7 ms·
No expectation of privacy on public transit
- flexd 16y agoDouchebags always exist. There really should be some kind of quality control as to who gets to start their own website or company. This would of course be impossible but in theory it would let us use our brains for more useful stuff instead of constantly having to wade through all the bullshit done and created by idiots like the site owner.
- flexd 16y agoI should have mentioned i know its not a crime to take a picture in a public spot. Just saying doing stuff like that is not cool.
- tptacek 16y agoThis is fucked up.
- semanticist 16y agoI can understand why the owner of the website is concerned about competition: being a dick on the internet is a very crowded market. I wonder if we'll see more of this sort of asocial behaviour as the 4chan generation grows up - or at least gets older - and find themselves in more positions of authority/power?
- jrockway 16y agoAsocial? People watching and making fun of everyone not in your ingroup is not exactly one of humanity's more recent inventions. Neither is being a dick. Neither is being upset when a photo of you shows up somewhere. The only insight here is how slow of a news day today must be.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- sfk 16y agoYou can report a policy violation to Google AdSense by clicking on the link in the bottom right corner of the offending site: http://www.peopleofpublictransit.com/ http://www.peopleofpublictransit.com/ I hope Google cuts them off.
- what 16y agoWhich of the AdSense policies are they violating though?
- carbocation 16y agoAdsense policies forbid certain things which may not be unlawful, such as promoting intolerance against an individual.
- poet 16y agoAdSense policies are part of a larger superset of things that you can get cut off for. State and federal laws are also part of that set. As the article notes, "state law that prohibits people from using someone else's identity for commercial purposes without that person's permission". I'm not a lawyer, but in my (unqualified) opinion this is pretty clear cut.
- what 16y agoAh. So if you have blog with ads and you use (say) a photo from flickr, your use of the photo is deemed commercial? ie: Use of ads indicates commercial intent?
- poet 16y agoThe value of a blog is the writing. They don't really depend on the one photo they use. The "value" of the website in question is that they get to laugh at photos that you can't use commercially. Without the photos, the website is nothing. A legal battle around this question probably depends largely on the lawyers arguing about where the value of the commercial entity derives from. To get a real answer you'd have to ask a lawyer. But my intuition is a blog that uses one photo per post in fine, while the website in question is not fine because it requires the photos to even exist as a website.
- houseabsolute 16y agoWhy would there be?
- happy4crazy 16y agoJesus. I hardly ever get annoyed by things on the internet, but seriously, wtf? This makes my skin crawl.
- rsingel 16y agoSorry, the website owner might be being a dick, but it's long established that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. If you want to use someone's image in news on, or on your Flickr account, or on a site showing off "Do's and Don'ts" you don't need permission. For more commercial things, like an ad or a book, you do need a model's consent.
- spamizbad 16y agoConsidering the website in question is essentially a commercial enterprise (It utilizes Adsense) I'd say this falls outside the realm of fair use.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- rsingel 16y agoFair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. This is about whether you can publish someone's picture -- and perhaps even profit off it. Sorry to tell you but the First Amendment is clear here, like this kind of speech or not. It's like you guys have never seen Hot or Not, the NY Times Sunday style section or a copy of Vice magazine. Get a grip.
- mayank 16y ago> but it's long established that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place My point with sharing that link was to point out a particularly nasty consequence of that.
- mtigas 16y agoI used to be really into street photography[1] and this issue tends to creep up from time to time. If you're on public property of any sort, you don't really have any expectation of privacy outside of the bathrooms or such.[2] That shouldn't be the surprise and that shouldn't be the title of this link. Hell, you can take photographs of people and things on private property as long as it's readily visible from public property and you're not trespassing on the private property. But! Using said photographs commercially (generally, any use that brings in direct profit) can be a misappropriation of likeness and also a violation of one's right to publicity[3] -- the right to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity. Being an asshole about it and changing every photograph on the site to hers is an interesting move. I'd really love to see what would happen if she pressed charges in response to that. --- [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photography https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photog... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_a... [3] http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likenes...
- carbocation 16y agoIt seems to me that they are profiting from the commercial use of her likeness.
- mtigas 16y agoThat was my implication -- that if they're guilty of anything(other than being total assholes), it's this (and not the privacy issue).
- carbocation 16y agoYes, I thought you were implying that but I wanted to make it more concrete.
- mayank 16y agoPeople seemed to have misunderstood the title of the link -- I meant it as a declarative statement, not a surprised exclamation. Perhaps I should have added "consequences of" to the beginning, but my point was just to share a particularly unpleasant experience. On the plus side, the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.
- awakeasleep 16y agoI'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing devices. If she would have left well-enough alone, her picture would have faded into obscurity with millions of other pictures. Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident. While the owner of the website is not being a super-friendly-pushover, and I know his behavior falls into what society considers asshole behavior, I feel things will be really fucked up if he is legally forced to remove the pictures, or if Google cuts his page revenue. That'll be censorship in my opinion.
- semanticist 16y agoIf he was legally forced to remove the pictures, I suppose that would be censorship, although not automatically bad. IP rights rely on censorship to stop other people from publishing what's covered by the IP. The problem with censorship isn't that it exists, it's that it's used inappropriately. Google deciding not to do business with a dick and/or someone who violates their terms of service is not censorship. As far as I'm aware, Google isn't the government.
- sfk 16y agoInstead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident. You know, I'm positively tired of the "Streisand effect" argument. Are we supposed to let anything pass out of fear that a mildly embarrassing situation escalates? Perhaps she does not even care about the picture. Perhaps she does not want to live in a society where harassing unsuspecting individuals is acceptable. Without going public and finding like-minded people, nothing will change.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- zwetan 16y agoit's when I see story like this that I remember I really hate assholes ... what's killing me too is that they get away with that but something like google streetview have to blur people face for privacy reason their TOS (see 3.1.7) considering the context is ridiculous (and obviously not followed) on top of that, they use the chicago tribune article as advertizing for their website (that I never heard of before) and that is really the worst part, those guys with no idea (people of wallmart -> people of the public transit, shit my dad says -> stuff my boss says, etc.) may end up getting some bucks with more popularity, all that by exploiting the stupidity of people who can not understand a bit of difference from the norm. the only thing those guys deserve is to get DoS'ed and/or banned and/or ignored. Entrepreneurship should be rewarded when you do something cool, not when you exploit someone else. [edit] and here the photo of the asshole http://twitpic.com/2sb48b http://twitpic.com/2sb48b
- chaosmachine 16y agoIt's interesting that "People of Public Transit" seems to provoke a negative reaction, while "People of Walmart"[1] has been hailed as funny and even "the best website ever"[2]. I guess context is everything in this situation. Walmart bad, public transpo good. 1. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ 2. http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-website-ever http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-website...
- nowarninglabel 16y agoI think the negative reaction has more to do with how the website owner was not only discourteous, but has gone further in promoting a campaign of harassment against someone.
- Pyrodogg 16y agoJust because you are within the bounds of legality doesn't mean that your not being a dick about it. There is a line between providing the public with some cheap laughs and being a total ass. Kubera, the anonymous employee, and the company as a whole crossed it. Taking the photos in public, no problem. Posting them to the site, no problem. Laughing your ass off at them, again no problem. Not doing what you said you would if someone requested it taken down, problem. If you say you're going to take something down upon notice, just do it. From People of Public Transit FAQ: Q. What if I see myself in a post and want you to take it down? You need to send in 9 forms of identification to prove to us that it’s really you. Seriously, just tell us and we’ll happily remove it for you. From People of Walmart FAQ: I’M IN A PICTURE ON YOUR WEBSITE AND I WANT IT TAKEN DOWN. HOW DO I DO THAT? Simply email us and we will take it down, no problem. If you like your photo but hate the caption or comment send us an email and we can remove it. Does anyone have cases from People of Walmart? Have they pulled any stunts like this on a take down request before?
- cromulent 16y agoI agree. You have no expectation of privacy, but I think an expectation of respect, politeness, and reasonable behaviour is OK.
- mtigas 16y agoThat's the thing: I almost feel like POPT is pulling this (legally risky -- commercial use [via ad revenue] of likeness, possible harassment, etc.) stunt to grab attention to their own site. While POW is still in the same grey area (regarding commercial use of likeness), at least they seem to honor takedown requests -- or at least, I gather this since I've never heard a single complaint about it and their site is still alive and kickin.
- jscore 16y agoShe should DoS his site to teach that punk a lesson.
- notaleethaxor 16y agoThis is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html+john+kubera&cd=40&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d... John is the one on the left with the mustache.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- notaleethaxor 16y agoThis is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d.... John is the one on the left with the mustache.
- notaleethaxor 16y agoThis is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d... John is the one on the left with the mustache.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]