446
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
446 points (95.1% liked)
News
23287 readers
3619 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Require consent to take a person's picture and hold them liable for whatever comes from them putting it on a computer.
You already need consent to take a persons picture. Did it help in this case? I don't think so.
You do not need consent to take peoples pictures
*in the US.
In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you're walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.
Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person's permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.
That thought is a pile of bull crap. If you really think you have zero presumption of privacy then I have the right to follow right behind you with a sign that says "idiot ahead". Laws like this are so written for the drug war and for big media not for us.
Not saying I agree with it, that's just the way the laws are written.
A good example of how crappy this law works out is paparazzi. They harass celebrities just to get any halfway decent photo. Then they can sell the photo, the celebrity has no say in the matter. And to make things even worse, if the celebrity happens to use the photo of themselves in any way, the photographer can demand payment because they own the copyright.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. We need tules that say you own your own image.
That much I can agree with. If someone takes a picture of me, I should have some say in how that image is used, even if the default assumption is that a person in public is plainly visible to everyone including photographers.
But there's a lot of nuance here. Maybe a celebrity, or any person really, doesn't want an unflattering image used. Fair enough I suppose, but to what extent is that actually enforceable?
Or maybe the subject wants to use the image of themselves for their own purposes. Does the photographer deserve compensation for their role in creating the image?
What about unflattering images of politicians or government employees? What about criminals? There's a line to be walked here as well. We already have this sort of concept in slander laws. Public figures have a higher bar to prove damages resulting from statements that might otherwise be considered slanderous or libelous. There are also free speech and freedom of the press issues associated with government entities.
Yes, you should have a right to decide how your image is used, and yes, you should probably have some shared ownership of images of yourself unless you agree otherwise. But the reality isn't so clear cut.
Admittedly, I haven't looked into how other parts of the world that don't default to lack of privacy in public handle this. Some of these questions must have already been hashed out.