On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more >> injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of >> her making tea. >> > > It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more > injurious. > > Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit >> content seems appropriate to me. >> > > I agree. But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't > involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures. > > Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the > image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself > newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give > permission. I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film > productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a > public place), but it seems like the right thing to do. Especially given > that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial > purposes. > > One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the > person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic. If you snap a shot of a Mayor > accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed. Additionally, I > suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous > that no one is likely to object.
Perfect. Ilario _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
