Samuel Klein wrote: > > I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection > to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to > confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or > embarrassing photos. > > Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments > against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? >
Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. It might however have a chilling effect on those people sharing images that don't really require model releases, such as photographs shot in public spaces, especially where the person in the frame can't even be recognized. Another question is, if such a stance on model rights were taken, would it be reasonable to just retroactively apply it to images already on the site, or should there be a reasonable attempt to inform the uploaders to let them secure a model release and add it to the media information. I think something like that was done when we went to town on images that didn't have a specified rationale of use. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. It still might be worth doing just for its own sake. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
