Commons talk:Nudity

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to suggest the addition of the following clause: "If a reasonable case can be made that the photo shows something different than the existing photos, then in general, it will be acceptable to keep both images. Wikimedia Commons should have photos of human anatomy in all its variety or diversity. However, the difference in question needs to be put into words."--Eloquence 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Added. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think in general this policy appears to be quite well thought-out. Many people have strong emotional reactions when they first see a picture of nudity, and these reactions in turn provoke overreactions in people who fear censorship. This seems to walk the fence in an objective way. The only thing I'm nervous about is speedy deletion of nude images uploaded solely for the purpose of vandalism. These could potentially be useful, despite the vandal's intentions, if they meet some of your other criteria for keep. Deco 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but in my experience they rarely do, and they are usually without a license which normally means wait 7 days before speedy deletion applies. I have deleted a few images like this and actually a couple were the kind of "joke" pictures you find on weird websites, designed to shock/disturb. So that point doesn't just apply to nudity pictures. My thinking is that, they're not part of the Wikimedia community (account is always new), this image is only being used to vandalise, so who is worse off by its immediate deletion? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While I generally aggree with the whole policy I'm not that sure if we really need all this in the first place. There is actually nothing really new/different to the existing deletion guidelines, it just focuses especially on nudity and makes everything more specialised and complicated. Especially these (already existing) points cover almost everything:
A file or page can be listed for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests in the following cases:
[..]
# The file has a low image quality/resolution (e.g. out of focus, too small).
# The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one.

The point is only that nobody did that until now, everybody just put up a deletion request for those pictures with some obscure reason like "this is offensive!!!!111". So I think it is not a problem at all with the existing guidelines to delete bad shots and just keep a few good ones.

Anyways, I think it is probably a good idea to merge some of points into the existing guidelines, especially the two sentences under "vandalism" should probably be added there.-- Gorgo 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not a lot new, I agree, but the low quality guideline is quite subjective and has rarely been successfully used on COM:DEL in my memory. IMO Commons people tend towards inclusionism and especially when there is a chance others might claim "You're censoring the Commons!!!" Did you see Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Masturbation.jpg? This is the type of deletion request I'm talking about. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal. It seems well-crafted and I think it may reduce conflict among editors to add these words. Wsiegmund 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I also think that we should also prefer images that have a lot clearer information about the photo itself (when it was taken, who took it, what license it is under) and that could solve most of our issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the Commons was originally intended as a central location for images (and other materials), to enable various language versions of Wikipedia to use the same picture, for illustrative purposes in their articles. It was meant to enhance the efficient use of storage space. I know there is a dicussion about "contextless" pictures, but that centres around the question of whether a realy nice picture, which is not currently used in an article, should be allowed to stay on the stregth of its artistic qualities.

The artistic merits of an average penis, however, are debatable, if not absent, barring clear indications to the contrary. I also note that we have, at this moment, a collection of pictures of the said object that can be said to encompass most sizes and states or arousal. This means that any more pictures of the male reproductive organ do not contribute to either the Commons or to Wikipedia, are superfluous and can be deleted, regularly or speedily.

For men wishing to show their dicks to the rest of the world, there are, I understand, several other websites. I trust that they will find a more receptive audience there. MartinD 08:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...So I take it you support this proposal. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I do. And by the way, I think we are also nearing the point where female genitalia can be considered to be adequately illustrated. MartinD 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What about generalisation?

Hm I was thinking a little bit about how to avoid the impression that we censor sexual content when applying such a policy. Basically we are thinking about that policy as we have too much images of penises without any further added value for Wikimedia projects whith every further uploaded penis image. The same holds for example for very similar images about cats and dogs looking quite silly into the camera (and there are quite some people uploading such pictures of their cats and dogs). So I would suggest:

  1. We don't keep too much very similar images (let us say everything above 5 topic wise very similar images) on a certain topic and only keep the best ones for every educational aspect in case there are too many existing at Commons.
  2. If someone claims an image being not useful because there are several others in Commons serving much more better that purpose he needs to tag it with a special tag and has to add it to Commons:Deletion requests with a detailed rationale and comparison that there is in fact a larger set of better images available.
  3. What exactly is meant with "too much similar images" will be decided by the executing admin on a case by case basis after a debate with the usual time frame at Commons:Deletion requests.
  4. Such an images needs to be unlinked in Wikimedia project articles before it can be deleted.

So I am considering moving the existing "Redundant" template to "Identical" and making a new "Redundant" template that requires adding a file to deletion request. That way we can hopefully also avoid the problems we have with false redundant tagged images and can hopefully reduce the problems frequently coming up at Village Pump regarding non-redundant images being deleted. What do you think? Arnomane 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Do I summarize your proposal correctly as "If we have a collection of several images of the same object, basically serving the same purpose, we should, from time to time, consider choosing only the best of them, and propose deleting the superfluous ones"? I think this is a good idea, but we might run into the problem of "local" Wikipedias then linking to an image that does not exist anymore.
As an example, in the article on nl:Postmodernisme (architectuur) (postmodernist architecture) the picture Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG is now used, but I think Image:INGHouse1.jpg is a better one. (Simply because it is taken with a wide-angle lens, showing the entire building, something my camera could not do.)
If the image used presently is deleted, the article on the Dutch Wikipedia would lose this image. Obviously, we are putting images on Commons with the object of facilitating "local" Wikipedias to use them.
Is there a facility of finding out which local Wikipedias use an image this is in the process of "might be deleted", and warning the people of this local Wikipedia that they should keep an eye on the matter? If not, I think we should think about the matter before deleting an image that is, although perhaps superfluous to requirements, not offensive in any way other that taking up some storage space.
I'm not a technical man, so may I ask the experts for information on this issue? Best regards, MartinD 08:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well of course the usage problem of local wikipedias is being adressed by point 4 of my suggestion. As we have check-usage, we can determine (although not everytime exactly, due to lags at the toolserver and some issues with templates that give you to much usage hits) where a file is being used and a "redundant" file will not being deleted if you haven't changed the linkage everywhere.
User:Duesentrieb is currently working on a local project notification framework so that a local Wikipedia gets alerted on a summary page on such proposed changes at Commons (like redundancy, deletion requests, missing license information and such) about affected images used by that project. So this framework would help all people working togehter finding a decent replacement (and not just a removal) not only in case of redundancy but also in case of copyvios and such and thus would reduce our problem that we often do not have the time unlinking a copyvio everywhere before we delete it. Arnomane 15:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If check-usage prevents local Wikipedias "losing" images, that solves my problem. In that case, I agree with your idea. MartinD 05:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I don't like the idea of extending this beyond its current bounds. The fact that images with nudity are often used in vandalism attacks was one of my prime motivations for writing this. Because there is no danger of running out of disk space I don't feel it is necessary to enforce stricter quality controls on general submissions. The way you have proposed it will be too subjective, I fear, and again lead to claims of Commons enforcing rules it has no jurisdiction on (if a local project wants to use a crappy image, why not let them? since when are we the quality police?). So I would ask for the minute to consider this proposal in its limited form first. If it seems like people like having quality controls, perhaps we can then look to extend it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of some slight misunderstanding of your proposal (which I would roughly summarize as "let's try to limit pictures of (male) genitalia to those that can be said to have some illustrative purpose"): I support it. MartinD 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

I'd like to announce my support for this, thanks --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Best proposed policy ever. --Tarawneh 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, very good. -Samulili 13:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing problem

See for example Special:Contributions/Nibiru.333 and Special:Contributions/Robert_Fuller.

Also see w:MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. They have a list of 'bad images' (all penises!) that, whenever they are tried to show in articles, will only show an inline text link. So that is a different kind of solution to a similar problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to w:MediaWiki:Bad image list. I hadn't seen this MediaWiki feature before, but now I don't think that vandalism is such a big deal anymore. For instance, I wouldn't have needed to reuploaded Masturbation.jpg with a new name. Whenever someone complains that an image is only used for vandalism, we should ask them to make use of this feature. / Fred Chess 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I now restored the image:masturbation.jpg into its previous state. / Fred Chess 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
But AFAIK only en.wp has this feature. The problem is usually vandalism on smaller projects which don't always have the resources to revert large-scale attacks quickly. I will find out if others can implement it, or if we can make a commons one which would be WM-wide. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Found out from robchurch on IRC that any site can implement it (but we can't do a 'Commons' one that would work outside Commons). So, this is great news. Just finding out details now about how to implement it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex

We also have to define what constitutes educational depictions of sexual acts and what constitutes pornography (which is still somewhat illegal to view in many parts of the world). Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are very few 'pornographic' pictures that are uploaded with legitimate licenses, in my experience. Besides which, if it's illegal to view pornography, you should probably know better than to go to Category:Sex. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

pfctdayelise kindly asked me to comment on this, here is my opinion. (By pornography I am refering to explicit hardcore pornography.)

  • There is no picture without scientific value. In general, the more diversity, the more scientific value. A picture might have a value you don't see at the first glance. Even pictures which are clearly pornography have a scientific value if used in the right context.
  • If a picture is used for vandalism, there are easier ways to stop that. If there is no functionality in MediaWiki to block images from being included directly in all pages but a given list, such a functionality needs to be implemented as soon as possible. But if I remember correctly, MediaWiki has such a functionality or at least a subset of it. Such pictures might be shown as if one had used [[:Image:...]] on those pages not in the whitelist. It should also be possible to protect pictures from being viewable on the Image page directly except by admins with, say, a "legal age" flag. This might be handy for pornographic pictures to be ensured only to be used in scientific context, since that is in many jurisdictions the only context in which they are legally displayable to minors.
  • My proposed solution would be in case of vandalism and in case of legal problems with pornography, things should be handled in an ad-hoc and case-by-case basis. If ever a picture needs to be deleted only for such a reason, because the functionality proposed above does not exist yet, by no means should the picture be deleted entirely, somebody should keep a private archive before he deletes. They might be of value at one day. Free licenses are also free of moral. Keep that in mind. --Rtc 13:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some ideas of this discussion should be add to the article

Tired to see sex pictures on commons (a link to it till it's archived... Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tired_to_see_Sex_picture_on_commons_.21 )

Hello, I'm tired to find sex picture upload on commons with uploader saying "My pics are GFDL, is encyclopedic, stop the censure !". I'm wikipedian, I work to build an encyclopédie better than Britannica. Wikipedia NEED NOT one hundred pics of felatio, neither ten of sex group. We (administrators) should be allow to block quickly and without vote users who upload only sex pics.


Today I found user:Safedom (his gallery). Typically saying "wikipedia is not censured", "this is encyclopedic", "this is work wikipedia improvement". This user upload only pics of sex, his sex, him doing sex, nude women... under PD license.
No License violation, but he seem clear that this user is laughing of us.

So, I will block him, clear all "unencyclopedic pics" (almost all), and I encourage every administrator to act quickly against such users. They are not working for wikipedias, they are working against.
Yug (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) [simply tired to be "tolerant"]

That's done : I deleted about 20 sex pics , and let 10 tolerable sexy pics.
I think we should state in the {{Welcome}} template something such :
"Any provocative and unencyclopedic pics will be delete without any warning. Neutral pics are tolerate. Encyclopedic pics are welcome !"
Like this, users and administrators will know what to do in such cases. Yug (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Likely these users are copycat of the en: user PublicGirlUK and are trolling since they didn't like the way things were handled. Jimbo himself commented the behaviour was trollish and the stuff should have be removed without so much fuss. Drini 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am suspicious that most of this user's pics are his own, however, I am loathe to use a notice such as "Any provocative and unencyclopedic pics will be delete without any warning." This is entirely subjective. See Commons:Nudity and contribute. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
When you see a pics 3 ass because it's a pic with 2 men fucking a woman... Even under PD license , this is clearly provocative and unencyclopedic. This kind of pics have to stay 3 minutes on commons, no more.
Afterwhat, Yes we have to make choice, but we have to be confident in the encyclopedic nature of commons, and free to delete what is really not. "Any provocative and unencyclopedic pics will be delete without any warning. Neutral pics are tolerate." is a good rule to follow. Yug (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, those uploads would occur no matter what notice we put up. You can't have a porn filter. We delete clear pornography on sight. Less clear items require debate as to their usefulness. I personally think we have enough penis pictures to last us forever, but that's a subjective opinion. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I also think we have enough clear pictures and clear scheme of sexs for encyclopedic us, which allow use to delete ugly ones, not use ones, and provocative ones within 5 minutes or one day. Yug (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is how I see it. The only acceptable reasons for "pornography" deletion is copyvios and that wikipedia is not a webhost. Porn is a comercial product so it is unlikely for it to be avalible with a free license. As for trolling, trolls also use existing free images. Just like all vandalism, dont make a big deal of it and simply remove it and if necesary, block the vandal...
Any other reason such as "protecting minors" is unnaceptable as per NPOV policy if nothing else. Wikipedia is not and will not be censored.
--Cat out 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat, we cannot do anything with dozens of poor quality amateur anonymous photos of men masturbating. No one here is arguing for "protecting minors". We argue for protecting our own sensibilities and understandings of what the Commons is about, what it's designed for and what it should contain. The point is more subtle than "wikipedia is not censored". pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, there are laws against child pornography that Wikimedia DOES have to obey. This is something that Wikimedia has apparently overlooked I see categories such as "nude children" and "nude babies" listed, which may have illegal pix in them (I didn't look). Rickyrab 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nude children or babies is not always pedophilia!!! Or maybe Anne Geddes has to go to jail... ;-) --86.67.47.199 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this guideline. Exhibitionists should be banned! 75.72.187.5 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approval?

No-one has commented on this for months now, as as it seems to have attracted general support I am removing the reference to it being a proposed policy. --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Closing thought”

As this article is an official guideline, I removed the following last section:

From Image talk:Penis glans foreskin.jpg: Everybody wants to show his dick, but when we need some underarm pictures or some back pictures, there is nobody. It's funny. --User:84.101.175.43

Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] model age / release information

(to offer context - I offered a thoroughly rejected proposal at Commons:Sexual content with related ideas, but it's been intimated that discussion at current guideline / policy pages is a better way forward, which seems fair.)

I'd like to gauge community consensus for how we might approach the idea of model age and release information, and whether or not it's sensible to have some sort of practice / policy in this area? I don't think we currently consider that issue? Personally, I wonder if the best way forward is to invite uploaders to confirm subject's ages and the fact that they (the subject / model, not just the photographer) release the image to wikimedia etc. (my experience of this so far was very easy, and hassle free). In the absence of such information, and given the relative volume, and ease of access elsewhere to such imagery, I would support a presumption to delete.

I feel there are many strong reasons to ask for a bit more info related to shots like this one, where it's pretty straightforward in terms of copyright, and in terms of utility for the project, but we haven't yet considered the reasonable perspective that the subject may not wish to have their image available for wider use. Please note that in this case, the 'identifiable people' guideline will also apply, however I'm suggesting something which should apply to nudity in general (that's pictures of bits 'n bobs) - not just images with faces. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pics of women

I reworded the final bit, to reflect the current situation - if this is as uncontroversial as I expect, I'll probably shift the para.s round a bit presently... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moral issues?

How would folk feel about incorporating this from the 'identifiable people' guideline?

[edit] Moral issues

Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to Commons even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:

  • Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
  • Those that are unfairly obtained
  • Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life

These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation).

The extent to which a particular photograph is "unfair" or "intrusive" will depend on the nature of the shot, whether it was taken in a public or private place, the title/description, and on the type of subject (e.g., a celebrity, a non-famous person, etc).

This is all a matter of degree. A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community; a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable, depending on what is shown and how it is presented.

  • This might sound like a stupid question, but how do you define "Those that are unfairly obtained?" User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The wording is already in COM:PEOPLE and does not need to be repeated here. There is no definition of "unfairly", but if it came up no doubt users would take a common sense view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So like stolen, compromising positions, things like that? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
quick reply to Michael - the COM:PEOPLE guideline, so I'm told, only applies to 'identifiable' people - I'm suggesting these 'moral issues' apply equally to nudity (like this shot) - where it has already been argued the women aren't indentifiable. Further, even were the face to be cropped from the photo, I'm suggesting these criteria should still apply. Thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if the person is unidentifiable? No, the criteria wouldn't apply. The whole point is that they only apply to identifiable people. Why would they be otherwise?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I rather feel that moral issues may apply regardless of whether the person is identifiable... in fact that's really my whole point! (sorry about the extended delay in replying too) Privatemusings (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that's your point. But you haven't explained why that is true, you're simply asserting that it is so. In reality, it is only identifiable images to which COM:PEOPLE applies - an image of my toe is therefore not restricted. A picture of my whole body from behind? It's debatable whether that's "identifiable" or not - and we would debate it rather than simply asserting things. Please provide your reasoning why a non-identifiable image of someone should be restricted by COM:PEOPLE.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

<- well, in reading COM:PEOPLE, I'm not sure that the 'moral issues' clearly relate solely to the fact that a person is identifiable? Perhaps mileage varies - but there's not alot in that section that really directly relates to the visible face of a person? Is it possible to obtain an image without a face unfairly? is it possible to unreasonably intrude into a subject's privacy without showing their face? - I'd say the answer to both is probably yes - and I feel that it's reasonable to think that a person may have some reservations about their image being used online, with such a wide potential footprint etc. - particularly if it involves nudity. Whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Permission of subject

I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable / necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
does that mean you don't think it's a good idea, Carn? or you're just sort of bored by the whole thing! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ok - so to re-iterate a little - I'd like to add a 'permission of the subject' bit to this policy, because I believe it shows greater respect to the people (largely young women) photographed. Many of commons material featuring nudity is of a high standard, and would seem to have been shot as part of a professional shoot (I'm thinking most of the 'flickr' material falls into this category) - however in the case of shots taken in public places featuring nudity, permission of the subject would need to be established under my proposal. I'll try and write something up, and drop it here for consideration :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
If someone is nude in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy, why do we need their permission? For example, someone nude at a nude beach should probably expect to be seen in the nude. This is nearly tautological; you've yet to provide any reasoning for your change.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think someone nude at a public beach would necessarily be cool with a photo being uploaded to a wiki really, Mike - I especially feel that the 'moral issues' detailed in regard to 'identifiable people' apply regardless of whether we define the person as 'identifiable' or not. Further, I don't think many of these photos add much to the project because we have fairly strong redundancy - I just think there's something not-so-great about shooting pictures of other people, and insisting that because they were in public, we have the right to publish them online. Privatemusings (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
That's all fine and dandy, but all you've said is "I think it is proper to delete these images." Well, I may also think so, but there’s a big gap between assertion and argument; between surmise and evidence. So if you can tell me where COM:MORAL entails that we ought to delete images of this nature, we can consider your arguments. But until it’s done, we can’t really consider them.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We consider that if people are photographed in a public place then personality rights do not apply. I see no reason why this should be different if people aren't wearing clothes. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, on nude beaches photography (and by extension, filming) is not appreciated, and often forbidden. This means that people on nude beaches have a reasonable expectation that they will not be photographed without their explicit permission. The reasoning of "this is a public place, so expect no privacy" does not apply here, I think. MartinD (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I support clarifying this page to make explicit that for nudity (since it's a special case), we require explicit subject permission to be evidenced on request, that "it's in a public place, permission is implied" is not sufficient if a reasonable argument can be made that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (nude beaches for example as MartinD explains) and images without explicit permission or an airtight argument why it's not needed are subject to summary deletion. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) PS: However I acknowledge that for clearly public places this is a policy change. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy: Of course and that's exactly what I said. Furthermore, I still don't see an arguments here, only assertions. I find it bizarre to assert that people in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy... have a reasonable expectation of privacy - perhaps someone could explain this to me. Whether nude beaches is a good example or not is a separate question; perhaps they're not.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ah... I think we're getting somewhere! - I think we can reasonably say that people in public, on the beach, have the reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of photos of themselves appearing online (although they don't expect not to be 'seen' by other folk down there). This probably helps heaps in terms of policy development. To further illustrate, I'd say that this image, and the many of its ilk we currently have, should be deleted unless permission of the subject can be obtained, however this image, and the many of its ilk (large public events, for example), carry to my mind a thoroughly different expectation of privacy, and personally, I'm happy with their retention. thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
YES! Similarly with public pools (which is a case I deal with frequently) - though it is public, people do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of people taking photos of them. See what happens when you actually make an argument?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
hooray! - I knew wiki was a wonderful place ;-) - right so I think we (at least Mike and I) are agreeing that there are some contexts where someone in public may have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that they may reasonably object to having their photo taken, and uploaded to commons ('at the beach' would be one such case) - and that we're up for working out how to encode that into this policy. In fact - that's not a bad first stab - how's about this as a '1st draft' wording to be added to this policy;
There are some contexts where someone in public may have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that they may reasonably object to having their photo taken, and uploaded to commons, 'at the beach' would be one such case. Such images will be deleted if uploaded without clear permission being granted by the subject.
there are probably around 10 such images currently on commons which would be up for deletion under this policy extension, so some time for tweaking any rough edges is a good thing, I reckon :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's probably better to simply clarify that this is not a new policy - where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy we require permission already (whether nude or not, whether at a beach or not etc etc). We're just clarifying what that actually means. Otherwise we're back to asserting that "someone in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy has a reasonable expectation of privacy" which they don't. The way I see it is that we're simply clarifying pre-existing policy.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Mike in that I don't see this as an extension of policy, it's a codification (maybe) or a clarification... The beach example is instructive. Normally we would think public beach == no privacy expectation. Where there are exceptions to common sense analysis, it's useful (when making the case for deletion or retention, whichever) to explain WHY they are exceptions. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
In the recent DRs, we have also seen the case of a school (or what was supposed to be a school), where I think parents can expect their children not to be shot photographed without their consent. I think it is worth the same kind of reflection, but I don't know whether we can bring a common answer or not: to me, all this seems to boil down to the subjective issue of "reasonable expectations of privacy". --Eusebius (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly Lar - these are arguments that should be made on a DR.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

< - I sort of feel that we're heading towards common ground / consensus - I don't really worry too much about whether this is new policy, a clarification of existing policy, or something else - could anyone suggest any necessary tweaks before the italicised text above is added to the policy? - It will render quite a few images up for deletion too, and it would be good to 'housekeep' as soon as possible. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A clarification may be fine, but you appear to be suggesting that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on a (typical) beach, which is absolutely not the case in my view. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
righto - that's the bit we need to measure consensus on - I do indeed believe that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on a (typical) beach, when relating that expectation to whether or not an image may be published online to a wikimedia project - we'll see others' thoughts... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there can be such an expectation of privacy on a beach, and this is emphasized by the kind of publication we have here, allowing and sometimes encouraging re-publication, derivative works and commercial use. I can't see how this can be reasonably expected by the subjects. Personally, I would even go further and apply that to almost anything save public events, but I know few people would follow me on this one, and I will adapt my position with respect to the community consensus. --Eusebius (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it will probably be best to make these judgments on a case-by-case basis in DRs where needed. I would not want to categorically state that "on beaches, people have a reasonable expectation to privacy" because that's not true. In some cases it'll be true, and in others not. For example, I think that photographing people on a beach with a normal camera is probably fine in most cases. However, using a long-lens or taking pictures of someone in a tent on a beach (both of which are mentioned as examples on COM:PEOPLE) are probably not OK since those are unreasonable intrusions into someone's privacy. However I wouldn't even want to state these categorically because there will be exceptions in both directions depending on the image. Thus, these arguments shouldn't be codified, but instead should be made on a case-by-case basis as required.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
given that the proposed language above allows for a case by case discussion, do you think it actually harms the policy at all, Mike? - I perceive some added value. We seem to largely agree by the way - I wonder if you'd concur that this image is likely fine - seems that permission is fairly clearly implied etc. wheras this image should likely be deleted because the subjects are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy from having their image available on a wikimedia project? If we're heading for common ground, I'll make a few deletion nom.s and see where we end up..... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You should probably make the nominations (with reference to this discussion) regardless.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

< I've done so - I hope it's all formatted ok etc. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ps. whilst this observation may be better suited at COM:PEOPLE, while we're here, I thought it might be of interest to note another example of a context where a reasonable expectation of privacy comes into play - it's here. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] link to COM:PEOPLE and Commons:Sexual content

I've bunged this links in (partly per the 'moral issues' thread above, and partly just 'cos it seems a good idea) - thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop flooding Commons with your your recurring crusade. This has been made clear in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings and other rejected campaigns . --Foroa (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PM was asked not to put forward new policy pages that confusingly overlapped existing policy. Instead he was asked to make suggestions about existing pages... ways they could be improved, clarified or tightened up. That's what he's doing on this page, making suggestions about existing policy. So I would rather see that encouraged than denigrated. That's my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Proposal to clarify the policy on photographs of identifiable people

Please see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal. Comments are welcome at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fact challenge

there are at least 2 factually incorrect statements in the text of this policy as it exists at the time of this posting:

1. "Images depicting male nudity are regularly nominated for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests and are almost always kept, with the Wikipedia is not censored policy being cited."

not true (or at least not true any longer); if you review the deletion records; "dirty" pictures are being routinely deleted, with little or no "discussion", often in the same day they were nominated. if there exists some vast, mysterious, hidden majority of images depicting nudity that are being nominated & kept, i would very much like so see the evidence :P

2. "Category:Male_reproductive_system and Penis show that the Commons has an ample supply of images of men's groins and penises erect and flaccid, circumcised and uncircumcised, in various skin colours and with varying degrees of pubic hair."

not true; the "sex stuff" on wmc isn't very well organized (big surprise!) & i've worked on improving the categorization (little things like actually specifying species for anatomy-related media categories... ). we do not have anything remotely like "complete coverage" of the topic. if anyone is interested in improving the section, or simply wants to challenge the point, i can list off categories we material we lack, enough of them to double the size of this talk page.

____


unless someone can provide decent-quality proof to refute my fact challenge on the 2 points (which i don't think anyone can... ) in let's say, the next week or so, i'm going to revise the text to remove those claims.

beyond that, this thing is a mushy mess; jammed together & badly written, even by the standards of "guidelines". i'll address my other concerns in separate topics, as needed, once i've had more time to consider the issues.

(clearly i have my own opinions on what needs improving in the text, but i'm open to other points of view, as long as it's not too obviously a one-sided snow job)

if some admin would like to spam-vertise a debate on changes to this guideline, even better...

Lx 121 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Nudity"