NOT, and nobody seems to care. I find that appallingly callous.
So what you are saying is that are able to assume consent in instances such as images from the White House stream for the following:
- That the person consents to being published
- That the person consents to having their likeness uploaded to Commons
- That the person consents to having their likeness made available
under a free licence 4) That the person consents to having their likeness used commercially 5) That the person understands what making their likeness under a free licence entails
etc,etc, etc
These are all arguments that we hear on a daily basis, and I am sorry to say that the WMF board resolution makes NO differentiation between images, or even their source. It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting with an expectation of privacy.
Let's use this example, which the WMF themselves used in their annual report (6 months after they passed their resolution)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khairat_OLPC_teacher_-_retouch_for_W...
- It's from Flickr
- It's of school children in a school in India
- At least six of the children are clearly identifiable
- Being in a private setting (a school) there is an expectation of privacy
The board resolution DICTATES that this photo MUST have consent, and people such as yourself insist on all these extra hoops as per other "private setting" "expectation of privacy" images.
Am I going to delete it, as the board resolution dictates? Should I delete it?
Or how about: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010-08-16_Dmitry_Medvedev_and_Bono_...
- It's from the Kremlin website
- We have permission for all Kremlin materials under a free CC-BY licence
- We can safely assume that all likenesses of Dmitry
Medvedev/Vladimir Putin we have permission for
But
- This is taken at a presidential dacha in Sochi
- Being in a private setting, there is an expectation of privacy
- Whilst it is likely that Bono agreed to have image published on
Kremlin website, there is no evidence a) He agreed to have his likeness uploaded to Commons b) He agreed to have his likeness made available under a free licence c) He agreed to have this likeness made available for commercial usage
If Bono should contact us and tell us to remove it, should we? After all, all he has to do is to quote that WMF Board resolution.
Should we delete that image if he contacts us? Should we delete it now?
And this is by using the same arguments that I have heard for other images using the same board resolution which makes no distinction between images other than "private setting" with "expectation of privacy".
How's that for a pandora's box?
Regards,
Russavia