5 ms·

So... people specifically opted in to release their photos under a Creative Commons license, and now they're outraged that people are using the photos under the

So... people specifically opted in to release their photos under a Creative Commons license, and now they're outraged that people are using the photos under the terms of the license? And some of them chose a license that required attribution, and now they're outraged that the photos are attributed to them?

EricE 7y ago
Read the article more closely - at least one person they interviewed specifically assigned it the non-commercial Creative Commons license which means pictures shouldn't be used for things like what mega face is doing (clearly for commercial purposes!)
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  They're using it for academic research, which is noncommercial by some definitions. The companies that used it only used it to participate in the competition.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cj 7y ago
“people specifically opted in to...” Do you say the same of yourself when you sign up for a random online service and blindly check the “Accept TOS” checkbox? Contracts and licenses are sometimes tricky to unequivocally enforce when one party entered into the contract or granted a license by mistake, unknowingly, etc.
- jonas21 7y ago
  On Flickr (where the photos came from), the default license is "All Rights Reserved". To apply a Creative Commons license, you need to go into a menu and select the license you want from a list. So that's why I said they "specifically opted in".
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    Ok Bill, for 4 hours a day you're going to work on this non-commercial academic open github repo and push your things in there and then the next 4 hours you're going to pull it into our for-profit solution where you will take things further. remember if you think of anything that will really be of benefit to the company don't do it until the second 4 hour slot!
scarejunba 7y ago
See, I know this is the case but I think that people intended "you can use this for reasonable causes". Like, if you lend your buddy your car there's an implicit "don't Rob the bank" in there. Like if you CC release a picture with your child visible in the background and someone cut and paste that kid's photo on a naked body you'd be like "what the fuck, man?!" There's an implicit impression of reasonableness that isn't necessarily enforced by the licence. It's a pity, I think if these fears propagate there'll be less CC content.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Like most privacy issues the issue is scale. None of these people ever explicitly consented to the use of their data this way. Change is often sensible when encountering new information or understanding of an existing situation. Hell, I can't believe you're expressing any confusion. This is a pretty simple abuse of trust, apparently attributable to Flickr/Yahoo. It's almost like it's completely normal to not base your emotional reaction on copyright licenses—the outrage is legitimate no matter how legally protected the abuser is.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Most people are not legal analysts. Your snarky characterization of this overlooks the fact that what can be anticipated at the time consent is given may be overtaken by technological developments, that corporations often structure their activities legally so that 'research' is non-commercial even if it is intended to be used later for commercial activity, and that it's polite to ask before doing something you might hesitate to grant consent for yourself.
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  People need to be able to say: "oops, undo this permission thing that I clicked OK to, as I now better understand the ramifications of what I clicked ... and I don't like it"
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    I wonder how everyone would react if Facebook did that with their biggest open source framework.
    - La1n 7y ago
      Facebook is not "people", we can keep companies and individuals to different standards.
    - matheusmoreira 7y ago
      Facebook employs lots of lawyers. They are well advised when they make decisions with legal implications.
  - dwoozle 7y ago
    So you should be able to do things like un-GPL code you’ve published?
  - Teever 7y ago
    Do you think people should be able to undo other legal agreements like mortages?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Some. But then there's this thing: > By law, most Americans in the database don’t need to be asked for their permission — but the Papas should have been. > As residents of Illinois, they are protected by one of the strictest state privacy laws on the books: the Biometric Information Privacy Act, a 2008 measure that imposes financial penalties for using an Illinoisan’s fingerprints or face scans without consent. Those who used the database — companies including Google, Amazon, Mitsubishi Electric, Tencent and SenseTime — appear to have been unaware of the law, and as a result may have huge financial liability, according to several lawyers and law professors familiar with the legislation. IANAL, but I would be surprised if attaching a Creative Commons license to a photo qualified as consent under regulations about use of biometrics.
bloak 7y ago
Those CC licences are all about copyright. The article is mostly about privacy and data protection. If I take a photograph of another person I can give away my copyright but I can't give away the other person's privacy rights. If that person lives in the EU probably even they can't give away their privacy rights: permission to use personal data is revocable according to the GDPR, I think, in most cases. I wonder of any of the people whose photographs are in the database have moved to the EU and whether that makes any difference.

EricE 7y ago

Read the article more closely - at least one person they interviewed specifically assigned it the non-commercial Creative Commons license which means pictures shouldn't be used for things like what mega face is doing (clearly for commercial purposes!)

Mathnerd314 7y ago
They're using it for academic research, which is noncommercial by some definitions. The companies that used it only used it to participate in the competition.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cj 7y ago

“people specifically opted in to...” Do you say the same of yourself when you sign up for a random online service and blindly check the “Accept TOS” checkbox? Contracts and licenses are sometimes tricky to unequivocally enforce when one party entered into the contract or granted a license by mistake, unknowingly, etc.

jonas21 7y ago
On Flickr (where the photos came from), the default license is "All Rights Reserved". To apply a Creative Commons license, you need to go into a menu and select the license you want from a list. So that's why I said they "specifically opted in".
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  Ok Bill, for 4 hours a day you're going to work on this non-commercial academic open github repo and push your things in there and then the next 4 hours you're going to pull it into our for-profit solution where you will take things further. remember if you think of anything that will really be of benefit to the company don't do it until the second 4 hour slot!

scarejunba 7y ago

See, I know this is the case but I think that people intended "you can use this for reasonable causes". Like, if you lend your buddy your car there's an implicit "don't Rob the bank" in there. Like if you CC release a picture with your child visible in the background and someone cut and paste that kid's photo on a naked body you'd be like "what the fuck, man?!" There's an implicit impression of reasonableness that isn't necessarily enforced by the licence. It's a pity, I think if these fears propagate there'll be less CC content.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Like most privacy issues the issue is scale. None of these people ever explicitly consented to the use of their data this way. Change is often sensible when encountering new information or understanding of an existing situation. Hell, I can't believe you're expressing any confusion. This is a pretty simple abuse of trust, apparently attributable to Flickr/Yahoo. It's almost like it's completely normal to not base your emotional reaction on copyright licenses—the outrage is legitimate no matter how legally protected the abuser is.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Most people are not legal analysts. Your snarky characterization of this overlooks the fact that what can be anticipated at the time consent is given may be overtaken by technological developments, that corporations often structure their activities legally so that 'research' is non-commercial even if it is intended to be used later for commercial activity, and that it's polite to ask before doing something you might hesitate to grant consent for yourself.

cmroanirgo 7y ago
People need to be able to say: "oops, undo this permission thing that I clicked OK to, as I now better understand the ramifications of what I clicked ... and I don't like it"
- scarejunba 7y ago
  I wonder how everyone would react if Facebook did that with their biggest open source framework.
  - La1n 7y ago
    Facebook is not "people", we can keep companies and individuals to different standards.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    Facebook employs lots of lawyers. They are well advised when they make decisions with legal implications.
- dwoozle 7y ago
  So you should be able to do things like un-GPL code you’ve published?
- Teever 7y ago
  Do you think people should be able to undo other legal agreements like mortages?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Some. But then there's this thing: > By law, most Americans in the database don’t need to be asked for their permission — but the Papas should have been. > As residents of Illinois, they are protected by one of the strictest state privacy laws on the books: the Biometric Information Privacy Act, a 2008 measure that imposes financial penalties for using an Illinoisan’s fingerprints or face scans without consent. Those who used the database — companies including Google, Amazon, Mitsubishi Electric, Tencent and SenseTime — appear to have been unaware of the law, and as a result may have huge financial liability, according to several lawyers and law professors familiar with the legislation. IANAL, but I would be surprised if attaching a Creative Commons license to a photo qualified as consent under regulations about use of biometrics.

bloak 7y ago

Those CC licences are all about copyright. The article is mostly about privacy and data protection. If I take a photograph of another person I can give away my copyright but I can't give away the other person's privacy rights. If that person lives in the EU probably even they can't give away their privacy rights: permission to use personal data is revocable according to the GDPR, I think, in most cases. I wonder of any of the people whose photographs are in the database have moved to the EU and whether that makes any difference.