On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/13 private musings <thepmacco...@gmail.com>: >> G'day all, >> I continue to have concerns related to the growing number of explicit images >> on WMF projects (largely commons) - but rather than banging on with dull >> mailing list posts which gaurantee a chorus of groans, I'm trying to be a >> bit less dull, and have made a short video presentation. >> It's my intention to work on this with a few like minded wiki volunteers, >> and probably then make a sort of alternate version for youtube etc. to see >> what the general feeling is out there.... what I'd really like is for the >> foundation to acknowledge that this is an issue where some regulation may be >> necessary (or indeed, where the discussion of potential benefits of some >> regulation is even conceivable) - I hope the board, or the advisory board, >> might also be interested in offering some thoughts / recommendations too. >> I've used a selection of explicit images from Commons, so please only click >> through if you're over the age of majority; >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/WikiPr0n >> ps. I'm also particularly interested if anyone can point me to where >> 'section 2257' (record keeping) issues may have previously been discussed - >> is it the current foundation position that section 230 acts as an exemption >> to these requirements? > > Come on, even *I* would have given up on this argument by now... > you're not going to win... If you think there are legal concerns, > email Mike Godwin. >
Part of the problem is that people who think they understand the whole of the argument being made actually don't. Arguments against censorship address only a part of the concerns Privatemusings and others, including myself, have expressed. PM's comment above referring to Section 2257 alludes to much of the rest of the concerns - specifically, the rights of the individuals featured in the photographs themselves. There are ~25,000 images in the Commons category of potential personality rights problems, but the Commons policy (COM:PEOPLE) essentially leaves it to the ethical discretion (and nose for appropriate sounding file names) of the uploader to manage rights issues. Attempts to address this problem are sporadic - an example is a group of over a hundred images from a Dutch photographer with a checkered past, whose work has been largely removed from Flickr (from where it was imported to Commons). After quite a lot of debate and delay, many of these images were deleted on Commons in 2008 - but since then, many new ones have been uploaded. To avoid the very real chance that the subjects of explicit photos are underage or have not given publishing consent, I would like to see Commons require proof of model release, and age verification, for explicit images. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
