[Foundation-l] Free images and model releases

Fri Mar 17 21:56:35 UTC 2006

Gregory-

As a counter-example, take a look at:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Karachi_-_Pakistan-market.jpg

This image was (successfully) nominated for Featured Picture status; 
during the discussion, someone objected on the grounds that the 
photographed person did not give their consent. Such objections, or 
acting upon them, strike me as overzealous. A fantastic photo like this 
should not be removed or replaced unless there is a personal objection 
from the subject.

We should not discriminate on grounds of quality. But I agree that a 
person who finds themselves in a Wikipedia article illustrating a 
subject where they might have reasonable grounds to find such use 
_personally embarrassing_ should give their consent. This includes 
obvious matters like human sexuality, but also images like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sexynose.jpg

I would not object to the inclusion of a note that such (and only such) 
images may otherwise be replaced or removed, provided the photographer 
is given advance opportunity to obtain a model release.

 > Encouraging people to avoid getting identifiable shots
> of people where possible would probably be good for overall image
> quality even ignoring the potential legal and ethical implications,
> because clearly identifiable faces can be distracting.

I don't agree. I prefer an encyclopedia with a human face. Have you 
noticed how in Hollywood movies, directors use every trick in the book 
to cover frontal nudity, by placing objects or sheets or whatever is 
available before the private parts? (Stanley Kubrick wonderfully 
parodied this practice in "A Clockwork Orange".) I'd rather not have a 
similar culture in Wikipedia with regard to faces, with hundreds of 
photos of people turning their face to the side, having their eyes 
covered by black bars, or putting their hands over their head.

Erik