From: Martin E. <mar...@gm...> - 2008-10-29 16:28:28
|
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Benny Malengier <ben...@gm... > wrote: > First, you don't have copyright on pictures of people, you need permission. > The same is true for buildings if the architect is not yet death for a > certain amount of time. > > Second, in my case, 3 people have asked to have their picture removed and > are angry, so I am on the side of caution. > > Nevertheless, many people want to protect living people, and yet allow > pictures. At present this is hard to do with GRAMPS, you can only make all > subthings private, and then produce an website with all info minus the > private. > > Perhaps there is another solution: extend the private option with a public > option. Then objects can be private, normal or public. Objects made > specifically public would always be allowed to show. Just as the user needs > to take action to make an object private he would need to take action to > make an object public. > Good/Bad idea? A lot of code would have to change though, so no easy > change. > > Benny This is one area where the gramps model of the world seems confused to me. (Of course, maybe it is just me who is confused...) As a general matter, there is objective data about persons, events, and places. But there are (or should be) several kinds of "metadata" as I think about it. 1. Information about the "quality" of the objective data or media. How reliable are the dates, relationships, etc.? Sometimes we have two sources that conflict on a date, for example. Source references do offer a "confidence" attribute, which is a start. Perhaps it would be useful to introduce sets of alternatives, e.g., for dates or places. These could carry a note that would discuss the possibilities and weightings. 2. What "restrictions" apply to the data? E.g., is there copyright that limits how the data can be released or reproduced? Are there privacy restrictions which limit distribution, e.g., for living persons or for any other data (or media) that are provided? Do we take the position that everything that is not permitted is restricted? 2a. What attribution should be given? For media, who owns the original, took the picture or made a scan, when, etc.? Gramps provides attribute capablities, but they are largely unstructured and could be developed more with reasonable templates. As to data restrictions, I would point out that there are real-world models that gramps should align with -- such as Creative Commons or GPL licensing. On the other hand, different legal jurisdictions have very different policies. Do we need to be able to say that our database is legal in the US, but prohibited in the EU? Ouch. So that's my 2c worth. I am sure you are right that there would be a lot of work to implement all these things. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Ewing, AA6E Branford, CT |