Akka
Moody old mage.
IIRC, the "person of public interest" only applies for images taken in the official acting situation of the person (that is, the job the person is doing that makes her a person of public interest).
The right to ones image relative to ownership of ones body.
- Thread starter metatron
- Start date
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
The people depicted below are not persons of public interest and presumably they did not sign a waiver to have their pictures taken.
The purposed rule would make it impossible to take photographs of parades and other civic events.
I would hope so.
But what does that mean in practice? Can diCaprio sue when he's photographed at Starbucks?
Yeah, sure, do that too.The purposed rule would make it impossible to take photographs of parades and other civic events.
I'm sure you are able to distinguish a large scale public event from Borachio leaving the house in the morning, with no police being their to cordon off the street and everything...
Where you'd get the idea to suspect such sinister motives. I'm merely having some fun.
Worse, all private detectiv...ing (whatever), would stop.
That's not the point though.
This is about publication.
You'd be free to film your house, your shop, whatever. But you need a cause for making the material public.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Technically, yes.
That's how some stars who puts a lot of importance on separating their private life from their public one, manage to have some peace.
In practice, they tend to let it slip when it's not compromising, and most people aren't rude enough to bother them.
Take? Use? Publish? These are different verbs that should not be conflated here.
All I've argued is that people should be able to exercise their right of privacy over pictures taken of them. Don't expect me to append a comprehensive list of possible other considerations someone's privacy could come in conflict with.
Obviously photographers shouldn't have to carry a written permit of every person attending a specific public event. The conflict of interest here is that people might not want pictures taken of them there published, so the permission should have to be given before publishing.
The same with footage of criminal activity. Public spaces are by definition not part of the private sphere, so their surveillance isn't a violation of someone's right to privacy. Lack of consent to having your picture taken doesn't have to translate into that picture being inadmissible as proof of criminal activity anyway. And I'm sure you acknowledge that indiscriminate surveillance is a different category than the specific intrusion into someone's private life, for instance by paparazzi.
I just thought it detracts from the overall valid point of the thread for no good reason ... if at least feminism had in any way to do with the issues involved, which it hasn't directly.Where you'd get the idea to suspect such sinister motives. I'm merely having some fun.
The people depicted below are not persons of public interest and presumably they did not sign a waiver to have their pictures taken.
The purposed rule would make it impossible to take photographs of parades and other civic events.
Well, I think they are. The criteria are deliberately rather loose, so all that one has to be able to do is convince twelve ordinary people that what they did was justified. That's probably a good enough definition of 'person of public interest' as you need.
In terms of photography they're not practically different. Being allowed to take public photos but not publish them is essentially equivalent to not being able to take them at all.
Not the case. We routinely distinguish in law between possession for private use and dissemination.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
If Borachio lives on that street and happens to leave the house on the morning of the parade then no one would be able to make that distinguishment.
I don't think that any "right" that is immediately and involuntarily waived by attending a public event constitutes a right at all.
Why is this appeal to extremes even necessary?
Nobody here is arguing that the right to privacy trumps everything else. On the other hand, some people seem to believe that the freedom of the press trumps everything else.
Can't we at least agree that sometimes certain rights and freedoms get into conflict where both are equally valid, so some kind of balance has to be found, instead of one trumping the other all the way?
I'm not even arguing for specific practical implementations of such a balance. Mostly because there can also be a lot of legitimate disagreement about these, but also because it's pointless when the discussion hasn't even reached the point of acknowledging their need because freedom of the press must be worshipped in a proper democracy, or something.
Nobody here is arguing that the right to privacy trumps everything else. On the other hand, some people seem to believe that the freedom of the press trumps everything else.
Can't we at least agree that sometimes certain rights and freedoms get into conflict where both are equally valid, so some kind of balance has to be found, instead of one trumping the other all the way?
I'm not even arguing for specific practical implementations of such a balance. Mostly because there can also be a lot of legitimate disagreement about these, but also because it's pointless when the discussion hasn't even reached the point of acknowledging their need because freedom of the press must be worshipped in a proper democracy, or something.
No, it isn't. Establishing a difference between those two actions enables the press to take pictures at events with a large number of attendees and then only ask those for permission whom they want to depict. In other words, it ruins your counter-argument.
Oh, if only lawyers and law-makers were able to make up different words with different, yet precise definitions so we can use them to our advantage in legislation.
Hm, it kinda does.
If you restrict these things out of a sense of privacy and "decency" it all goes down the road of preventing harassment.
If you restrict them based on the notion that people own themselves, their body, their image, their person as a whole in all its aspects, it's a totally different matter.
What you own, you can give away, or sell.
There are limits, sure, you can't sell your kidney to buy a sports car.
But none the less the two angles are quite different, and the difference should matter a lot to any feminist, whatever path they may choose on the matter.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I'm at a loss for what the difference is between using a photograph and publishing it.
To publish something is to disseminate that thing to other people.
Outside of the very limited situation where you take a photograph that no one else will ever see, I'm not sure what use photographs have except dissemination. The very purpose of a photograph is to create a visual record that you can show to other people.
There's a case to be made that the faces should be blanked out, which I would support in many circumstances. Would that make it more acceptable?
I don't think that the second half holds; most people have at least some photographs that they keep private.
The operative terms in Zelig's and Leoreth's posts were "taking" and "publishing".
Erm, no.
I can take a photo of you. And Leoreth, Borachio, Zelig and i can meet for tea and our weekly round of bridge and i can show that photo to them, heck they may even copy it for the purpose of private archiving in one them things called photo albums.
That doesn't exactly make that photo "published".
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
That might be more acceptable, but that's not the right as purposed by Metatron. He said a right to one's image without qualification as to whether or not that includes the face.
Furthermore, if we obliged people to take out the faces of people that still would be too broad a burden on journalists. Take the parade picture I posted above; if the faces of the people portrayed had to be blanked out you'd loss all of the emotional intensity of that picture. The picture would be purposeless at that point.
Look, it's totally up to you to make the calls on the details here.
This is about whether you can embrace the fundamental principle.
How far you want to take it is up to you.
I've already given you the parade or other public events.
See above: You are free to apply common sense and qualify as you see fit.
None of this so far entails a justification for photographing (and publishing) Borachio without cause when he leaves the house in the morning.
Indeed, but I think it's at least possible that it's more important that people not be identified as attending the protest by all and sundry. The classic example is that an employer might not be so keen to hire somebody that he saw in the paper shouting at a protest, especially if he doesn't agree with that protest. It's not really simple enough for broad-brush rules - you need quite a nuanced system, and a strong right of appeal if it goes wrong.
