[Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)

Thu May 13 13:43:17 UTC 2010

Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> I agree strongly with this.  You are right to point out the connection
> to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to
> confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or
> embarrassing photos.
>
> Such ideas have been around for a long time.  What are the arguments
> against implementing stronger requirements for images of people?
>   

Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that
with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in
the long term the main effect would be to educate
them in the correct practices of model rights. After
all I would expect that amateur photographers would
not really have great difficulty in obtaining model
rights, once they know that is a requirement.

It might however have a chilling effect on those people
sharing images that don't really require model releases,
such as photographs shot in public spaces, especially
where the person in the frame can't even be recognized.

Another question is, if such a stance on model rights
were taken, would it be reasonable to just retroactively
apply it to images already on the site, or should there
be a reasonable attempt to inform the uploaders to
let them secure a model release and add it to the
media information. I think something like that was
done when we went to town on images that didn't
have a specified rationale of use.

None of these is an argument against, as such, just
pointing out some of the ramifications that might
follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images
were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would
infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images,
rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course.

It still might be worth doing just for its own sake.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen