3 ms·

It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is

It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.

randombits0 5y ago
The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
- ppeetteerr 5y ago
  That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
  - haswell 5y ago
    > It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
    - gpvos 5y ago
      It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.
      - randombits0 5y ago
        Hey, buddy. If you want privacy, stop reflecting photons into my camera! How can you claim ownership over photons you threw at me!
      - Invictus0 5y ago
        You didn't give up any rights or freedoms: there is no "right to not be photographed".
        nicbou 5y ago
        In Germany, there is a right to one's own image, even in public.
      - oh_sigh 5y ago
        Should I be allowed to walk around naked in public? Play my music as loud as I want? Set up a tent and live there forever in public?
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Do you really want to force everyone around you to wear blindfolds? Or maybe you would prefer wearing a burka?
haswell 5y ago
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera? To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if you happen to be in that shot? While I completely understand the spirit of your concern, it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with US freedoms.
- ppeetteerr 5y ago
  If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use. As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
  - haswell 5y ago
    The point though is that the current state of things is neither surprising nor unexpected, which is what you were originally saying. There is a spectrum of use between "private display" and "purely for commercial benefit" that is nearly impossible to legislate effectively. The acceptable use of photography equipment and fair use of the resulting photos can't be boiled down to privacy vs. profit, and that's why this particular subject is so controversial and difficult to resolve.
  - SirHound 5y ago
    Or art, or historical record, apparently.
gnopgnip 5y ago
>If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent. US law is more specific than just whether it makes money. You can't control how your likeness is used in fine art, or for editorial or education purposes with limited exceptions for things like defamation. But you can control and entirely prevent your image from being used commercially, generally to advertise a product. And commercial use is more about the relationship implied than just about making money. Like a newspaper can use your photo in an article about a newsworthy event that you were part of, even though the newspaper makes money selling newspapers. Or a street photographer can sell a limited number of prints in a gallery for tens of thousands of dollars as in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. But it would be commercial use and an infringement of your personality rights to print your face on t shirts or mugs even if they are a non profit giving them away.

randombits0 5y ago

The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.

ppeetteerr 5y ago
That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
- haswell 5y ago
  > It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
  - gpvos 5y ago
    It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.
    - randombits0 5y ago
      Hey, buddy. If you want privacy, stop reflecting photons into my camera! How can you claim ownership over photons you threw at me!
    - Invictus0 5y ago
      You didn't give up any rights or freedoms: there is no "right to not be photographed".
      - nicbou 5y ago
        In Germany, there is a right to one's own image, even in public.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      Should I be allowed to walk around naked in public? Play my music as loud as I want? Set up a tent and live there forever in public?
- mcguire 5y ago
  Do you really want to force everyone around you to wear blindfolds? Or maybe you would prefer wearing a burka?

haswell 5y ago

> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera? To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if you happen to be in that shot? While I completely understand the spirit of your concern, it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with US freedoms.

ppeetteerr 5y ago
If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use. As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
- haswell 5y ago
  The point though is that the current state of things is neither surprising nor unexpected, which is what you were originally saying. There is a spectrum of use between "private display" and "purely for commercial benefit" that is nearly impossible to legislate effectively. The acceptable use of photography equipment and fair use of the resulting photos can't be boiled down to privacy vs. profit, and that's why this particular subject is so controversial and difficult to resolve.
- SirHound 5y ago
  Or art, or historical record, apparently.

gnopgnip 5y ago

>If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent. US law is more specific than just whether it makes money. You can't control how your likeness is used in fine art, or for editorial or education purposes with limited exceptions for things like defamation. But you can control and entirely prevent your image from being used commercially, generally to advertise a product. And commercial use is more about the relationship implied than just about making money. Like a newspaper can use your photo in an article about a newsworthy event that you were part of, even though the newspaper makes money selling newspapers. Or a street photographer can sell a limited number of prints in a gallery for tens of thousands of dollars as in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. But it would be commercial use and an infringement of your personality rights to print your face on t shirts or mugs even if they are a non profit giving them away.