3 ms·
"The only restriction is that identifiable people may not appear in a bad light or in a way that they may find offensive, unless they give their consent."
by Shengbo 10y ago
"The only restriction is that identifiable people may not appear in a bad light or in a way that they may find offensive, unless they give their consent."
- egeozcan 10y ago> in a way that they may find offensive IANAL but isn't that too vague?
- singlow 10y agoShutterStock is similarly vague, although they give some examples of offensive use. From the ShutterStock license: [YOU MAY NOT] Portray any person depicted in Visual Content (a "Model") in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive, including but not limited to depicting a Model: a) in connection with pornography, "adult videos", adult entertainment venues, escort services, dating services, or the like; b) in connection with the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products; c) in a political context, such as the promotion, advertisement or endorsement of any party, candidate, or elected official, or in connection with any political policy or viewpoint; d) as suffering from, or medicating for, a physical or mental ailment; or e) engaging in immoral or criminal activities.
- huac 10y agothis is one area you'd want it to be vague (from the image curator/host's perspective)
- egeozcan 10y ago...so if the model happens to be Muslim and someone uses it in a website which sells pork meat, there is a potential case here? (I chose the example because I'm coming from a country in which this kind of stuff usually happened to be a problem - nothing meant against any religion or group).