Wikipedia talk:Private photos of identifiable models

message: An alternative policy is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Content legality
See also: Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate
This page was created because of this debate which to my mind doesn't seem to be actually going anywhere. So let's just write a policy proposal. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

message: If this becomes policy, are we going to go through the hundred of images of this type and tag them all? If we get no response from one that has been here for 2 years because the uploader is long gone do we just delete it, even it was acceptable when uploaded and the time between? Or is this for new images only? HighInBC 13:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Orgasm.jpg - :Image:Frau-2.jpg - :Image:Mohave - Judith.jpg - :Image:Nacktreiten.JPG - :Image:Postpic.jpg - :Image:CSD 2006 Cologne BDSM 09.jpg - :Image:Dani chained in a dungeon.jpg - :Image:Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg - :Image:Body painting.JPG
I am going to stop here, but I could go on. HighInBC 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, please do.  1. Film still.  2. Potentially questionable.  3. Dead subject/old art.  4. Possibly questionable, but "explicit permission of person depicted" is assured.  5. Dead subject/old art.  6. Public space/no expectation of privacy.  7. Surface mail provided for authorization, but very likely one where the subject has not consented explicitly.  8.  Suspect copyright status; it's from another website and apparently used as fair use.  9. Public space.  So, of 9 you provide, there is one that is likely to be a violation of the proposal and two that bear investigation -- both from .de.  This is not a Commons proposal we're making here but an .en Wikipedia one.  Geogre 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This policy is not intended to cover nude pictures. It's intended to cover private or potentially private, compromising pictures. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Orgasm" comes from a film, so we can remove that one, too.  We agree that the Dani chained one looks fishy.  (I thought Frau could be investigated more.  The naked rider is not sexual, but we can never be sure that she wants the picture getting about except for the uploader's note that explicit permission was given.)  Otherwise, even the people who collect dirty wiki-pictures don't seem to have many/any that this would apply to.  Geogre 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive? 

message: I tinkered with some of the grammar and wording but nothing substantive. I think this policy discussion has merit, thanks for starting it. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tinkering 

message: Currently all the proposal requires is "that the model (or the model's parent or guardian in the case of a minor) gives permission for the photo to remain on Wikipeda".  Under any ordinary circumstance, GFDL-self + assume good faith would be enough to meet that burden assumming the uploader wasn't a troll or otherwise engaged in dubious behavior.  In the Publicgirluk case, I am fine with that, but many people apparently aren't.  If this proposal doesn't spell out the requirements for demonstrating permission under these circumstances then it is effectively pointless as it does nothing to clarify the core of the dispute.  Dragons flight 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is permission? 

message: Instead of saying x type of content requires y, why not a blanket policy like this:
When the consensus of the community feels that the content of a contribution may pose legal threats to wikipedia it is reasonable for the community to take actions to resolve the concerns.
My only real problem with how the Publicgirluk issue was handled was that I felt she was being singled out. A simple policy like the one above will allow us to deal with such situation without making it personal. When you rebuke somone without a policy to point to it does seem personal, that does not mean the policy needs to be overly specific.
This type of simple policy based on common sense and consensus and is really just a clarification of existing policies and causes less policy creep than what is currently proposed. This handles other types of content that could pose a legal threat to wikipedia that we have not imagined yet(not giving examples per WP:BEANS). HighInBC 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some years ago, there was a Wikiproject that was violating copyright in a big way.  Some of us pointed this out, but the "community" thought it was okay and fought to keep on doing what they were doing.  Almost a year after it began, Jimbo had to order hundreds of pages deleted.  I have no faith in "the consensus of the community" as a standard for judging complex legal questions that most members of the community will have no experience with.  Much better to have specific guidelines about what is covered and what is not, preferabbly informed by legal counsel, when relevant.  Dragons flight 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have no faith in "the consensus of the community" as a standard for judging complex legal questions, then why do you suggest that "the consensus of the community" build specific guidelines dealing with complex legal questions? HighInBC 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't.  I believe the legal aspects should be informed in consultation with Foundation legal counsel.  Beyond that though, we can discuss good editorial practices quite apart from legal burdens.  Dragons flight 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see... I agree that legal counsel is needed, and that the finding should be made available to the people trying to build consensus. Wikipedia:Policy on private photos of identifiable models or Wikipedia:Content legality could refer as a reference. HighInBC 18:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I think that would make a better guideline than a policy. HighInBC 18:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think everyone agrees that what you describe is evil, but there appears to be a wide range of opinions regarding the level of evidence/lack of proof that should be expected before worrying about that issue.  Ranging from giving the uploader every benefit of the doubt to insisting on firm model credentials and written consent for every nude or compromising image.  Personally, I fall in the camp that people working to improve the encyclopedia should be trusted until there is some evidence to justify doubt (at least firmer evidence than the theory that no attractive woman would choose to post sexual images of herself online).  Dragons flight 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I see floods of attractive young women who do desire to spread images of themselves naked online with no recompense, without fame, without anything at all in return, I'll believe that it's an even chance that the photo is moral.  Until then, even people like Ana Voog have a motive other than, "See me, feel me" in what they do.  If compromising and sexual images legally and freely licensed are common, it should be easy to give evidence.  In all my time at Wikipedia, I have seen one purported case, and that's the one that started this.  The novelty of it alone would be enough to make someone suspicious.  This is prudence, not cynicism.  Geogre 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another way to go 

message: As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that if (hopefully when) we formulate a new consensus policy to prevent such problems in the future, it's important that the following be made crystal clear to uploaders via some sort of disclaimer on the upload guide:
*Exactly what will trigger these stricter requirements, ie., "If your image contains sexual act x, or photographic evidence of a crime being committed, n1, n2, ..." etc., etc.  Add descriptions of whatever triggers are decided upon.
*Exactly what the requirements are:  "...then you will be required to also submit a photograph showing that you really are the model" or "...then you will be required to submit proof x that you own the rights to the image", etc., etc.  Add whatever requirements are decided upon.
It occurs to me that if Publicgirl_uk had known people were not going to trust that she was the model, she would have been able to make a more informed decision on whether or not to upload the image.  As her attitude seems to be that she resents such requirements and does not wish to comply with them, then had she been informed beforehand of such a requirement, she simply would not have uploaded, and might still be editing today.
In short:  WP owes it to contributors to let them know what they're getting into.  If new verification requirements are decided upon - and I hope they are - we owe it to uploaders to fully inform them before they click "submit".  Kasreyn 01:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look here you will see her objection was atleast partially based on the fact that she had read the policies and did not see where she had violated any rules. She seemed respectful of wikipedia policy and I think would follow anything that the consensus agrees to or simply leave. HighInBC 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: I would like someone to explain something to me, as I remain very confused by all the talk of "common carriers" etc.  (The jargon is new to me.)  I understand that when an organization undertakes to (at least partially) censor its material, it takes on greater risk of being legally expected to (for lack of a better term), and thus liable for its content.  I had long been under the impression that this was why WP had the "not censored" provision under WP:NOT; not as some sort of anarchist "information wants to be free" idealism, but out of a seemingly hard-nosed understanding of the dangers of attempting the monumental task of self-censorship.  
So, in the current situation - that is, without this new policy we are working on - if someone came forward and claimed an image on WP was used to slander or attack them, what sort of deniability or legal protection would WP have?  I have been informed that my questions are merely "rehashing" previous debate, and that's certainly possible - there's a great deal of the AN/I board discussion I did not have a chance to read before it scrolled off.  If that's the case, I apologize but a reiteration would be helpful.  
I can see that, if worst came to worst, the recent debacle could be glossed over on copyright grounds.  (That is, we can claim that we rejected the images because we could not be certain the uploader held the rights to them - even though we accept a great many pictures with milder content, but equally shaky copyright grounds.)  So I don't worry that this sets some sort of precedent on self-censorship.  (Unless I've misread this?)
Also, did anyone "call the lawyers" as was suggested in a section above?  If so, what did they say?  There's little point in crafting a policy if it's just going to get shot down as unworkable.  Kasreyn 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it before but I'll say it again. This policy is not being drafted in order to prevwent Wikipedia from getting sued. It's being drafted to prevent (as far as possible) people having  compromising photographs of them put on wikipedia against thier will. Let's not be a bunch of chickens here. Let's do our best to do the right thing morally, and let the lawyers worry about the legal side of things. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, those of us who believe we ought to edit with dispassion vis-à-vis our subjects and disinterest vis-à-vis the external consequences of our editing (where legal concerns do not entail), viz., as soulless...automatons, are a bit concerned by our going any further here than is necessary reasonably to indemnify the Foundation.  I fail, I suppose, to understand why, where an image that would serve to illustrate an article (and, thus, in view of encyclopedic principles, to improve the project), we should be at all concerned as to its provenance or as to the harm that might befall its subject (in view of his/her having had that which he/she thought to be private disseminated publicly)?  Joe 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is known as "conscience" and "consideration for others" to avoid what could cause considerable distress to someone, as has happened with other material not intended for wider dissemination, which has brought on psychological problems for the subject. It is to create an ethically-based encyclopedia. Tyrenius 02:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IANAL, but 

message: Perhaps these will provide some information:
Wikipedia:Image censorship and Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images.
I know that they cover different ground, but there is significant overlap. Both process and standards are discussed, and it seems rather lively. Good reading. HighInBC 20:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found some old similiar discussions 

message: Following a number of off wiki discussions, including with Jimbo, I have drafted a counter proposal that tries to balance the need to protect others with concerns of not being mean and capricious in how we treat uploaders.  It is both broader, and in some ways narrower, than the current proposal outlined at these pages.
Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses
Jimbo, in his capacity as intelligent contributor (and not dictator), has said that an approach like I have outlined at that page would be acceptable to him (though it is by no means the only possible solution).  It still relies on trust to a significant degree, but provides a margin of comfort beyond what would be received merely from an psuedononymous Wikipedian.  Dragons flight 04:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifying unusual image licenses is by far the best policy proposal I have yet seen to deal with these issues. I would vote yes for it as is, but perhaps others have improvements. WAS 4.250 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks good as far as it goes, but it seems to only cover uploaders and license-holders, and specifically from a legalistic point of view.  That's fine, and it will work well, but as Theresa Knott explained so patiently to me, legal liability is not the motivation behind the drive to create this policy, and so the one you've linked isn't actually a counter proposal so much as it is a complementary proposal.  Most importantly, it does not include mention of any mechanism for discovering whether the model - not whoever owns the image, which may be someone else altogether - is OK with the image being uploaded.  It's a good policy, but it doesn't deal with the "ex-boyfriend's revenge" scenario which is a core part of the reason behind developing this policy.  Kasreyn 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is better to pre-empt this on wiki, rather than wait for it to happen, which it will one day, as it has occurred elsewhere on the web. Tyrenius 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter proposal