This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page is a scratchpad for ideas about what a proposed policy should be for pictures of models in sexual poses or other poses where they may be unhappy about having their photo put on to wikipedia. Please be bold in editing.
This proposed policy is a way of dealing with sensitive photographs of models who may not be happy about having a photograph of themselves illustrating a Wikipedia article. It is intended to cover:
It is not intended to cover:
In photographs that are covered by this policy, Wikipedia requires 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.
This policy is not intended to trump other wikipedia image use policies. Even if the model is happy for the photo to appear here, if the copyright is dubious or the picture is not encylopedic then it can and should be deleted. One way to avoid having to consider this policy is to crop images to remove the face or identifiable features if appropriate.
When would the content of a photo trigger the application of a higher standard? When any of these conditions are met, applying a higher standard of proof of permission is probably warranted.
These all apply strictly to the images themselves.
Notes: 1) Identification is usually facial, but use common sense. You could put a black bar across the eyes of Paris Hilton, and folks would still know who it is. Generally, only celebrities (see above) are identifiable without the face, but it is impossible to be absolute. 2.1) Illegal includes acts of violence and all forms of criminality, provided that it is not a famous figure (e.g. Patty Hearst as "Tanya"). 2.2) Lingerie might well cause professional harm for some, just as even professional acts (e.g. animal husbandry) might. Use common sense. 3) If it's possible that the model is below the age of consent, let's be sure of ourselves, whether the model is nude or clothed or anything else.
Historically, pictures such as the various photographic illustrations of the vagina have been battlegrounds, and the uploaders indeed have gone to extraordinary lengths to assure the community that the images were licit. Therefore, it is not without precedent that images that are potentially more socially (as opposed to merely psychologically) damaging meet such a requirement.
We need some kind of model release form. It could be downloaded and signed by the model then scanned in and emailed to the foundation.
The person in the "permission" photo should be clearly the same as the person in other relevant photos.
The sign must obviously be legible and should refer specifically to the permission for other relevant photos, e.g. "GFDL given for 3 nude photos of myself". The sign should specify:
Proof of source for all images is required. Provide a website or identify who you are in real life.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page is a scratchpad for ideas about what a proposed policy should be for pictures of models in sexual poses or other poses where they may be unhappy about having their photo put on to wikipedia. Please be bold in editing.
This proposed policy is a way of dealing with sensitive photographs of models who may not be happy about having a photograph of themselves illustrating a Wikipedia article. It is intended to cover:
It is not intended to cover:
In photographs that are covered by this policy, Wikipedia requires 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.
This policy is not intended to trump other wikipedia image use policies. Even if the model is happy for the photo to appear here, if the copyright is dubious or the picture is not encylopedic then it can and should be deleted. One way to avoid having to consider this policy is to crop images to remove the face or identifiable features if appropriate.
When would the content of a photo trigger the application of a higher standard? When any of these conditions are met, applying a higher standard of proof of permission is probably warranted.
These all apply strictly to the images themselves.
Notes: 1) Identification is usually facial, but use common sense. You could put a black bar across the eyes of Paris Hilton, and folks would still know who it is. Generally, only celebrities (see above) are identifiable without the face, but it is impossible to be absolute. 2.1) Illegal includes acts of violence and all forms of criminality, provided that it is not a famous figure (e.g. Patty Hearst as "Tanya"). 2.2) Lingerie might well cause professional harm for some, just as even professional acts (e.g. animal husbandry) might. Use common sense. 3) If it's possible that the model is below the age of consent, let's be sure of ourselves, whether the model is nude or clothed or anything else.
Historically, pictures such as the various photographic illustrations of the vagina have been battlegrounds, and the uploaders indeed have gone to extraordinary lengths to assure the community that the images were licit. Therefore, it is not without precedent that images that are potentially more socially (as opposed to merely psychologically) damaging meet such a requirement.
We need some kind of model release form. It could be downloaded and signed by the model then scanned in and emailed to the foundation.
The person in the "permission" photo should be clearly the same as the person in other relevant photos.
The sign must obviously be legible and should refer specifically to the permission for other relevant photos, e.g. "GFDL given for 3 nude photos of myself". The sign should specify:
Proof of source for all images is required. Provide a website or identify who you are in real life.