In response to Sydney's post.. Having worked in the photography industry (and been forced in front of a camera a few times in my day..) as a consultant and a make-up artist (10 years in that industry) I've written, signed, had others sign, and dealt with model release forms a million times over. Here is a nice standard break down of that from the NYIP:
http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html If we require permission for use via OTRS, I don't know why we can't have "model release" be incorporated sexual/nude photography, modeling photography, studio photography. Materials used for educational purposes, as Commons is supposed to be, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't thought too hard about it yet, but, it is possible. There of course comes the question of grandfathering in content, and Flickr. The strange thing about all this creative commons stuff on Flickr - is that most people *don't* release photographs of their friends, naked partners, or themselves to be used freely by the world CC-By-A/SA. So, it's always really hard for me to trust Flickr accounts where people are releasing their content for free use of naked people without some type of quality release content or statements on their page. I don't even release photographs of my friends via CCBYA (and if I would, I'd have permission), except Wikimedia related events and even then I have to ask people (generally) if it's okay if I post their photo. There is also the idea of a warning that is more amplified. One could ask the uploader if it's questionable content they're uploading (or perhaps we can have some fancy Commons thing that "scans" the image for certain body parties, styles or actions) to make sure they really want to do that. We've had two "teenagers" (a 13 an 14 year old) recently request photographs of their lower-half in there mere underwear be removed from Commons. These presumed children uploaded photos of themselves, probably to be sexy and voyeuristic (like so many of us in the digital age growing up have explored) and then went "OH GOD NOOOOOO" a few days later. The age is bad enough, but...plenty of people go "Ok please delete my crotch from Commons" often enough. This brainstorm features: - Model release form combined with OTRS - Commons nekkid parts sensor (i.e. like face recognition but for boobs, penises, vaginas, doggie style, whatever) - Alert for uploaders with sexual content making sure they want to do it - And I'll throw in a review of Flickr policy. Sarah On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com>wrote: > See the standard for medical images from the American Medical College of > Genetics > > http://www.acmg.net/resources/policies/pol-020.pdf > > I worked with people with high risk pregnancy and sometimes we took > pictures of the baby if it had a genetic disorder. But we always got consent > first. > > Sydney > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I left Yann a message on his talk page asking him to reconsider. >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yann#Korean_Vulva >> >> I sincerely hope that she did give consent and knows that it is on >> Commons. Otherwise we are exploiting her. >> >> I disagree that the person is not recognizable. It would be very unethical >> to upload this image without this person's consent. True exploitation of the >> person. >> >> I feel very strong about this point because of the my knowledge of past >> exploitation of people in medical images in textbooks and medical journals, >> some of them nude. It was absolutely wrong when it was done in the name of >> education and it is wrong for us to do it now. >> >> Sydney Poore >> User:FloNight >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Sarah Stierch >> <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> This is a NSFW photo.... >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg >>> >>> Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination. >>> >>> An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid >>> reason for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It >>> has been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or >>> "obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason). >>> >>> I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any >>> project since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor >>> description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an >>> "educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]] >>> article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow >>> drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot.. >>> come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality >>> photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom >>> for the project..if it's that in demand. >>> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg> >>> >>> I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/ >>> >>> Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge >>> something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless >>> of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples >>> reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons >>> is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc... >>> >>> (And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original >>> rager when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels" >>> category..)...so no need to reprimand me....I've curbed my 'tude!) >>> >>> Any help would be great, >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> -- >>> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia >>> Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org> >>> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American >>> Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> >>> and >>> Sarah Stierch Consulting >>> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> http://www.sarahstierch.com/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.glamwiki.org> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
