Not trying to get banned here, but...

[LethalWolfe]

<< Taking pictures of people without their knowledge, and posting them without their permission, is a violation of their privacy. Do it again, and you will be banned - permanently.

AnandTech Moderator >>



Taking pix of people in a public place/environment and posting them is not a violation of their privacy (It might been uncool, but it's not a violation of privacy). By going into a public place you wave your expectation of privacy(inside your home is about the only place you should expect privacy). And, unless otherwise stated, the photographer is the owner of the picture, not the subject (so the subject doesn't have to conscent to the posting). The poperazzi<sp?> is a perfect example of this. They make a living by taking pix of the stars w/o the stars' permission. I'm not defending them(or the person who started this thread) I'm just saying that, legally, nobody's privacy was violated.

Lethal
EDIT: Thread I'm refering to Link

 

[spanky]

i missed the pics in that thread

 

[Azraele]

You need to post this in the existing thread.

 

[monto]

<< I'm just saying that, legally, nobody's privacy was violated. >>

ah, but federal and state law don't pertain to ATOT

 

[LethalWolfe]

<<

<< I'm just saying that, legally, nobody's privacy was violated. >>

ah, but federal and state law don't pertain to ATOT >>




I agree. I'm glad the mods locked the thread 'cause, ethically, you shouldn't post pix w/o the persons knowledge (unless you found the pix in public domain on the Net to begin with).

Lethal

 

[Shantanu]

Perhaps taking a picture of someone in certain public places does not legally constitute a violation of privacy, but any instance in which you take a picture of someone without their consent - regardless of where the picture was taken - is a violation of their privacy.

 

[pulse8]

Hey Legal,

We are already discussing this in that thread.

And at least for me, the situation at hand is something that can be argued either way. It all depends on whether or not being in the parking lot of that complex gives her a reasonable right to privacy. Well, that and the fact that it doesn't have her face.

As for paparazzi -- public figures have different rules.

 

[greenfirs]

<< As for paparazzi -- public figures have different rules. >>



How do you decide whether someone is a public figure?

My picture was in a local newspaper once. Am I a public figure?

This girl I know danced on a table at a local danceclub when she was drunk. At least a hundred people saw her. Is she a public figure?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[LethalWolfe]

<<

<< As for paparazzi -- public figures have different rules. >>



How do you decide whether someone is a public figure?

My picture was in a local newspaper once. Am I a public figure?

This girl I know danced on a table at a local danceclub when she was drunk. At least a hundred people saw her. Is she a public figure?

Where do you draw the line? >>




There is no hard and fast line, but elected officals, pro athletes, and celebraties are good "guide lines" to start with.

Why do you have to be so beligerant? You present an agruement in _every_ thread you post in.


Lethal

 

[dman]

Apparently It's the rules here. Like it or leave it. Unfortunately, I have no idea how you would prove you have permission or not, I mean, people post pics all the time. I guess you have to use some discretion when you describe what you are posting and how you obtained the pics.