[Foundation-l] Free images and model releases

Fri Mar 17 22:35:05 UTC 2006

On 3/17/06, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

I agree, for the most part, but would you not agree that given this
image and one almost identical but with a solid release from the
subject that the image with the release would be more free simply
because any objection from the subject would have far less teeth?  ...
Content is not free content unless we could, in theory, use it against
the wishes of others.

But obviously there are many situations where making a hard demand
would be unnecessary and foolish... Which is why I didn't propose a
war against all such images.   I think we should encourage people to
help make sure their submissions are as free as possible.  It's fairly
normal for commercial photographers to walk around with a stack of
model release forms and I think that we'd be better off if some
Wikipedia photographers were doing the same.

> 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.

So, how to set the criteria?  It sounds like what you're propose is
that we only replace images  if their use on Wikipedia more likely
than average to generate complaint. Thats hard to convert into
instructions which are simple to understand... and it makes
assumptions about what all uses of the images will be.

Often the only time to get permission is when the image is taken, so
making a use dependant rule means that we'll often have to throw out
the first illustration for a personally embarrassing use, just because
no one didn't consider that it might be used in an embarrassing way.

There are, I think, two interconnected issues here: The first is the
ethical use of identifyable images of people, and the second is the
implications the impact of civil (and in some places, criminal)
liability of using an identifiable image without permission on the
freeness of our content.

It sounds like you and I are in complete agreement on the first part:
We should attempt to replace potentially embarrassing images which are
identifiable and where we don't know that we have the consent of the
subject.

On the second matter, I'm not sure we have agreement yet. This is less
an ethical concern and more a concern about maximizing the freedom of
our content.

If we don't have some rule that explains that images with identifiable
people and without releases will be replaced, we'll have no incentive
for people to ever go through the trouble of getting releases. The
freedom of our work as a whole will be reduced as a result.

It was my thought that since this is a lower risk issue that we can
avoid any sort of prohibition. But it sounds like you think that
replacement is too aggressive in the general case.

>  > 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.

Eh, That wasn't at all what I was suggesting.

We often have images of devices or processes which are in no way
enhanced by people in the shot... but the images have them anyways
because that was what was in front of the camera when the shutter
fired or it was the easiest way to hold the object.  In such cases,
the extraneous human presence is potentially distracting.

By all means, if the shot is enhanced by having humans in it... we
should have them. If it's enhanced by having humans in it in a way
which makes them identifiable, then we should do so...  But if they
are, I think we should ask our photographers to get releases...   If
they don't,  we can still use the image until someone objects.