User:Peteforsyth/Personality rights

It is often said that Commons is unprincipled in the way it deals with individuals' rights. I don't believe that is true, certainly not to a degree that justifies the frequent shrillness; but it is important, in a project with such a diverse collection of volunteers and stakeholders, to act in a way in which clear principles are expressed and then decisions are made in reference to them.

• How do we best enable a very diverse group of people to work together, and a very diverse group of stakeholders to be well-served even when their interests conflict? Here's my theory in a nutshell -- I think it's what's worked well in some parts of Wikimedia to date, and should be applied elsewhere:
  • Observe the different kinds of conflicts that arise through active engagement with the projects
  • Craft and articulate broad principles that reflect our biggest aspirations
  • Design processes that serve those principles, and that both guide and empower individuals in making judgment calls
  • Observe the outcomes of the processes; adjust them if they're not working
• With respect to copyright, I believe that our principles are thoroughly expressed, and that our processes (primarily DR) are made with clear reference to them. I think we have a pretty excellent and evolved approach to establishing what is and isn't OK with regard to copyright. (That's not to say the way it's expressed to uploaders is ideal, or even close to it -- but I think the underlying system of determining free-ness is pretty sophisticated.)
• With respect to personality rights, though, I think we -- along with the rest of the Internet -- are way behind. The COM:IDENT guideline, which is (along with a passing mention in the Upload Wizard cartoon) one of the few places where we talk about personality rights broadly, is an important one, and is too seldom consulted in DR decisions.

What are the differences and similarities in how we consider copyright, and how we consider personality rights?

...