Dear Pete,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands.
No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.
H'm? The resolution does not specify deletion. Nor does it specify what the Commons guideline should look like - it specifically does not link to a historical revision.
It urges that the current Commons guideline extend to specifying when an explicit affirmation of consent is required by the uploader. And that this then be enforced. As with the "no fair use" shift, I would expect first this would only apply to new media, then uncertain-status media would be phased out, then years later the uncertain-status orphans might be mothballed.
The current Commons guideline and template do define "consent": to be published on the Internet. "The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons." The Commons policy already addresses the nuances around public figures, news of public interest, &c.
Most identifiable photos of non-public-figures published on Flickr, Facebook, Google +, &c do *not* in fact have subject consent. We can and should do better than this: as with awkward copyright status, images with uncertain consent should be replcaed with those with clear consent wherever possible.
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look like.
<tada> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent </tada>
SJ