Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Andreas Kolbe
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content

with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_Using_USC_2257_on_Wikimedia_Projects

Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?

From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.

Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone

"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"

is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.

Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?

There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.

We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.

Andreas


1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html


     

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Nathan Awrich
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
>
> with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant discussion is here:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#The_Case_for_Using_USC_2257_on_Wikimedia_Projects
>
> Editors have stated that the record-keeping requirements of § 2257 do not apply to Commons. Do we have a qualified legal opinion that backs this assertion up?
>
> From reading § 2257, it seems it is written with commercial providers of sexually explicit material in mind. Commons is not a commercial provider of such works. On the other hand, Commons licences state that material hosted on Commons is good for any use, including commercial use. This makes Commons a potential link in a chain leading to commercial use of material uploaded to Commons.
>
> Note that per § 2257 (h)(2)(iii), anyone
>
> "inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct"
>
> is liable to receive a prison sentence of up to 5 years, for a first-time offence, if they fail to comply with the record-keeping requirements of § 2257.
>
> Doesn't this raise the possibility that Commons administrators might become personally liable if, for example, they decide to keep a sexually explicit image that is subsequently found to have depicted a minor?
>
> There are other aspects involved in drafting Commons:Sexual_content that need expert legal input, for example, which types of pornography are legal in the US, and which ones are not.
>
> We are all laypersons there, so please help us out.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> 1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
>

I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have
provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist
for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and
invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Gregory Maxwell
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
> relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
> responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
> sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have
> provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist
> for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and
> invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?


The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the
moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists
everywhere.

As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Nathan Awrich
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
> is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
> Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the
> moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists
> everywhere.
>
> As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place
>


Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle,
with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the
state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should.
And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release
even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing
on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for
unlimited publicity.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
>> relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
>> responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
>> sexually explicit media are (a) of legal majority and (b) have
>> provided releases for publishing the content. The regulations exist
>> for a good reason - to protect the subjects of photos from abuse and
>> invasion of privacy. Why should we avoid taking those same steps?
>>    
>
>
> The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
> is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
> Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the
> moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists
> everywhere.
>
> As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place
>
>  

This whole issue is a very delicate one, and I agree not
really anything to do with whether the images are
explicit or not. A selective harsher standard to apply
to explicit images makes no sense whatsoever. Not in
the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of ethical behaviour.

Anyone remember this case of Virgin Mobile using
(or abusing) the CC 2.0 license in their advertising
in a manner that the license specifically allows, but
is just simply pretty damn sleazy?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070921/003636.shtml



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy
>>> is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images.
>>> Although sexual images are one of several "most important" cases, the
>>> moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists
>>> everywhere.
>>>
>>> As such, Commons has a specific policy on this:
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place
>>>
>>>    
>>
>>
>> Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle,
>> with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the
>> state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should.
>> And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release
>> even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing
>> on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for
>> unlimited publicity.
>>
>>    
I may have said it before -- and I do apologize if I sound
like a record stuck into repeating the same groove again
and again -- but the issue in cases like that *decidedly*
isn't the "explicitness" of the image, but the _privacy_
_violation_.

It may be that here again the ugly head of my Nordic
liberal values may be rising above the parapet, but I
do not consider a female of the species enjoying the
sun without incurring tan-lines to their upper torso
as remotely "explicit" in any sensible sense of the
word -- any more than I would consider "explicit" an
image of a woman breastfeeding her one year old baby.

Though I do recognize the sentiment that people who
have very few opportunities to see womens breasts in
"the flesh", might feel otherwise. I forget who it was
in relation to a campus ban on shows of affection, that
said "Kissing in public in front of lonely people is like
eating a hamburger in front of people on the point of
starvation." -- or words to that effect.

So to recap, I wouldn't support a selective standard only
applied to "explicit" images, no matter how defined.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Andreas Kolbe
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.

Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me.

Andreas



--- On Fri, 14/5/10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010, 10:36
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > Nathan wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>   
> >>> The obligation to protect people against an
> invasion of their privacy
> >>> is not limited to, or even mostly applicable
> to sexual images.
> >>> Although sexual images are one of several
> "most important" cases, the
> >>> moral imperative to respect the privacy of
> private individuals exists
> >>> everywhere.
> >>>
> >>> As such, Commons has a specific policy on
> this:
> >>>
> >>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>
> >>
> >> Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general
> statement of principle,
> >> with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have
> much impact on the
> >> state of things. We don't require evidence of
> release, but we should.
> >> And in the case of explicit content, we should
> require that release
> >> even if the photograph is taken in a public place.
> Topless sunbathing
> >> on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide
> license for
> >> unlimited publicity.
> >>
> >>     
> I may have said it before -- and I do apologize if I sound
> like a record stuck into repeating the same groove again
> and again -- but the issue in cases like that *decidedly*
> isn't the "explicitness" of the image, but the _privacy_
> _violation_.
>
> It may be that here again the ugly head of my Nordic
> liberal values may be rising above the parapet, but I
> do not consider a female of the species enjoying the
> sun without incurring tan-lines to their upper torso
> as remotely "explicit" in any sensible sense of the
> word -- any more than I would consider "explicit" an
> image of a woman breastfeeding her one year old baby.
>
> Though I do recognize the sentiment that people who
> have very few opportunities to see womens breasts in
> "the flesh", might feel otherwise. I forget who it was
> in relation to a campus ban on shows of affection, that
> said "Kissing in public in front of lonely people is like
> eating a hamburger in front of people on the point of
> starvation." -- or words to that effect.
>
> So to recap, I wouldn't support a selective standard only
> applied to "explicit" images, no matter how defined.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


     

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Ilario Valdelli
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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.
>
> Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me.
>
> Andreas
>

Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
view of copyright.

In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the
cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where
the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot
be considered "injurious").

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Nathan Awrich
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
> OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
> view of copyright.
>
> In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the
> cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where
> the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot
> be considered "injurious").
>
> Ilario

It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow
concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of
yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on
the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission
to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument
addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do,
but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the
photograph. That's pretty unfortunate.

Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between
cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of
that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to
abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle
ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people
who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Ilario Valdelli
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
>> OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
>> view of copyright.
>>
>> In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the
>> cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where
>> the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot
>> be considered "injurious").
>>
>> Ilario
>
> It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow
> concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of
> yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on
> the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission
> to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument
> addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do,
> but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the
> photograph. That's pretty unfortunate.

Please understand that one matter is the privacy, another is the
injury for publication of nudism.

We are speaking about nudism, probably the question of privacy must be
solved in another discussion.

I mean that solving the problem of nudism you don't solve the problem
of privacy *in general* but I am not saying that the privacy is not
important.

>
> Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
> privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between
> cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of
> that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to
> abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle
> ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people
> who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate.
>
> Nathan
>

Most of all because the nudism is relative to the culture.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Ilario Valdelli
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

David Goodman
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
The right to privacy is based  explicitly on respecting cultural
taboos of individuals. Ordinary identifiable people should not be
shown in public doing things they reasonably would not like to be seen
doing, except  when the public need for information is great enough to
overcome this. In WP terms, this is the BLP principle of "do no harm"
and it applies as much to images as it does to articles.

There are people to whom this does not apply at all, such as public
figures when the matter is relevant to their notability or otherwise
the proper focus of responsible news coverage, and even private
individuals when the matter is sufficiently important--and this is the
same for images as articles, and for all WP content.  As with BLP, it
applies with special force to children and others  incapable of giving
consent or incapable of being aware that their conduct was being
recorded.

I am not a BLP-expansionist; I  interpret the need for information
fairly liberally, but when that does not apply I have always been on
the strict side of enforcing this with such things as internet memes.

In practice in almost all societies, sexual behavior is regarded as
more private than other things, and it is related to the almost
universal taboo about the display of nude genitals in public in
ordinary situations. Therefore the right to privacy does apply with
special force here.

I think we have an obligation to  remove or obscure the identities for
nude or sexual images of living people who have not explicitly or
implicitly given their consent, or who are unable to give it. I can
imagine situations where the right to public information might
over-ride this, but they would be exceptional. (The hypothetical case
of a nude congressman in front of the Capitol was mentioned somewhere
in these discussions.)  This is to be judged in terms of their
culture, not ours'; we should deal differently with a beach in Sweden
or in Saudi Arabia.

But all of this is irrelevant to the original censorship issue,
because we are not protecting our audience, who can personally or by
proxy protect themselves & have the responsibility for doing so; we
are protecting our subjects, who cannot.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
In a message dated 5/14/2010 7:50:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
> privacy or abuse of content subjects? >>
------------

How is a person uploading a picture of themselves to Commons expecting any
privacy at all?

As to the nude model release idea, I would suggest in the unfortunate
chance that this idea actually succeeds, that it should not be made retroactive,
less we start another all-out war that is bound to damage the project much
more than the theoretical chance that some obscure model will actually
complain... once.

W.J.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

???
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
Ilario Valdelli wrote:

> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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.
>>
>> Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>
> Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the
> OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of
> view of copyright.
>
> In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the
> cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where
> the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot
> be considered "injurious").
>

Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the
beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or
stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there
have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted
intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various
privacy laws.

“It is one thing to be viewed in the nude by a person at some point in
time, but quite another to be recorded in the nude so that a recording
exists that can be saved or distributed and viewed at a later time,”
Judge Paul G. Lundsten wrote for the court.
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=72195


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

???
In reply to this post by WJhonson
[hidden email] wrote:

> In a message dated 5/14/2010 7:50:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
>
>> Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the
>> privacy or abuse of content subjects? >>
> ------------
>
> How is a person uploading a picture of themselves to Commons expecting any
> privacy at all?
>

How do you ascertain the veracity of their statement?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

???
In reply to this post by David Goodman
David Goodman wrote:
>
> But all of this is irrelevant to the original censorship issue,
> because we are not protecting our audience, who can personally or by
> proxy protect themselves & have the responsibility for doing so; we
> are protecting our subjects, who cannot.
>

First you have to define who your audience is. It is beginning to sound
that the audience is a very small number of ideologues.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by ???
On 14.05.2010 20:38, [hidden email] wrote:
> Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the
> beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or
> stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there
> have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted
> intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various
> privacy laws.
>
>    

In a big *yellow* wall if a small point is red for me and orange for
you, this doesn't change the color of the wall.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

???
Ilario Valdelli wrote:

> On 14.05.2010 20:38, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the
>> beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or
>> stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there
>> have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted
>> intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various
>> privacy laws.
>>
>>    
>
> In a big *yellow* wall if a small point is red for me and orange for
> you, this doesn't change the color of the wall.
>

This wall you talk of, is it in some gaol?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe
In a message dated 5/14/2010 11:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> How do you ascertain the veracity of their statement? >>

---------------------------
Welcome to WikiWorld.  We've never been able to claim that we know that
people are telling the truth, we trust that they are, that's all we can do.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123