3 ms·
> I can imagine images of people that aren't "non-consensual intimate images" that they'd reasonably still like to be able to block being posted. If I take a p
by 15155 9y ago
> I can imagine images of people that aren't "non-consensual intimate images" that they'd reasonably still like to be able to block being posted.
If I take a photo of a public landscape and you happen to be there, do you have the right to prevent me from publishing it unaltered?
Keep in mind: you're not the primary subject (and no reasonable person would believe that you were) nor owner of the photo. Your likeness is not reasonably intended to alter the value of the photo.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoExcellent! Then it should be short work for you to photoshop my face out so it won't be blocked. Everybody wins.
- 15155 9y agoWhy is Facebook obligated to fulfill your desires for privacy by censoring content you have no legal claim to?
- dredmorbius 9y agoConsider that this situation could extend or apply to humans, animals, or even plants. Does a rhinocerous have a right to be forgotten? https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/25ll1v/does_a_rhinoceros_have_a_right_to_be_forgotten/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/25ll1v/does_a_...
- 15155 9y agoI think this is a separate philosophical debate: operating under current legal frameworks in the United States of America, you do not have the right to prevent me from publishing my photo (with no demonstrable harm being done.)
- dredmorbius 9y agoThe purpose of a discussion is to determine whether or not those legal frameworks are appropriate to the situation. The law is a tool, not an ends.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoI think the claim is that I should have a legal claim to my likeness. Note that I'm not personally convinced of this, I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture.
- 15155 9y ago> I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture. This was very intentional, because it is how courts look at the monetization of this kind of content today. Your likeness cannot be commercialized without your consent (which is why things like photo/video releases exist) - that being said, the line determining your importance to the photograph's value is up to what a reasonable person (a judge) would believe. This comparison, while not perfect, was used to preempt an argument from the "$ without permission" angle. -- As a private company, Facebook is free to add this feature for its users. As a citizen: I am free to publish my photo containing your likeness elsewhere until legislatively or judicially prohibited. And then I am free to challenge that censorship (as many have on the commercialization issue) on obvious First Amendment grounds. Aside: I won't get into any European arguments about the "right to be forgotten" - we (USA) don't recognize this as a right.
- Y_Y 9y agoBut Facebook operates in Europe with photos of EU citizens. So regardless of where the photographer is from, the photographee should be able to assert that right.
- b4lancesh33t 9y agoI 100% prefer the status quo to the idea proposed here. I understand that some people would rather not be pictured, but I don't think that should override the right of others to make images in public spaces (or private spaces with suitable permission).