Mailing List Archive

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
>
> ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing...

As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate
misinformation?

Thanks,

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
> >
> > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
> publishing...
>
> As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
> blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate
> misinformation?


Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak
and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I
said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs.

Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply
by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with
flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards
being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing
practices.

In any case this is all off-topic for the thread,

Sam

[1]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/30 Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>:

> I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
> French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
> probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
> lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or
> replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about
> minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].


At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
is inadequate.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/1/30 Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>:
>
> > I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now
> the
> > French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing
> it's
> > probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag
> images
> > lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or
> > replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about
> > minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].
>
> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
> is inadequate.


It quite probably is, and provided the tags are used it answers some of the
issues in the other (sexual content) thread too.

Thanks,

Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
What is the point of off list communication when you quote from these
communications ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/1/30 Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ... now the French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial
> > publishing...
> >
> > As already pointed out by several people (including me [1]), this is
> > blatantly false. Could you please stop spreading this deliberate
> > misinformation?
>
>
> Your argument about "merely" accepting donations 'under the table' is weak
> and if anything issuing press releases impeaches the chapter further. As I
> said to GerardM off-list, selling drugs for charity is still selling drugs.
>
> Wikipedia's recent moves to both sell content commercially (even if simply
> by turning a blind eye to the practice) and attempt to filter it with
> flagged revisions (thus taking a big step from being a distributor towards
> being a publisher) are going to require some amount of review of existing
> practices.
>
> In any case this is all off-topic for the thread,
>
> Sam
>
> [1]
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049571.html
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > [[m:User:guillom]]
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
> is inadequate.

I don't see this tag at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg

and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort
to add these tags which just has started?


Regards,
Peter

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de@googlemail.com>:
> David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

>> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
>> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
>> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
>> is inadequate.

> I don't see this tag at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg
> and in other pages discussed here. Are talking about an effort
> to add these tags which just has started?


I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was
thinking of the personality rights tag.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Sam;

I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses Commons as a battleground and we get sued.




________________________________
From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:18:32 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)

> Should we take no steps to protect people who have no wish to have their
photos published worldwide on a site owned by a charity devoted to
knowledge?

Or to put it another way, is an identifiable image of a person really free
if that person has not given a model release (irrespective of whether the
image is sexual)?

Virgin found out down under that this is not necessarily the case after
being sued for using a 'free' (CC) picture on Flickr[1] (also discussed
here[2] and here[3]).

Creative Commons simply excludes publicity rights from its scope[4], but
perhaps this is a good way for Commons (at least) to differentiate itself
from Flickr and other 'dumping grounds'. A good analogy would be having the
rights to a specific recording without the rights to the song itself.

I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
lacking releases accordingly, with a view to having them released or
replaced? I note that this would also dispense with many concerns about
minors by requiring a minor release by parents or guardians[5].

Sam

1.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html
2. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680
3. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/09/on_the_texas_suit_against_virg.html
4. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#When_are_publicity_rights_relevant.3F
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/31 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> Sam;
>
> I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under penalty of perjury. This would shift liability off of us in the event that someone uses Commons as a battleground and we get sued.
>

We do not have the authority to ask people questions under penalty of perjury.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was
> thinking of the personality rights tag.

Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de@googlemail.com>:
> David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was
>> thinking of the personality rights tag.

> Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?


This is the personality rights tag:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights

This is the category of restrictions templates:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Restriction_tags

Possibly I was thinking of the note about model rights in the reuse page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:REUSE

So if there isn't a tag warning in general about model rights
(assuming reusers aren't reading all of Commons, they're just looking
at an image page, seeing the licence and going "ooh I can use that" as
Virgin did with the CC-by-sa pic they reused) - is a tag warning that,
duh, you have to take care with pictures of people worthwhile?

(cc to commons-l)


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l