[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> To Robert's point below,
> 
> I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this
> sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger
> justification for inclusion might look like.  An OTRS-based model
> release policy?  How does one prove that one really is the
> photographer / the person in a photograph?
> 
> There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't
> seen further discussion recently:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification
> 

Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from 
unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a 
photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity 
is no reason to accept such images.

Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private 
photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult 
groups, sometimes with contact data.

A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license, 
which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo 
that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the 
distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5442

Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that "A 
magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published 
photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was 
15 because the images had already been widely circulated online."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/

So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet 
the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images.

Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry.