That Newswipe dude is an obnoxious jerk. We have some of those over here, too.
Hey, can we send Piers Morgan back to you guys?
That Newswipe dude is an obnoxious jerk. We have some of those over here, too.
Hey, can we send Piers Morgan back to you guys?
What personal/privacy right is being trampled here? I think it's offensive and stupid, but dumb and aggressive media shouldn't be banned because it makes people uncomfortable. If it made people too uncomfortable they would simply stop reading.Originally Posted by earthJoker
No.
Hugh Grant becomes an unlikely crusading hero.
I do like the guy, I really do.
One is the right of your own picture. Quickly I found this German decition:What personal/privacy right is being trampled here?
„Der Träger des Persönlichkeitsrechts hat zwar kein Recht darauf, von Dritten nur so wahrgenommen zu werden, wie er sich selbst gerne sehen möchte (vgl.BVerfGE 97, 125 <148 f.>; 97, 391 <403>; stRspr), wohl aber ein Recht, dass ein fotografisch erstelltes Abbild nicht manipulativ entstellt ist, wenn es Dritten ohne Einwilligung des Abgebildeten zugänglich gemacht wird.“ [11]"
"The institution of legal personality is not entitled to third party only to be perceived as such, as he would like to see themselves (see BVerfGE 97, 125 <148 f.>; 97, 391 <403>, case law), but one has the right that a created photographic image is not manipulatively distorted, if it is made available to third parties without the consent of the person depicted. "[11]
What a stupid comment, how does it help me if I don't read the paper if the problem is what others read about me in the paper?If it made people too uncomfortable they would simply stop reading.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
So, if someone takes a photo of you, they don't have the right to use it? And if someone writes something unkind about you, they can be sued?
Aren't those pretty key elements of a free press?
In general you own the rights of pictures taken of yourself, but there are several reasons why the press can use it (common interests). I don't see how you conclude the second one about saying something unkind.
Why should I own the rights to a photo if I'm photographed walking down the street? As soon as I walk out of my home, everyone can see me. I can't expect that I have privacy if I'm walking down the street, nor should I be allowed to impose a demand for privacy if I do something in public (like walking down the street).
It does seem like you have a problem with the press insulting people, as that's what News of the World did to the British politician whom they got into a fight with.
Other than hiring private investigators to find scandalous information about the politicians it didn't like, whether legally or illegally, and then blasting away non-stop. Nothing wrong with destroying the careers of politicians who stand up to the tabloids, right?
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't think it's right at all, but I think it's society's role to call that line and not the government's job to say that a specific level of insults is "too far". Actual violations of privacy (EG entrapping/taping people) is obviously illegal and punishable by the law.
First of all of course you own the rights to your own image, only to be abrograted by news gathering. As for privacy; it is a recognized right in Europe of no lesser value than the freedom of expression. If you walking down the street is not related to any event that the general public has a reasonable interest in of knowing about your privacy is indeed violated if someone makes a picture of you. Famous people of course are less protected because more of what they do is relevant to a wider group of people. But somebody would take a picture of you walking down a street in Europe there would be no way that person had the right to publish that picture.
Congratulations America
:blinks: Where does Europe place the intersection between artistic expression and privacy?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So if I take a photo of a guy looking sad eating a sandwich on a park bench and put it online because it's amusing, I could be sued in every which way by the government and the guy on the bench.
Sounds like a breeding-ground of free expression.No wonder tabloids like News of the World were able to keep selling copies for so long. Restricting expression empowers those most willing to cross the lines.
This must be why we never see photos taken on streets of European cities!
Wait, no, we do.
Can we all just be a little bit less ridiculous?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Except anyone in those photos could theoretically sue for breach of privacy. Just because it doesn't happen every day doesn't mean it's not a legal/practica/philosophical nightmare.
Yes, plainly you do, we all knew that without needing a demonstration. Hence why I asked my question.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I gather the right to privacy is to be interpreted broadly in the EU such that it includes the right to identity, in the sense that you own your identity. The court seems to have ruled that you therefore have some ownership over depictions of yourself and your consent is required before someone can take a picture of you. Regardless of profit motive, publication, etc. Rather than lawsuits i suppose you might have cease and desist letters of some sort. Some sort of DMCA equivalent. What do I know
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What I really don't get is how being photographed in a public place is an abrogation/theft of your "identity". When I walk outside I fully expect to be seen. This doesn't impact my identity one bit.
Your face is an important part of your identity. Do you stop being you when you go outside? Is a photo of your face not a photo of you?
Honestly, it may be easier to see this as being kinda like copyright. The copyright to your identity belongs to you by default, and you can decide which rights to reserve. So people seeing you on the street may be fine to you while people seeing you online may not be.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
FYI you should probably no read the phrase 'we all' in the above to be solely limited to you and Dreadnaught.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release < relevant
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Mmm, with the minor difference that the EU version discussed here doesn't really care if you publish it or not.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Do you stop being you when you're photographed? You make it sounds like being photographed takes a piece of your soul into the camera.
True privacy involves not being seen or otherwise perceived by someone else. If one wants true privacy, they should not go outside.
Under your view of privacy, the world would never know about this man no matter what he does. Which is perfectly harmless, but the idea that he should expect absolute privacy while out of his house is sorta absurd.
Never heard of it? You have similar laws in the US IIRC.
I don't know the situation in other countries, but over here you have (limited) rights against publication of an image of you, as long as you have reasonable grounds to prevent that. Judges balance those reasonable grounds with freedom of press or freedom of expression.
According to wiki, the reasonable grounds are generally either privacy, or commercial interests, or when the portrait is used for advertising something you oppose, etc.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Note that he gave permission to the newspaper for publishing, and also:
= why those laws exist."I have a lot at stake here," he said, when explaining why he did not want his name published. "I'm a business consultant and would be extremely vulnerable to being discredited. ... This is just something I do for fun. I don't mean any harm."
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
and if someone truely believed that to be the case? How would you handle those, possibly religious, beliefs?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The issue is what many over there [in Yurp] consider to be private in the first place. The fact that your face, in public and possibly doing something silly is still private is the problem. Similar to the insanity watching various EU member governments and EU data commissioners file lawsuits and draft silly regulations about IP addresses, Internet cookies, Facebook, Google Street View, etc.
In the case of the man wearing women's underwear, I think you misunderstood the language of the article. He spoke to the paper to give them context, on condition the paper didn't reveal his full name. But that was a private agreement between the man and the paper in exchange for the interview. The paper did not have any legal obligation at all to get his permission to publish the article.
Arguably any modern secular state's constitution or basic laws conflict (and supersede) some religious dictates in some ways.
EG in the US we have a constitutional right to abortion, which many religious leaders believe to be murder. Other religions believe in the concept of blasphemy. Still others believe that modern medical treatments are antithetical to their faith; sometimes those people are prosecuted.
The social compact behind a secular state often subordinates those beliefs in some respect.
The people in that picture could sue, which to me seems standard practise in the US as well, with all the conditions social websites put on putting pictures.
Privacy is not some pair of slippers you only wear at home. It is something you have with you at all times and it must be respected, unless there is an overriding consideration.
I remember that some time ago a man somewhere in the US was arrested for walking naked in his own homw while being visible from outside. Here in Holland trying to file a complaint like that may get you in trouble since the most obvious and decent thing to do is not peeping into another guy's home.
Congratulations America
That case (though it sounds a bit far-fetched) actually demonstrates our core value in a lot of ways —*if you make yourself visible to others, you bear the responsibility. Complaining that your privacy is being violated when you are out in the open is oxymoronic.
Well, i don t know how many times I have mentioned it, but we see privacy as a human right, where you still are finding out if it is or not under your legal system. I think it's a fair bet we have more experience with intrusive government than you in the colonies.
I just remembered reading an article about people dealing with picking a race while applying for college in the US, I would imagine asking the question would be bordering on the illegal in Europe, and keeping records containing that information would probably be forbidden.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
