Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> This is under understanding the whole issue is not covered by BLP policy
> (I assume if a vagina is shown but the face is not this is not a BLP
> issue).

I would feel better if we got model rights whenever using someone's
body to illustrate an article. If my hand is the primary
illustration, it's not at all respectful to keep that up if I ask you
not do so. I don't much care what the law says here -- unless it's
verifiably hard to replace a model-approved image with an unapproved
one, we just shouldn't do it.

(and if you were to take photos of the hands of a professional hand
model, and not pay them for it, they would certainly sue you. whether
they would win may vary by jurisdiction, but it is disrespectful. and
respect is the important part of this discussion.)

John says:
> No one has proposed removing or hiding images
> depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that no
> one is arguing for, you should start a new thread.

+1. Thanks, John!

SJ

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

Last post on this thread.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
> permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also many
> which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
> captured.

Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this? I haven't seen
anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
suggesting one does not.

> The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
> galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
> 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the

I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
them. you can leave out this tangent.


> I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
> nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the image,
> permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
> the media should be deleted.

I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
leave out that comment entirely. Permission of subject should be
assessed, period. If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.

SJ


An aside on work-safety:

Earlier, John wrote:
> While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:

I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
context. What I was suggesting is:
- pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
images].

It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context. [.for any given image or
block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
commonplace]

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

Here are some pointers to commons discussions;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
- the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
useful than things like permissions.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
- mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
closeup of boob etc.)

Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
unpredictable - see

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_(302214719).jpg

for a beach shot which was deleted, and

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

for a beach shot which was kept.

It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?

best,

Peter,
PM.


On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Last post on this thread.
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means that
> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
> many
> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
> > captured.
>
> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this? I haven't seen
> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
> suggesting one does not.
>
> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>
> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
> them. you can leave out this tangent.
>
>
> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography featuring
> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
> image,
> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting -
> > the media should be deleted.
>
> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
> leave out that comment entirely. Permission of subject should be
> assessed, period. If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>
> SJ
>
>
> An aside on work-safety:
>
> Earlier, John wrote:
> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>
> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
> context. What I was suggesting is:
> - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
> images].
>
> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context. [.for any given image or
> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
> commonplace]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

ps. for my proposal see;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content#Proposal_3_-_Model_ages.2C_releases.2C_and_personality_rights

pps. the general reception for that particular proposal was that I'm a bit
of a crazy person.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>wrote:

> Here are some pointers to commons discussions;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity
> - the commons policy on nudity, more focused on whether or not content is
> useful than things like permissions.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
> - mentions 'moral issues', but media generated from a distance can (and
> are) argued to be non identifiable. This guideline would further seem not to
> apply to material which doesn't feature the face (upskirt, downblouse,
> closeup of boob etc.)
>
> Further - the rationale for the outcome of a discussion is often rather
> unpredictable - see
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_(302214719).jpg<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beach_in_Italy_%28302214719%29.jpg>
>
> for a beach shot which was deleted, and
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Topless_Barcelona.jpg
>
> for a beach shot which was kept.
>
> It's my view that the later image should be deleted. Thoughts?
>
> best,
>
> Peter,
> PM.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Last post on this thread.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, private musings <thepmaccount@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are many shots clearly 'posed' - which I personally feel means
>> that
>> > permission is clearly granted by the subject - however there are also
>> many
>> > which don't indicate that the subject has any idea the image is being
>> > captured.
>>
>> Where on Commons is the best place to discuss this? I haven't seen
>> anything that looks like a very good processlist for checking that an
>> image has a model release... though I reckon there's a template for
>> suggesting one does not.
>>
>> > The addition of this material to commons, and to multiple user
>> > galleries (and user pages) - often with captions / titles like 'hot' or
>> > 'sexy' I feel is at best crass, and at worst an embarrassment to the
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with calling encyclopedic or otherwise
>> useful, release images, hot or sexy, or with making galleries out of
>> them. you can leave out this tangent.
>>
>>
>> > I believe it's desirable to respect the subjects of photography
>> featuring
>> > nudity to the degree that no matter what the copyright status of the
>> image,
>> > permission of the subject is in some way assessed, and if found wanting
>> -
>> > the media should be deleted.
>>
>> I don't think copyright has anything to do with this; again you can
>> leave out that comment entirely. Permission of subject should be
>> assessed, period. If you assess it by saying 'it is from a library
>> archive and is 80 yrs old', that works as a first pass.
>>
>> SJ
>>
>>
>> An aside on work-safety:
>>
>> Earlier, John wrote:
>> > While creating software would be needed for a good solution, I think
>> > we can create a simple solution by renaming all images with nudity so
>> > that they begin with NSFW (not safe for work), as I mentioned here:
>>
>> I don't think this is a good idea in the slightest.
>> I know I mentioned NSFW before, and I meant it in a totally different
>> context. What I was suggesting is:
>> - pages which might be unexpectedly come across (name and context
>> don't give away media content) and are considered NSFW by a reasonable
>> minority of people should have some indication on the page [not on the
>> images].
>>
>> It's not meaningful to look for consensus on what is SFW or NSFW, and
>> media cannot be SFW or NSFW without context. [.for any given image or
>> block of text, there is some workplace where it is appropriate if not
>> commonplace]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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