[WikiEN-l] Potentially offensive pictures

Sat Jan 10 20:30:22 UTC 2004

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Christopher-
> > What about pictures of:
> >   Dead, bloody people (common on european TV)
> 
> Are they? It's been a while since I last watched TV, but my
> impression  
> always was that US TV is more violent than Euro-TV. I may be wrong,
> of 
> course.

On French Paris Match (paper magazine), last summer, saw photo of
israeli soldier killed in combat, brain cavity was emply, brian had
been removed by impact, cranium was 1/2 missing, and photo showed the
inside of the head with the brain mostly removed, and part of the
skull still attached and hanging. Soldier was on a stretcher, others
were mulling about paying him no attention. This kind of photo, we
don't see on US tv/print media.

> Answer: Depends on context - we don't needlessly throw pictures of
> "dead,  
> bloody" people into articles. Why would we?  An article about  
> decompensation, rigor mortis etc. might include an image, but
> obviously,  
> the more generally offensive such a picture would be, the more
> likely we  
> would want to link to it instead of displaying it inline.

> >   Step by step bomb making
> Could be legally problematic.

> >   Deformed lifeforms from genetic experiments
> Sure, if they warrant an article.
> 
> >   Injured people from combat (limbs tangled, guts spilled, heads
> > disfigured)
> Definitely, but only in an article that is explicitly about the
> effects of  
> war; in a main article about war they should be linked to.
> >   Medical pictures of diseased bodypart
> Definitely useful, but preferably link instead of displaying
> inline.
> >   War crimes (remember the photo of the US officer executing a
> > vietnamese during the vietnam war?)
> 
> Definitely, see above re: combat.
> 
> >   Sexual acts, such as penetration, arousal, nipple clamps,
> bondage,
> > etc.
> Legally problematic. Nipple clamps no problem.
> >   Domestic violence
> Link to.
> >   Aborted Foetuses
> Link to.

Link to but where? What webserver do you trust will be there 2, 5
years down the road, with the same URL with the same picture? 

The problem with a linked-to URL (and this has been discussed prior)
is that the picture may change, the picture server may disappear, or
the picture server may change its licensing.

As far as legality of images, we should let lawyers do that. I think
this would be a good thing to spend money on: asking real legal
advice on what photos can and cannot be posted. Anything that can be
posted, on a legal standpoint, and adds to the imformation conveyed
in the article, should be.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus