I probably know what images we are talking about here. I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?
Best regards, [[User:Bencmq]] / Benjamin Chen On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Techman224 <techman...@techman224.com>wrote: > Would you mind posting this on wiki so that everyone there can comment > about this. Not many on wiki users subscribe to this list. > > Thanks, > Techman224 > > On 2012-03-10, at 10:03 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following > > Resolution: > > > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed > > content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. > We > > also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as > on > > our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to > > limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to > > take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when > > publishing biographies of living persons. > > > > However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to > > media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a > free > > license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private > > place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and > > ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with > > our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that > > seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light > of > > the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as > > Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent > > difficult to verify.* > > > > In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of > > Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to: > > > > - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs > of > > identifiable > > people< > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people > > > > with > > the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, > > including photographs and videos, when so required under the > guideline. The > > evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the > > uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from > > identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private > place. > > This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied > > consistently. > > - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place > > regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in > private > > situations. > > - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves > hosted > > on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage > others > > to do the same. > > > > > > Approved 10-0. > > ---o0o--- > > > > Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a > > private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous > contributor > > and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, > > having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has > > requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He > said > > that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up > on > > Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be > > released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified > > that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr > > account. > > Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen > deletion > > discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of > > isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of > > subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been > > that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. > > Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting > these > > images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the > > images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are > these > > images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? > > I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or > Commons > > bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and > OTRS > > communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
