User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Release of personality rights[edit]

Hello. Can you tell me if anywhere on any Wikimedia project anyone has proposed or drafted a release of personality rights, perhaps for a photo in Commons? The context is that I was thinking of promoting a photo shoot at the next Wikimania. However, inherent in collecting photos for the purpose we need, we need to provide informed consent about the nature of model stock photography, and I have never seen a Creative Commons release for this kind of art. Please see

I was thinking to check what you know. If you had no leads, I thought I would ask you for a referral to someone in WMF legal who could give a brief opinion on the viability of even having such a release. If it seems legally possible to have one, I would check with Creative Commons to see if they had one. If I cannot find one anywhere, then I might come back to you to see if you think anyone in WMF legal might be willing to draft one for the Wikimedia community to use, supposing that we do our part and prove a demand for one. All of these is still very abstract to me and I am not sure right now if this is too complicated and not a real problem. What is your impression? Am I off-track even for thinking in the way that I am? Does anything that I say strike you as outside the scope of what Wikimedia projects do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry, TPS here. What is the purpose of the photo shoot? --Pine 08:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Pine The IdeaLab page linked above says more, but the photos would start a collection of stock photography for health organizations to use in their outreach materials. More information is in the forum at WikiProject Medicine and some discussion of legal trouble associated with these kinds of images is at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Vulnerable_people. Wikimedia Commons allows for lots of manipulation of copyright, but other rights are associated with media, and I am not sure what if anything has ever been said previously about noting a release of personality rights. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. WMF probably won't provide legal counsel about this, but you could ask WMF for a grant for legal counsel expenses. For puposes of your grant, you might want to require prominent labeling of a certain size and color to indicate that the content is from Wikimedia with a CC license. You could ask an attorney how to do this. Good luck! --Pine 08:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Pine, for pitching in. :) User:Bluerasberry, I'm happy to check with the legal team to see if they are able to offer any additional input. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Pine, this may or may not be interesting to WMF legal staff. My initial thought was that in the case where something went wrong with this, they would get blamed regardless of who took the action. I want to WP:BB and go forward with this photography project but if anyone at WMF has something to say about this then they are invited at all times to give input.
Maggie, would you please check with them? I am expecting that their answer will be that no one has every used any release of of personality rights on Wikipedia, and if that is so, getting confirmation of that would be useful. I am going to talk to VGrigas (WMF) and see how he manages personality rights to see if I can get some model text. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────User:Bluerasberry, I'm sorry for losing track of this one. I did check with them, and failed to update you to let you know that they can't advise on this because of the prohibition against their giving legal advice. (They can only advise the WMF, and liability here would not rest with the WMF - as the wmf:TOU specifies, "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content).") I think asking Victor what he does is probably a good approach. I imagine you would want to have at the very least the same consideration about personality rights/right to publicity that you would have for any other use of pictures of individuals. Good luck with it, and, again, I'm sorry I didn't update you sooner! I took some time off last week coinciding with the American Thanksgiving and am still catching up on my inbox. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I want to clarify - I was not asking because I thought that I needed legal advice. I was asking because I thought this was something that put the WMF at risk of getting negative publicity if something went wrong, and this is a field were historically things have gone wrong. If I created a waiver, I would not be using it. Other volunteers would choose to use it on their own. Just like CC-licenses are between the uploader and the world, so also this license would be and would have nothing to do with me. I will consider this resolved with the WMF but I am around if anyone has questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry, I think "someone in WMF legal who could give a brief opinion on the viability of even having such a release" is probably what they regard as legal advice. :) It's nothing to do with being advice to you personally, but simply as to whether such a release would be necessary and, if so, if the legal team could offer input on it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Commons has c:Template:Consent. It is still under development. Jee 15:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, Ah, yes, this is what I wanted. Thanks, I will go there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You have mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mdennis (WMF). Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

I sent you reply 5 hrs ago, FYI. In case you missed it... :D  Revi 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts and anchors on wmf:Terms of Use[edit]

Could you please add some handy shortcuts and anchors on wmf:Terms of Use, in the style of our policy shortcuts (as seen on WP:NOT for instance)? My particular request is for an anchor and shortcut relating to paid editing, which I find myself having to link to far too often. MER-C 04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For Terms of Use, wmf:ToU may be enough. I'll leave creation of per-section shortcut to her, while I can add myself (I'm not sure whether I am allowed to do so or not) — Revi 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MER-C! And thanks, Revi. :) Recently, James Alexander added an anchor to that section: wmf:TOU#paid-contrib-disclosure. We can probably add other anchors as long as hidden, but I'd need to get permission to add visible shortcuts. Do you want me to look into that? I wonder if we could host a list on Meta of anchors (and a local copy as appropriate)? I think the term is rather clunky, but that's apparently what was placed on Meta - he originally had used "paid". I myself would probably go with that term. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)