On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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, yes, we need to go to meta and make a comprehensive list. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that all wikis have policy and procedures in place based on the Foundation resolution. Sydney
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap