fanlore | Draft of Image Policy for Discussion

Entry tags:

admin: policy

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Could you maybe explain which of the images on the Boys in Chains page you find explicit? Because standards of what is and what isn't explicit might be different. For example, the only image on the BiC page that seems somewhat explicit to me is this one (http://fanlore.org/wiki/Image:Fuumin_slave.jpg) (because of the erect nipples and the kissing with tongues). There are no genitalia visible on any of the images and there is no sexual intercourse so I'm a bit lost where "explicit" begins.

This is what I was thinking of, when I said that the "unwritten rules" of fandom vary according to the fan in question. Ratcreature commented next to her link that the images on the BiC page were "obviously NSFW" and I would agree. In the culture I live in, none of those images are safe for work, and the first one is pretty explicit to me. And I think you're right that the "standards of what is and what isn't explicit might be different."

Actually, the one that seems explicit to you doesn't seem all that explicit to me, since they're only kissing (which the policy says does not fall into the "explicit" category) and they're shown from the waist up. But that's me.

We're not really interested in policing images, and we do ask editors to use their best judgment. In practice, I think that the examples that Ratcreature links to, and that you point out might be judged differently by different people, point to something we hadn't considered: an image might not depict any sexual activity, and yet still be sexually explicit, as the first MiC image is, from my POV. And certainly such an image might be NSFW, which could be a consideration for many users who are looking at the pages in a place where they need to avoid NSFW images.

We might want to edit the wording of the policy to invite editors to consider whether an image might be NSFW even if no action is happening in the image, and thus they might want to use the image summary for explicit images even when only one person is in the image. And in practice, the committee wouldn't know (or be asked about whether the "explicit" image template ought to be used) for a particular image unless a user made a complaint to us about it.

I think "NSFW" is much stricter than "explicit" though. I've labelled things NSFW that were basically PG rated, because they showed two guys cuddling in bed with naked chests, which is an image many would not want on their computer screen at work (unless I guess if you worked at that US banking oversight place who had these porn habit troubles while the world economy collapsed, then it would be tame... *g*)

The warning I was considering these for were of non-con variety, because of the slavefic aspect, because many slavefic pictures are typically visualized with collars and bondage stuff, that looks the same as consensual, and I wanted to get a clearer sensehow the picture and its contexts are to be weighed.

Ah, I see what you were asking now. I would say that images have to be categorized (in terms of the template) based on what the image itself would look like to someone who hasn't read the story and is just browsing the site. And BDSM is explicit, but not noncon to most people (if you're only talking about collars and bondage gear and not an activity that looks definitely noncon to someone who hasn't read the story).

As I said to Morgan upthread, we should probably edit the policy to add a warning to those who find BDSM itself triggering or see it as non con and want to avoid such images that BDSM images with collars, etc., are going into the "explicit" category.

I think another aspect that should be considered is where an image is used. I'm not entirely happy about displaying explicit images as tiny thumbnails with a red line running across them no matter where in the wiki they are posted. Someone clicking on a page named "BDSM" should expect to find something there that isn't NSFW, someone clicking on page that describes someting sex-related should expect explict content, and the tiny thumbnails/red line thing could be really an issue when it comes to artist's pages because there we have always tried to accomodate the wishes of the artists who allowed us to upload the images in the first place.

And certainly such an image might be NSFW, which could be a consideration for many users who are looking at the pages in a place where they need to avoid NSFW images.

Apropos, NSFW would include pictures that don't necessarily show naked bodies. Anything showing Nazi symbols (for example Hetalia fanart) would be NSFW in Germany because it's against the law.

another aspect that should be considered is where an image is used.

That is difficult to manage, given how Mediawiki works. The image itself is on the image page, where it is in full size (if it was high res to begin with) and there are no red lines or anything running through it. Images aren't actually on any article pages, as you know, and the article pages just link to the image page.

My understanding about this, after talking to our template guru, is that the image page is the same no matter which article page links to it (that is, it's the same regardless of how it's then later used in different articles). So, you need to have the appropriate image page template linked to that image (if it is explicit, I mean) and you can't predict which articles will later want to incorporate that image or link to it.

That is difficult to manage, given how Mediawiki works. The image itself is on the image page, where it is in full size (if it was high res to begin with) and there are no red lines or anything running through it. Images aren't actually on any article pages, as you know, and the article pages just link to the image page.

I know. That's why I suggested using text links (just linking to the image page instead of adding a thumbnail) for problematic images on pages where these images might not be appropriate instead of using a template for the image that makes this image unusable for illustration purposes on pages where it is needed. That way a page about a children's TV show about cute fluffy puppies could include a line in the fanart section that says "btw, there is some [hardcore NC-17 fanart] for these characters and link the "hardcore NC-17 fanart" part to image page while someone could add the image as a normal thumbnail to another page where it wouldn't be shockingly out of place.

Hm. I'm a bit divided on this. I think for example that someone should be able to read about chan/underage without having to load underage/chan pictures. However I think to expand the image warning templates to anything NSFW is too far. I guess my view is that in general the wiki can be considered as not suitable for discrete work diversion. For artist pages, maybe if much of their work is explicit a warning at the top or something would be enough? I mean, if the gallery was below the first screen area of a typical screen size, and there was a warning there, then you wouldn't have the annoyance of having to click on two dozen images that are all explicit because the artist only does tentaclerape or something.

I tend to agree with you. I didn't mean to suggest that all NSFW images had to have a warning template, but some sort of text warning across the top of the page might be enough for people browsing at work, where the page has a lot of NSFW images further down.

I think the idea was that to some viewers, BDSM = sexual assault as opposed to explicit? There were several concepts wedged into the post.

Edited 2010-04-23 22:13 (UTC)

You're right that depending on the image, some viewers might see some BDSM images as sexual assault. But I would argue that they fall into "explicit," although I'm willing to go along with consensus if most folks here think that BDSM should go into non-con.

We can edit the policy to say that BDSM goes into "explicit," and warn users who might find that upsetting to click on such images with caution (or not at all). The article text would often make it clear that the explicit image was BDSM (you can infer that from the "Men in Chains" article title and text even before you see the image, for example).

For what it's worth, I'm against saying BDSM = sexual assault because that's insulting to every BDSM practitioner and I agree that explicit would be more fitting.

I agree with you. But we should edit the policy to warn users who find images with BDSM upsetting that such images can be found in the explicit category, so they might want to take that into account before clicking on images with the "explicit" warning, especially if the context of the article (like "Men in Chains") makes it likely that the images will contain BDSM content.

in that case what about people who find slash offensive? or incest pairings?

(no subject)

ratcreature - 2010-04-24 13:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

cordelia_v - 2010-04-24 13:43 (UTC) - Expand

I think this is the most appropriate place in the conversation for this, so I'm putting it in here.

The ETA up top says this:

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.

I have to say that my gut reaction to that is to side with the anonymous commenter who says, "in that case what about people who find slash offensive? or incest pairings?" I've read

ratcreature's reply here and while I think the assumptions about general Fanlore editor's attitudes are probably correct, I'm not very happy about relying on that long set of assumptions to protect what I feel is a matter of principle. Frankly, saying some people think BDSM is inherently sexual assault is as meaningful as saying some people think the earth is flat. There is no factual basis for the idea that does not involve a non-standard definition of BDSM, as by any standard definition, BDSM is inherently consensual. Certain slave scenarios require a consent label because of the slavery, not the BDSM.

Beyond how a policy is likely to be interpreted, there is also the issue of how things look. If this policy is implemented more or less as is, with an additional warning placed somewhere that explicit images may contain BDSM, what we would in effect have is a situation where depictions of underage sexuality are regulated while no other specific sexualities are, except for BDSM which gets a special warning. This does, in effect and regardless of intent, "non-normalize" BDSM, where other sexual activities, (and in the case of incest, activities that are criminal acts in most jurisdictions) are not singled out. I also think there is a danger that a reasonable person could infer that if the warning for BDSM refers to explicit images, then all BDSM will be labeled as explicit. Whether that is the intent or not, it could be construed to be the case by users and editors both.

I do not believe that there is any requirement that BDSM be singled out for special warnings anywhere. An image that could be interpreted as containing depictions of sexual assault can be treated with the appropriate template. An image that depicts BDSM activities can be labeled explicit or not depending on the image itself and the BDSM elements should be as irrelevant to that consideration as the sex/gender/orientation of the people depicted.

I don't thik BDSM = noncon - and I can tell you if you label it as such, there will be many members of the BDSM community who will take offense (rightly so). explicit is a much more accurate way of addressing.

the challenge if that you're trying to cover too many issues with the same brush: triggery and explicit, have overlap but not always.

on to another topic: add this to your list
http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Door

BDSM = sexual assault as opposed to explicit?

If that's the way it was meant, I think it's problematic because BDSM practitioners won't be happy to see their consensual sex described as sexual assault (because BDSM does *not* equal sexual assault!) and the wording of the policy should take that into account.

That is not what I meant at all. I just want the draft to be clearer than it is now whether the image counts as standalone artifact for the warning templates (then most slavefic illustrations are fairly harmless as that collar might just as well consensual, and not in need of any "sexual assault" templates) or in the context of what they illustrate, and picked the slavefic pictures as typical example of how the image can be more harmless thant the text. My hypothetical rough alleysex gangbang picture would be the opposite, there the picture would look "worse" than what the story says.

I just want the draft to be clearer than it is now whether the image counts as standalone artifact for the warning templates (then most slavefic illustrations are fairly harmless as that collar might just as well consensual, and not in need of any "sexual assault" templates) or in the context of what they illustrate

And it was a good example for that because it clearly illustrated the problem, as this discussion shows. :)

I meant to illustrate the type of picture slavefic often has, not that BDSM pictures would be inherently more problematic.

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".

Boys in Chains is a problematic example because it covers all types of 'chain' scenarios - slavefic, d/s and BDSM. Hard to determine what is going on from a brief image - so you either lump all of this type of sexual activity into the questionable consent category or you allow some ambiguity. which is why explicit vs non explicit might be the better focus and reserve consent/non consent for more unambiguous examples.

BTW, where do images of violence fit in? not sexual violence. I may have skipped past that part.

I wondered the same thing. I didn't see any proposed warning template in the draft, but I think there probably should be for extreme violence, because I suspect depending on the visitors theyy might appreciate warnings for say a dismembered child corpse even more than for some alien tentacled penis... especially as you would expect the former less in much of media fandom.

buried in all this is a key question - all these templates....will they be as easy as checking a checkbox? or will the poor user have to travel to the template page to copy 3 different codes (making 3 trips)? (one for copyright, one for explicit and one for triggery images)

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.

I didn't see anything about violence either...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

BDSM--Warning for it as per the ETA above.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?

no subject

no subject