Personality rights

[Andreas Kolbe-2]

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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Techman224-2]

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
> [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

[Benjamin Chen-2]

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 <[hidden email]>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
> > [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
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

There is really no point posting something like this without giving a
link to the images and discussions in question. The best posting here
is going to do is attract more attention to the question and get a
more vigorous discussion about it, but it can't do that if you don't
give a link.

I don't think the WMF is going to intervene unless hosting the images
is illegal. The WMF board's resolution simply urges the Commons
community to act. If you think the community hasn't acted
appropriately on a consistent basis, then you could send the WMF board
evidence of that and they may decide to take firmer action. Posting
vague complaints here isn't going to help in any way, though.

On 11 March 2012 04:03, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> 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
> [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

[Samuel Klein-2]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:42 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8 April 2012 13:39, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've sent you and Ryan an e-mail with a link to the deletion discussion.
>
> In a discussion like this, secret evidence is approximately worthless.

Indeed.  This is the link I received by mail:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images

Bencmq wrote:
> I believe the closing admins' arguments also include that by uploading those
> images to Flickr, those actress would have already given consent?

Yes.  Though the original uploader is rarely also the subject, and may
not have such consent.  If the uploader did not upload directly to
Commons (but had their photos scraped from Flickr), and shows up later
to say that they made a mistake in setting their Flickr prefs and that
they or their subjects did not give consent for such distirbution, it
is hard to gainsay them.

In these cases I think we should accede to the photographer's request,
unless we have a strong specific reason to keep the image, after
reasonably verifying their identity.

Ryan Kaldari writes:
> What was the justification for not following the Photographs of identifiable people guideline?

Maarten Dammers writes:
> That probaby has to do with the fact that some people tried to (ab)use this rule to get images
> deleted they didn't like. Say I take http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_SOPA_Boiler_Room_Meeting.jpg
> If I would want to get rid of that picture I just say we don't have consent documented.

Those people are identifiable and in a private place.  If the
photographer showed up and denied having consent, would we not
promptly take that photo down?

If one of the subjects showed up and denied giving consent and asked
for the photo to be removed, we should see if the photographer had
gotten consent.  If not, again -- would we not take the photo down?
If not, then I must be misunderstanding that Commons guideline.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l