cordelia_v (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cordelia_v) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fanlore2010-04-23 08:33 pm
cordelia_v) wrote in fanlore2010-04-23 08:33 pm
Entry tags:
Draft of Image Policy for Discussion
As Meri commented in an earlier post, we've been working on several projects in committee, and we're far enough along now to ask for your input on a few things. Today, I wanted to ask you to read and comment on a draft of our new Image Policy, which we've posted for discussion on Fanlore.
There are several areas we needed to develop clearer guidelines for, but we decided to make the image policy an earlier priority because some of you had expressed concern (rightly!) that Fanlore had no policy regarding explicit images, including those which might be triggering or offensive (or illegal to view) for some users.
It's only a matter of time before someone uploaded an image of Fenrir/Draco chan noncon fanart, mean to say. And while we'll host any art that is legal for us to host, we want to make it possible for those who find such images disturbing to avoid seeing them.
Once we started working on it, we realized that an image policy needed to address not only explicit/possibly offensive images, but also questions about uploading copyrighted images, fair use, and images that were being uploaded with the consent of the artist. So, the policy also covers all of those questions as well.
The draft we've posted to Fanlore has been vetted by the OTW's legal committee, and also relies heavily on Wikipedia's robust set of image policies. When you check it out, you'll see that it's pretty long and detailed, but please don't be put off by that!
We're going to post a link on the Editing Help and Tutorial pages to a much more streamlined "Cliffnotes" version of this policy, that contains links to get users started who don't need to read the whole policy, but just want answers to questions like: what templates should I use for art that has explicit images? or what templates do we use for images that are copyrighted or how can I filter out or avoid images that I might find disturbing?. But before we create the short version, we needed to get the full policy approved and in place.
We also wanted to ask your input on a question that is still open: how should we define "high res" and "low res" images in these guidelines? Images can be high res if they're uploaded with permission of the creator, or are in the public domain, or licensed for free distribution by their creator. But copyrighted images must be uploaded in low res, thumbnail versions in order to comply with standards for "fair use." We have our own ideas about what size a thumbnail image is, but we wanted your input about how you'd define "high res" and "low res" images for Fanlore.
OK, now that the intro is out of the way, here's the link to the full draft of the image policy. We wanted to leave this open for discussion until April 30th, and then we'll revise the policy to reflect the discussion and post a final draft to Fanlore.
ETA: a list of the various threads developing in this discussion
1. Some commenters asked whether we planned to recommend deleting already uploaded images that don't fit this policy, and my answer was no, although we hope that eventually new image summaries might be added for uploaded images that currently have little or no information. Some commenters pointed out that we do have some pages with explicit images on Fanlore already, and I responded that we'd set up a page for people to post links to explicit images that are already on the site, so that over time, those images pages could be edited to include the appropriate warning template. See the discussion here.
2. One commenter raised the question of images that might appear to be non-con taken alone, but which actually depict a consensual act in a story; you'd need to read the story to see that, and the image taken on its own would seem to be noncon. Clarification added to note that images should be categorized as explicit, non con, etc. based on what they appear to depict here.
3. One commenter made the suggestion that some images are NSFW while still not meeting the definition of explicit given in the policy. This person suggested that editors should include a note at the top of the article that it included NSFW images further down (so that they could choose not to scroll down, if they were at work), although such images wouldn't require the use of any explicit images templates.
4. There is discussion starting here about what category images depicting BDSM would fall into. The consensus seems to be that such images are possibly "explicit" but do not fall into the category of "non con," although commenters acknowledged that some readers would feel that BDSM was inherently non con. The consensus is that we should add a warning to the policy for such users, warning them that if they click through to "explicit" images, they may see images depicting BDSM.
5. A few commenters made the suggestion that we could add a warning category for extreme violence (where no sexual activity is involved) which strikes me a good suggestion, and I'll take it back to the committee.
6. There is a discussion here about why the policy addresses issues of copyright and asks for copyright tags in image summaries. Some commenters wondered whether it was necessary to include a discussion of copyrighted images in the policy.
7. There is a discussion thread here about one commenter's suggestion that instead of using warning categories and templates for explicit images, that the site as a whole should just have a click-through warning that the site contains adult comment.
8. Clarification added here that the image template for linking to explicit images of all sorts would result in a thumbnail that has a colored border around it (color coding for warnings) and not a line through the thumbnail.
9. A suggestion here that we add an alt text field to the template, to make Fanlore more accessible. I agree.
10. A discussion here about just putting all explicit images on subpages in articles.
ETA 2: You've all contributed a lot here, in terms of pointing out some things that need to be added or clarified in the draft. But I've got to go tend to RL stuff, since I've been responding to comments now for seven hours with very few breaks! I'll respond to any new comments tomorrow or later in the weekend.
There are several areas we needed to develop clearer guidelines for, but we decided to make the image policy an earlier priority because some of you had expressed concern (rightly!) that Fanlore had no policy regarding explicit images, including those which might be triggering or offensive (or illegal to view) for some users.
It's only a matter of time before someone uploaded an image of Fenrir/Draco chan noncon fanart, mean to say. And while we'll host any art that is legal for us to host, we want to make it possible for those who find such images disturbing to avoid seeing them.
Once we started working on it, we realized that an image policy needed to address not only explicit/possibly offensive images, but also questions about uploading copyrighted images, fair use, and images that were being uploaded with the consent of the artist. So, the policy also covers all of those questions as well.
The draft we've posted to Fanlore has been vetted by the OTW's legal committee, and also relies heavily on Wikipedia's robust set of image policies. When you check it out, you'll see that it's pretty long and detailed, but please don't be put off by that!
We're going to post a link on the Editing Help and Tutorial pages to a much more streamlined "Cliffnotes" version of this policy, that contains links to get users started who don't need to read the whole policy, but just want answers to questions like: what templates should I use for art that has explicit images? or what templates do we use for images that are copyrighted or how can I filter out or avoid images that I might find disturbing?. But before we create the short version, we needed to get the full policy approved and in place.
We also wanted to ask your input on a question that is still open: how should we define "high res" and "low res" images in these guidelines? Images can be high res if they're uploaded with permission of the creator, or are in the public domain, or licensed for free distribution by their creator. But copyrighted images must be uploaded in low res, thumbnail versions in order to comply with standards for "fair use." We have our own ideas about what size a thumbnail image is, but we wanted your input about how you'd define "high res" and "low res" images for Fanlore.
OK, now that the intro is out of the way, here's the link to the full draft of the image policy. We wanted to leave this open for discussion until April 30th, and then we'll revise the policy to reflect the discussion and post a final draft to Fanlore.
ETA: a list of the various threads developing in this discussion
1. Some commenters asked whether we planned to recommend deleting already uploaded images that don't fit this policy, and my answer was no, although we hope that eventually new image summaries might be added for uploaded images that currently have little or no information. Some commenters pointed out that we do have some pages with explicit images on Fanlore already, and I responded that we'd set up a page for people to post links to explicit images that are already on the site, so that over time, those images pages could be edited to include the appropriate warning template. See the discussion here.
2. One commenter raised the question of images that might appear to be non-con taken alone, but which actually depict a consensual act in a story; you'd need to read the story to see that, and the image taken on its own would seem to be noncon. Clarification added to note that images should be categorized as explicit, non con, etc. based on what they appear to depict here.
3. One commenter made the suggestion that some images are NSFW while still not meeting the definition of explicit given in the policy. This person suggested that editors should include a note at the top of the article that it included NSFW images further down (so that they could choose not to scroll down, if they were at work), although such images wouldn't require the use of any explicit images templates.
4. There is discussion starting here about what category images depicting BDSM would fall into. The consensus seems to be that such images are possibly "explicit" but do not fall into the category of "non con," although commenters acknowledged that some readers would feel that BDSM was inherently non con. The consensus is that we should add a warning to the policy for such users, warning them that if they click through to "explicit" images, they may see images depicting BDSM.
5. A few commenters made the suggestion that we could add a warning category for extreme violence (where no sexual activity is involved) which strikes me a good suggestion, and I'll take it back to the committee.
6. There is a discussion here about why the policy addresses issues of copyright and asks for copyright tags in image summaries. Some commenters wondered whether it was necessary to include a discussion of copyrighted images in the policy.
7. There is a discussion thread here about one commenter's suggestion that instead of using warning categories and templates for explicit images, that the site as a whole should just have a click-through warning that the site contains adult comment.
8. Clarification added here that the image template for linking to explicit images of all sorts would result in a thumbnail that has a colored border around it (color coding for warnings) and not a line through the thumbnail.
9. A suggestion here that we add an alt text field to the template, to make Fanlore more accessible. I agree.
10. A discussion here about just putting all explicit images on subpages in articles.
ETA 2: You've all contributed a lot here, in terms of pointing out some things that need to be added or clarified in the draft. But I've got to go tend to RL stuff, since I've been responding to comments now for seven hours with very few breaks! I'll respond to any new comments tomorrow or later in the weekend.
no subject
I love slavefic, but the situation where someone fucks their slave is sexual assault, because slaves can't five consent freely. So the pictures with the background knowledge taken into account depict sexual assault (a master puts a slave in chains and displays them without the slave consenting to anything) but the image itself is fairly harmless. Explicit, yes, but from what is shown it might as well be consensual. I just want the final policy to be clearer what is meant with "depict".
no subject
BTW, where do images of violence fit in? not sexual violence. I may have skipped past that part.
no subject
is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
I;d like the policies to be rooted in real life usability and inclusiveness. We're already struggling to get fans to participate. I;ve heard from one person that they're re-evaluating their plans to do a huge set of image scans and uploads because of how overwhelming this is - just from the technical stand point of having to navigate so many screens to get one image up. This is not even addressing their horror over how to apply 3 different policies
I;d like to see - one checkbox for copyright/non copyright. one checkbox for explicit (either violence or sex). and a fill in box for source. And if we don't have the ability to do checkboxes - this policy needs to be put on hold until you can get the tools in place so this does not shove people out the door.
and as for the idea of plastering red lines through either explicit or triggery art ....many artists will not go for that. it would be better to require a 'click through and accept' that there will be violent/sexual images on the entire website.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Seconded.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
A setting or preference the wiki remembers would be nice. Though I think I would like it more fine grained, at least if you're logged in, so that maybe on your setting page you could set that you are okay to view explicit pictures, but don't want to see those with an underage label, or that you are okay to see underage, but not sexual assault or whatever.
And yeah, the code for including images should not get too complicated. It often has trouble as it is now already with the sizing, the thumbnail position, the subtitle...
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
I was hoping to develop a solution more granular than that, so that readers who would be triggered by or who would be violating the law of their nations by looking at some sorts of explicit content could still use the site. A single click-through warning before you entered the site to begin with wouldn't really be that useful for them. Or did I misunderstand you?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Bottom line: you need a simpler policy, that is easier to understand and easier to apply. And more importantly, you need automated set of tools. And I mean automated - buttons that users can check that will apply the multiple codes to the image for the user.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
the point of Fanlore offering up the policy as a draft is to get the exact type of feedback that I and others have been giving. to be told that we are pre-judging something because we are raising an issue that does not seem even been adequately addressed (usability), is off-putting.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Morgan, I do appreciate the feedback and your goal of encouraging broader participation in Fanlore. I share that goal. But I also want to make it easy for readers to use, and a simple click-through warning isn't really helpful for for many sorts of readers IMO. It's fine for an archive, but a wiki is somewhat different (and our software is definitely very different; we have to rely on what Mediawiki can do). But I will talk that over with the committee.
Fanlore can't operate just like an adult-content archive. At an archive, you often do have the click-through warning. But then, before you actually read a story or look at art, you are usually presented with additional information before you chose to read/see the fanwork: you are often given a rating, or warnings/headers. You can thus enter and use the archive, while still avoiding seeing images that might be illegal for you to see (e.g., Australians) or which might be triggering or profoundly upsetting. And some users might be fine with seeing some sorts of explicit content, but not others. Archival interfaces allow this.
In a wiki, that's not an option. You enter the wiki (with or without a click through) and then jump from page to page. You can't be presented with ratings or other warnings before choosing to open an article, as far as I know. I can ask the person on the comm whose very, very good with Mediawiki, but my sense is that you can't replicate the AO3 interface on Fanlore very well.
I also want to ask you again to please wait and see what the new image templates will look like before you condemn them as being a "4 part peer review test." I'm not sure how you can know that, since you haven't seen them yet.
you need a simpler policy, that is easier to understand and easier to apply
I am hopeful that the more streamlined user guides that we'll link on the help pages will meet this need. The only people who are going to read through this longer version, once the whole thing is up and running, are those who really want to read this level of detail. Most people won't need to do so.
Here, there IS a parallel to AO3. AO3's TOS is, in fact, even longer and more complex than the policy I just posted here. And yet most readers and most writers who upload there are not troubled by it, as far as I know. Few people even read the whole thing. The user help pages are all most people need. We're working towards making that true for Fanlore, as well.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
As for the friend you spoke to, I would urge her to wait and see the templates, too. Also, as I said, there are going to be shorter and simpler versions on the help page for people to link to, if all they want is a template to copy for a particular category. The full policy is long and necessarily a bit formal, but the user help pages and templates really don't need to be.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Ex: copyrighted, violent underage explicit image. I am staring at the upload page. I click on.....??? what???? to create the code? there are so many variables, so I am assuming you'll have some series of buttons that I can push or checkboxes I select to create a custom code that only has the variables I need (for example a non copyrighted, violent, triggery image would use a different series of codes than my first example).
Once there on this new page, there will be a single nicely formatted series of codes for my specific set of variables together in a single box. I then copy. Hit the back button??, go back to the upload page. paste the code. then upload the image.
then, once this is done, I need to copy the image URL, go to the entry page and paste the image URL?
did I get the workflow correct? miss any steps?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
So you upload an image, and copy/paste the template and fill it out, like:
{{image
description=Kirk and Spock, sitting on a tree
fandom=Star Trek: TOS
author=morgandawn
copyright=Uploaded by author.
date=July 2009
}}
or
{{image
warning={{underage}}*
description=Snape and Harry, sitting on a tree
fandom=Harry Potter
author=morgandawn
copyright=Uploaded by author.
date=July 2009
}}
Something like that. Nothing's set in stone, obviously, but that's the idea we started out working with.
* "{{underage}}" being a template that will put a colourful warning box like this on the image page, so that editors adding that image to pages will remember to add it with the proper warning template.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
the last idea would be tagging via check boxes.
FYI.... this is what I mean about making policy work hand in hand with design/usability. We need to consider how a policy will actually be carried out - not wait until the policy has been decided to find out the design will be cumbersome or unworkable. Thank you for taking the time to explain the template process (and the design limits we're facing).
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
In any case, if we end up doing it the traditional way, I will certainly edit the image upload page with basic instructions, and probably a fill-in-the-blanks copy of the template so that users don't have to click away from the upload page.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
I think it would be helpful if we could have examples of the templates you are thinking of and try them on images we already have on the wiki to figure out if and how practicable they are. Image formatting is incredibly complicated already (what, with floating left not working, no explanations on how to add galleries, group pictures, change display sizes, etc.) and most people feel a bit intimidated by that. So it would be good if we could try these templates *before* we decide on a final version of the policy.
Here are a few examples of images uploaded to Fanlore. It would be nice to know where they fit in your policy and if and what kind of information should be added to them:
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Terma1.jpg This is an old archive banner that I saved years ago. It might or might not be still available via wayback. I have no idea when it was made or what the copyright status information should be. It's a manip made by The Theban Band. Manips use copyrighted images as source. I haven't asked for permission, but neither did the people who used Theban Band images at conventions, in professional magazines or on TV shows. I think the most important thing was the stealing bandwidth thing.
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Gayle_F An artist page that includes a gallery of art created by this fanartist. Many of the images are explicit (so is a lot of art in museums).
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Spock_Enslaved.jpg Cover of a gen zine, source is mentioned in the comments. No idea about dates (do we need the date when the artist made the image? when the zine was published? when the picture of the zine was taken?), licenses or copyright information.
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Rhapsdosy.jpg Zine cover with link to the ebay seller who uploaded it.
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Holmes%26Watson.jpg Scan from artist's personal collection, uploaded with permission.
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Buckwheat1and3.jpeg Scans from the personal collection of someone who owns the copies of the zines these scans are made from.
http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Box_of_Magic-A_Merlin_Big_Bang_Challenge.jpg Screenshot of a website, bigger than 150 KB, no additional information on the image page.
no subject
no subject