> the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting. Yeah, ther

> the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting. Yeah, there are a few sites like this now ("People of Wal-Mart", some content on "Look at this fucking hipster") and I've always wondered about the same thing. You're usually in the clear if you're just creating one-off works of art or news/editorial commentary -- and not primarily seeking merch sales or ad revenue... But these sites are pull wholesale exploitation of public photos for ad revenue. (Although, "People of Wal-Mart" claims to honor takedown requests and I haven't heard any hub-bub about them pulling a stunt like this one. And since most of the photos on that site are indoor, within Wal-Mart private property, there's that issue they could theoretically put up with.) In my mind, sites like these could be a lot harder to police than copyright infringement (on say, YouTube or elsewhere) since the onus of litigation is on an individual being photographed, rather than a large multinational rights-holding company. (Personally, I really don't have the time to go looking for photos of myself that others may have taken of me.)