Talk:Wikilegal/Age Record Requirement

Managing

Can you specify a bit more what "managing" content refers to? Once a file is uploaded, it doesn't change, unless you upload a new version. Does that mean that "managing" is limited to pressing the upload button, or are you saying that even changing annotations or categories, displaying in an additional article, etc. is theoretically affected? (Though probably making the thing (more) unconstitutional in the process) Wnt (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it applies to anyone directly interacting with the photo. So that would mean the uploader, yes, and anyone who crops the photo or anything like that. Annotations and categories should not apply. I mean, that's not saying someone won't try, anyone can try to prosecute anyone for anything, but I sincerely doubt anyone who has changed the categories will get charged for "managing" the file. Silver seren (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding categories make it more searchable, and appear on more pages, thus the category adder is managing its redistribution. John lilburne (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Definitions section, it says that Section 75.1(k) provides the following definition of managing content: “manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service, but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content.”

More generally, a "Secondary producer is any person [...] who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct [...]" (--JN466 09:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like "managing" means making "managerial decisions" ... helpful. Even apart from its unconstitutionality, the one thing that becomes clear every time this is discussed is that it is just about the worst written law I've ever heard of. I doubt the Supreme Court could figure out what it allows and what it bans. But if our diligent legal intern has any ideas, hopefully he'll let us know. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I find "editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site" reasonably clear. Imagine it said, "editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a print magazine". That's deciding whether to have such content, what kind of content to have, and where to have it. The equivalents of these are decisions that Wikimedians participate in every day when they upload media, create categories, add media to categories, insert media in Wikipedia articles, or vote Keep or Delete in a deletion discussion. In line with the precautionary principle and the new Terms of Use requiring me to obey applicable US law, I for one will not vote Keep in Commons without age record documentation being available, and am unlikely to do so even then, as simply voting Keep might impose a legal requirement on me personally to keep a permanent record of the media's 2257 documentation on file. --JN466 15:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking this a bit further, deciding what disclaimers or warning messages are displayed for such content could also be considered a editorial decision, so you might be legally required to maintain appropriate records of names and date of birth even if you only added the 2257 warning template to such an image's description page on Commons. Perhaps the warning template itself should carry a warning!? --Avenue (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Compliance statements

Another related issue is that according to [1],

“ (d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture shall contain the required statement on every page of a Web site on which a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appears. Such computer site or service or Web address may choose to display the required statement in a separate window that opens upon the viewer's clicking or mousing-over a hypertext link that states, “18 U.S.C. 2257 [and/or 2257A, as appropriate] Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.” ”

According to the Section 230 safe harbour clause, it seems the Wikimedia Foundation itself cannot be held legally responsible for failure to comply with this requirement, but according to Jesse's research, it would seem that individual admins and editors may. I've asked Jesse for clarification of this point. It's worth bearing in mind here that the Terms of Use require Wikimedia contributors to comply with applicable US law.

There is also a rather unruly and meandering discussion of this on Jimbo's en:WP talk page. --JN466 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)