The choice is optional and potentially a benefit to people here, as some historically underrepresented groups are given some preference in college admissions. This has little to do with privacy however.
The choice is optional and potentially a benefit to people here, as some historically underrepresented groups are given some preference in college admissions. This has little to do with privacy however.
No, but how is that relevant? The point is that you have exclusive rights to yourself. You can let people see you without having to let them photograph you.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Why are you talking about "true privacy"?True privacy involves not being seen or otherwise perceived by someone else. If one wants true privacy, they should not go outside.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Okay, how about this: someone takes a picture of you, without your consent, outside. He then proceeds to use this picture on the cover of a book he wrote about closeted pedophiles. It's a bestseller, and your image is now for the entire nation linked with that book.
Can you see that even if you make yourself visible to others, what those others do with it is still their responsibility?
BTW, as said before - US has similar laws, chedk the link about model release steely glint posted. Even in the US people cannot just use your picture if they want to, not without being liable anyway.
Either way I prefer living in a country where everyone's privacy is somewhat protected instead of a country where if you even open your curtains you apparently lose all your privacy rightsPublic space is for everyone, that includes people who want (reasonable) privacy.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
For us it has got to do everything with privacy; the government has no business keeping track of your religious or ethnic affiliations. The last time we made mistake of letting government keep records of that that could be lead back to individuals we paid a terrible price for it. There is a reason why Dutch jewry was wiped out more thoroghly than that of any other country including Germany.
Congratulations America
Not all privacy rights, just ridiculous ones that have nothing to do with privacy. If you do something in public then that is not private.
Hacking into phones is illegal and should be punished.And violating the privacy rights of celebrities and hacking into phoneboxes is needed by a free press because?
Mulcaire was sent to prison 4 years ago for hacking, no need to change anything.I'd rather have the tabloid in check by clear stated rights than by some mogul with his own political agenda.
Nobody said it is OK, check your reading comprehension.I am appalled by the opinions espoused in this thread. Hacking phones is "okay" if done by the "press" and the phones're eg. Sienna Miller's or if it's to expose "shenanigans", but hacking sites and e-mail accounts is not if it's done by eg. various members of Anonymous or it's Sony's even if it "exposes" the incompetence with which Sony has "guarded" very sensitive info belonging to millions of customers?
That's stupid, if something is in public people should be able to do whatever they want with it.
Nope, nothing at al (if done legally)l. What law do you think that should break.
Politicians do it all the time. You come from the nation of the Swiftboats, so why shouldn't the press?
Illegally should be punished same as anyone else.
Don't be ridiculous. If you're in public you're in public, not private. That must be why we never have any papparazi too. Don't get onto your usual biggoted hobbyhorse and say that's a British thing only either I guess Diana died in Paris when her drunk driving chauffeur was driving away from photographers she'd booked
Why? I don't think you should have that "right". You should have a right not to be libelled, not to be slandered, and not to have your privacy invaded (which means when in private, clue is in the name). But in public if its true - tough.
Do you think you should you be able to outright lie about yourself getting up some fake imagery and nobody be able to report the truth?
Randblade even though you are on a planet all of your own, in the UK European law applies and with regards to privacy that is the same everywhere. As it has been for as long as we've had the ECHR.
Congratulations America
And even outside, there's similar situations in the US (hence that model release Steely Glint posted).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Which doesn't make your interpretation of the law either correct or long-standing.
People have always been able to take photos and still are. As has been demonstrated above in this thread and in my own Parisian example, so try again.
The immediate legal remedy that springs to mind is suing for slander or defamation of character. That is the proximal source of the harm.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
LF we doesn't have that "sue if you want to get your rights" philosophy over here. Suing is a solution for celebrities with money for a lawyer, but not for the usual person. In Switzerland this also applies for parliamentarians, as we don't have a professional parliament.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Ok, so in the US, UK, and in most of Europe it seems it is perfectly legal to take a picture of someone without any form of model release in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. In some jurisdictions you might need a permission before you can sell the image.
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
Some places are also protected by trademark, like the Manchester Cathedral or Empire state building. Profiting off a picture that involves them (or a rendering of said design) won't fly either. At one point the artist behind Cloud Gate, was trying to get flickr and other services to remove pictures of his sculpture.
"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."
And you're going to compel someone to cease violating your privacy with a publicly-available photo in what way that doesn't involve your legal system, with the "philosophy over there"? You are drawing a false distinction.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well it might sound funny. But privacy rights are public law, and therefore you don't need to sue them you just need to make a complaint. Of course this doesn't include the any business related or financial issues you would have with the other party.
While I wouldn't conclude too much from the list I still find it interesting to have a look at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy...#Privacy_index
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Nobody said you can't take pictures. The only point I have made is that taking a picture does not give you unlimited rights to the use of that picture. Your 'ownership' of the actual image means very little, unlike in other situations where ownership is everything. Some uses of pictures will consitute violation of privacy, which can create liability for the person taking and/or using the picture.
Congratulations America
Would you please define what "a complaint" is, with regard to getting an unlicensed likeness out of public display? A complaint to who and generating compliance with its requirements in what way?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's not his interpretation, it's an actual ruling by bigshot EU court.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Oh really? Which again is why we have no papparazi on this continent. When did this bigshot EU court make such a ruling and on what?
Come on, being seen in public without being potentially photographed is pretty silly. Our cultures aren't so different that; you would think this is Schrödinger's cat or something.
Our government makes all this information optional. And the universities that ask this also often private. Our census asks the race of every person in the country (though they don't have to answer).
But my concern here is completely removed from government and very focused on the individual arena. For example...
Okay, how about this: someone takes a picture of you, without your consent, outside. He then proceeds to use this picture on the cover of a book he wrote about closeted pedophiles. It's a bestseller, and your image is now for the entire nation linked with that book.
Can you see that even if you make yourself visible to others, what those others do with it is still their responsibility?
BTW, as said before - US has similar laws, chedk the link about model release steely glint posted. Even in the US people cannot just use your picture if they want to, not without being liable anyway.
Either way I prefer living in a country where everyone's privacy is somewhat protected instead of a country where if you even open your curtains you apparently lose all your privacy rightsFlixy- As Fuzzy pointed out, this would be simple slander/libel. And the issue here isn't making money from random images as much as the issue that OG is bringing up: what defines "commercial"?
In theory one could get Flickr or Facebook to take down any photo of them, even if they were just randomly photographed on the street in someone's personal album.
What about Google Street View?
But what if it isn't slander/libel, but yous till object to your image being used (for any number of reasons, I can think of plenty)? Would you have any grounds in the US?
Your last line wouldn't fly in (at least) the Dutch system - you have to give a valid reason why a particular publication is not okay. So I suppose it's more of an extension of libel/slander laws into privacy. It's far from unlimited though, if it comes to court judges weigh your reasons against publication with the reasons for publication (generally freedom of press and freedom of speech). So newspapers are generally allowed to post images of people (as long as it's newsworthy), and public figures have less protection. Flickr and Facebook pretty much only post the image without many (if any) reasonable grounds to object to them. Especially if you were just randomly in a picture.
faces are blurred, like license plates.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Only if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I suppose we have reasonable expectations of privacy in public areas, too.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It would be a viable slander case, because the implication of the book cover is the person in the photo is a pedophile. But that wouldn't be a privacy matter here.
When it comes to a photo on Flickr, I think the issue is that someone could argue they were "in private" on the street when someone photographed them and put them on Flickr to mock them.
Which is sort of the issue earthJoker brought up with News Of The World using photos of the politician and using them to call her fat/ugly.
Google Street View is a whole other issue. Some countries like Germany treat it like a Fascist party was trying to roam the streets...
I was talking about other examples where it would not be slander/libel but still a use of your image that you object to.
Unless you have a decent reason why the image should not be publicized it would be allowed. E.g. just mocking proably would be allowed on privacy grounds (though it might be libel or slander depending on the nature of the mocking), but for example posting an image of an (alleged) thief is not allowed, there have been cases about store owners publicizing pictures they took of (alleged) thiefs (and store owners generally lost, though images can be publicized if it's in the common interest of the society, or when it's in the interest of the case).
The case EJ quoted: they did alter her image with a model, which could be seen as a breach of privacy (because it was altered and therefore not a true representation). OTOH I can see exceptions for satire, not sure where that would stand. Public figures always have less grounds to complain about privacy breaches anyway, because they are, well, public figures. And politicians have even less protection. Calling her fat or ugly is of course okay as far as privacy laws go.
As far as Google street view goes, I find it somewhat.. interesting that people like you are horrified of the government having any trace whatsoever about where you have been, but you're completely okay with a company like Google having pictures of where you were at a certain time, online, for everybody to access. Not that I disagree that certain countries have a rather stupid approach to dealing with the internet in general (hell, look at the internet privacy legislation my country just passed).
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
What I don't understand is how photo-manipulation has anything to do with privacy.
Uhm, that's not what earthJoker's link to wiki Privacy International said.
Google Street View
In March 2009, following the addition of 25 UK cities to Google's Street View service, Privacy International sent a formal complaint about the service to the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The complaint cited more than 200 reports from members of the public who were identifiable on images hosted by the service. Privacy International director Simon Davies said that the organisation had filed the complaint due to the "clear embarrassment and damage" Street View had caused to many Britons. He said that Street View fell short of the assurances given to the ICO that had enabled its UK launch and asked for the system to be "switched off" while an investigation was completed.
The ICO had given permission for the launch of the service in July 2008 based partly on Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle licence plates to protect privacy. In its complaint, PI said that Google's claim that its face blurring system would result in a few misses was a "gross underestimation" and meant that the data used by Street View would fall under the UK's Data Protection Act 1998, which requires that subjects give permission for the use of information concerning them.[17] However, the ICO rejected PI's complaint, noting that removing the service would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment" and that ""Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back"[18]
Dread, maybe privacy isn't the right weird in that setting, personal rights might be better.
Ggt: I looked on google street view, faces were most definitely blurred here.
@GGT: That still means most faces and licence plates are blurred. The second case seemed to be more about the implementation.
I see where you coming from with exceptions for satire. And I think that this should still be possible, but from the information I read, this wasn't satire. Also to me it is important to see that the paper was not writing about a story but actually was writing in its own interests.The case EJ quoted: they did alter her image with a model, which could be seen as a breach of privacy (because it was altered and therefore not a true representation). OTOH I can see exceptions for satire, not sure where that would stand. Public figures always have less grounds to complain about privacy breaches anyway, because they are, well, public figures. And politicians have even less protection. Calling her fat or ugly is of course okay as far as privacy laws go.
Look up the Google street view cases, those in Yurope are based on complaints, no-one has sued Google because of street view (at least not in the cases I heard of).Would you please define what "a complaint" is, with regard to getting an unlicensed likeness out of public display?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
www.out-law.com/page-9764
There's an excerpt from the ruling on wikipedia somewhere
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote