Hi SJ,
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure that's something we all agree would be worthwhile, and if that was your intent in the resolution, excellent. If there is will to move forward, it's hardly worth quibbling over the language of something passed several years ago.
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.
Yes, exactly. It does, but it could do so better. I think it's interesting that the very file used to illustrate the central Commons policy, [[COM:IDENT]], contains only a statement that the subject consented to having her image published; not published on the Internet or published on Commons, but merely published. I don't see any indication that anybody has given a thought to what is required by the policy. Clearly, we have some work to do in establishing a clear shared understanding. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actress_Anna_Unterberger-2.jpg
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.
Yes, this is exactly my point. Wikimedia Commons is not any more "broken" by this measure than any other top upload site; I'd say it's much *less* broken by this measure.
there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
like.
<tada> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent </tada>
As I acknowledged before, this template is more thoroughly developed than I had remembered, and something I think we should use. I misspoke. Still, it's worth pointing out that this template is in use on about 600 files on Commons -- a tiny sliver of a tiny fraction of where it could be applied. It probably should be applied to every file in [[Template:Personality rights]], or if it can't be applied, those files should be considered for deletion. I think one of the best things we could all do to move things forward would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be fantastic -- really fantastic -- if cultural organizations advised by a Wikipedian in Residence, and organizations within the Wikimedia sphere, could start doing so by default, to set a strong example. I'm going to start with the photos of me.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]