5 ms·

>You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. To see them where I posted them. Pictures are an intellectu

>You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. To see them where I posted them. Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. Copyright, fair use and such is a hot and nuanced topic, but the bottom line here is that personal pictures getting shared is not what most people expect to happen, understandably so.

quotemstr 6y ago
> Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. It's more complicated than that. What actions require a license? Nobody needs a license to create a hyperlink. The concept of a "link license" was a big subject of debate in the 1990s, but after much hand-wringing and heated discussion, we converged on a permissionless model for hyperlinking on the web. I think everyone here understands the high value of frictionless linking. Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures in their original context. I suspect the author of the article (and a lot of other people) would still be squicked out by the foot-fetishist link-aggregator site. But what could be done about it? Permissioneless linking is a huge boon for the web and humanity. Should we add friction to linking just because foot fetish sites exist? Okay --- what if it's not linking, but actual photo embedding? Still, we'd need to examine the costs and benefits. Embedding public content in another context is great for commentary, synthesis, and other creative transformations. People love to showcase hard work and beauty. Should we add friction to photo embeds everywhere just because some squicky foot fetishists use embeds to aggregate images? Again, it doesn't seem worth it. Ultimately, we have to learn to let things go. There will always be people in the world who use public things in a "wrong" way: a politician you don't like may use your favorite song in a campaign; a company might use your open source library to make a product you'd prefer not to exist; or public property records might let speculators arbitrage prices in a way that seems unfair. But whenever we're tempted to Do Something about people using the public thing in the wrong way, we have to think "is this Doing Something going to be net positive? What about the value of the commons itself? Am I willing to destroy that just to Do Something about this one thing?" Most of the time, the answer is "no".
- furyg3 6y ago
  > Let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures in their original context. Let's not suppose this. This site does not do this. It doesn't show photos in their original context (e.g. Instagram), nor does it even display the 'original' image (meaning IG hosted image) out of context - which would also be wrong. It's primary use case is to literally re-host unlicensed images out of their original context without permission (even though it's 'rules' state otherwise).
- kachnuv_ocasek 6y ago
  > Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks That's a huge loss of generality.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    > That's a huge loss of generality. I don't think so. The author's core discomfort (to which I'm sympathetic) seems to not be about the image hosting, but about people enjoying pictures of her feet in a way that makes her uncomfortable. I don't think that wikiFeet moving to a hyperlink model would alleviate the author's discomfort with wikiFeet existing, so we need to talk about that core discomfort, not about the specific mechanics of image sharing.
    - drakonka 6y ago
      Of course it would alleviate discomfort - it would allow the author to retain full control of their image. They could, with a couple of taps, delete the image and prevent its propagation on a fetish website.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Or, up until recently, block based on referrer; or block based on IP address (eg limit it to one ISP that all their family use).
Quarrelsome 6y ago
well these are tears of the RIAA and MPAA aren't they? Its not like we solved those problems beyond DMCA takedowns, a legal hammer that was ineffective at scale or new services that made copyright infringement the worser product. We exist in the age of information and the age of mash ups, there is nothing _technically_ stopping these people from doing this so to do so we need to _create_ something to do this. Otherwise we're just being previous with a "why isn't the internet like this..." whine. The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to spend public money on enforcing personal copyright by making it a crime that we enforce? It's understandable when it comes to content people don't post themselves (e.g. personal porn) but its much greyer here where they post it here but don't like seeing it there. I would imagine the only way this works today is for the victim to make a DMCA claim and what's wrong with that approach? I feel like given the current age and technology its an appropriate solution for now given the considerably lower impact this case arguably has. EDIT: people downvoting that merely disagree need to get poked in the eye with rose thorns tbh. I ain't being offtopic, I'm pulling in further references, I'm positing, I'm asking questions. What on earth is wrong with that? Bloody eternal September...
- monsieurbanana 6y ago
  On this website, downvotes for disagreement are allowed. Take a deep breath, downvotes don't hurt.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    And before anyone says differently, this is pgs stance on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
    - Quarrelsome 6y ago
      it greys the comment out though and makes it less discoverable though. For example, the issue is that it permits "tyranny by majority". Imagine, if you will a 1950s America where people are trying to post about civil rights and being downvoted into invisibility. I just want to encourage the art of _not_ pressing either button. Its fine for things to exist that you don't agree with.
akudha 6y ago
I agree with you, in theory. But the real world is messy. There are only two choices here - don’t participate in social media. Or if you do, don’t expect everyone to respect your privacy. It sucks, but that’s the world we live in. Parents post pics of their babies all the time. It would be easy to make wikibabies, like wikifeet. Who is at fault in this case? At least this lady is an adult and posted her own pics. Real world is messy...
will4274 6y ago
> intellectual property of the author Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service? Legally, if your Facebook photos get posted to another site, I think Facebook gets to complain, but not you - you signed those photos away, for Facebook to use for any purpose they like (even including a foot fetish website). I don't disagree with you on what people expect, but it's worth reiterating that reality does not match their expectations. Facebook owns your Facebook photos, not you.
- greenyoda 6y ago
  > Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service? Most of the terms-of-service agreements I've seen state that the creator retains the copyright, but grants the site a non-exclusive license to display the content. Assigning the copyright would be problematic. For example, a professional photographer who posted their photo to Facebook would lose their right to sell the photo or post it to another site if they didn't retain the copyright.
denkmoon 6y ago
>Pictures are an intellectual property of the author This just isn't true in practice on the internet. It never has been, and it never will be. Plenty of argument about copyright law on my siblings, but if you've ever been anywhere near a community that posts porn for each other, you will know that copyright law is the last thing they care about. Consent a close second.

quotemstr 6y ago

> Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. It's more complicated than that. What actions require a license? Nobody needs a license to create a hyperlink. The concept of a "link license" was a big subject of debate in the 1990s, but after much hand-wringing and heated discussion, we converged on a permissionless model for hyperlinking on the web. I think everyone here understands the high value of frictionless linking. Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures in their original context. I suspect the author of the article (and a lot of other people) would still be squicked out by the foot-fetishist link-aggregator site. But what could be done about it? Permissioneless linking is a huge boon for the web and humanity. Should we add friction to linking just because foot fetish sites exist? Okay --- what if it's not linking, but actual photo embedding? Still, we'd need to examine the costs and benefits. Embedding public content in another context is great for commentary, synthesis, and other creative transformations. People love to showcase hard work and beauty. Should we add friction to photo embeds everywhere just because some squicky foot fetishists use embeds to aggregate images? Again, it doesn't seem worth it. Ultimately, we have to learn to let things go. There will always be people in the world who use public things in a "wrong" way: a politician you don't like may use your favorite song in a campaign; a company might use your open source library to make a product you'd prefer not to exist; or public property records might let speculators arbitrage prices in a way that seems unfair. But whenever we're tempted to Do Something about people using the public thing in the wrong way, we have to think "is this Doing Something going to be net positive? What about the value of the commons itself? Am I willing to destroy that just to Do Something about this one thing?" Most of the time, the answer is "no".

furyg3 6y ago
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks to publicly available foot pictures in their original context. Let's not suppose this. This site does not do this. It doesn't show photos in their original context (e.g. Instagram), nor does it even display the 'original' image (meaning IG hosted image) out of context - which would also be wrong. It's primary use case is to literally re-host unlicensed images out of their original context without permission (even though it's 'rules' state otherwise).
kachnuv_ocasek 6y ago
> Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks That's a huge loss of generality.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  > That's a huge loss of generality. I don't think so. The author's core discomfort (to which I'm sympathetic) seems to not be about the image hosting, but about people enjoying pictures of her feet in a way that makes her uncomfortable. I don't think that wikiFeet moving to a hyperlink model would alleviate the author's discomfort with wikiFeet existing, so we need to talk about that core discomfort, not about the specific mechanics of image sharing.
  - drakonka 6y ago
    Of course it would alleviate discomfort - it would allow the author to retain full control of their image. They could, with a couple of taps, delete the image and prevent its propagation on a fetish website.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Or, up until recently, block based on referrer; or block based on IP address (eg limit it to one ISP that all their family use).

Quarrelsome 6y ago

well these are tears of the RIAA and MPAA aren't they? Its not like we solved those problems beyond DMCA takedowns, a legal hammer that was ineffective at scale or new services that made copyright infringement the worser product. We exist in the age of information and the age of mash ups, there is nothing _technically_ stopping these people from doing this so to do so we need to _create_ something to do this. Otherwise we're just being previous with a "why isn't the internet like this..." whine. The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to spend public money on enforcing personal copyright by making it a crime that we enforce? It's understandable when it comes to content people don't post themselves (e.g. personal porn) but its much greyer here where they post it here but don't like seeing it there. I would imagine the only way this works today is for the victim to make a DMCA claim and what's wrong with that approach? I feel like given the current age and technology its an appropriate solution for now given the considerably lower impact this case arguably has. EDIT: people downvoting that merely disagree need to get poked in the eye with rose thorns tbh. I ain't being offtopic, I'm pulling in further references, I'm positing, I'm asking questions. What on earth is wrong with that? Bloody eternal September...

monsieurbanana 6y ago
On this website, downvotes for disagreement are allowed. Take a deep breath, downvotes don't hurt.
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  And before anyone says differently, this is pgs stance on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
  - Quarrelsome 6y ago
    it greys the comment out though and makes it less discoverable though. For example, the issue is that it permits "tyranny by majority". Imagine, if you will a 1950s America where people are trying to post about civil rights and being downvoted into invisibility. I just want to encourage the art of _not_ pressing either button. Its fine for things to exist that you don't agree with.

akudha 6y ago

I agree with you, in theory. But the real world is messy. There are only two choices here - don’t participate in social media. Or if you do, don’t expect everyone to respect your privacy. It sucks, but that’s the world we live in. Parents post pics of their babies all the time. It would be easy to make wikibabies, like wikifeet. Who is at fault in this case? At least this lady is an adult and posted her own pics. Real world is messy...

will4274 6y ago

> intellectual property of the author Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service? Legally, if your Facebook photos get posted to another site, I think Facebook gets to complain, but not you - you signed those photos away, for Facebook to use for any purpose they like (even including a foot fetish website). I don't disagree with you on what people expect, but it's worth reiterating that reality does not match their expectations. Facebook owns your Facebook photos, not you.

greenyoda 6y ago
> Don't you assign this copyright to the social media service? Most of the terms-of-service agreements I've seen state that the creator retains the copyright, but grants the site a non-exclusive license to display the content. Assigning the copyright would be problematic. For example, a professional photographer who posted their photo to Facebook would lose their right to sell the photo or post it to another site if they didn't retain the copyright.

denkmoon 6y ago

>Pictures are an intellectual property of the author This just isn't true in practice on the internet. It never has been, and it never will be. Plenty of argument about copyright law on my siblings, but if you've ever been anywhere near a community that posts porn for each other, you will know that copyright law is the last thing they care about. Consent a close second.