More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started Apr 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
Sante Patate Veteran Member • Posts: 5,908
Re: Ah!

Great Bustard wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

You don't have to want to practice a religion to have the right to freedom of religion, or have anything important to say to have the right to free speech.

Privacy is a right. You don't have rights because otherwise something bad will happen, and you don't have to have - let alone give - any particular reason for demanding that your rights are respected.

If you read the court's decision ( you will see that child protection was never raised as an issue.

So you are saying that the photos of the kids in a public space were a violation of their right to privacy? Or were they not in a public space?

I and the court are saying that publication of the photographs was a violation of their privacy. As the court said, there is a world of difference between being seen, or photographed, walking down the street and having photographs of you walking down the street published. There is simply no reason whatever to assume that taking photographs and publishing them are the same from a privacy point of view.

Interesting distinction. So, unless a scene is "news worthy", one cannot publish photos of people without their consent? Is that because money is made, if even indirectly, off of the photo?

That is the way the law is developing. But I don't think it has anything to do with money.

It is not much - if at all - different from the NSA surveillance. Pretty much everyone rejects the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument in that case, and it is the same with photography in public: I and a lot of people feel that a man has a right sit on a cafe terrace and have a quiet drink with his mistress without worrying that photographs of them might get published.

Personally, I think the decisive change is digital imagery and the internet.  As the judge in this case said, if you walk down the street you have no right to expect not to be seen or photographed.  And 40 years ago, being seen and being photographed was pretty much the same thing, because the technology to disseminate an image, search for an image, re-use it, and track down the subject, just did not exist as it does today.

But now, as the law in the US stands you can take a photograph of me - sitting in a cafe with a woman, eg - and put it on the internet with any caption you like, where millions of people can see it, re-tweet it, re-post it and re-caption it, and once that happens it cannot be erased.  And since you own the copyright, you can impose no use restrictions whatever - or just not think about copyright and tick the "public domain" box at random - and it can be downloaded and used by anyone for any purpose whatever.  And the photograph could be used in startling ways (  In this case everyone had a good laugh ( but we can all think of circumstances that would end less happily.

Sure, if you use a defamatory caption, or if the Nazi party (say) uses my image in its advertising I can sue, but why should I be the one who has to pay the costs of doing that?  It just cannot be right that you put my image on the internet and say "use this however you like".

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow