Use of Avatars without agreement

[TimTaylor]

I always find the use of peoples GitHub avatars on the website a little odd/iffy. I've contributed my code and thoughts but not my image for the project to use. Perhaps a list of contributors would be better or, should you wish to keep the avatars, I think explicit consent for their use should be sort.

@Bisaloo / @chartgerink - I previously raised this in a Slack discussion but moving here as think it should be addressed in one way or another.

[chartgerink]

Thanks @TimTaylor for moving this discussion here. Clearly it matters to you. What I can offer in the short term is to ensure your avatar is not displayed, as you are objecting against it. Does that work for you?

I would also like to ask, but you are under no obligation, whether you could articulate what about using a public avatar is iffy to you? I would like to further understand what the friction is specifically, to have a proper assessment of what options would be realistic.

[TimTaylor]

Does that work for you?

Yes

I would also like to ask, but you are under no obligation, whether you could articulate what about using a public avatar is iffy to you?

iffy ≈ "I have a vague feeling that images are copyrighted and cannot be used without permission". Basically I have no clue (not a legal person etc etc) but my inclination is that there is not a "fair use" get out clause for using images in this way.

I would like to further understand what the friction is specifically, to have a proper assessment of what options would be realistic.

This is more subjective. I've seen (and been involved in) other projects that have previously done this with avatars and it has never sat well with me. It's probably the promotional / advertisey nature which make me uncomfortable. I guess it comes down to different strokes for different folks.

Even if it turns out legally to be ok, to me it would still feel more appropriate to ask for consent prior to inclusions.

Ignoring all of the above, design-wise, I hate long sprawling pages of images so a list would look better IMO (again subjective).

[chartgerink]

Okay, thanks. I opened a PR removing your avatar and just adding the name at the top (see #334). Design wise, I hope you can appreciate that we do not cater to personal preferences (because someone else may "hate" long lists).

For the more general issue: I looked up the discussion on Slack and I do not see any commentary on this by others.

Two considerations are:

1. If we consider public profile info okay to include, avatar is also okay.
2. If we consider public profile info not okay to include w/o consent (like the avatar), we should also ask to list people as a contributor in the first place.

We have operated under consideration 1. Consideration 2 is reasonable too, and could be warranted if we learn about a wider consent wish. This does not seem to be the case at this time.

[TimTaylor]

If we consider public profile info okay to include, avatar is also okay.

I think this may negate copyright considerations on the image that would not apply to a factual record of contribution. Again, not a lawyer, but I think you need to distinguish between a creative work and general information/data.

[sbfnk]

For what it's worth I agree with @TimTaylor here. Not so much for the legal reasons but because a page of faces is common usage for the "core team" of an organisation (i.e. people who literally put a face to the org). I think having this for any sort of contribution even if small is potentially misleading.