The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of
US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without
On 31 May 2012 09:23, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.com wrote:
The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of
I wanted to ask a question to the members of the list-
Is all pornography inherently bad, against women, perhaps, Anti-feminist
but does it degrade women just by its sheer existence? Are there women who
either a) don't have strong opinions on it b) are supportive of some form
of it.
For the
I've found this line of dialogue interesting but have hesitated to
participate. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I arrived with a goal
to bring some balance to many of the articles pertaining to domestic and
international human trafficking and pornography. I soon realized that
pornography
I think this comment completely misses the point. Yes, if you go to
articles on deep throating or tit torture, you will surprise surprise,
see images of those things. I don't see this as a big problem. The
problem would be if the same images were showing up on articles unrelated
to sexuality,
I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my
non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist
interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've
always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him,
focused
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.comwrote:
The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's
terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating
that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my
non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist
interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've
always thought it
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved
actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or
simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
On 31 May 2012 14:10, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production
involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning
actual or simulated—(i)
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That's pretty important then, right? Because IIRC circuit court decisions
inform judgement in later such cases - and the only way the legal
interpretation can be rejudged is in a full appeals court?
Tom
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of
producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes,
reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get
complicated. What
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to
images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit
conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their
username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no
real world link without the IP records.
Firstly, that's not the sort of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on
their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is
no real
This may be an interesting tangent, but it doesn't really bear on the
responsibility of Wikimedia or its projects. While others may have both
legal and moral obligations, Wikimedia certainly has moral obligations with
or without potential legal liability. The legal arguments are just a
Okay, I'm going to try to redirect this thread a bit from the long, drawn
out discussion about legal requirements for model releases of explicit
images (and the related record keeping), because I think that is only one
small aspect of issues.
I agree with those who say there is a low risk of
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive
campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other
non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know
that their
From: Risker
On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive
campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF
repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their
image was going to be made available on Commons. I
Hi,
I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing
Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on
Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it
when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote:
Hi,
I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing
Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on
Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote:
My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of
addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at
times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of
Here are results of a multimedia search for human female in Wikipedia
(NSFW):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=100redirs=0profile=imagessearch=human+female
Did you look at the examples Larry mentioned in his post?
There are many more: e.g.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing
Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on
Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it
when
24 matches
Mail list logo
