In many (most?) legal jurisdictions, no release is required if you're in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Aug 12, 2016 1:43 AM, "Neotarf" <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some comment on Lane Rasberry's "model release" question: first it seems > from the supporting essays, the underlying purpose of a "model release" is > legal protection for a photographer selling photographs, which wouldn't > apply to Commons. The "model" terminology is somehow not quite right for > the open source movement either, it invokes fashion or "adult" industry > terminology. The definition of a "model" is someone who is paid to > display merchandise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model > Finally, if such a thing became available, how would it end up being > used--to require Wikipedians to sign such a release as a precondition of > attending events? We have already seen in the past the unfortunate effects > of such photographs being used against Wikimedians, and disproportionately > against women, by those who politically oppose the Wikimedia movement. I > suspect such a thing would result in less, not more photographs uploaded. > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alison Cassidy <coot...@mac.com> wrote: > >> Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of >> children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed >> consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their >> parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re >> identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated >> with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later >> life. They, as children, had no say in the matter. >> >> Just putting that out there. >> >> — Allie >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe <emilymonro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial >> features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely. >> >> Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that >> the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright. >> I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of >> parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the >> medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions. >> >> From, >> Emily >> >> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person >>> had a lot more than marfans" >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
