Where does the Org stand on posting unauthorized photos of a non-P Org member on the site?

This was taken from a guide on Photographers Rights...



So if it's a shot of them at the park or something, it's really up to the photographer, not the person in the pic. Even if it's a pic of the person in their own house, if they knowingly posed for the pic and didn't explicitly ask the photographer not to take it, they more or less gave him/her permission IMO.

We don't have a specific policy on this that I'm aware of. I imagine we would just play it by ear. I mean, if there was an embarassing pic of someone posted, and they really wanted it off, there's no sense in being unreasonable about it.

I agree with what Tom said, but... I think we should seek legal advice on this from our resident attorney.

Matt?

Tom said:

Here's a hypothetical:

Let's say that my boyfriend and I share a home computer. Let's say he has some photos of himself that are private--not nude, but sexy. Let's say I want to show him off to you Orgers but he doesn't know I"ve posted them here on the Org.

Now, other than being a tacky, less-than-trustworthy thing to do to my boyfriend--would my posting them be against site rules?

AnotherLoverToo said:

We would have no knowledge of how you obtained the pictures, the balls in your court on that one. But if your boyfriend found out and asked us to take them down, one of us prob would, I would at least.

interesting issue! i've wondered about this myself. personally, for various reasons i prefer to keep images of myself off the internet entirely.

i'm not sure the laws have evolved to cover privacy issues as pertains to internet exposure....

AnotherLoverToo said:

I guess the site rules don't say something about that, but since posting his pics without his permission would be a violation of his privacy rights the org would have to take them down once notified of the infringement.

Btw, Hi anotherlover.

Tom said:

It all depends on what laws are applicable, which can be a hard question to answer when it concerns the internet.
Generally you could say tho' that taking a picture of someone in public is permitted unless that someone objects to it. Publishing the picture without permission is almost always a no-go. Certain exemptions to that rule apply for example to famous people or when it's a news picture published for news purposes.

Abrazo said:

Are you sure about that? It seems to be pretty well known that as far as having your picture taken, you have practically no rights, which is why big camera-grabbing bouncers tend to be employed. But it is my understanding that as far as publishing is concerned, the only person whose permission is required is the owner of the image, i.e. the person who took the photograph, and the person or people depicted in it have no say in the matter. If you look at the small print on the back of concert tickets etc. it says something to the effect that if the event is being recorded / photographed that your image may be used without your permission. As far as I am aware, this isn't informing you that you are waiving any rights by attending the concert, but rather reminding you that when it comes to others taking and publishing your image, you have no rights.

AsylumUtopia said:

In general I'm pretty sure, but since it depends on the circumstances and country's laws you are in and I don't know all those laws plus those laws are often riddled with difficult exemptions, I can't be very sure. Privacy rights and pictures are a very murky area of law, which is why I am not stating this stuff for sure.



You have rights; privacy rights, but these are often not 'translated' in specific rights regarding the taking of your picture, depending on the country's laws you are dealing with. The courts then usually have to decide on such issues.

Why "big camera-grabbing bouncers" are hired is 1) primarily because of safety and 2) because you usually can not do much more against someone taking your picture without your permission than asking them to delete the picture or taking their camera away (which is illegal in turn). The legal alternative would be to sue the photographer, but that often doesn't pay of.



Publishing your picture without your permission is in principle a clear violation of your privacy. Important however is that you need to have an interest in not having the picture published, which interest usually isn't assumed when you are a public figure or when it's a news picture for example. Then you probably won't have a case against the publisher of the picture. Correct is that you always need the permission to publish from the copyright owner which may or may not be the photographer.




Well, they love to put all kinds of dubious stuff on those tickets to cover their ass, but that doesn't mean you don't have any rights.



--
[Edited 12/21/05 8:57am]