On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I have no clue how I missed this (and perhaps it's been posted before?) >> >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people >> >> Perhaps we can lend a hand to assist in this? >> >> -Sarah > > Yes, the WMF Board passed this resolution in May, and it helped focus the > discussion away from the idea that people want to delete controversial > content only because of they are prudes. Model consent for anyone who is > identifiable and has a reason to expect privacy is a minimum standard that > needs to be enforced on all wikis now. For all the reasons that we've > discussed recently on this mailing list, images of women who are being > sexualized benefit greatly from good enforcement of this policy. > > IMO, the Commons policy needs to be tweaked to to ensure that the person > giving consent for the image to be taken understands that it will be > uploaded with a free license, and what that means. > > Most of the the medical groups policies about medical images of people > assumes that the person in the image has less knowledge about where the > image might be used, and says that information needs to be provided to the > person so that they understand how widely that it might be disseminated. > > Right now we don't have a procedures in place that help us gather informed > consent from models. This is an area that needs more work. > > Also, we need to tweak the policy so that people who appear in a semi-public > places are protected. Many times people will go into a semi-public place > with the expectation that only the people in that location will see them. > IMO, sunbathing on a beach outside your rented beach house does not mean > that you intended your image to be taken and uploaded for anyone in the > world to see and be re-used in publications without your consent. The same > is true for many people going about their normal routine. I don't think that > someone walking from their car (or bus) into work intended to give consent > for their photograph to be taken, uploaded with a free license, and their > body parts and fashion apparel be categorized, especially in a sexualized > way. > > Since the people in many images do not have contact information provided, > someone re-using the image can not contact them to get permission. This > problem makes many of our images on Commons useless for people that want to > use best practices. > > Sydney Poore > User:FloNight
Sydney -- all good ideas, for sure! The resolution was intended as a (re)focusing device, as you note; and there is still lots of work to be done. One of the areas is making sure that all wikis have a similar policy. Would it help to put together a page on meta to coordinate this? cheers, phoebe _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap