 Which statement would the author most likely support?
To me, uploading a picture that is not an easily recognizable picture of that person defeats the point, which I’m working toward, to try to express who they are. For instance, a board meeting picture, like the one with Eric Saltzman: that was during a very tense discussion. And then, it also has the meaning that you are unencumbered legally, that you are free, as in ‘free software.’ There’s a paradox: with many people’s Wikipedia articles to which I’ve contributed, when it comes to the picture, many of these people don’t have any free photos of themselves on the web, so while they are “notable” on Wikipedia, their images aren’t free of the copyright of the photographer, or the institution who hired the photographer to take the picture. Often, even the subject of the article can’t make an image available to the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community. This means that a lot of people who have a Net presence have a legally encumbered Net presence. The third part of the pun is that, since I’m asking for a model release from the subjects, I’m asking everyone to be much more open and giving about their image than most people typically are. The fact is, it’s much more likely that somebody is going to use these pictures for something positive, rather than for something negative. In a way, giving up your image and allowing anyone to use it: it’s the ultimate gift.
 Humans want people to be viewed the way they view themselves
 Humans want people to be viewed the way they view themselves  Humans are too trusting in anything aligned with 'freedom' and 'creativity'  Humans are easily manipulated by powerful corporations  Humans have a proclivity toward a negativity bias